'4- 
 
 -^ <*V v H X\Cr^ #*>". ., I A-l^i *** ,," 
 
 •^'^V A\ ; ^ J '~5?fr^ ^ ^\\-a° f^xxV TV/if 
 
 I'-^'vi ^I\a >v-r^'vy x?KxX -r.-^vJ.* -r#r; 
 
 
 'M v ' *:--^>'^— <n> ^:xj:r^:%-x x\ f»-->yp 
 
 -■•»% \xy. ••■5.Y i i> " ->-% --W/- 
 
 aj - r7^.>> x^ • ^x- xxi- ••> ' -<"xa v> 
 
 
 
 
 ■^'■5 v.r ' >, .-) ■<:■ V <^f\--, ■ Tir\&y-'^ '^ "d vV :>\ ~~:) '-Sip /< ^- 
 
 
 
 ■r' /^ 
 
 xVv .X-: / ^5,^ 
 
 if.:/)--. 
 
 :' --Si„ : " 
 
 ...\ 
 
 \ ^ ■ J ) ' 
 
 
 -A^« 
 
 
 
 A.A<- r '' ~AA)r>~ *"<?; A'/''^ r '"~^A^ >'cV ~'\',--- J .''^rrfv^ >'V* Xv 
 
 ^i(:,^ ■t/'/). j ^ „--xW ,V//V 5 ^ --:('.•.' A-'/?A^ >■ 
 
 
 * 
 
■-&?' ^feV . " 7 1 v i ' -\7 : >' j ';3k. .^ \* ><s ' 
 
 CORNELL 
 
 llllffi S .E, LIB »A»v"" 
 
 ^,-^V 
 
 
 1 * i. 
 
 ^^7j/?k - 
 !t%7.^- ^M #7k^- ' 
 
 *Wv7 >>>\~- ■■■■■" & ■:;)■■> .-:?♦-,:- 
 
 •«9 
 
 .';, ->,«.---,- -«'' v' ''•--,->-. /- ~v;''J'__ , 7V"-^ / ,.-- ' 
 
 
 
 
 v 
 
 >S. 
 
 
 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 ^S^ji 
 
 "TO ^^^95" 
 
 ' <> W- - 
 
 
 
 -.">' 
 
 /'v'i 
 
 -J 
 
 *r^ 
 
 
 
 -. 
 
 J 
 
 
 _-#?r>"^7; ^ 
 
 -# 
 
 ■if • 
 
 
 'y ") 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 f ,^v- .-.''-- ; -jY'~ . cw%^ :.y ") 
 
 -Amis* - rv* ■h - ^-^,— ^ >iv 1- J .- V -»i^ 1 j.1 V 1 -" -J ^ ^ ■ \ i 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924050620180 
 
THE 
 
 CYCLOPEDIA 
 
 OF 
 
 Temperance and Prohibition. 
 
 A Reference Book of Facts, Statistics, and General Information 
 
 on All Phases of the Drink Question, the Temperance 
 
 Movement and the Prohibition Agitation. 
 
 FUNK & WAGN ALLS. 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 LONDON. TORONTO. 
 
 i 8 9 i. 
 
 Printed in the United States. All rights reserved. 
 
as 
 
 '^ */?h*c> 
 
 ■*; 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1891, by 
 
 FUNK & WAGNALLS, 
 
 In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C. 
 
 [Registered at Stationer's Hall, London, Eng,] 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The growing prominence of the drink question is one of the undoubted, 
 indeed, one of the most conspicuous, facts of our time. Both the observer of affairs 
 and the student of tendencies must testify to this; and the understanding of it is 
 strengthened by comprehensiveness and dispassionateness of view. Throughout 
 Continental Europe the ablest writers are discussing the evils of alcoholism and 
 devising remedies. Organized effort is being developed, even in these most con- 
 servative nations. The International Conferences " against the abuse of alcoholic 
 liquors " attract many of the leaders of thought and reform. The Brussels Anti- 
 Slavery Conference, representing countries in which the liquor traffic is practically 
 unrestricted, has taken American legislation as a pattern and incorporated in its 
 general act for Africa a chapter prohibiting the furnishing of spirits to native races. 
 And this action is not without Continental precedents : for five years the fishermen 
 of the North Sea have been forbidden to purchase or carry distilled drink, and for 
 a longer time Prohibition of the entire liquor business has been the normal policy 
 of the Swedish and Norwegian rural communities. In England and all English- 
 speaking countries total abstinence is no longer a " fad " but a mark of discretion 
 and intelligence; the Prohibitory doctrine is no longer a preposterous creed but an 
 economic programme that begins to fairly divide public sentiment, parties, Legisla- 
 tures and constituencies. Organizations having annual incomes of tens of thou- 
 sands of pounds are urging advanced measures in the United Kingdom. The 
 people of Scotland, voting by the plebiscite system, have declared by overwhelming 
 majorities in favor of clothing the citizens with power to outlaw public houses 
 at the ballot-box. Twice the yeomanry of Great Britain, with signal earnestness and 
 enthusiasm, have rejected the proposition to bestow compensation for cancelled 
 licenses, giving the weight of popular indorsement to the decree of the highest 
 Courts of England, that there exists no such thing as a " vested right " in the liquor 
 trade — a significant repetition of those solemn words of our own Supreme Court : 
 
IV 
 
 " There is no inherent right in a citizen to sell intoxicating liquors by retail ; it is 
 not a privilege of a citizen of the State or a citizen of the United States." In the 
 land of its birth the temperance movement, despite temporary checks, advances 
 surely. There is no State of the Union where liquor-selling is not a most detestable 
 vocation and rumseller a most opprobrious name. Total abstinence for the indi- 
 vidual is splendidly vindicated by its results everywhere ; great railroad and other 
 corporations require it in their employes ; insurance companies discriminate in favor 
 of the teetotaler and rank the liquor-maker and vendor with the uncleanest of men ; 
 the Labor leaders take public pledges of abstinence, denounce alcohol in unmeas- 
 ured language and cordially advocate Prohibitory Amendments ; the churches are 
 all but unanimous in recommending total abstinence; the Government itself bears 
 witness to the needlessness and hurtfulness of intoxicants by prohibiting the sale of 
 spirits and wines in the canteens and by the post-traders of the American army, by 
 excluding the whole traffic from public buildings and grounds and by forbidding, 
 under severe penalties, all sales to Indians. ■ The policy of Prohibition by the State 
 rests on broad and firm foundations ; the evidence of its beneficial results cannot be 
 controverted, and no attempt is made to gainsay it by fair means ; while the abso- 
 lute and uniform failure of the compromise system of High License attests the 
 fatuity of the hope that some solution may be commanded by regulation. 
 
 Tirelessness of argument is the quality of the propagandist; and the temperance 
 reformers, as industrious writers, yield to none. An ample literature has been cre- 
 ated for the illustration and promotion of their cause. The works of Richardson, 
 Lees, Kerr, Eddy, Pitman, Dawson Burns, Farrar, Oswald, Gustafson, Wheeler 
 and various others, are examples of information, authority and capacity which com- 
 pare favorably with the products of other reform movements. It is characteristic 
 of the really important and candid books on this question that, with the rarest ex- 
 ceptions, they either advocate radical opinions or point to them. This cannot be 
 attributed to a lack of resourcefulness in the opposition, which has talented defend- 
 ers and sympathizers. The facts do not warrant weighty defense of dram-drink- 
 ing or the dram commerce : this truth comes as forcibly to the cautious investiga- 
 tor as it does to the citizen at his fireside. So it happens that the counteractive 
 works are of little significance. Exception must be made, however, for some of the 
 writings of conservative men, who, while not justifying but indeed abhorring drunk- 
 enness and the common saloon, are unable to agree to certain advanced proposi- 
 tions and attack them with courage and ability. But even the volumes of this 
 class, or the ones answering to the test conditions that we have indicated, import- 
 ance and candor, are surprisingly few. 
 
 In the preparation of the succeeding pages the fruits of the excellent work done 
 by others have been of great and constant service. This Cyclopaedia cannot take the 
 place of any of the standard temperance publications; and if it spreads the appre- 
 
hension of their value by the frequency of quotations and references, no small part 
 of its purpose will have been performed. To all the writers mentioned above, and 
 to many more, the editor is under profound obligations. The " Temperance His- 
 tory " of Dr. Dawson Burns has supplied much of the historical information. Dr. 
 Eichard Eddy's two admirable volumes, " Alcohol in History " and " Alcohol in So- 
 ciety," indispensable to everyone who seeks the best results of literary labor in the 
 discussion of this subject, have been equally useful. And the " Temperance Cyclo- 
 paedia " of the Rev. William Eeid (composed exclusively of extracts and citations) 
 must not be forgotten in alluding to the chief sources of help. 
 
 The central aim has been, while particularizing with as great exhaustiveness as 
 possible within the limits fixed by the publishers, to subordinate minutae to outlines. 
 The aggregate number of articles may seem comparatively small, and each reflecting 
 reader will probably be able to make up a list of appropriate topics not formally 
 treated under separate titles. But it is hoped that the care which has been expended 
 on the leading articles, and the effort which has been made to embrace in these arti- 
 cles the legitimate accessory subjects, will be satisfactory recompense. And though 
 numerous branches are thus considered incidentally, the reader will be able to locate 
 them by due use of the Index. In such a work, indeed, where so many details 
 are presented accessorily, the Index is a most important feature. 
 
 Naturally, the practical aspects of the anti-liquor agitation are made most con- 
 spicuous — the aspects that are of greatest interest to the public and that excite warm- 
 est controversy. The results of the three leading systems of liquor legislation — 
 State Prohibition, Local Option and High License — have not until very recently 
 been subjected to fair and comprehensive analysis. The relative qualities of these 
 results must determine the future of the Prohibition struggle, and the editor has 
 undertaken to show the main truths in a thorough and an orderly manner. To the 
 chief Prohibition journal, the Voice, credit is due for most of the facts. 
 
 It was at first intended to include biographical sketches of eminent living rep- 
 resentatives of the temperance cause, and a great deal of material was gathered with 
 this purpose in view. But the difficulty of discriminating with strictness and at 
 the same time with delicacy and justice — a difficulty which is highly perplexing to 
 all compilers of cyclopaedias, — was so serious that the solution seemed to be in the 
 abandonment of this part of the enterprise. The only exceptions are in the cases 
 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates of the Prohibitionists. Several 
 prominent men — notably Eev. George B. Cheever, D. D., author of " Deacon Giles's 
 Distillery," and Judge Eobert C. Pitman, author of " Alcohol and the State," — 
 have died while the book has been in press. This explains the omission of their 
 biographies. 
 
 The cordial thanks of the editor are due to the writers of contributed articles 
 and to the many who have co-operated by providing valuable information. Partial 
 
VI 
 
 acknowledgment for services is made in the text and the footnotes. It is fitting, 
 however, to mention more conspicuously a few to whose kindness the editor is espec- 
 ially indebted. These are: Hon. James Black, Mrs. Caroline B. Buell, Mr. John N. 
 Stearns, Eev. D. C. Babcock, Kev. John A. Brooks, D.D., Hon. John P. St. John, 
 Axel Gustafson, Mrs. Mary Clement Leavitt, Miss Frances E. Willard, Kev. D. W. C. 
 Huntington, D.D., William Hargreaves, M.D., Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, Hon. Benson 
 J. Lossing, Kev. Albert G. Lawson, D.D., Mrs. Mary T. Lathrap, Kev. A. B. Leonard, 
 D.D., Joseph Malins (England), Hon. John O'Donnell, T. C. Richmond, Rev. John 
 Russell, Rev. W. W. Satterlee, Frank J. Sibley, A. A. Stevens, Hon. Gideon T. Stew- 
 art, Rev. Green Clay Smith, John Lloyd Thomas, Prof. Edwin V. "Wright, Rev. 
 Henry Ward, D.D., Mrs. Charlotte F. Woodbury and Miss Mary Allen West. Among 
 the others who have rendered appreciated assistance (not acknowledged in the 
 body of the book) are Ryland T. Brown (Indianapolis), L. J. Beauchamp, Rollo 
 Kirk Bryan, Miss Mary A. Baker (Chicago), Prof. A. C. Bacone (Indian Territory), 
 0. R. L. Crozier (Ann Arbor), J. W. Chickering (Washington, D. C), Mrs. W. F. 
 Crafts, Miss Julia Coleman, Albert Dodge, Rev. H. A. Delano, Mrs. Emma P. Ewing 
 (Kansas City), Rev. J. B. English (New York), Mrs. Nettie B. Fernald (Plainfleld, 
 N. J.), H. B. Gibbud (Syracuse, N. Y.), C. A. Hammond (Syracuse, N. Y.), Mrs. Mary 
 H. Hunt, Mrs. F. McC. Harris (Brooklyn), Mrs. S. M. I. Henry (Evanston, HI.), Rev. 
 J. B. Helwig, D.D. (Springfield, 0.), H. W. Hardy (Lincoln, Neb.), R. E. Hudson 
 (Alliance, 0.), M. L. Holbrook, M.D. (Jersey City), Rev. John Hall, D.D., Rev. Henry 
 B. Hudson (Brooklyn), George La Monte (Bound Brook, N. J.), Rev. S. A. Morse 
 (Rochester, N. Y.), Hon. Henry B. Metcalf, Miss Esther Pugh, Frederic A. Pike (St. 
 Paul), Gen. W. F. Singleton, Charles A. Sherlin, G. B. Thompson (West Pittston, 
 Pa.), Thomas R. Thompson (New Haven), Rev. C. S. Woodruff (Montclair, N. J.) 
 and Prof. W. C. Wilkinson. 
 
CYCLOPEDIA OF TEMPERANCE 
 AND PROHIBITION. 
 
 Absinthe. — See Spirituous Liquors. 
 
 Adulteration. — The art of adultera- 
 tion is practiced by no other class of man- 
 ufacturers and tradesmen so extensively 
 and unscrupulously as by those engaged 
 in the liquor traffic. This peculiar traffic, 
 branded by public opinion as disreputa- 
 ble and demoralizing, offers few induce- 
 ments to conscientious and honorable men. 
 Those disposed to produce and sell genu- 
 ine liquors encounter many temptations 
 and serious discouragements. The taste 
 of the great mass of drinkers does not and 
 cannot discriminate between the genuine 
 and the spurious. The conscienceless 
 manufacturers and sellers engaged in the 
 business, with a full understanding of its 
 odious nature, are ready to adopt any 
 means that will promote their sole object 
 — to amass riches swiftly; and the honest 
 maker or vendor is likely to find no buy- 
 ers in a market where practically every 
 other person in the trade is enabled and 
 disposed by sharp tricks to undersell him. 
 Equally nnencouraging are the conditions 
 encountered by those who wish to cater in 
 good faith to more exacting appetites: the 
 resources of the liquor-adulterating art 
 provide means for imitating the costliest 
 brands. "There is in the city," wrote 
 Addison in the Tattler, "a certain fra- 
 ternity of chemical operators, who work 
 underground in holes, caverns, and dark 
 retirements, to conceal their mysteries 
 from the eye and observation of mankind. 
 These subterranean philosophers are daily 
 employed in the transmutation of liquors, 
 and by the power of magical drugs and 
 incantations raising under the streets of 
 London the choicest products of the hills 
 
 and valleys of France." l And in our own 
 day, so eminent an authority as Dr. Henry 
 Letheby, Ph.D., formerly Medical Officer 
 of Health to the City of London, says: 
 " A. great part of the wine of France and 
 Germany has ceased to be the juice of the 
 grape at all. In point of fact, the pro- 
 cesses of blending, softening, fortifying, 
 sweetening, etc., etc., are carried on to 
 such an extent that it is hardly possible 
 to obtain a sample of genuine wine, even 
 at first hand." 2 
 
 adulteration of wines. 
 Whenever a liquor trafficker becomes 
 converted to temperance principles, he 
 makes haste to expose the terrible adul- 
 terations by which well-nigh all the drink 
 offered for consumption is falsified. Major 
 C. B. Cotten, formerly a wholesale liquor- 
 dealer of New York, in contributions to 
 the Voice in 1885, gave elaborate informa- 
 tion upon this subject, based, he said, 
 upon " twenty-five years of my own per- 
 sonal experience as a manufacturer of 
 these compounds." 
 
 " The imitation and adulteration of foreign 
 wines in this country (he wrote) has become a 
 business of large proportions. From 1.250,000 
 to 1,500,000 gallons of pure spirits is used in the 
 city of New York and in the Eastern cities an 
 nually, in addition to large quantities of native 
 and Rhine wine and Jersey eider, in the manu- 
 facture of fictitious wines of all kinds; and I 
 think I may safely estimate the value of these 
 fraudulent wines at seven to nine millions of 
 dollars annually. In the manufacture of these 
 wines, six distinct principles must be rigidly ad- 
 hered to: the bouquet, in perfect imitation of the 
 genuine; the alcohol, thoroughly deodorized and 
 of standard strength ; water, vugar, astringent 
 
 ' The Tattler. Ho. 131. 
 
 2 Encyclopedia Brittaoica, article on "Adulteration." 
 
Adulteration.] 
 
 [Adulteration. 
 
 and acid matters, and coloring. On the proper 
 adjustment and assimilation of these different 
 ingredients success depends. Perhaps there is no 
 business requiring more close and unerring judg- 
 ment and so perfect a knowledge of chemical 
 combinations as the art — for it is really an art — of 
 making perfect fictitious wines. As a basis for 
 these wines we use — as I have already said — 
 pure spirits perfectly deodorized, in connection, 
 sometimes, with cheap native wines or white 
 Rhine wines, but generally with Jersey cider, 
 the juice of the crab-apple being preferred. 
 The process is very similar to making wine 
 from the grape, and its perfection depends upon 
 nearly the same principles. The cider is taken 
 directly from the press to a properly arranged 
 and tempered cellar, and carefully carried 
 through the first or saccharine fermentation at a 
 temperature of 60 F. It is then fined and drawn 
 off into large tanks, and when still, spirits, crude 
 tartar and other ingredient s are added to stop the 
 fermentation This forms the basis for nearly all 
 kinds of imitation wines. The basis being pre- 
 pared, we then proceed at our leisure to make 
 up our stock. We want some particular brand 
 of champagne, for instance. Piper Heidsieck. 
 We draw from one of the large tanks into a 
 smaller one. called a mixer, the necessary 
 amount of cider for, say, 100 baskets. The 
 liquid is brought up to the standard alcoholic 
 proof with pure spirits, then we add the flavor- 
 ings and coloring, after which the temperature 
 is raised to 70" or 72' F., to induce the second 
 or vinous fermentation After this is effected, 
 we put it through a course of fining, when it 
 becomes a bright, rich, sparkling, vinous liquid, 
 and is ready for bottling It is then drawn off 
 into imported champagne bottles, and fully 
 charged with carbonic acid gas. Imported vel- 
 vet corks— each cork branded on the inner end 
 with the name of the supposed foreign wine 
 maker— are driven in by machinery. After the 
 bottles have been duly sealed, wired, capped 
 and stamped, labels in exact imitation of the 
 genuine arc placed upon them, and the bottles , 
 in turn are packed in imported baskets or in 
 cases with imported straw. Imitations of the 
 genuine marks and numbers are then placed 
 upon the package, and the deception is com- 
 plete. By this process any brand of imported 
 wine is successfully imitated. Suppose we want 
 fifty barrels of sherry. We draw from the same 
 tank into the mixer the requisite quantity of 
 cider, which is brought up to about 22° to 24° 
 alcoholic proof with pure spirits. Then for 
 every barrel we add 3 lbs. mashed Malaga 
 raisins, J-f oz. oil of bitter almonds, and six gal- 
 lons pure sherry wine. After this mixture has 
 stood two or three days, it is drawn off through 
 a strainer into another tub, when it is fined and 
 made ready to put into the barrels. We then 
 send an imported cask to our cooper, and he 
 makes us fifty casks exactly like the sample. 
 The new and bright barrels are then put .into a 
 coloring tub and come out dirty, stained, old- 
 looking barrels. They are then properly branded, 
 and bogus Custom House marks are placed upon 
 them, and again art has triumphed over nature. 
 And so we go through the whole catalogue of 
 wines. In coloring wines, either fictitious or 
 foreign, when deficient in color, we use for a 
 
 fawn yellow or sherry color, tincture of saffron, 
 tumeric, or safflower ; for amber or deep brown, 
 burned sugar coloring. Cochineal, with a little 
 alum, gives a pink color; beetroot and red 
 saunders, a red color; the extract of rhatany 
 and logwood, and the juices of elder-berrits and 
 bilberries, a port wine color. Sometimes our 
 wines become muddy— or in our parlance, ' sick ' 
 — and we have to fine or ' recover ' them. For 
 this purpose we use the white of an egg, isin- 
 glass, hartshorn shavings, or pale sweet glue ; 
 for heavy wines, sheep's or buliock's blood. 
 Gypsum is used to fine muddy white wines, 
 also sugar of lead and bisulphate of potassium. 
 When we find a lack of flavor, we use, accord- 
 ing to circumstances, burned almonds or the es 
 seutial oil, to give a nutty flavor, and rhatany, 
 hino, oak sawdust or bark, with alum, to give 
 astringency. To impart the fine flavors, we use 
 orris root, orange blossoms, neroli violet petals, 
 vanilla, cedrat, sweetbrier, cardamon seeds, 
 quinces, elder-berries or cherry laurel. When 
 our wines need improving, we use, in sherry. 
 Madeira and port, almond flavorings, rhatany or 
 catechu, with honey or glycerine. For musli 
 ness, we use sweet oil or almond oil, fresh burned 
 charcoal, bread toasted black or bruised mus 
 tard seed. For ropiness, the bruised berries of 
 the mountain ash, catechu, chalk, milk of lime, 
 and calcined oyster-shells are used, and, if very 
 bad. we use litharge. . . . New frauds are 
 being constantly developed in the manufacture 
 of fictitious wines, and the business of prepar 
 ing these poisonous flavorings has attained the 
 dimensions of an important branch of trade. 
 This new industry is becoming more and more 
 important. These flavorings of a complex na 
 ture are used for the purpose of giving wines 
 particular bouquets. By adding a small quan- 
 tity of these compounds, new and fresh wine 
 may be converted into the semblance of old 
 wine in a very few minutes, or certain poor 
 wines may be made to resemble those of famous 
 vintages. These ethers, designed for giving the 
 bouquet, are numbered among the six great 
 classes of materials serving for the adulteration 
 or fabrication of wines. Establishments for the 
 manufacture of these flavorings are located in 
 London, Pans, New York and other large cities, 
 and the business is large and profitable." ' 
 
 Among the substances used in adulter- 
 ating wines are: Aloes, alum, ambergris, 
 acetic acid, acetic ether, benzine, brim- 
 stone, bitter almonds, bicarbonate of po- 
 tassium, bisulphate of potassium, Brazil 
 wood, creosote, charcoal, chalk, copperas, 
 catechu, cudbear, cochineal, caustic pot- 
 ash, cognac oil, cocculus indicus, elder- 
 berry, essence of absinthe, foxglove, fusel 
 oil, glue, glycerine, gypsum, henbane, 
 hartshorn shavings, indigo, juniper ber- 
 ries, lime, logwood, litharge, marble dust, 
 muriatic acid, mountain ash berries, nut- 
 galls, opium, oak bark, plaster of Paris, 
 prussic acid, quassia, red saunders-wood, 
 
 i The Voice, Jan. 22, 18S5. 
 
Adulteration.] 
 
 9 
 
 [Adulteration. 
 
 red beetroot, strychnine, sloe leaves, sper- 
 maceti, star anise, sulphuric acid, sugar 
 of lead, tansy, tumeric, tannic acid and 
 wormwood. 
 
 The vineyards of the great wine-pro- 
 ducing countries have been devastated for 
 the last twenty years by the phylloxera, 
 and it is a matter of record that the 
 quantities of wine actually produced in 
 certain famous districts have been vastly 
 decreased by this insect's ravages; yet 
 wines of every kind and name have be- 
 come more plentiful than before. (See 
 Phylloxera.) It has long been noto- 
 rious that particular countries, like En- 
 gland and the United States, consume 
 more pretended champagne, port, sherry, 
 Madeira, etc., than the districts where 
 these special kinds of wine are made 
 yield. 1 
 
 A form of adulteration very generally 
 in use among the makers of spurious 
 wines is called " fortification." To a 
 quantity of wine raw alcohol is added, 
 and the strength of the resulting com- 
 pound is reduced and its bulk very much 
 increased by liberally diluting it with 
 water. Thus by a very single process 
 the dishonest dealer swells his stock and 
 enhances its marketable value. No secret 
 is made of the "fortifying" method. 
 The California wine-makers, while adver- 
 tising their brands as "pure" and 
 "straight," have been so bold in demand- 
 ing cheap alcohol for " fortification " pur- 
 poses that they have made a political 
 issue of the matter; and during the Con- 
 gressional session of 1890 a measure was 
 enacted providing that spirits required 
 by wine manufacturers in their business 
 should not be subject to the Internal 
 Eevenue tax. Spain formerly imported 
 from England about 1,000,000 gallons of 
 , spirits annually, by far the largest part 
 of which was used to " fortify " the cele- 
 brated Spanish wines; but Germany 
 offered a cheaper article, manufactured 
 from beets and potatoes, and the adept 
 Spanish vintners then preferred the Ger- 
 man alcohol to the British. 2 
 
 The presence of the most deleterious 
 
 i Before the Select Committee on Wines (House of Com- 
 mons, Uri). (.'yrus Kedding stated that though the annual 
 export of port wine amounted to only 20,000 pipes no less 
 than 60,00(1 were consumed, a goodly amount being concocted 
 out of Cape wines, cider and brandies, etc., most ot the 
 spurious being < oncoced in the London docks, presumably 
 for exportation.— Foundation of Death (New York, 1SS7), 
 p. 48. 
 
 = On the authority of Mr. Vizitelly, British Wine Commis- 
 sioner to the Vienna Exposition. 
 
 substances in well-nigh all the wine offer- 
 ed for sale has been repeatedly shown by 
 careful investigation. A striking instance 
 is reported by George Walker, formerly 
 United States Consul-General at Paris. 
 The Municipal Laboratory of that city, 
 during the ten months ending December, 
 1881, tested 3,001 samples of wines, and 
 found 1,731 to be "bad," 991 "passable," 
 and only 279 "good." (U. S. Consular 
 reports, vol. 6*, p. 559.) 
 
 ADULTERATIONS OF MALT LIQUORS. ■ 
 
 The adulterations of malt liquors, 
 though perhaps not executed with so much 
 nicety as is needed in falsifying wines, 
 are perpetrated on an equally extensive 
 scale. In England the rascally practices 
 of the brewers have at various times in 
 the last 200 years occasioned the passage 
 of special legislation against beer adulter- 
 ation. In the reign of Queen Anne 
 Parliament passed an act forbidding 
 brewers, under severe penalties, to employ 
 cocculus indicus or any other deleterious 
 ingredients. In 1817 the Government 
 found it necessary to establish more rigid 
 provisions, and prohibited the use of 
 " molasses, honey, licorice, vitriol, quassia, 
 cocculus indicus, grains of paradise, Guin- 
 ia pepper, or opium, or any extract or' 
 preparation of the same, or any substitute 
 for malt or hops, under a penalty of £200 ; 
 and no chemist or vendor of drugs was 
 permitted to sell, send or deliver any such 
 things to a brewer or retailer of beer 
 under a penalty of £500." 3 
 
 The cocculus indicus berry, stronger 
 than alcohol in its poisonous action, is the 
 favorite adulterant used by brewers to 
 give fictitious strength to their product. 
 The growing increase in the importation 
 of cocculus indicus into England prompt, 
 ed the London Lancet to say, March 2, 
 1807: 
 
 " If it be true that we English consume 
 about 900 000,000 gallons of beer every year— 
 an increase of about 40 per cent in ten years— 
 ample opportunity must exist for adukeratiou 
 in this particular article of general and every 
 day consumption. It has been asserted ovei 
 and over again that one of the ingredients ia 
 cocculus indicus. Though we are not aware, 
 of any actual proof of its use there is the most 
 conclusive evidence that it is largely sent into 
 this country, and that it is not used for medic- 
 inal purposes. What becomes of it ? In 1865, 
 9,400 lbs. were imported, enough to adulterate 
 120,000 bbls. of beer; and in an old treatise we 
 find full directions given for its employment in 
 
 3 £nc) clopa-'d.'a Britiatiica, article oti " Adulteration." 
 
Adulteration.] 
 
 10 
 
 [Adulteration. 
 
 the manufacture of porter. The only inference 
 that we can possibly draw is, that it is used by 
 the brewers surreptitiously. Unfortunately 
 there is no duty imposed upon the drug, which 
 is very much to be regretted. As it is cot em- 
 ployed as a medicine, and is known to possess 
 most deleterious qualities, and suspected to be 
 used for the doctoring of beer, it seems to us 
 most advisable to call attention to the above 
 facts and to ask that some steps may be taken 
 to prevent the possibility of its being used at all 
 in England." 
 
 Again (Feb. 21, 1874), the Lancet, com- 
 menting on a statement in the Pharma- 
 ceutical Journal that 1,066 bags of coc- 
 culus indicus had been imported in a 
 recent month, said that there need be " no 
 hesitation in affirming that a very large 
 portion of it is put into malt liquor to 
 give it strength and headiness, " and that 
 " a viler agent could not well be intro- 
 duced into beer than the berry, the stu- 
 pefying effects of which are so well known 
 that it is frequently used to kill fish and 
 birds." The object of using the cocculus 
 indicus and other injurious substances, 
 like picric acid, aloes, quassia, buckbean, 
 gentian, phosphoric acid, alum, copperas, 
 glycerine, oil of vitriol, sulphate of iron, 
 etc., is, of course, to give the maximum 
 strength and flavor to the beer at the 
 minimum cost. 
 
 The brewers stoutly resist every attempt 
 to legislate against adulteration. In 1890 
 the United States House of Representa- 
 tives had under consideration the Turner 
 bill, prohibiting the use by brewers of any 
 ingredients other than malt, hops and 
 yeast. The Committee on Ways and 
 Means granted a hearing (June 12) to 
 persons interested in the measure, and 
 Col. H. H. Finley, arguing in favor of 
 its passage, cited advertisements of vari- 
 ous adulterants that had appeared in the 
 Brewers' Journal (chief organ of the 
 brewing interests of America). At this 
 hearing the United States Brewers' Asso- 
 ciation was represented by Dr. Francis 
 Wyatt, a chemist, and by William A. Miles, 
 Chairman of its Executive Committee, and 
 both gentlemen earnestly opposed the bill 
 and declared that the brewers wished to 
 avail themselves of the resources of 
 science without hindrance. 
 
 ADULTERATION OF SPIRITUOUS LIQUORS. 
 
 Spirituous liquors are adulterated by 
 using, inferior alcohol and terrible acids, 
 especially tannic, acetic, pyroligneotis and 
 pyroxylic acids, and the oil of creosote, 
 
 together with glucose, essence of an- 
 gelica, oil of vitriol, etc. In the 
 natural process of distillation a com- 
 paratively long period is required for 
 ageing the liquor, but by unscrupulous 
 means the distillers are able to artificially 
 ripen their spirits and thus avoid the 
 necessity of keeping them for several 
 years. The whiskey manufacturers are 
 constantly striving to produce the maxi- 
 mum quantity of whiskey per bushel of 
 grain. Formerly a gallon and a half per 
 bushel was the average amount obtained, 
 but now three, four and five gallons are 
 extracted from a bushel. This increase 
 is obtained partly by applying a higher 
 heat in distilling the grain, and that 
 necessarily implies a much greater per- 
 centage of impurities in the resulting 
 liquor, and especially a larger quantity of 
 fusel oil. Liquors sold as brandy, gin 
 and Jamacia rum are almost invariably 
 fraudulent articles, vilely compounded. 
 "The greater portion of the brandy of 
 the United States," says Dr. William A. 
 Hammond, " is made here from whiskey, 
 and nine-tenths of the rest is manufactur- 
 ed in France and England in the same 
 way. Liquors called brandies are thus 
 made which are not worth a ninth part 
 as much as brandy." * 
 
 The United States Consul at Bordeaux, 
 in 1882, George Gifford, made a detailed 
 investigation concerning French brandies, 
 and wrote, in an official report: "All 
 French brandy might and perhaps 
 ought to be excluded from the United 
 States on sanitary grounds. A general 
 measure excluding the article would seem, 
 therefore, to be the only effective defense 
 against the admission of a poison for 
 which our people pay one or two million 
 dollars a year, besides the import duty, 
 which in the case of an impure article is 
 over 100 per cent, of its invoice value." 
 
 Some writers and speakers, in discuss- 
 ing the drink question, maintain that 
 the enactment and rigid enforcement of 
 laws for suppressing adulterations would 
 go far towards correcting the worst evils 
 of the liquor traffic. Accordingly " Pure 
 Wine " laws have been passed in New 
 York and California, and various provis- 
 ions against adulterations are contained 
 in the statutes of other States. These 
 measures are of no practical value: no 
 prosecutions are conducted under them, 
 
 i Treatise on Hygiene (New Ttork, 1SG8), pp. 558-4. 
 
Advent Christian Church.] 
 
 11 
 
 [Africa. 
 
 and they are helpful rather than harmful 
 to the " trade," because in the absence of 
 arrests and convictions the drink-dealers 
 are able to plausibly claim that no adul- 
 terations are practiced. The political 
 power of the liquor men is sufficient to 
 prevent any honest crusade by the author- 
 ities against adulteration. 
 
 On the other hand, the organized tem- 
 perance people, recognizing that the active 
 principle of evil in all intoxicating drinks 
 is alcohol more than any other drug or 
 poison, or all others combined, and that 
 an extension of the alcoholic habit would 
 undoubtedly result if the public could 
 feel assured of the purity of the liquors on 
 the market, have generally manifested 
 indifference to the demand for anti-adul- 
 teration laws. 
 
 Advent Christian Church. — No 
 
 action on the Prohibition question has 
 been taken by the National Association 
 of this church at any annual meeting 
 for several years. This statement is made 
 on the authority [,of the editor of the 
 World's Crisis, the leading denomina- 
 tional organ. 
 
 Africa. — The home of aboriginal 
 tribes, the greater part of Africa has 
 been comparatively free from the liquor 
 curse until recent years. It is true native 
 intoxicants have been and are prepared 
 from the sap of the palm and other sub- 
 stances, and African travelers have de- 
 scribed the gross debauchery witnessed at 
 times ; but there is every reason to believe 
 that the African native did not acquire 
 an adequate realization of the corrupting 
 power of alcoholic stimulants until 
 Drought into contact with the traders of 
 Christian nations. In the portions of 
 the continent conquered by the Moham- 
 medans, and ruled by them for centuries, 
 the advent of new institutions was not 
 attended by a systematic introduction of 
 the drink habit, although the Moslem 
 peoples of Africa gradually yielded to the 
 alcohol vice and (especially in Tunis, 
 Tripoli and other parts of the Mediter- 
 ranean coast) became free drinkers. 
 During the pre-Mohammedan era of 
 civilization in Africa, however, intemper- 
 ance was prevalent from the remotest 
 
 MEDITERRANEAN' COAST COUNTRIES. 
 
 Egypt. — It is believed that the ancient 
 Egyptians were the earliest brewers, and 
 
 it is known that they had establishments 
 for the manufacture of intoxicating bev- 
 erages several centuries before Christ. 
 The Egyptian monuments picture the 
 wine-press and vineyard, and the various 
 aspects of intoxication. Mohammedan 
 dominion in Egypt began in the year 
 C40 A. D., and continued without serious 
 interruption until Bonaparte's invasion 
 in 1 798. The country then began to lose 
 its purely oriental character, and none of 
 the Western innovations were regarded 
 with greater solicitude by the inhabitants 
 than the wine and spirit shops established 
 by the French. Since then, enterprising 
 tradesmen from all European nations 
 have overrun Egypt; and in every city, 
 most of the large towns and many of the 
 smallest villages, there are places devoted 
 to the sale of liquors, in connection with 
 other merchandise. Probably a majority 
 of the liquor traders in Egypt at present 
 are Greeks. In Cairo, at the beginning 
 of 1890, there were 1,320 cafes, of which 
 180 were kept by Europeans, and in every 
 one of these European shops liquors were 
 for sale; while of the 1,140 cafes kept by 
 natives, only 287 had liquors in stock. 
 The values of wines, spirits and beer im- 
 ported into the country for ten years are 
 given as follows: 1877, $700,570; 1878, 
 $821,565; 1879, $861,125; 1880, $921,720; 
 1881, $1,163,830; 1882, $1,299,095; 1883, 
 $1,721,615; 1884, $1,733,605; 1885, 
 $1,951,405; 1886, $1,815,605. These 
 figures are only approximate, the exact 
 quantities imported not being known to 
 the Custom House officials. In 1884, 787 
 cases and 8,223 barrels of beer, valued at 
 £20,215, were sent by the British Govern- 
 ment for the use of the Army of Occupa- 
 tion, and in addition to these quantities, 
 a great deal of liquor was furnished to 
 the army by contractors and others. Of 
 the drinks of native manufacture, araka 
 is the chief, taking its name from a word 
 that means "to sweat." It is distilled 
 from grapes or dates, and the propor- 
 tion of alcohol contained in it varies from 
 10 to 30 per cent. Another common 
 drink, used by the lower classes and Nile 
 boatmen, is booza, a sort of beer brewed 
 from wheat, barley or bread. The worst 
 intoxicant in Egypt is hasheesh, obtained 
 from the leaves and capsules of hemp, 
 and consumed by smoking. It is estimat- 
 ed that about two-thirds of the insanity 
 of the country is due to hasheesh. The 
 
Africa.] 
 
 12 
 
 [Africa. 
 
 importation of the drug is prohibited, 
 but it is smuggled through the Custom 
 House and introduced in ingenious ways. 
 There is as yet no Government complicity 
 with the liquor traffic in Egypt, and no 
 organized " liquor power," the sale being 
 practically free. But with the increase 
 of the foreign-born population, and the 
 growing acceptance of Western ideas and 
 customs by the Copts and Mohammedans, 
 the liquor drinking habit is spreading. 
 .Several temperance societies have been 
 established in connection with the work 
 of the American missionaries, but aside 
 from them there are no organized agen- 
 cies for counteracting the evil. 1 
 
 Algeria, etc. — In the other countries of 
 Northern Africa bordering on the Medi- 
 terranean, the injunctions of the Koran 
 against the use of intoxicants are treated 
 with small respect by the Mohammedans, 
 and the constantly growing influence of 
 the French and other Europeans is uni- 
 formly exercised for extending the liquor 
 trade in all its branches. The common 
 beverage is the palm wine, obtained from 
 the date palm by means of incisions made 
 at the base of the trunk. This drink is 
 intoxicating, and being so easily procured 
 is used by well-nigh everybody and works 
 sad havoc among the people. The Jews 
 in Algeria, Tunis, Tripoli and Morocco 
 are extensively engaged in the drink 
 traffic and in wine production. Former- 
 ly the Algerian farmers were content to 
 use their lands for cultivating food 
 staples, but discovering from the experi- 
 ence of the planters of Tunis that vini- 
 culture was much more profitable, they 
 have devoted themselves to it in recent 
 years, so that large vineyards have been 
 laid out in both countries, and the grow- 
 ing of grapes for wine is rapidly becom- 
 ing the chief occupation of the peasantry. 
 The Mohammedans do not scruple to 
 participate in this industry. The vine- 
 yards of the Jews of Jerba Island, Tunis, 
 produce wines which connoisseurs are 
 said to compare with "those of Samos 
 and Santorin," while the wine manufac- 
 tured in Algeria has been for years more 
 or less famous. Large companies have 
 been formed in Algeria to clear land and 
 plant vineyards thousands of acres in 
 area. The estimates of the wine-yield of 
 Algeria are conflicting. M. Tisserand, in 
 
 1 For the particulars about, Ffrypt thp editor i j Inriphted to 
 Rev. J. 0. Askenhurst, au American missionary at Cairo. 
 
 18S5, in the Jourval of the Statistical 
 Society (London), placed it at 22,000,000 
 imperial gallons for the year 1884. In 
 the latest edition of Mulhall (1886) it is 
 stated that the Algerian vintage at the 
 time of that publication was only 9,000,- 
 000 gallons. The United States Consul 
 at Marseilles (France), in a report dated 
 Feb. 27, 1889, placed the vintage of 1888 
 in Algeria at 72,072,788 gallons, ranking 
 that country after Italy, France, Spain, 
 Hungary, Portugal, Austria and Russia 
 among the wine-producing nations of the 
 globe. It is probable that the larger 
 estimates are nearer the truth — at least 
 that they represent more reliably than 
 the smaller figures the quantities of stuff 
 produced and sold as wine in Algeria. 
 That country is now fully controlled by 
 the French, whose ingenuity is increas- 
 ingly taxed to supply the world's demand 
 for French wines, and who are taking ad- 
 vantage to the utmost of the capabilities 
 of their African provinces. 
 
 MADEIRA, THE CANARIES AND AZORES. 
 
 Madeira, the Canaries and the Azores, 
 the important islands off the west coast 
 of Africa, are celebrated for their wines. 
 In the 16th century the principal industry 
 of the Madeira Islands was sugar-cane 
 cultivation, but this gradually gave way 
 to viniculture, the grape-vine having been 
 introduced from Candia in the 15th cen- 
 tury. The finer grades of wines produc- 
 ed, known as dry Madeira and malvoisie, 
 soon acquired a reputation, and in 1820, 
 when the prosperity of the Madeira wine- 
 makers was at its height, the total yield 
 was 2,650,000 gallons, valued at about 
 82,500,000. In 1852 the o dium attacked 
 the vineyards and did great injury, and 
 ten or_ twelve years later the phylloxera 
 made its appearance, and again the vines 
 were wasted. But Madeira continues to 
 . export wine, or wine blended with the 
 ordinary white wine of Portugal, or with 
 cider or alcohol, or even the juice of the 
 sugar-cane. The quantity exported in 
 1884* was 353,000 gallons, valued at 
 about $640,000., The islanders of the 
 Canaries formerly maae lirge shipments 
 of excellent sugar to Europe, but like 
 their Madeira neighbors they turned 
 their attention to wines. Their vineyards 
 have been ravaged by insects within the 
 last thirty years. There have been simi- 
 
 ' Thi Earth and Its Inhabitants, vol. 3, p. 503. 
 
Africa.] 
 
 13 
 
 [Africa* 
 
 lar vicissitudes in the Azores, where, up 
 to the middle of the present century, a 
 white wine of indifferent quality was 
 abundant. In the Azores orange groves 
 have replaced the 'ruined vineyards, but 
 the distilling business is attaining impor- 
 tance, sweet potatoes and yams being 
 used. 
 
 EAST AFRICAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 Abyssinia, etc. — Along the Upper Nile 
 and in the lake regions the natives have 
 had but little intercourse with the com- 
 mercial representatives of Christian civil- 
 ization, and have not yet experienced the 
 horrors of the "white man's drink." 
 Nearly every tribe brews a rude beer, or 
 prepares a beverage of some sort, but 
 these inland people have lacked oppor- 
 tunities for reducing themselves to the 
 depths of degradation by means of the 
 most potent stimulants. In Kaffaland 
 the common cereals, wheat, barley and 
 haricots, are not in general use as aliments 
 for man, but are fed to cattle and con- 
 verted into beer. In Abyssinia beer is 
 brewed from dakussa, the most widely 
 distributed grain, although in some parts 
 of this country (especially among the 
 Harrari) an intoxicant is prepared from 
 a mixture of bark and dried leaves. In 
 former years the vine (probably trans- 
 planted from Europe) was extensively 
 cultivated in Middle Abyssinia. Some of 
 the wines obtained (notably those of Ifag 
 and Koarata) were from plants brought in 
 by the Portuguese, and were highly esteem- 
 ed. But these vines were nearly all de- 
 stroyed by the odium. It is said by some 
 travelers that King Theodore co-operated 
 with this insect in its work, uprooting 
 the vineyards on the ground that wine 
 ought to be reserved for beings superior 
 to mortals. 
 
 In the countries of the east coast the 
 practices of the people in reference to 
 intoxicants differ widely. Throughout 
 the Somali territory (excepting in the 
 Ogaden country, in Central Somali, where 
 a fermented drink is prepared from 
 camel's milk) the use of alcoholic drinks 
 is prohibited. In the country of the 
 Masai, south-west of Somali and west of 
 Zanzibar, where " the physical type is one 
 of the finest and noblest in the whole of 
 Africa," 1 the natives have learned by ex- 
 perience that intoxicating liquors and 
 
 1 The Earth and Its Inhabitants, vol. 4, p. 364. 
 
 tobacco tend to debase man physically 
 and morally; and there is a rigid pro- 
 hibition against them. The African 
 Lake Society, founded in 1878 and trad- 
 ing in the region of Lake Nyassa, is for- 
 bidden by the terms of its charter to fur- 
 nish any intoxicants to the natives. 
 
 Madagascar. — By royal decree and 
 recent enactments, prohibition of the 
 trade in spirits is also the law in the 
 province of Imerina in the island of 
 Madagascar, this province being inhabited 
 by the Hovas, the most powerful of the 
 Madagascar natives. Before the intro- 
 duction of Christianity into Madagascar 
 by the London Missionary Society, there 
 was much intoxication among the people, 
 who consumed a fermented drink made 
 from the sweet sap of trees. The first 
 sovereign who became a Christian order- 
 ed that all the trees yielding this sap 
 should be cut down, and this radical 
 action put an end to drunkenness until 
 the Governments of Great Britian and 
 France, at the demand of a few sugar- 
 planters in Mauritius, who distilled rum 
 from the refuse of their mills and sought 
 a convenient market for the stuff, com- 
 pelled Madagascar to consent to the im- 
 portation of liquors. Ten per cent, of 
 the liquors imported from abroad belongs 
 to the reigning sovereign of the Hovas, 
 but Queen Ranavalona II. steadfastly 
 refused to derive a revenue from the 
 demoralization of her people, and always 
 had her share poured out upon the ground 
 at the landing-place at Tamatave. The 
 present queen, Ranavalona III., also ob- 
 jects to the liquor traffic within her 
 dominions, and is solicitous for a modifi- 
 cation of the treaty stipulations; but 
 both France and Great Britain have so 
 far refused to grant relief, and upon these 
 nations rests the responsibility for the 
 resulting degradation. 2 
 
 2 The editor is indebted to Mrs. Mary Clement Leavitt for 
 the facts about Madagascar. 
 
 We qnote the following from Archdeacon Farrar, based, 
 in part, upon information given in the report of a recent 
 British and Colonial Temperance Congress: 
 
 u In 1800 the Malagasy were a nation of idolaters; now, 
 thanks in great measure to the London Missionary Society, 
 they are a nation of Christians. They loved, they almost 
 adored the English who had done so much for them. Un- 
 happily, however, Mauritius became a sugar-producing 
 colony, and rum was made from the refuse of the sugar- 
 mills. What was to be done with it ? It was not good 
 enough for European markets, and Madagascar 'waB made 
 the receptacle for the damaged spirit of the colony' 1 
 They received the curse in their simplicity, and it produc- 
 ed frightful havoc. 'The crime of the island rose in one 
 short year by leaps and bounds to a height too fearful to 
 record.' The native Government was seized with conster- 
 nation, and the able and courageous King, Radama I., paid 
 
Africa.] 
 
 14 
 
 [Africa. 
 
 Zanzibar, another prominent island, is 
 commercially important as the base of 
 supply and point of departure for the 
 expeditions organized to penetrate the 
 equatorial parts of the continent from 
 the east coast. Speaking of- it, Prof. 
 Drunimond says : " Oriental in its appear- 
 ance, Mohammedan in its religion, Arab- 
 ian in its morals, this cess-pool of wicked- 
 ness is a fit capital for the dark continent. 
 But Zanzibar is Zanzibar simply because 
 it is the only apology for a town on the 
 whole coast." 1 
 
 SOUTH AFRICAN COUNTRIES. 
 
 Cape Colony. — The magnitude of the 
 wine interests of the southern extremity 
 of Africa, or Cape regions, is well known. 
 M. Tisserand, in 1884, estimated Cape 
 Colony's annual vintage at 15,400,000 
 imperial gallons. This, however, was 
 probably an over-estimate. The " Welt- 
 wirthshaft" for 1884 credited Cape Colony 
 with only 4,490,890 gallons. Official 
 returns for 1887 showed that about 5,586,- 
 608 gallons of wine and 1,390,052 gallons 
 of brandy were produced in 1887, the 
 exports of wine being valued at £18,928. 
 Climate and soil are eminently adapted 
 for the cultivation of the grape, and it 
 is claimed that the number of gallons to 
 the acre averages higher than in any 
 other country. The vine was one of the 
 first European plants introduced at the 
 Cape. The great success of the Cape 
 wines in the early part of this century 
 has not been maintained; the manufac- 
 turers have offended fastidious tastes by 
 a too free use of spirits in " fortifying " 
 their goods. Although the oidium and 
 phylloxera have crippled the vineyards, 
 efforts are being made to revive the repu- 
 tation of the Cape brands, and it is 
 claimed that the wine interest there is 
 only in its infancy, great tracts of rich 
 land not having been utilized for vini- 
 culture as yet. 
 
 the duty and ordered every cask of rum to bo staved in on 
 the shore, except those that went to the Government 
 stores. The merchants of Mauritius complained; the 
 English officials interfered; and from that day the ' cursed 
 stuff 1 has had free course, and deluged the land with 
 misery and crime. Radama's son, Radama II., a youth of 
 great promise, became a helpless drunkard and a criminal 
 maniac, and was assassinated, after a reign of nine months, 
 by order of his own Privy Council. Drunkenness is con- 
 sidered a European fashion, and in Bpite of the grief of 
 the native authorities, 'this crying injury to a perishing 
 people remains unredressed and unheeded by the most hu- 
 mane aud Christian nation in the world. The same story 
 may be told, with very slight variation of detail, of all the 
 native tribes on the east African seaboard. 1 " 
 
 1 Tropical Africa, by Henry Drummond, LL.D., F. R. 
 S. E. (New York, 1890), p. 8. 
 
 Natal— In Natal the sugar-cane is 
 widely cultivated, and in 1884 the plan- 
 tations produced 18,771 tons, of which 
 more than a third was exported to the 
 Boers; from what remained rum was 
 distilled, 2,200,000 gallons being obtain- 
 ed. By a regulation adopted in 1856 it 
 is a penal offense to sell or give alcoholic 
 drinks to the natives in Natal, but this 
 law is frequently violated. 
 
 Basutoland. — There is a similar pro- 
 hibition (similarly violated) in force in 
 Basutoland, situated between Natal and 
 the Orange Free State. At first it ap- 
 plied only to the native chiefs, who, hav- 
 ing to act as judges, were expected to 
 keep perfectly sober; but now neither 
 chiefs nor native subjects can procure 
 liquor lawfully. Prohibition in Basuto- 
 land was established by the decree of the 
 Chief Moshesh, Nov. 8, 1854 (repeated by 
 him in 1859), as follows: 
 
 " WJiereas, the strong drink of the whites was 
 unknown to the progenitors of our tribe. Matie, 
 Motlomi, up to Bo Monageng ; and our father 
 Moekachane, now advanced in years, never 
 used anything for his drink save water and 
 milk; and inasmuch as we are of opinion that 
 a good chief and judge who uses anything to 
 intoxicate him is not in a proper state to act as 
 in duty bound; and since strong drink causes 
 strife and dissension and is a cause of destruc- 
 tion of society (the strong drink of the whites is 
 nothing else but fire): 
 
 " Be it hereby made known to all that the in- 
 troduction and sale of the said drink into the 
 country of the Basutos is forbidden from this 
 forward, and if anyone, white or colored, shall 
 act in opposition to this interdict, the drink 
 will be taken from him and spilled on the 
 ground, without apology or compensation. 
 And this decree shall be printed in the Basuto 
 and Dutch languages, and be posted upon all 
 the places of public resort, and in the villages 
 of the Basutos. 
 
 " Given with the advice and consent of the 
 great of our tribe, being as the Chief of the 
 Basutds, at Thaba, Bosigo, Nov. 8 1854. 
 
 'Moshesh, Chief." 4 
 
 Bechuanaland. — A native proclamation, 
 equally remarkable with that of Moshesh, 
 and antedating it by 17 years, was issued 
 by Moroka, a Chief of Bechuanaland, and 
 published in Graham's Totvn Journal 
 (Cape of Good Hope), for March 22, 
 1838, as follows : 
 
 " Thaba 'nohu. Bechuanaland. — A Law 
 Prohibiting the Traffic in Ardent Spirits: "Where- 
 as, the introduction of ardent spirits into this 
 country has, in a great measure, been subversive 
 
 » Temperance History, by Dawson Burns, D.D. (London 
 National Temperance Publication Depot), vol. 1, pp. 377 
 435. ' ' 
 
Africa.] 
 
 15 
 
 [Africa. 
 
 of the good effects both of religious and civil 
 government in every part where it has been 
 allowed, and immediately caused disorder, im- 
 morality and vice, and more remarkably pov- 
 erty and distress, demoralization and destruc- 
 tion of life, by incessant depredations upon the 
 property and rights of the weaker tribes of 
 these parts; Be it hereby known that the traffic 
 in ardent spirits in every part of the country 
 under my government shall, from the date 
 hereof, be illegal ; and any person or persona 
 found transgressing this my law shall be sub- 
 ject to the confiscation of all the spirits thus 
 illegally offered for sale, with all other property 
 of every kind belonging to the person or per- 
 sons thus found transgressing that may be on 
 the spot at the time of the seizure and in any 
 way connected with the same. 
 
 '• Given at Thaba 'nohu, this eighteenth day 
 of October, in the year of our Lord one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and thirty-seven. The 
 mark X of Moroka, Chief of the Borolongs." 
 
 Kama, another Chief of Bechuanaland, 
 said to a British official : " I fear Lo Ben- 
 gula less than I fear brandy. I 
 fought with Lo Bengula when he 
 had his father's great warriors from 
 Natal, and drove him back, and he never 
 came again, and God, who helped me 
 then, would help me again. Lo Bengula 
 never gives me a sleepless night. But to 
 fight against drink is to fight against 
 demons, and not against men. I dread 
 the white man's drink more than all the 
 assegais of the Matebele, which kill men's 
 bodies, and it is quickly over ; but drink 
 puts devils into men, and destroys both 
 their souls and their bodies forever. Its 
 wounds never heal." 
 
 In the trade of Delagoa Bay brandy is 
 a chief article of import, and in the 
 southern part of Delagoa the traders rely 
 upon spirits more than any other com- 
 mercial medium in their transactions 
 with the natives, from whom they receive 
 hides, caoutchouc, beeswax, etc., in ex- 
 change for the vilest rum. 
 
 THE CONGO FREE STATE. 
 
 No part of Africa has attracted so 
 much attention in recent years as the 
 vast region' called the Congo Free State. 
 It has an area of 780,000 square miles, 
 contains a population of 43,000,000 
 people and embraces about one-half the 
 entire basin of the Congo river. The 
 most enterprising efforts have been and 
 are being made to develop its commercial 
 resources. The interests of civilization 
 within its limits were the subject of care- 
 ful and prolonged consideration by an 
 International Conference, which met in 
 
 Berlin, Nov. 15, 1884, at the invitation 
 of Prince Bismarck. Representatives 
 from 14 nations were present, and regu- 
 lations for the government of the Congo 
 Free State were established. These in- 
 cluded a rigid prohibition of the slave 
 trade, but the traffic in intoxicating 
 liquors was in no way disturbed. Yet it 
 was known to everybody that this traffic 
 meant enslavement and speedy death to 
 millions of Africans. The horrors 
 wrought by the deadly liquor of the 
 whites had been vividly described. Henry 
 M. Stanley had said in " The Congo " (vol. 
 2, p. 252) : 
 
 "With us on the Congo, where we must 
 work and bodily movement is compulsory, the 
 very atmosphere seems to be fatally hostile to 
 the physique of men who pin their faith to 
 whiskey, gin and brandy. They invariably 
 succumb, and are a constant source of expense. 
 Even if they are not finally buried out of sight 
 and out of memory, they are so utterly help- 
 less, diseases germinate with such frightful 
 rapidity, symptoms of insanity are numerous ; 
 and, with mind vacant and body semi-paralyz- 
 ed, they are hurried homeward to make room 
 for more valuable substitutes." 
 
 The failure of the Berlin Congress to 
 legislate against the liquor traffic in the 
 Congo Free State is the theme of a most 
 interesting and powerful book by W. T. 
 Hornaday, entitled "Free Rum on the 
 Congo " (New York, 1887). We quote as 
 follows from Mr. Hornaday : 
 
 " In the whole of this high and mighty Act 
 [the General Act of the Conference], there is 
 not the slightest mention of any restriction on 
 the trade in intoxicating liquors, or the promo- 
 tion of temperance, or of any method or system 
 whatsoever by which the condition of the 
 people should be benefited in any way. . 
 So far as the improvement of the African 
 people was concerned, or the interests of the 
 Congo Free State furthered, the Conference 
 might just as well have never been held. 
 Judged by the result, we may thruthfully say 
 that it was a Conference for trade only, and it 
 is simply disgraceful that the spirit of trade, 
 gain, pecuniary advantage and international 
 greed should have so completely monopolized 
 the deliberations of the Conference and the 
 declarations of the Act. . . . But. it may 
 be replied, the Government of the Congo Free 
 State can itself pass laws for the protection of 
 the people. Let me tell you it can do no such 
 thing in regard to the traffic in liquor. The 
 importation and sale of brandy, rum, gin. 
 whiskey and alcohol is ' trade,' and the Great 
 Powers (great in greediness) have decreed in 
 the strongest terms that trade shall be absolutely 
 free in that region. Rum has the right of way 
 by international edict, and the International 
 Association cannot stop the sale of a single 
 bottle of it without the consent of the Powers. 
 
Africa.] 
 
 16 
 
 [Africa. 
 
 If the opium growers of India want to send 
 opium to the Congo and teach all the natives 
 to use it, they can do so." (Pp. 63-65.) 
 
 And again, in the introduction to his 
 little book, Mr. Hornaday's arraignment 
 is even more severe : 
 
 " It is amazing that the representatives of any 
 enlightened nation could insist upon regulations 
 allowing the exportation of poisonous brandy 
 to Africa in an unlimited quantity, and free 
 of all duty. The result of the Berlin West 
 African Conference, when stripped of its diplo- 
 matic drapery, was simply this: the trading 
 nations gave themselves a free entry into the 
 country; by their accursed free trade enact- 
 ments they utterly pauperized the Government 
 of the Congo Free State (as a reward for the 
 efforts of the International African Association 
 in opening up the country !), and they fastened 
 the free rum traffic upon the people for twenty 
 years.'' (Pp. 5 and 6.) 
 
 Again : 
 
 " Nearly all the savage tribes accept the vir- 
 tues of civilization at retail and the vices at 
 wholesale. . . . In ninety-nine cases out of 
 a hundred, his [the savage's] first news of the 
 Christian world is brought by a trader, who 
 also brings him fire-water and gunpowder. 
 . . . Our civilization, as it stands at present, 
 is a wholesale extermination of savage races. 
 They are killed off by intemperance and modern 
 diseases of various kinds, which are Introduced 
 among them by unprincipled Europeans, aided 
 by other causes, less reprehensible but no less 
 deadly, which spring from the same source. 
 
 " Africa is being opened up from all sides, 
 but to what ? To Portuguese slave-traders for 
 one thing, and also to New England rum, Hol- 
 land gin, poisonous brandy from Hamburg, 
 Portuguese aguardiente, and deadly alcohol 
 from France, and God only knows where else." 
 (P. 37.) 
 
 " By reason of the total absence of restrain- 
 ing laws heretofore, and the special privilege 
 granted by the General Act of the Berlin Con- 
 ference, the traders of Holland, Germany, 
 Portugal, the United States, France and En- 
 gland are pouring cheap and deadly liquors into 
 Africa by the shipload. The natives have de- 
 veloped an appetite for it almost beyond the 
 power of belief, and it is used for currency in- 
 stead of money. In fact, gin is the lever by 
 which Africa is being 'opened up.'" (P. 71.) 
 
 The Netherlands, Germany, the United 
 States, Great Britain, France, Spain and 
 Portugal are the principals engaged in 
 the production of liquors for the Congo 
 traffic. The exportation of spirits from 
 the Netherlands to the west coast of 
 Africa, upon the authority of Mr. Horn- 
 aday, who gives statistics derived from 
 official sources, amounted in 1883 to 848,- 
 578 gallons, in 1884 to 1,223,914 gallons 
 and in 1885 to 1,087,562 gallons. Great 
 Britain's exports of spirituous liquors to 
 West Africa for 1885 aggregated 224,- 
 
 873 gallons. France's contribution for 
 1885 was 405,944 gallons. Germany's 
 liquor exports to the Congo and other 
 parts of Africa during 1885 reached the 
 enormous quantity of 7,823,042 gallons. 
 From the port of Boston, United States, 
 during the five months of July and Oc- 
 tober, 1885, and January, February and 
 June, 1886, 737,650 gallons of rum were 
 exported to Africa. 
 
 W. P. Tisdel, a special United States 
 agent sent to the Congo to examine the 
 country and its inhabitants, in his report 
 published in the Consular reports for 
 1885 (p. 334), says of the Congo gin 
 business : 
 
 " The gin comes mainly from Holland and is 
 manufactured expressly for the trade. The 
 Holland article comprises about 90 per cent, of 
 all the gin imported. The remaining 10 per 
 cent, may be distributed amongst other coun- 
 tries." 
 
 When Mr. Hornaday wrote his book he 
 made this prediction : " Ten years from 
 now it will be too late to offer the Afri- 
 cans any protection from the evils that 
 are now being sown amongst tbem." 
 Four years have passed, but at the time 
 this is written there is no certainty of a 
 change of policy. Earnest and persever- 
 ing efforts have been made by philanthro- 
 pists and temperance people to arouse the 
 governments to action, and the Brussels 
 Conference of 1890 took favorable steps, 
 prohibiting the traffic in distilled spirits 
 throughout a broad zone; but the opposi- 
 tion of Holland has been interposed to 
 prevent ratification. (See foot-note, p. 
 498.) 
 
 LIBERIA AND OTHER COUNTRIES OF THE 
 WEST COAST. 
 
 The other countries of the west coast 
 of Africa are also deluged with European 
 and American spirits. In the Republic 
 of Liberia, which is regarded with pecul- 
 iar interest by Americans, the regulation 
 of the drink traffic by license laws has 
 been attempted. John H. Smith, United 
 States Consul-General to Liberia, in 1885p 
 reported that "no spirits have beer? 
 brought into the Republic during the 
 year on account of the opposition to the" 
 license law." Rev. B. F. Kephart, an 
 American missionary to Liberia, wrote 'in 
 1889 : 
 
 "I never saw such poverty among God's 
 people as there is in Liberia. The 
 
 Christian nations are pouring rum and gin in 
 upon this poor people. The steamer that 
 
African M. E. Church ] 
 
 17 
 
 [Alcohol. 
 
 <••' 
 
 brought us from Hamburg had on hoard 10,000 
 casks of rum (each holding 50 to 60 gallons', 
 11 cases of gin. 460 tons of gunpowder, and 14 
 missionaries — all on their way to Africa to con- 
 vert the heathen. The German line has nine 
 steamers that ply monthly between Germany 
 and Africa. They always have the same kind 
 of a load, with the exception of the mission- 
 aries. I learned that much of this rum came 
 from Boston." l 
 
 Joseph Thomson, the African traveler, 
 in an article entitled "Up the Niger," 
 printed in Good Words for January, 1886, 
 speaks thus of the enormous quantities 
 of liquors poured into the coast ports and 
 destined for the natives of the Niger 
 Valley: 
 
 •' At each port of call one becomes bewilder- 
 ed in watching the discharge of thousands of 
 cases of gin, hundreds of demijohns of rum, 
 box upon box of guns, untold kegs of gun- 
 powder and myriads of clay pipes, while it 
 seems as if only by accident a stray bale of 
 cloth went over the side." 
 
 " The Earth and Its Inhabitants" (vol. 3, 
 p. 127) contrasts the suppression of 
 slavery in Senegambia with the continu- 
 ance of the liquor traffic, and says : 
 
 "If men are no longer directly purchased, 
 the European dealers continue the work of 
 moral degradation. While reproaching the 
 Negro populations with cruelty, they incite 
 th:m to war; while complaining of their intem- 
 perate, depraved, or indolent habits, they per- 
 sist in supplying them with fiery alcoholic 
 drinks." 
 
 In Angola, just south of the Congo 
 river, although there are some 33 distinct 
 varieties of the grape, not wine-produc- 
 tion but spirit-distillation is a leading in- 
 dustry. Spirits are made by the Portu- 
 guese from the sugar-cane. In Benguela, 
 Mossamedes and nearly the whole of the 
 Portuguese territory of West Africa, 
 distilling is systematically carried on, 
 the atrocious product being used in trade 
 with the natives of the interior. The 
 United States special agent to the Congo, 
 W. P. Tisdel, from whom we have already 
 quoted, declares in the Consular Reports 
 for 1885 (p. 336), that " in St. Paul de 
 Loando, Benguela, and Mossamedes there 
 are no manufactories in the country, ex- 
 cepting for rum; consequently every- 
 thing but the commonest articles of food 
 is required from abroad." 
 
 African Methodist Episcopal 
 Church. — The General Conference, rep- 
 resenting 2,000 ministers and over 400,- 
 
 » The Voice, Dec. 5, 1889. 
 
 000 members, at Indianapolis, Ind., May, 
 1888, adopted resolutions as follow : 
 
 " Resolved 1, That we discourage the manu- 
 facture, sale and use of all alcoholic and malt 
 liquors. 
 
 " Resolved 2, That we discourage the use of 
 tobacco by our ministers and people. 
 
 " Resolved 3, That we discourage the use of 
 opium and snuff. i 
 
 "Resolved 4, That we indorse the great 
 Prohibition movement in this country, also the 
 work done by the Woman's Christian Temper- 
 ance Union, and will use all honorable means 
 to suppress the evils growing out of intemper- 
 ance. 
 
 "Resolved 5, That it shall be a crime for 
 any minister or member of the A. M. E. Church 
 to fight against temperance, and if convicted 
 of this crime he shall lose his place in the Con- 
 ference and church." 
 
 The Committee on Temperance recom- 
 mended (1) that unfermented wine be 
 used at the Lord's Supper, and (2) that 
 no habitual user of tobacco or whiskey 
 be appointed a traveling preacher. The 
 Bishops said in their address : 
 
 " We should allow no minister or member 
 who votes, writes, lectures or preaches to up- 
 hold the rum trade to retain his membership, 
 either in the Conference or the church. And 
 those who are addicted to strong drink, either 
 ministers or laymen, should have no place 
 among us. Visit our station-houses, bridewells, 
 jails, almshouses and penitentiaries, and you 
 will there witness the effects of this horror of 
 horrors. Rum has dug the grave of the Amer- 
 ican Indian so deep that he will never be resur- 
 rected. If we would escape the same fate as a 
 church and a race we must be temperate. 
 . . . Some of the loftiest intellects have been 
 blasted and blighted by this terrible curse. 
 The use of wine at weddings should never be 
 encouraged by our ministers; it is often the 
 beginning of a blasted life." 
 
 African Methodist Episcopal 
 Zion Church. — The General Confer- 
 ence, at its quadrennial session, held at 
 New Berne, N. C, May, 1888, composed 
 of ministers and laymen representing all 
 the Annual Conferences of 29 different 
 States, and a membership of 300,000, 
 declared, in part : 
 
 "This General Conference re-affirms its stand 
 against intemperance and the use of intoxicat- 
 ing liquors in any form as a beverage. We 
 favor every means that can be brought to bear 
 for the destruction of the traffic in all intoxi- 
 cating drinks as a beverage in State and nation* 
 We also heartily recommend that unfermented 
 wine be used in the sacramental service as far 
 as possible." 
 
 .Alabama. — See Index. 
 
 Alaska. — See Index. 
 
 Alcohol. — "The intoxicating ingre- 
 dient in all spirituous liquors, including 
 
Alcohol.] 
 
 18 
 
 [Alcohol. 
 
 under this term wines, porter, ale, beer, 
 cider and every other liquid which has 
 undergone the vinous fermentation." 1 
 Its production depends exclusively upon 
 the decomposition of vegetable or animal 
 matter : so far as is known it is impos- 
 sible to obtain alcohol without decompo- 
 sition. The strength of any intoxicating 
 beverage is determined by the percentage 
 of alcohol contained in it. Pure alcohol 
 can be procured only by the processes of 
 distillation and rectification. In its 
 natural state it is a colorless, transparent 
 liquid, closely resembling water in appear- 
 ance. Chemically it is composed of 
 52.67 parts of carbon, 12.90 parts of hy- 
 drogen and 32.43 parts of oxygen; and 
 the chemical formula for it is C, H 6 0. 
 This is the ordinary alcohol forming the 
 basis of genuine liquors, called ethylic 
 alcohol, which has a specific gravity of 
 0.794 at 60° F. and boils at 173.1° F. 
 But other alcohols are obtained by distil- 
 lation, especially methyl alcohol (0 H 4 0), 
 which is derived from wood, is less in- 
 toxicating than the ordinary article but 
 disagreeable to the taste, and is very ex- 
 tensively used in the arts and manufac- 
 tures, because of its comparative cheap- 
 ness. The remaining alcohols are the 
 propylic (C., H 8 0), butylic (C 4 H, 0), 
 amylic (CjH^O), etc. These are all 
 heavier than the ethylic, and a higher 
 heat is required to generate them from 
 the grain or other substance distilled: 
 they are far more intoxicating than the 
 ordinary alcohol and of deadly nature, 
 and a conscientious distiller will use the 
 utmost pains to prevent their presence in 
 his liquors; but considerable quantities 
 of them are produced even by the most 
 carefully-managed processes, and thor- 
 ough treatment is required to eliminate 
 them. (For further information con- 
 cerning the heavier alcohols, see Distil- 
 lation.) 
 
 The chemists of the Middle Ages, who 
 first distilled alcohol — for to them its 
 discovery is attributed by historical docu- 
 ments, although there is ground for be- 
 lieving that the Chinese understood the 
 art long before — called the fluid by vari- 
 ous names: aqua ardens, aqua fortis, 
 vinum ardens, vinum adustum, spiritus 
 ardens, aqua vitw, etc. The name " aqua 
 vital " (water of life) was considered es- 
 pecially appropriate by those who believ- 
 
 1 United States Dispensatory. 
 
 ed in its wondrous virtues. The word 
 "alcohol" is said by some students to 
 have been derived from the Arabic al 
 ("the") and lohl ("fine," or " exceeding- 
 ly fine and subtle"). Others assert that 
 because of its evil effects upon men it 
 was called al ghole (Arabic for " the evil 
 ghost or spirit "). According to others, 
 alcohol is corrupted from the Arabic al 
 ghul ("destruction," "calamity").' 2 At 
 first the production and use of distilled 
 spirits were confined to the laboratory; 
 but by degrees the knowledge of their 
 highly intoxicating properties and the 
 credulous belief in their medicinal qual- 
 ities created the wide-spread demand for 
 them that has prevailed for more than 
 three centuries. 
 
 Legitimate Uses. — Alcohol in its con- 
 centrated form is not used as a beverage, 
 except occasionally by the most desperate 
 drinkers, who will eagerly swallow any 
 decoction to gratify their burning thirst. 
 Its legitimate uses are numerous and im- 
 portant. Large quantities, chiefly of 
 methylated alcohol (i. e., the ordinary 
 ethyl alcohol mixed with methyl alcohol 
 or wood spirits), are employed by the 
 manufacturers of varnishes, India rubber, 
 candles, collodion and other articles. 
 Alcohol is also of great value as a solvent, 
 and is extensively used to dissolve fatty 
 substances, essential oils, organic acids, 
 etc. Ethers are formed by distilling 
 mixtures of alcohol and acids; chloral 
 and chloroform are produced by distilling, 
 respectively, chlorine and chloride of 
 lime with alcohol — and thus alcohol is an 
 important agent in the manufacture of 
 anaesthetic preparations. Vinegar is made 
 by exposing fermented fruit juices to the 
 air, the oxygen changing the alcohol to 
 acetic acid, which constitutes from 2 to 4 
 per cent, of ordinary vinegar. The in- 
 flammability of alcohol and the intense 
 heat resulting from its combustion make it 
 very serviceable in mechanical and other 
 operations where concentrated heat is 
 required. Its resistance to cold is so 
 great that it has never been obtained in a 
 solid state, and at the very lowest temper- 
 atures it retains the fluid form though be- 
 coming viscid ; hence it is substituted for 
 mercury in thermometers used for indi- 
 cating temperatures below the freezing 
 point of mercury (—39° F.). Alcohol is 
 
 2 See "The Foundation of Death' 
 pp. 33-3. 
 
 (New York, 
 
 1887), 
 
Alcohol.] 
 
 19 
 
 [Alcohol. 
 
 one of the most precious of antiseptics, 
 and any animal substance immersed in it 
 can be preserved for an indefinite period 
 of time. 
 
 Comparative Insignificance of the Quan- 
 tity of Alcohol Used in the Arts, Manu- 
 factures, etc. — But the aggregate quantity 
 of alcohol used for legitimate purposes is 
 insignificant when compared with that 
 entering into alcoholic liquors and drank 
 by the people. W. P. Switzler, 'Chief of 
 the United States Bureau of Statistics, 
 in 1887, made some interesting inquiries 
 to determine what portion of the alcoholic 
 product is employed in the arts, manu- 
 factures, etc. These inquiries resulted in 
 a statement from James A. Webb & Son, 
 of New York, a firm receiving and hand- 
 ling most of the spirits used in the arts 
 and manufactures in this country. Webb 
 & Son declared that " the proportion of 
 distilled spirits so used will not exceed 
 10 per cent, of the whole production," 
 and that " 90 per cent, of the whole pro- 
 duct retained in the United States for 
 consumption during the year is used as 
 a beverage and is designated as rye or 
 bourbon whiskey, gin, proof spirits, pure 
 spirits, French spirits and high proof 
 spirits." It is believed by those who 
 have given special attention to the sub- 
 ject that AVebb & Son have overestimated 
 rather than underestimated the propor- 
 tion of distilled spirits used in the arts 
 and manufactures. ' It will be understood, 
 of course, that whatever estimate is ac- 
 cepted, no account is taken of fermented 
 liquors: the entire product of beer and 
 wine may be said to be used for beverage 
 purposes and therefore to play no part 
 whatever in the arts and manufactures. 2 
 That is, accepting Webb & Son's estimate, 
 
 1 The comparative insignificance of the quantity eo used 
 is explained by the very high tax (90 cents per gallon) 
 levied by the United States Government on all spirits. 
 Manufacturers and others who would use alcohol extensivo- 
 ly in their business if it could he procured cheaply are 
 forced to substitute less expensive articles for it. See 
 Consumption of Liquors; also footnote, p. 615. 
 
 2 It is true, however, that wine and beer are extensively 
 prescribed for medicinal purposes, so-called, while 6ome 
 fermented wine is consumed at the sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper. Fermented liquorB so used are said to be applied 
 legitimately in the same sense that spirits entering into the 
 arts and manufactures are eo applied. But it is maintained 
 by a constantly increasing number of physicians that there 
 is no necessity or justification for administering alcoholic 
 liquors of any kind to patients; and that even admitting 
 alcohol to have medicinal value, all purposes may be better 
 served by giving do6es of pure distilled alcohol to patients 
 than by providing them with draughts of any of the pop- 
 ular alcoholic beverages. From this point of view the 
 quantity of beer and wine consumed for so-called medici- 
 nal purposes is to be classed with beverage liquors rather 
 than with alcohol used in the arts, manufactures, etc. 
 
 the quantity of alcohol nsed in the arts 
 and manufactures, etc., in the United 
 States during the fiscal year ending June 
 30, 1889, was 10 per cent, of the quantity 
 of distilled spirits produced during that 
 year (91,133,550 gallons), or 9,113,355 
 gallons; while 82,020,195 gallons of spirits 
 and 778,715,443 gallons of fermented 
 liquors were produced as drink. 
 
 Practically all the distilled liquors in 
 general use in the United States, save 
 genuine whiskey, are obtained by com- 
 pounding raw alcohol with different sub- 
 stances so as to give the particular liquors 
 desired. Genuine whiskey is not a pro- 
 duct of the compounding process, but is 
 distilled from the grain direct. But by 
 far the largest part of beverage spirits 
 exists originally as concentrated alcohol, 
 and receives commercial recognition as 
 brandy, rum, whiskey, gin, etc., only 
 after the raw article has been diluted and 
 "doctored," frequently with the most 
 poisonous drugs. The alcohol used in 
 the compounding of such drinks is high- 
 ly condensed to save freight charges, and 
 is commercially known as "high proof 
 spirits." The term " proof spirits " sig- 
 nifies, in the United States, an alcoholic 
 strength of 50 per cent. 
 
 Percentages of Alcohol in Alcoholic 
 Liquors. — The percentages of alcohol 
 contained in some of the leading ferment- 
 ed and strong liquors are as follows : 3 
 
 Beer 4.0 Lisbon 18.5 
 
 Porter 4.5 Canary 18.8 
 
 Ale 7.4 Sherry 19 
 
 Cider 8.6 Vermouth 19.0 
 
 Perry 8.8 Cape 19.2 
 
 Elder 9.3 Malmsey 19.7 
 
 Moselle 9.6 Marsala 20 2 
 
 Tokay 10.2 Madeira 21 
 
 Rhine 11 Port 23.2 
 
 Orange 11.2 Curacoa 27.0 
 
 Bordeaux 11.5 Aniseed 33.0 
 
 Hock 11.6 Chartreuse 43.0 
 
 Gooseberry 11.8 Gin 51.6 
 
 Champagne 12.2 Brandy 53.4 
 
 Claret 13.3 Rum 537 
 
 Burgundy 13.6 Irish Whiskey. ... 53.9 ! 
 
 Malaga 17 3 Scotch " ...54.3 
 
 [The processes for obtaining the different al- 
 coholic liquors are treated under the heads, 
 Brewing, Distillation and Fermentation. 
 Descriptions of particular liquors will be found 
 under Malt Liquors, Spirituous Liquors 
 and Vinous Liquors. The various Controvert- 
 ed questions involved in the alcohol discussion 
 are considered in the proper places; for in- 
 stance, see Alcohol, Effects of ; Pood and 
 Medicine.] 
 
 s Mulhall (1886). 
 
Alcohol, Effects of.] 
 
 20 
 
 [Alcohol, Effects of. 
 
 Alcohol, Effects of. — When we use 
 the word alcohol we require to be clear 
 as to the meaning of the word and the 
 thing. We know now that the term is 
 employed by the chemists to indicate a 
 long series of chemical bodies, having 
 certain properties in common and ex- 
 hibiting the same chemical constitution 
 in respect to the elements which enter 
 into the composition of them. These ele- 
 ments, three in number — carbon, hydro- 
 gen and oxygen — never vary except in 
 quantity or amount, and one of them, 
 the oxygen, remains always the same, 
 even in amount, in every member of the 
 family. The other two elements, the 
 hydrogen and the carbon, invariably pre- 
 sent, exist in different quantities in differ- 
 ent members of the family, and it is on 
 this difference that the family differences 
 depend. In the first or primary member 
 of the family, the elements stand in the 
 following form: there is one proportion 
 or part of carbon, four of hydrogen and 
 one of oxygen. This alcohol, called 
 methylic alcohol or wood spirits, is a light 
 fluid which boils at 140° Fahrenheit, and 
 is so far volatile that I have succeeded in 
 putting warm-blooded animals to sleep 
 by making them inhale its vapor. We 
 have in this methylic alcohol the lightest 
 of the family group. If we pass to the 
 thirtieth of the group we find a solid al- 
 cohol, called melytic, or by some, melissic, 
 really a wax-like substance. The propor- 
 tion of oxygen is just the same in this 
 variety as in the last-named, but the pro- 
 portions of carbon and of hydrogen have 
 so greatly changed that the change in the 
 quality of the substance need not be 
 wondered at. The heavy element, car- 
 bon, has increased from one part in the 
 methylic alcohol to 30 in the melytic, and 
 the hydrogen has risen to 61. If we go 
 back in the series we shall find another 
 alcohol, the fifth from the methylic, call- 
 ed usually amylic alcohol, fusel oil, or, 
 sometimes, potato spirits. This is a 
 heavy oily fluid of disagreeable odor and 
 of high boiling point, 270° Fahrenheit. 
 It differs from the wood spirits in 'ts 
 weight, being very much heavier. It is com- 
 posed of five parts of carbon and 12 of 
 hydrogen, with the usual unit of oxy- 
 gen. 
 
 The variations here noticed extend all 
 through the series, and all through in 
 regular sequence, the carbon increasing 
 
 one part and the hydrogen two parts each 
 step. If we could add one more of car- 
 bon and two more of hydrogen to me- 
 thylic alcohol we should get another alco- 
 hol composed of two parts of carbon, six 
 parts of hydrogen and one part oxygen, 
 and this would be the common alcohol of 
 commerce, ethylic alcohol, the spirit which 
 forms the staple of all the wines, spirits, 
 ales and other so-called spirituous drinks 
 supplied in such large quantities to our 
 communities for drinking purposes. All 
 the alcohols are products or results of 
 fermentation of one or other fermentable 
 substance. The common or ethylic alco- 
 hol is the product of the fermentation of 
 grain and of fruit, and is by far the 
 largest product of any, because, by what 
 has become the almost universal consent 
 of the civilized world, it has been and is 
 demanded as a beverage and stimulant. 
 We may say of it, practically, that it 
 alone is the alcoholic drink of those who 
 indulge in the use of a stimulant; for 
 although it is true that amylic alcohol 
 and some other alcohols get mixed by 
 accident, or carelessness, or it may be 
 sometimes by design, with common alco- 
 hol, they are not supposed to be present 
 in it, and the general effects of alcoholic 
 drinking are attributable to it alone. 
 
 DIFFUSION" OF ALCOHOL THROUGH THE 
 BODY. 
 
 With the few facts above stated clearly 
 before us on the position of common al- 
 cohol, from a chemical point of view, we 
 may turn to the study of the effects of it 
 on man and other living things subjected 
 to its influence. For all living things it 
 has a certain physical affinity, for the 
 simple reason that all living things con- 
 tain, and as a rule are largely made up of 
 water, for which the alcohol has a strong 
 affinity. Itself a mobile fluid, it mixes 
 with water in ' all proportions and with 
 the utmost readiness: in fact, it is by 
 virtue of this readiness that it is received 
 into the body. No one would ever learn 
 to drink alcohol, under any circumstances, 
 unless it were first largely diluted with 
 water, as it is in wine, beer, brandy, rum, 
 gin, whiskey and other spirits. When 
 in any of these it is present in great 
 strength, it is again diluted by the addi- 
 tion of more water, because if it were 
 not so diluted it would create a burning 
 
Alcohol, Effects of.] 
 
 21 
 
 [Alcohol, Effects of. 
 
 sensation in the mouth and throat and 
 would inflict serious injury on the stom- 
 ach. Diluted whh water it enters the 
 body of man or animal with the water, 
 and soon diffuses through the body where- 
 ever there is water in the tissues. Thus, 
 for a short time after a portion of alcohol 
 has entered the body, and before it has 
 had the opportunity of being removed, 
 it can be .detected in all the fluid secre- 
 tions. The late Dr. Percy discovered it 
 present in the fluid of the ventricles of 
 the brain. I have found it in the same 
 fluid, in the blood, in the urine, in the 
 fluids which lave the serous membranes, 
 and, in short, in all the fluids derived 
 from the blood. With some of the tis- 
 sues it maintains a very close affinity, es- 
 pecially with the tissues of the liver and 
 the brain. So close is its affinity for the 
 brain-substance that it becomes a most 
 difficult, nay even an impossible task, to 
 distill from brain-matter all the ethylic 
 alcohol with which it can be saturated. 
 Hence in confirmed alcoholic inebriates 
 it becomes, veritably, part and parcel, so 
 to say, of the cerebral organization. 
 
 The usual mode of taking alcohol into 
 the living body is to imbibe it by the 
 mouth, as a drink; but it can effect- 
 ively be introduced in other ways. If 
 it be diluted and injected into the cel- 
 lular tissue, under the skin, it will be 
 absorbed from there. I found by experi- 
 ment that it is rapidly absorbed from the 
 peritoneal surface of a lower animal when 
 it is freely diluted with water. I also 
 found that at a sufficiently high temper- 
 ature the vapor of it could be made to 
 enter the lungs in sufficient quantity to 
 be absorbed from the lungs and to pro- 
 duce by its diffusion through the blood 
 its specific effects. Lastly, I have known 
 it to be absorbed by the skin in so distinc- 
 tive a manner as again to prove its trans- 
 mission through the blood to all parts. 
 The easy and rapid diffusibility of alcohol 
 through the body is the reason why its 
 effects are so speedily realized after it has 
 been received by the body, and it is on 
 this account that it has gained so wide a 
 popularity as a quick restorer. It seems 
 to those who are wearied to restore the 
 lost power so speedily that they are led 
 to consider it a panacea in all cases of 
 need or of emergency. How far this 
 view is true we shall see better as we pro- 
 ceed. 
 
 PRIMARST OE ACUTE EFFECTS OF ALCOHOL 
 OK THE BODY. 
 
 So soon as the diffusion of alcohol has 
 been made through the system of a hu- 
 man being, effects are manifested. The ef- 
 fects are modified by the amount taken, 
 and by some other circumstances, such as 
 temperature of the air, the dilution of 
 the spirit with water, and above all the 
 habits of the person who has partaken of 
 it, whether he be an abstainer from it 
 habitually or one accustomed to it. But 
 as a rule we may state that the action, 
 varying in degrees under different circum- 
 stances, is exceedingly uniform and regu- 
 lar. The effects which ensue may em- 
 phatically be called nervous in character, 
 that is to say, they are phenomena due 
 to a disturbance emanating from the ner- 
 vous centers, the centers of the sympa- 
 thetic or organic nervous system, and 
 afterwards from the centers of the volun- 
 tary nervous organism. The impression 
 made through the stomach upon the or- 
 ganic nerves is exceedingly rapid, being 
 manifested often within a few minutes 
 after the alcohol has been imbibed, and 
 becoming well developed in 20 minutes to 
 half an hour. These first effects, extend- 
 ing through the nervous distribution to 
 the whole of the vascular system, institute 
 what I have called the first stage or de- 
 gree of alcoholic disturbance, the stage of 
 paresis of the arterial vessels to their ex- 
 tremities. These vessels, held naturally 
 in a state of proper tension and of re- 
 sistance to the stroke of the heart, be- 
 come relaxed under the action of the al- 
 cohol, as a result of its interference with 
 the function of the organic nerves which 
 follow these vessels to their extremities 
 and attune their muscular contraction so 
 as to permit the necessary quantity of 
 blood to make its course through them. 
 The quantity of blood thrown out by the 
 stroke of the heart is treated "with less 
 resistance than is natural in every part 
 where blood circulates, beginning with 
 the circulation of the blood through the 
 heart itself and extending to the circula- 
 tions through the brain, through the vis- 
 ceral organs — like the stomach, intestines 
 and liver — as well as through the active 
 organs of locomotion, the groups of mus- 
 cles that move the body. The result is 
 that action through every part and organ 
 of the body that is capable of action 
 
Alcohol, Effects of.] 
 
 22 
 
 [Alcohol, Effects of. 
 
 which can be felt, as well as of ^arts in 
 which action is not sensibly felt — such as 
 the involuntary muscles — is for the mo- 
 ment intensified, and phenomena are in- 
 duced which are strictly indicative of the 
 over-action. The heart is quickened in 
 its beat, and owing to the checked flow 
 of blood through itself the force of its 
 beat is also increased. The vessels of the 
 surfaces of the body, like those of the 
 skin and mucous membranes, are injected 
 with blood — a fact evidenced in the 
 increased redness of the skin which is 
 always seen during this stage. The mind 
 becomes a little exalted, and ideas seem 
 to flow more freely. The larger quantity 
 of warm blood sent into the skin com- 
 municates a sensible glow, which feels to 
 the person affected like an increased 
 warmth of body generally. The secre- 
 tions of the different visceral glands are 
 increased. The muscles appear to be en- 
 dowed with renewed power, and, taking 
 all the phenomena experiened into ac- 
 count, it really seems, on a superficial 
 view, as if during this stage all the vital 
 powers were being carried on with an ad- 
 vanced vitality. The feeling is as pleas- 
 ant as it is delusive, as cheering as it is 
 deceptive. 
 
 It is not until we come to measure up 
 the effects of this first stage with the 
 precision of an observer who is looking 
 at the phenomena without feeling them, 
 that the truth is made manifest. Then it 
 comes out clearly that the over-action 
 felt, subjectively, is waste without com- 
 pensation—lost energy, and so lost that 
 in no sense whatever is it regained. If 
 at the moment when the over-action is at 
 its height the muscular power be tested, 
 it will be found wanting. By a beautiful 
 series of experiments, Dr. Eidge has 
 demonstrated that if at this particular 
 time of over-action the refined involun- 
 tary muscular movements be tested, they 
 are in trfe most uncertain condition for 
 action. The sense of delicate touch for 
 balancing weights is made absolutely 
 worthless; sensibility of touch is ren- 
 dered imperfect; the adjustment of the 
 muscles of vision is made uncertain and 
 'feeble, so that the act of aiming at a 
 mark is extremely faulty; and the sense 
 of hearing faint sounds is decisively im- 
 paired. These facts relate to the action of 
 the involuntary muscles, but they apply 
 with equal correctness to the voluntary. 
 
 I myself studied, with the greatest care, 
 the effects of alcohol during the first 
 stage of its action on the voluntary 
 muscles, not only of man but of inferior 
 animals; and I detected invariably that, 
 other things being equal, the actual 
 strength of the voluntary muscles is re- 
 duced under alcoholic excitement, except 
 for the briefest moments, in which no 
 sustained work is being carried out. 
 
 Precisely the same state . of things is 
 observable in respect to mental phenom- 
 ena. The mind seems more active, and 
 may be so, but it is less precise and less 
 strong in its efforts. Words, which come 
 forth at one moment in haste, are forgot- 
 ten the next, or refuse to come into re- 
 membrance, and in the art of spelling 
 words the greatest confusion is often apt 
 to prevail. To these failures of mind, 
 excitement of mind is often an accom- 
 paniment followed by depression and 
 irritability. To sum up, the first degree 
 of effect from alcohol is towards helpless- 
 ness of mind and body when the full in- 
 fluence is calculated. What seems good 
 about it is delusive; what seems bad is 
 definitely bad, and admits of scarcely 
 any qualification. 
 
 The first stage or degree passing away 
 may leave nothing more than a depres- 
 sion, but if it has been induced by a 
 quantity of alcohol which leads to an 
 extension of symptoms, then a second 
 stage or degree is evidenced, in which all 
 the signs of failure are more strikingly 
 portrayed. In this second degree the 
 worst indications of the first are exag- 
 gerated, and the failures of muscular 
 precision and power and of mental 
 equilibrium are much advanced. In this 
 degree the voluntary muscles begin to 
 show the same aberration that was in- 
 stanced in the involuntary at an earlier 
 period. The smaller voluntary muscles, 
 like those of the lip, are, as a rule, the 
 first to become enfeebled and uncertain. 
 Afterwards the muscles of the limbs fol- 
 lowthe imperfection of function, and the 
 brain also becoming reduced in power the 
 muscular and mental acts begin to be 
 aberrant simultaneously. Meantime, in 
 this degree, the temperature of the body 
 begins to fall. The great surface of blood 
 that has been exposed to the air in the 
 first stage is now flowing more tardily 
 and, receiving no sufficient supply of 
 warmth from within the body, is coolino- 
 
Alcohol, Effects of.] 
 
 23 
 
 [Alcohol, Effects of. 
 
 down, leaving all parts reduced in 
 warmth like itself. 
 
 The second degree of alcoholic effect 
 always leaves behind it considerable de- 
 pression of body and of mind, even if not 
 succeeded, as it may be, by a third de- 
 gree from a still deeper dose of alcohol. 
 This third degree, if it does ensue, is 
 marked by a more complete prostration, 
 by an entire want of proper control of ' 
 the voluntary as well as of the involuntary 
 muscles, by delirium and mental imbecil- 
 ity, and at last by complete collapse 
 both of body and mind. 
 
 To this third stage of alcoholic depres- 
 sion there may succeed a fourth, in which 
 there is absolute paralysis of the will, and 
 of all voluntary muscular power. In this 
 stage the mind, quite unconscious, is 
 buried in the deepest coma or sleep. The 
 body is now entirely anaesthetized, so that 
 a surgical operation of the severest char- 
 acter might be performed on it without 
 the slightest pain. In this stage also the 
 temperature of the body, which has been 
 falling through the whole of the third 
 degree, sinks to the lowest point prac- 
 tically compatible with the continuance 
 of life, namely to 92° or over 6° below 
 what is natural. To such a low ebb, in 
 short, has life been brought, that only 
 two nervous centers remain true to their 
 function, the center which presides over 
 respiration and the center which stimu- 
 lates the heart into motion. Upon the 
 fidelity of these two centers, so acting 
 until the body begins to be set free from 
 the alcohol by its slow elimination re- 
 covery entirely depends, recovery always 
 attended, under the most favorable con- 
 ditions, by many hours and even days of 
 depression and degradation of nutrition. 
 
 IS ANY GOOD DOJSTE ? 
 
 In the above description of the effects 
 of alcohol on the body the acute effects 
 alone have been considered. Before pass- 
 ing to a new point it may be well to 
 make a note on one or two questions 
 which the narrative suggests. The first 
 question we are led to ask is. Whether in 
 the course of the variation from the nat- 
 ural standard of vital actions which fol- 
 low the action of alcohol to and through 
 any degree, any good, useful or neces- 
 sary thing has been done ? The admit- 
 ted answer to this question must on all 
 sides be, that after the effects of the first 
 
 degree have been obtained no good thing 
 can have been done, while some amount 
 of evil may have been effected. It is in- 
 deed accepted now by all authorities that 
 the phenomena of alcoholism manifested 
 in the primary and stimulating periods 
 of its action are the only phenomena that 
 can be productive of service. These are 
 the phenomena of stimulation; and as 
 they are well defined we can study them, 
 one by one, and ask their value. 
 
 1. There is the phenomenon of quick- 
 ened circulation of the blood and qmcke7ied 
 motion of the heart. Is that good ? _ It 
 may be good to call a languidly acting 
 heart into more vigorous motion, but to 
 do this with the rest of the body in re- 
 pose, by means of an internal stimulant, 
 is certainly very bad practice. The heart 
 that wants to be called into more action 
 requires invigoration by reasonable exer- 
 cise in which the other muscles of the 
 body can share, not by exercise in which 
 it alone is engaged. The heart stimu- 
 lated alone soon begins to feel the habit- 
 ual necessity of the special stimulant, 
 and learning in time to depend upon its 
 artificial support lives as it were upon 
 that support; and becoming over-active 
 and out of harmony with the rest of the 
 organs of the body so long as it is sup- 
 plied with its stimulant, it fails in the 
 most lamentable manner if by any acci- 
 dent its stimulant be withdrawn. Here 
 is the reason why even so-called temperate 
 consumers of alcohol feel so acutely, at 
 first, the withdrawal of alcohol. They 
 feel as if they had lost blood, and num- 
 bers who try to abstain are driven back 
 from the trial of abstinence because they 
 have not the resolution to persevere until 
 the heart learns to work without the arti- 
 ficial spur to its action. The spur all 
 through is deceptive and bad. It takes 
 the place of exercise without performing 
 the proper duty. It produces derange- 
 ment just bordering on disease of the 
 heart. It often lays the foundation of 
 actual^ disease of that organ, and it leads 
 to inactivity of other functions of the 
 body and to general inaptitude for the 
 active duties of life until a stimulant has 
 been taken. We cannot, therefore, count 
 this part of the action of alcohol as a 
 good action. 
 
 2. There is the phenomenon of warmth 
 induced by the primary action of alcohol. 
 Is that good ? This warmth is always 
 
Alcohol, Effects of.] 
 
 24 
 
 [Alcohol, Effects of. 
 
 ephemeral and is always followed by a 
 corresponding fall of temperature. It is 
 like the temporary increased heat of a 
 fire under the action of the bellows : it 
 quickens the glow but it does not sustain 
 the steady burning of the fire. On the 
 contrary, it really causes the fire to burn 
 out more quickly without adding a grain 
 to the fuel. It is impossible, conse- 
 quently, to attach any value to alcohol as 
 a warmer. It is positively a cooler of the 
 blood and tissues, and combined with 
 cold it expedites, in the most determi- 
 nate manner, as my researches on the 
 action of alcohol on pigeons showed, the 
 fatal effects of extreme cold. The ex- 
 periences of Arctic voyagers have proved 
 the same in man. 
 
 3. There is experienced in those who 
 are accustomed to alcohol a sense of 
 strength after taking it, and of firmness, 
 which seems to be a good preparation for 
 acts requiring precision, strength or en- 
 durance. Is that good ? To those who 
 rely on the assurance given in this way 
 by alcohol, this is considered not only as 
 good but as a necessity. The best that 
 can be truly said of it, however, is that it 
 is an acquired good, an acquired neces- 
 sity. In itself it is bad, because the 
 greatest benefits which it confers are poor 
 indeed when compared with the pre- 
 cision, the strength and the endurance 
 experienced by those who. being un- 
 touched by the habit of relying on wine, 
 are accustomed to depend purely on nat- 
 ural agencies for their maintenance of 
 vital labors. In a word, it may be ac- 
 cepted with absolute certainty that when- 
 ever a person habituated to alcohol feels 
 that he is unable to perform any work 
 which he wishes to perform unless he re- 
 sorts to alcohol for assistance, he is so far 
 under its influenpe for evil as to be in 
 positive danger from it and from its inter- 
 ference with his natural vitality. 
 
 Summing up all the effects produced 
 by alcohol during the primary and least 
 hurtful stage of its action, there is no 
 effect from it that can be pronounced 
 either good or necessary for the healthy 
 body, no effect that cannot be supplied 
 by more natural and better means — that 
 is to say, by the aid of natural food and 
 drink, neither of which alcohol can claim 
 to be. 
 
 It is one of the most distinctive effects 
 of alcohol that when the taste for it has 
 
 once been acquired it makes for itself a 
 special constitution which may most faith- 
 fully be designated the alcoholic constitu- 
 tion. When this constitution has once 
 been formed it renders everything else 
 subordinate to itself, according to the de- 
 gree of alcoholic influence that has been 
 established. Thus the person really 
 temperate in the use of alcohol holds by 
 his temperate habit as firmly as he who 
 has established in himself the more dan- 
 gerous habit of inebriety. These effects 
 are purely physical, and they can be in- 
 duced in animals inferior to man, by 
 training, just as easily as in man himself. 
 They are dependent on the affinity which 
 alcohol has for the matter of the brain 
 and the other nervous centers, in which 
 centers it forms a habitat for itself, from 
 which it can be removed only by long- 
 continued total abstinence. 
 
 Many persons go on for years under the 
 simple action of the moderate effect of 
 alcohol; they are never affected beyond 
 the first stage of its action, and always 
 assume that they feel the benefit of it. 
 Others who have got so far are tempted 
 to go a little farther under some excite- 
 ment, recreation, work, worry, or one of 
 the many incentives for stimulation, and 
 so work themselves into the habit of the 
 second stage, which is less easy to restrain 
 than the first. Others slip habitually 
 into the habit of the third degree, be- 
 come regularly intemperate and so fixed 
 in intemperance that they are all but 
 irreclaimable. From this last group 
 spring those lowest in the series of the 
 habitual alcoholics, who suffer from gene- 
 ral paralysis and who fitly and literally 
 represent the individual in the fourth 
 degree of acute alcohol ic intoxication, 
 dead to the world under the extreme 
 paralyzing influence of the spirit they 
 have imbibed. 
 
 These four classes of mankind form 
 the four great populations of constitu- 
 tionally-alcoholized humanity that exists 
 out of the bonds and bounds of child- 
 hood. It is fortunate that as yet the 
 first years of human life have been so 
 far exempted from the alcoholic spell, 
 for by this circumstance a full sixth of 
 the term of each life is largely saved from 
 the' injury and danger of alcohol. Yet 
 even this more fortunate section is not 
 altogether free; for, unhappily, an agent 
 which, like alcohol, is capable of inflict- 
 
Alcohol, Effects of.] 
 
 25 
 
 [Alcohol, Effects of. 
 
 ing so marked an impression on the ner- 
 vous centers, is also capable of inflicting 
 impressions which pass from parent to 
 offspring and which implant by inherit- 
 ance the constitutional habit. The in- 
 heritance of disease thus acquired from 
 alcohol is not so strong as that of some 
 other diseased conditions from other 
 causes, and it is not, according to my 
 observation, transmitted farther than the 
 third generation; but it must be ad- 
 mitted as a factor tending to the produc- 
 tion of alcoholic degeneracy and to the 
 increase of the great populations sharing 
 in one or other of the constitutional 
 stages of alcoholic existence, and in the 
 induced series of aberrations from the nat- 
 ural standard of health which furnish 
 the large class of disorders, bodily and 
 mental, now designated as the alcoholic 
 diseases of mankind. 
 
 INJURIES, PHYSICAL AND MENTAL. 
 
 It will be clear to every reasoning and 
 unprejudiced mind that a chemical sub- 
 stance which possesses the power of pro- 
 ducing in the living so many varied and 
 important changes as those which alcohol 
 produces, cannot fail to induce, in the or- 
 gans of the body, physical modifications 
 which are either good or bad. That 
 alcohol is incapable of imparting any 
 good is now pretty generally acknowl- 
 edged. Its elementary construction pre- 
 cludes the possibility of considering it as 
 a substance or food which can build up 
 or sustain any vital structure or organ, 
 such as muscle or brain; and when it is 
 freed from saccharine foods there is no 
 evidence whatever for assigning to it the 
 doubtful virtue of giving fat to the body. 
 In small quantities it quickens, in large 
 quantities it deadens nervous action. This 
 is its summum bonum and its summum 
 malum. The good is infinitesimal — 
 the evil infinite. The physical injuries 
 from alcohol are incomparably large be- 
 cause of their extent. They graduate 
 from the simple exaltation of action, 
 peculiar to the excitement of the first de- 
 gree of its action, to the complete paraly- 
 sis pertaining to the last degree. Where- 
 ever organic matter of the body is en- 
 folded in membrane, there will alcohol 
 penetrate and there will functional dis- 
 turbances followed by organic degenera- 
 tion be set up. We know now of a de- 
 
 finite and connected family of alcoholic 
 degenerative diseases. We are acquainted 
 with alcoholic phthisis, or the consump- 
 tion of drunkards; with hepatic cirrhosis, 
 or induration of the drunkard's liver; 
 with the dropsy arising from the hepatic 
 cirrhosis ; with alcoholic dyspepsia ; with 
 alcoholic epilepsy; with alcoholic hyper- 
 trophy, or enlargement of the heart ; with 
 alcoholic asthenia, or feebleness of the 
 heart ; with degeneration of the kidney and 
 the accompanying train of kidney dis- 
 eases classed vaguely under the term 
 Bright's Disease. But the most wide- 
 spread devastations from alcohol are 
 those seated in the nervous system and 
 displayed in mental aberration. The 
 commoner known of these are the acute 
 affections, delirium tremens, mania from 
 drink, inebriety or repeated intoxication, 
 to which must be added the less under- 
 stood yet serious conditions, alcoholic 
 epilepsy and alcoholic paralysis. This 
 last-named disease, only recently clearly 
 defined, is one of the most wide-spread 
 of the chronic diseases resulting from 
 alcohol, one of the most obscure and one 
 of the most fatal. 
 
 MORTALITY FROM ALCOHOL. 
 
 An agent like alcohol, extensively and 
 recklessly used by mankind in all parts 
 of the world, and capable of inducing 
 so many and serious diseases, must of ne- 
 cessity be the cause of a tremendous 
 mortality, with the usual precedence of 
 many days of utter disablement and dis- 
 ease. That is the fact. It is difficult to 
 calculate the precise mortality from alco- 
 hol, because we have never yet fully 
 diagnosed all the evils leading to disease 
 and death which spring from it. For 
 example, up to this time we have not 
 added the mortality due to alcoholic 
 paralysis in the large computations from 
 which our results have been drawn. Some 
 years ago, from the best data I could ob- 
 tain, I estimated that in England and 
 Wales the annual mortality from alcohol 
 was 50,000 per annum, an estimate fairly 
 confirmed by other observers who have 
 made inquiries of an important and in- 
 dependent character. Admitting its cor- 
 rectness, this estimate makes the mortality 
 from alcohol to be about one-tenth of the 
 whole mortality — a view which had pre- 
 viously been expressed by the late Dr. 
 
Alcohol, Effects of.] 
 
 26 
 
 [Anti-Prohibition. 
 
 Edwin Lankester, the Coroner for Central 
 . Middlesex — and places alcohol, as one of 
 the causes of mortality, at the head of 
 those causes. This estimate, however, 
 must have been under the mark, since it 
 excluded altogether that fatality which 
 we now know to arise from alcoholic 
 paralysis, and excluded also, too rigidly, 
 instances of direct poisoning from alcohol 
 and all accidents of a fatal kind indirectly 
 due to alcohol. I would not, however, 
 run any risk of being charged with over- 
 statement, and would be content still to 
 place the mortality from alcohol at one- 
 tenth of the whole mortality, in places 
 where the article is consumed in the same 
 proportion as in England and Wales at 
 the present time, a proportion fairly rep- 
 resentative of alcoholic populations gene- 
 rally. 
 
 Connected with the two subjects of the 
 diseases from alcohol and the mortality 
 from it, the question has often been dis- 
 cussed as to the relative amount of sick- 
 ness presented by abstaining as compared 
 with non-abstaining communities, and as 
 to the relative value of life in the two 
 communities. It has been difficult to get 
 at precise conclusions on these subjects 
 from the two circumstances that in 
 making comparisions the social relation- 
 ships of the different classes are largely 
 different, and the returns from the regis- 
 ters of death from alcohol have been 
 hitherto imperfect in themselves and im- 
 perfect in the interpretations that have 
 been put upon them. But judging from 
 the reports of those life assurance' com- 
 panies in which there are two classes of 
 insured — one an abstaining and the other 
 a non-abstaining class — and judging like- 
 wise from the returns of sickness and 
 mortality of two clubs, one abstaining 
 and the other non-abstaining, existing in 
 the same locality, holding the same social 
 status, and made up of the same num- 
 bers, it is absolutely certain that the rate 
 of mortality and the number of days of 
 sickness present data largely in favor of 
 abstaining communities. 
 
 In summary, as to the effects of alcohol 
 on the health and life of the human 
 species, on which fortunately those effects 
 have alone been tried on a large scale, it 
 must be stated on physical grounds, apart 
 altogether from moral considerations, 
 that the effects of alcohol are injurious, 
 both to mind and body, that until it has 
 
 produced an artificial constitution, alco- 
 hol does nothing that anyone can con- 
 strue into useful action, and that the es- 
 tablishment of the alcoholic constitution 
 is a false and unnatural policy of human 
 life — a source of weariness, of disease, of 
 premature old age, and of excessive and 
 unnecessary mortality. 
 
 Benjamin Ward Kichardson. 
 
 Ale. — See Malt Liquors. 
 
 Amendments, Constitutional. — 
 
 See Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 Anti-Prohibition. — While recog- 
 nizing the praiseworthy motives and com- 
 mendable zeal of Prohibitionists, the anti- 
 Prohibitionists oppose their aim and 
 measures for the following reasons : 
 
 1. They consider Prohibition laws, in- 
 cluding the prohibition of the sale and 
 thus of the use of wine as a beverage, to 
 be so opposed to public opinion that they 
 could not be passed; or, if passed by 
 some legislative accident, would never be 
 enforced. In connection with this argu- 
 ment they consider the experiment in 
 Kansas and Iowa too recent for deduc- 
 tions, and that in Maine to be a failure. 
 
 2. They consider the Prohibition of 
 the sale and therefore the use of wine as 
 a beverage, to be contrary to the teach- 
 ings of Scripture. Of course they hold 
 the two-wine theory to be a wild chimera 
 of the brain. 
 
 3. They consider the denunciation of 
 wine implied in such laws as a reflection 
 on the Saviour, who made it the emblem 
 of his salvation and who used it in his 
 earthly life. 
 
 4. They consider that any such laws, 
 which are counter to the public opinion 
 and the public conscience, lead to the dis- 
 organization of the community by creat- 
 ing a contempt for law. 
 
 5. They believe that Prohibition laws 
 would inevitably lead to the increase of 
 law-breaking and drunkenness, and thus 
 ruin the reform proposed. Any one would 
 then sell, while now only a certain num- 
 ber are allowed to sell. 
 
 6. They believe that the sale should be 
 restricted, and that Prohibition will not 
 restrict. 
 
 1- .They believe that wise and strong 
 restrictive laws will receive the cordial 
 approbation of the vast majority of the 
 community, and that the Prohibition 
 
Anti-Saloon Republicans.] 
 
 27 
 
 [Anti-Saloon Republicans. 
 
 movement is the greatest enemy to this 
 needed reform. 
 
 8. They believe that the Prohibition 
 movement, for the above reasons, is dis- 
 gusting many, so that they take no inter- 
 est in any temperance action. Prohibi- 
 tion is thus hindering moral effort. 
 
 9. They believe that all evils which 
 are not in themselves crimes or sins 
 should be remedied gradually, if the rem- 
 edy is to be a permanent one. 
 
 10. They believe that the selling of 
 liquor is not a crime or a sin, and that to 
 class it with theft or murder is a gross 
 fallacy. 
 
 11. They believe that the evils of 
 liquor-selling are wholly in the excesses 
 that' have been connected with it, and 
 that law should have regard only to those 
 excesses. The crime or sin is in the ex- 
 cess and not in the selling. 
 
 12. They believe that certain forms 
 and ways of liquor-selling, as especially 
 dangerous, should for that reason come 
 under the cognizance of the laws. 
 
 13. They believe that the justice of 
 '• these sentiments is far more available to 
 - turn the public to a true temperance 
 
 than the injustice of the Prohibitionist 
 sentiments, which only exasperate men of 
 good repute and enkindle opposition to 
 all reform. 
 
 14. They believe that Prohibition, if 
 temporarily successful in any _ locality, 
 will produce a fearful re-action in which 
 the moderate men, as they were ignored 
 by the extremists for Prohibition, will be 
 in like manner ignored by the extremists 
 on the other side. 
 
 Howard Crosby. 
 
 Anti-Saloon Republican Move- 
 ment. — A movement inaugurated in 
 1885 by Republican Prohibitionists of 
 Kansas, for the purpose of inducing the 
 Republican party everywhere to adopt " a 
 platform of uncompromising hostility to 
 the saloon;" pressed with considerable 
 earnestness in different parts of the 
 country by individual sympathizers; re- 
 garded", however, with but scant favor by 
 the leaders and masses of the party, and 
 practically abandoned after the Presiden- 
 tial campaign of 1888. 
 
 The defeat of Blaine, Republican can- 
 didate for President in 1884, was attrib- 
 uted by many to the large vote of the 
 Prohibition party, and this was attributed 
 
 to the unsatisfactory attitude of the Re- 
 publicans on the temperance question. 
 When the bitter feelings occasioned by 
 the result had been somewhat soothed, 
 numerous temperance advocates, firmly 
 attached to the Republican organization, 
 began to hope that the party in seeking 
 ways and means for regaining power 
 would show favor for their views. 
 
 Albert Griffin, then editor of the Man- 
 hattan (Kan.) Nationalist, issued a call, 
 dated Dec. 1, 1885, for a National Con- 
 vention of Republican foes of the liquor 
 traffic, to meet at Toledo, 0., May 19, 
 1886. The call was entitled "Destruc- 
 tion to Dramshops," was addressed to 
 "Enemies of the Dramshop," and was 
 signed by 1 146 persons, residents of 63 
 towns of Kansas. It declared that the 
 time had come " when this issue must be 
 squarely made and fought out," and that 
 "the Republican party must and will 
 mount a temperance platform." It in- 
 vited the co-operation of all earnest tem- 
 perance men, " provided they are working 
 for the annihilation of the liquor traf- 
 fic at the earliest possible moment," 
 and closed by appealing to Republicans 
 to " save the grand old party from disin- 
 tegration." Half-way measures or com- 
 promising schemes were not contemplated 
 by this call. 
 
 Mr. Griffin made a tour of the Eastern 
 States, presenting his idea to prominent 
 Republican leaders, and soliciting practi- 
 cal encouragement. He found, however, 
 that the radical Kansas basis would not 
 be acceptable to' the responsible managers 
 of the party. It was impossible, under 
 these circumstances, to make the proposed 
 National Convention a success. The Re- 
 publican organ at Toledo, the Blade, al- 
 though an outspoken opponent of the 
 saloon (under the editorial management 
 of D. R. Locke), regarded the movement 
 with coldness and suspicion, and no State 
 Convention was held to prepare for the 
 proposed national meeting at Toledo. 
 The original call was finally withdrawn, 
 and a new call was issued, providing for 
 a National Conference at Chicago on 
 Sept. 16, 1886. This new call made ma- 
 terial concessions to the timidity of party 
 leaders, and defined the purposes of the 
 movement in the following cautious lan- 
 guage: 
 
 "In the opinion of those who called this Na- 
 tional Conference, the party should not be 
 
Anti-Saloon Republicans.] 
 
 28 
 
 [Anti-Saloon Republicans. 
 
 asked to commit itself nationally to or against 
 any specific law, but should announce as its 
 settled policy that it will everywhere strive to 
 reduce the business of dramselling and the 
 evils resulting from it as much as possible, each 
 State to decide for itself from time to time what 
 laws are best adapted to secure the end in 
 view; and that whenever the people express a 
 desire to vote on Prohibitory Amendments they 
 should be given an opportunity. But whatever 
 is done should be done honestly and with such 
 emphasis that the men engaged in the liquor 
 business will recognize the party as their enemy, 
 and leave its ranks. Nothing short of that will 
 satisfy the temperance forces, and that line of 
 policy need not, and, if properly managed will 
 not, alienate the mass of drinking men. almost 
 all of whom admit that the saloon is a deadly 
 enemy to good order and every human interest. 
 Some will, of course, leave us, but their ranks 
 will in the near future be more than made up 
 by temperance men of other parties who will 
 join us until that issue shall be settled." 
 
 Despite the expressed dissatisfaction of 
 many of the original signers, the elastic 
 policy thus outlined was adhered to ; and 
 the Anti-Saloon Republicans manifested a 
 very reasonable disposition in all the sub- 
 sequent efforts that they made to control 
 the party. Their failure was consequently 
 all the more disappointing and signifi- 
 cant. 
 
 The first State meeting held in sup- 
 port of their programme was for New 
 Jersey, at Trenton, May 26, 1886. In a 
 number of other States conferences met 
 during the summer. The National Con- 
 ference assembled at Chicago on the ap- 
 pointed day, Sept. 16, with about 200 
 delegates present. The tone of the Re- 
 publican press was unfriendly. There 
 was no suitable representation from the 
 States except in two or three instances, 
 and no very influential managers of party 
 affairs were present. Vital demands 
 made by the Prohibition element were 
 rejected, particularly the demand that 
 the party should favor the adoption of 
 Prohibition. An objectionable declara- 
 tion, recognizing taxation of the liquor 
 traffic as a legitimate policy, was inserted 
 in the platform. But there were many 
 earnest and aggressive words spoken, es- 
 pecially by the Permanent Chairman, 
 William Windom (Secretary of the Trea- 
 sury under Garfield and afterwards under 
 Harrison). Senator Henry W. Blair was 
 Temporary Chairman of the Conference. 
 The following is the platform adopted : 
 
 " First. — That the liquor traffic as it exists to- 
 day in the United States is the enemy of society, 
 a fruitful source of corruption in politics, the 
 
 ally of anarchy, a school of crime, and with its 
 avowed purpose of seeking to corruptly control 
 elections and legislation is a menace to the pub- 
 lic welfare and deserves the condemnation of 
 all good men. 
 
 " Second.— That we declare war against the 
 saloon, and hold it to be the supreme duty of 
 the Government to adopt such measures as 
 shall restrict it and control its influence, and at 
 the earliest possible moment extinguish it al- 
 together. 
 
 " Third.— We believe the National Govern- 
 ment should absolutely prohibit the manufac- 
 ture and sale of intoxicating liquors in the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia and in all the Territories of 
 the United States. 
 
 "Fourth. —We believe the best practical 
 method of dealing with the liquor traffic in the 
 several States is to let the people decide whether 
 it shall be prohibited by the submission of Con- 
 stitutional Amendments, and until such Amend- 
 ments are adopted, by the passage of Local Op- 
 tion laws. 
 
 " Fifth.— That inasmuch as the saloon busi- 
 ness creates a special burden of taxation upon 
 the people to support courts, jails and alms- 
 houses, therefore a large annual tax should be 
 levied upon the saloons as long as they continue 
 to exist, and that they should be made respon- 
 sible for all public and private injury resulting 
 from the traffic. 
 
 " Sixth. — That the Republican party, wherever 
 and whenever in power, will faithfully enforce 
 whatsoever ordinances, statutes or Constitutional 
 Amendments may be enacted for the restriction 
 or suppression of the liquor traffic. 
 
 " Seventh. — That we approve the action of 
 Congress, and of those States that have done 
 so, in providing for teaching the physiological 
 effects of intoxicants in our public schools, and 
 that we earnestly recommend to every State 
 Legislature the enactment of such laws as shall 
 provide for the thorough teaching of such effects 
 to our children. 
 
 "Eighth. — JVe demand that the Republican 
 party to which we belong, and whose welfare 
 we cherish, shall take a firm and decided stand, 
 as the friend of the home and the enemy of the 
 saloon, in favor of this policy and these meas- 
 ures. We pledge ourselves to do our utmost 
 to cause the party to take such a stand, and we 
 call upon all temperance men and all friends of 
 humanity of whatever parly or name to join 
 with us in securing these objects and in support 
 of the Republican party so far as it shall adopt 
 them " 
 
 No important results were brought 
 about by the Chicago Conference. A 
 National Committee was selected, with 
 Albert Griffin as Chairman. It opened 
 headquarters in New York, and some work 
 was carried on. A few State meetings 
 were held between September, 1886, and 
 May, 1888, but the attendance was mea- 
 gre in each instance, and the real leaders 
 of the party could not be persuaded to 
 exhibit active interest. The New York 
 Weekly Mail and Express finally consented 
 
Anti-Saloon Republicans.] 
 
 29 
 
 [Anti-Saloon Republicans. 
 
 to become the formal organ of the move- 
 ment, but very little sympathy or atten- 
 tion was bestowed by the press in gen- 
 eral. 
 
 As the Presidential campaign of 1888 
 approached the Anti-Saloon Eepublicans 
 prepared to test their strength in the 
 national councils of the party. A second 
 National Conference was called, to meet 
 in New York, May 2 and 3, 1888. " The 
 Anti-Saloon Republican movement," said 
 the call for this body, " has now reached 
 a magnitude and a momentum which 
 nothing can withstand. It no longer 
 pleads for a hearing. It commands com- 
 pliance. It proposes to place the Eepub- ' 
 lican party where it belongs, positively 
 and finally on the side of the home and 
 the public safety, as against the saloon 
 system and its destructive work. . . . 
 Speaking for an overwhelming majority 
 of Republican voters and good citizens, 
 we respectfully but most urgently ask 
 our brethren of the Republican National 
 Convention, which is to meet in Chicago 
 in June, to incorporate in their platform 
 of principles a declaration of hostility to 
 the saloon as clear and as emphatic as the 
 English language can make it. We ask 
 this because it is right. Right is might." 
 But this Conference was not well attended. 
 There were no very important represent- 
 atives of the party present, and the fi- 
 nance report showed that Mr. Griffin's 
 Committee was hopelessly in debt. Never- 
 theless it was decided to make as good a 
 fight as could be made at the coming Na- 
 tional Convention of the Republican 
 party in Chicago. Despite the complete 
 defeat of the Anti-Saloon Republicans in 
 that body, 1 the services of their organi- 
 zation were given to the National Repub- 
 lican managers in the Presidential con- 
 test. 
 
 Mr. Griffin conducted a campaign bu- 
 reau, publishing and circulating docu- 
 ments which appealed to temperance 
 people to support Harrison and Morton. 
 This bureau was, however, in no way 
 publicly connected with the Republican 
 National Committee, Chairman Quay 
 disclaiming responsibility for it ; and Mr. 
 Griffin was not permitted to carry on his 
 work at the regular headquarters of the 
 party, although a German and Anti-Pro- 
 hibition bureau managed by a prominent 
 
 i See Republican Party. 
 
 " personal liberty" advocate was harbored 
 there. 
 
 After the election the efforts to main- 
 tain an agitation were brought to an end. 
 The New York Weekly Mail and Express 
 continued for some months as the organ 
 of the movement, and Mr. Griffin became 
 its editor. But the proprietors of this 
 newspaper, in July, 1889, perceiving the 
 inconsistency of championing Prohibition 
 while loyally supporting the actual policy 
 of the Republican party, presented to Mr. 
 Griffin the alternative of advocating High 
 License and similar compromises or sever- 
 ing his connection with the paper. He 
 stood by his principles, and with his re- 
 tirement from the Mail and Express the 
 national movement was practically ter- 
 minated. 
 
 The Anti-Saloon Republicans, though 
 never a strong factor in the Prohibition 
 work, made important contributions to 
 the discussion of political issues. There 
 was a natural antagonism between them 
 and the party Prohibitionists, and warm 
 arguments were exchanged. A bitter 
 spirit was manifested at times, especially 
 in the editorials of the Weekly MM and 
 Express before Mr. Griffin assumed charge 
 of that journal. Even the National Com- 
 mittee of the Anti-Saloon Republicans 
 exhibited extreme rancor, and in one mem- 
 orable address emanating from it the 
 party Prohibitionists were derided as " a 
 combination of misguided enthusiasts, 
 moral peacocks, disgruntled politicians, 
 mercenaries and cranks operating in the 
 sacred name of temperance." 
 
 But the conscientiousness and earnest- 
 ness of most of the representative Anti- 
 Saloon Republicans were never questioned. 
 Their arguments and efforts put many 
 individuals to severe but wholesome 
 tests. They were criticized for their con- 
 cessions and tame acquiescence; but if, 
 as Republicans seeking to convert their 
 party organization, they had been more 
 radical and less patient, their ultimate 
 failure would not have been so instruc- 
 tive. The most important reason for 
 their lack of success was expressed by 
 Governor Eoraker of Ohio, in a letter to 
 Mr. Griffin. "We are straightout Repub- 
 licans in Ohio," said he, "with entire 
 confidence that the duly accredited rep- 
 resentatives of the party in convention 
 assembled will always best determine 
 what the party should do." That is, the 
 
Anti-Slavery Parallel.] 
 
 30 
 
 [Anti-Slavery Parallel. 
 
 Anti-Saloon Eepublican movement was 
 irresponsible and irregular, viewed from 
 a strict party standpoint, and the practi- 
 cal politicians were not disposed to en- 
 courage a factional, loosely-connected, 
 sentimental and unauthoritative organi- 
 zation. 
 
 Besides Mr. Griffin, some of the men 
 most conspicuously identified with the 
 cause were Henry B. Metcalf of Ehode 
 Island, Major Z. K. Pangborn, editor of 
 the Jersey City Evening Journal; H. K. 
 Carroll, LL. D., of the Independent; Gen. 
 A. B. Nettleton of Minnesota, Noah 
 Davis of New York, Frank Moss of New 
 York, Bufus S. Frost of Massachusetts, 
 Liston McMillen of Iowa and Alexander 
 S. Bacon of New York. 
 
 Anti-Slavery Parallel, The. — A 
 
 marked similarity is observable in the 
 movements against slavery and against 
 the liquor evil in the United States. 
 Slavery and the liquor traffic were inti- 
 mately associated almost from the begin- 
 ning. The traders who brought ship- 
 loads of slaves to America carried cargoes 
 of rum to Africa. During the Bevolu- 
 tionary period the slave-trade and the 
 liquor traffic alike provided themes for 
 discussion and agitation. The early ef- 
 forts for both reforms were very conserva- 
 tive. The first Anti-Slavery society did 
 not propose Abolition, but was, as its 
 name implies, a " Society for the relief 
 of free negroes unlawfully held in bond- 
 age." Similarly the first temperance so- 
 cieties consisted of individuals pledged 
 "to discountenance the too free use of 
 ardent spirits," or " co restrain and pre- 
 vent the intemperate use of intoxicating 
 liquors." 
 
 In 1775 the first Abolition society was 
 formed at Philadelphia, with Dr. Benja- 
 min Franklin as President, and Dr. 
 Benjamin Eush as Secretary. 
 
 Two years later the question of pro- 
 hibiting whiskey-ma'king came to the sur- 
 face, the following resolution being passed 
 by the Continental Congress at Philadel- 
 phia: 
 
 " Resolved, That it be recommended to the 
 several Legislatures in the United States im- 
 mediately to pass laws the most effectual for 
 putting an immediate stop to the pernicious 
 practice of distilling grain, by which the most 
 
 i The editor is indebted to Rev. D. W. C. Huntington, 
 D. D., of Bradford, Pa. 
 
 extensive evils are likely to he derived if not 
 quickly prevented." 
 
 In 1785 the Manumission Society of 
 New York City was formed, with John 
 Jay as its President, to secure the free- 
 dom of slaves. That same year Dr. Ben- 
 jamin Eush put forth his famous tract, 
 '" An Inquiry into the Effects of Ardent 
 Spirits upon the Human Mind and Body," 
 which created a profound sensation and 
 led to the " Memorial of the College of 
 Physicians to the Senate of the United 
 States Congress," deprecating the use of 
 ardent spirits and recommending the im- 
 position of high duties upon their impor- 
 tation. This memorial was presented 
 Dec. 29, 1790. Four years later, in 1794, 
 the Quakers presented to Congress the 
 first Anti-Slavery petition. Soon after 
 this Abolition societies sprang into exist- 
 ence in various parts of the country as 
 did also anti-liquor societies. As early as 
 1789 a number of farmers of Litchfield 
 County, Conn., combined to do their agri- 
 cultural work without recourse to spirit- 
 uous liquors. 
 
 In 1805, at Allentown, N. J., the 
 " Sober Society " was founded, and in 
 1808, at Moreau, N. Y., an organization 
 believed to have been the first so-called 
 "Temperance Society "was established. 
 In 1816 a newspaper called the Appeal 
 was started at St. Clairsville, 0., to cham- 
 pion the Anti-Slavery cause. The move- 
 ment against slavery languished for some 
 years, but in 1831 new life was given to 
 the agitation by William Lloyd Garrison's 
 Liberator, and from that time forward the 
 issue became of paramount importance. 
 In 1834 President Jackson recommended 
 to Congress the passage of an act sup- 
 pressing Anti-Slavery literature. The 
 Whig party opposed this radical measure, 
 and many Abolitionists looked to that 
 party to advocate their principles, much 
 as Prohibitionists of a later day looked 
 to the Eepublican party. In November, 
 1839, a number of Abolitionists met at 
 Warsaw, N. Y., and organized a political 
 Anti-Slavery party with a platform con- 
 sisting of a single plank as follows : 
 
 "Resolved, That in our judgment every 
 consideration of duty and expediency which 
 ought to control the action of Christian free- 
 men requires of the Abolitionists of the United 
 States to organize a distinct and independent 
 political party, embracing all the necessary 
 means for nominating candidates foe office and 
 sustaining them by public suffrage. " 
 
Anti-Slavery Parallel.] 
 
 31 
 
 [Anti-Slavery Parallel. 
 
 This was about 64 years after the or- 
 ganization of the first Abolition society; 
 and 64 years after the Moreau " Temper- 
 ance Society " was formed the Prohibition 
 political party held its first National 
 Nominating Convention (at Columbus, 0., 
 Feb. 22, 1872). 
 
 Nothing is more remarkable in the his- 
 tory of these two political movements than 
 the striking similarity between the argu- 
 ments against separate party action 
 brought to bear upon the adherents of 
 the " Third Party " of a generation ago, 
 and those used to show the inexpediency 
 and immorality of radical Prohibitionists 
 to-day. As " Prohibition doesn't prohibit " 
 is a favorite claim of the anti-Prohibi- 
 tionists, so the prediction that emancipa- 
 tion would not emancipate was indus- 
 triously urged by the anti-Abolitionists. 
 " It is a singular fact," said the People's 
 Friend of Skowhegan, Me. (a pro-slavery 
 paper), "that while it is well known that 
 the emancipation of African slaves in the 
 West Indies, especially in the island of 
 Jamaica, has not only rendered the island 
 a desert, but the Africans themselves the 
 most miserable savages and idolators, yet 
 clergymen, men professing the Christian 
 religion, should from their pulpits recom- 
 mend a similar course in this country. It 
 is not emancipation itself that is com- 
 plained of, but the injudicious manner in 
 which it was done — emancipation without 
 regard to consequences or the future wel- 
 fare of the slaves. It is said that the 
 Jamaica negroes are the most miserable 
 beings on the face of the earth, and are 
 fast returning to the worship of idols, 
 beasts, trees and serpents." x 
 
 The following appeal in the Portland 
 Inquirer, just before the Presidential 
 election of 1852 (Oct. 28), corresponds 
 in letter and spirit with the closing words 
 addressed at the end of each political 
 campaign to the rank and file of the 
 Prohibitionists by their leaders : 
 
 " Vote for principle: vote right, and you need 
 not fear the consequences. A vote given in ac- 
 cordance with the dictates of conscience is not 
 lost; its salutary influence, a noble ""testimony 
 for truth and freedom, will be felt, whether the 
 candidate for whom it is given is elected or not. 
 Those votes only are lost which are given for 
 unfit men, in violation of principle." 
 
 The Abolitionists, like the Prohibition- 
 ists, were bitterly taunted with the com- 
 
 > Quoted in Austin Willey's Enquirer (published at 
 Portland, Me.), Aug. 83, 1853. 
 
 parative insignificance of their party 
 strength and besought to abandon a 
 political organization that seemed to be 
 without prospect of success. Keplying to 
 this method of reasoning, the Portland 
 Inquirer said, Sept. 8, 1853: 
 
 " Many people have been unable to see how 
 voting for the Free Democracy [Abolition 
 party] could effect anything in favor of free 
 ^principles. They have figured it. and cannot 
 make out that we shall ever secure decisive ma- 
 jorities, and without that, votes are all thrown 
 away. . . . The fact is, we shall have ma- 
 jorities fast enough by and by. but at present we 
 hardly need them. A powerful, firm minority 
 for just principles is in the end precisely equiva- 
 lent to a majority. ... In Ohio there is a 
 good illustration of the power of our votes, 
 though a decided minority of a little over 30.000. 
 While the slave Democracy all over the country 
 elsewhere are prostrating themselves upon the 
 Baltimore platform [of 1852], and before the 
 inaugural, like the worshippers of Baal around 
 his altar, the party in that State dare do no such 
 thing How plain from these facts the value of 
 a free vote, although it may not elect. . . 
 Such results aie within our reach while a small 
 minority, and when these are gained the step 
 will be short to majorities. Roll up, then, the 
 votes of free men. We can succeed." 
 
 The speeches of noted Abolition advo- 
 cates are replete with arguments that, with 
 slight adaptation, might be repeated by 
 those desiring to most effectively answer 
 the popular objections to the Prohibition 
 party. Charles Sumner, in an address 
 delivered in the Metropolitan Theatre of 
 New York, May 9, 1855, said : 
 
 " In such a cause I am willing to be called 
 'fanatic.' or what you will; I care not for 
 aspersions, nor shall I shrink before hard words, 
 either here or elsewhere. Hard words have 
 been followed by personal disparagement, and 
 the sneer is often launched that our enterprise 
 lacks the authority of names eminent in church 
 and State. If this be so the more is the pity on 
 their account ; for our cause is needed to them 
 more than they are needed to our cause. But 
 alas! It is only according to the example of his- 
 tory that it should be so. It is not the eminent 
 in church and State, the rich and powerful, the 
 favorites of fortune and of place, who most 
 promptly welcome Truth when she heralds 
 change in the existing order of things It is 
 others in poorer condition who throw open their 
 hospitable hearts to the unattended stranger. 
 Nay, more ; it is not the dwellers amid the glare 
 of the world, but the humble and lowly, who 
 most clearly discern new duties, as the watchers 
 placed in the depths of a well may observe the 
 stars which are obscured to those who live in 
 the effulgence of noon. Placed below the ego- 
 tism and prejudice of self-interest or of a class — 
 below the cares and temptations of wealth or 
 power, — in the obscurity of common life, they 
 discern the new signal and surrender themselves 
 unreservedly to its guidance. The Saviour 
 
Anti-Slavery Parallel.] 
 
 32 
 
 [Anti-Slavery Parallel. 
 
 knew this. He did not call the Priest or Levite 
 or Pharisee to follow him, but upon the humble 
 fishermen of the Sea of Galilee. " 
 
 And in another speech (Sept. 16, 1852) 
 Mr. Sumner made the following reply to 
 the frequent declaration that a " third 
 party " effort was inexpedient and hope- 
 less: 
 
 " But there is one apology which is in com- 
 mon to the supporters of both the old parties 
 and which is often in their mouths when pressed 
 for their inconsistent persistence in adhering to 
 these parties It is dogmatically asserted that 
 there can be but two parties, that a third party 
 is impossible, particularly in our country, and 
 that, therefore, all persons, however opposed to 
 slavery must be content in one of the old par- 
 ties. This assumption, which is without any 
 foundation in reason, has been so often put 
 forth that it has acquired a certain currency ; 
 and many who reason hastily, or who implicitly 
 follow others, have adopted it as their all-suf- 
 ficient excuse for their conduct. Confessing 
 their own opposition to slavery, they yet yield 
 to the domination of party and become dumb. 
 All this is wrong morally, and, therefore, must 
 be wrong politically." 
 
 Joshua R. Giddings, explaining the 
 rationale of the separate party movement 
 for Abolition, used these striking words 
 in a speech in the National House of 
 Representatives, June 23, 1852 : 
 
 " I am aware that a strong effort is making to 
 induce our Free Democracy [Abolitionists] to 
 sustain the Whig candidate [Gen. Winfield 
 Scott] at the coming election. With the gentle- 
 man nominated I have long been acquainted. 
 To him nor to the Democratic nominee have I 
 any personal objection. But if elected he is 
 pledged to maintain the outrages, the revolting 
 crimes pertaining to the compromise measures 
 and Fugitive Slave law. to render them per 
 petual so far as he may be able, to prevent all 
 discussion relating to them. To vote for him is 
 to vote for his policy, to identify ourselves in 
 favor of the avowed doctrines which he is 
 pledged to support, to give proof by our votes 
 that wo approve the platform on which he 
 stands. But, sir. why vote for Scott in prefer- 
 ence to Pierce ? Of the men I say nothing. 
 They merely represent the doctrines of the 
 parties that nominated them. . . . The doc- 
 trines of the Whig party pledge them and their 
 candidate to maintain slavery. . . This is 
 as far, I think, as human depravity can go. If 
 the Democratic party has dived deeper into 
 moral political putridity, some archangel fallen 
 must have penned their confession of faith. If 
 there be such a distinction, it can only be dis- 
 covered by a refinement of casuistry too intricate 
 for honest men to exert. Sir, suppose there was 
 a shade of distinction in the depths of depravity 
 to which those parties have descended, does it 
 become men — free men — men of moral princi- 
 ple, of political integrity — to be straining their 
 visions and using intellectual microscopes to dis- 
 cover that shade of moral darkness ? No, sir ; 
 let every man who feels he has a country to 
 
 save, a character to sustain— that he owes a duty 
 to mankind and to God — come forward at once, 
 and wage a bold and exterminating war against 
 these doctrines, so abhorrent to freedom and 
 humanity." 
 
 The bitter opposition of many good 
 men to the radical Prohibition movement 
 was paralleled in the Anti-Slavery crusade. 
 Biblical arguments were used by the an- 
 tagonists of Abolition. Although most of 
 the active Abolitionists were devout 
 Christians, and the cause derived earnest 
 and able support from the churches, vig- 
 orous resistance was offered by influential 
 clergymen. Rev. Nehemiah Adams of 
 Boston, Rev. Dr. Lord (President of Dart- 
 mouth College), and Bishop Hopkins of 
 Vermont wrote books to counteract the 
 teachings of the Abolitionists. So dis- 
 tinguished and noble-spirited a Methodist 
 leader as Wilbur Fisk discouraged their 
 efforts. 1 It is said that only three of the 
 23 ministers in Springfield, 111. (Lincoln's 
 home), voted for Abraham Lincoln in 
 1860. 
 
 The Whig party treated the slavery 
 question in essentially the same way that 
 its successor, the Republican party, has 
 treated the Prohibition issue. In locali- 
 ties where the Abolition sentiment was 
 strong the Whigs professed Anti Slavery, 
 sympathy and tendencies, and made much 
 of the pro-slavery attitude of the Demo- 
 crats. Elsewhere they took all necessary 
 pains to assure the slave power that the 
 party would protect its interests. E. V. 
 Smalley's valuable " History of the Re- 
 publican Party" (New York, 1884), dis- 
 cusses in a very candid way the unsatis- 
 factory and cowardly behavior of the 
 Whigs. " The Whigs dodged the slavery 
 question altogether," says Mr. Smalley 
 (p. 17); and "as a national organization 
 it [the Whig party] was obliged to cater 
 to the South, . . . and no positive 
 declaration against the extension of sla- 
 very could be got from its conventions " 
 (p. 15). The Abolitionists were fre- 
 quently charged with responsibility for 
 defeating the Whig party, just as the 
 Prohibitionists are blamed for beating the 
 Republicans. In 1844 it was the Aboli- 
 tion vote in the State of New York that 
 caused the defeat of Henry Clay for the 
 Presidency; and just 40 years later the 
 defeat of Blaine was attributed to the 
 large Prohibition vote in the same State. 
 
 1 See "Life of Wilbur Fisk," by George Prentice, D T> 
 (Boston, 1890), pp. 194-321. "' 
 
Anti-Slavery Parallel.] 
 
 33 
 
 [Applet on, James. 
 
 All sorts of compromises were resorted 
 to during the Anti-Slavery agitation. 
 Slavery was permitted in some States and 
 forbidden in others. Even the tax plea 
 was advocated : several times it was pro- 
 posed in Congress to put a tax upon im- 
 ported slaves, and thus secure a Govern- 
 ment revenue from a traffic that " could 
 not be suppressed." Indeed, there were 
 plausible reasons for the claim that the 
 slave trade could not be stopped ; for ac- 
 cording to the admission of Southern men 
 the smuggling of African negroes into 
 Southern ports was regularly carried on 
 for years after the traffic was prohibited, 
 and although it was declared by act of 
 Congress that all Africans landed in the 
 United States should be forfeited to the 
 Government and entitled to freedom, not 
 one African of all the 100,000 or more so 
 landed was ever forfeited. 
 
 A still more curious coincidence is 
 found in the fact that statesmen of the 
 highest character and talent strenuously 
 insisted that legalization of the slave sys- 
 tem had made it thoroughly legitimate 
 and established a right of property in 
 slaves not to be gainsayed or rudely dis- 
 turbed. Thus Henry Clay said in a 
 speech that "Two hundred years of 
 legislation have sanctioned and sanctified 
 negro slaves as property." 1 
 
 The Abolitionists, like the Prohibi- 
 tionists, were unmercifully abused and 
 ridiculed. Daniel Webster called their 
 movement " a rub-a-dub agitation " 2 
 Henry Clay sneeringly said they were 
 " under the influence of negrophobia." 3 
 Chancellor Walworth called them "vis- 
 ionary enthusiasts " and " reckless dema-. 
 gogues." 4 Mr. Preston of South Carolina, 
 in a speech in Congress on a motion 
 made by James Buchanan, said that they 
 were " hot-headed and cold-hearted, igno- 
 rant and blood-thirsty fanatics." Their 
 petitions were denounced as "the rant 
 and rhapsody of meddling fanatics, inter- 
 larded with texts of Scripture." A lead- 
 ing Whig journal of Albany, 1ST. Y., said 
 of the Free-Soilers : " They now consti- 
 tute a sectional, political, Abolition party, 
 with that poor despised member of the 
 United States Senate, William H. Seward, 
 
 'Quoted in "Complete Works of W. E. Channing, 
 D.D." (London, George Routledge & Sons), p. 660. 
 
 a Speeches and Lectures of Wendell Phillips (Lee & 
 Shepard, 1884), pp. 33, 89, 50. 
 
 a Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, by 
 Henry Wilson, vol. 1, p. 139. 
 
 * Ibid, vol. 1, p. 235. 
 
 for their leader. They can never succeed 
 in this State, and if they could they must 
 be a miserable minority and powerless in 
 the nation." 
 
 Nearly all the most earnest Anti- 
 Slavery leaders were devoted to temper- 
 ance principles, frequently advocating ad- 
 vanced legislation. Gerrit Smith, Charles' 
 Sumner, Henry Wilson, Abraham Lin- 
 coln, Wendell Phillips, Horace Greeley 
 and many others were thoroughly in 
 sympathy with the anti-liquor cause. 
 
 The vote of the Anti-Slavery men in 
 national contests was at first discourag- 
 ingly small, and even after four Presi- 
 dential compaigns had been fought their 
 strength was unimportant when compared 
 with that of either of the other parties. 
 Below are given the votes cast for the 
 Presidential candidates of the Anti- 
 Slavery men and also of the Prohibition- 
 ists: 
 
 ANTI-SLAVERY TOTE. 
 
 1840, James G. Birney (Liberty party), 7,059 
 1844, James G. Birney (Liberty party), 62,300 
 1848, Martin Van Buren (Free-Soil 
 
 party) 291,263 
 
 1852, John P. Hale (Free-Soil party), 156,140 
 1856, John C. Fremont (Republican 
 
 party} 1 - ,341,264 
 
 1860, Abraham Lincoln (Republican 
 
 party) 1,866,352 
 
 PROHIBITION' VOTE. 
 
 1872, James Black 5,607 
 
 1876, Green Clay Smith 9,737 
 
 1880, NealDow 9,678 
 
 1884, John P. St. John 150,626 
 
 1888, Clinton B. Fisk 249,945 
 
 The heavy decrease in the Anti-Slavery 
 vote in 1852 was due to the desertion of 
 many Democrats who had voted for ex- 
 President Van Buren in 1848 from per- 
 sonal reasons rather than because of 
 deep-seated convictions against slavery. 
 With the Presidential contest of 1852 the 
 Whig party made its last national cam- 
 paign of importance ; its disintegration 
 followed, and in the struggles of 1856 
 and 1860 its successor, the Eepublican 
 party, took an attitude satisfactory to 
 most of the foes of slavery. These ex- 
 planations are important in comparing 
 the Abolition and Prohibition votes. 
 
 Appletonj James.— Born in Ipswich, 
 in 1786, and died at the same 
 place in 1862. He was prominent as an 
 Abolitionist, and early in life became in- 
 terested in the temperance reform. In 
 
Arthur, Timothy Shay.] 
 
 34 
 
 f Austin, Henry W. 
 
 1831 he listened to a debate on the license 
 question in the Massachusetts Legisla- 
 ture, and from that time forward was firm 
 in the conviction that the liquor traffic, if 
 injurious, should be prohibited and not 
 licensed or countenanced in any way. 
 He thus early became a champion of ab- 
 solute Prohibition, and in 1832 clearly 
 stated his views in a series of letters in 
 the Salem Gazette. " The license system 
 has been tried," he wrote, " and we have 
 a right to pronounce it a total failure. 
 The best test of the utility of any law is 
 experience. There is no ground for be- 
 lieving that a greater quantity of ardent 
 spirits would have been consumed had 
 there been no regulations of its sale what- 
 ever. A law should be passed pro- 
 hibiting the sale of ardent spirits. 
 Why should it not be. prohibited ? It 
 has been proved again and again, by com- 
 petent witnesses, that so far from being 
 valuable to any one purpose, it is the dir- 
 est calamity that ever visited our world." 
 In 1833 Gen. Appleton removed to Port- 
 land, Me., where he resided for 20 years. 
 In 1836 he was elected to theMaine Leg- 
 islature. In presenting his report as 
 Chairman of a certain committee he took 
 occasion to make an able plea for entire 
 Prohibition. "If we have any law on 
 the subject," said he, " it should be abso- 
 lutely Prohibitory." This report was laid 
 on the table, but its unanswerable logic 
 opened the way for the expression of 
 public sentiment resulting in the enact- 
 ment of the famous Maine law of 184G, 
 and the passage of the improved measure 
 (with search and seizure clauses) of 1851. 
 Perhaps to Gen. James Appleton, rather 
 than to any other man, belongs the title 
 of " Father of Prohibition." 
 
 Ardent Spirits. — A term applied to 
 distilled liquors containing a large pro- 
 portion of alcohol, as distinguished from 
 malt and vinous liquors containing a 
 small proportion. 
 
 Arizona. — See Index. 
 
 Arkansas. — See Index. 
 
 Arthur, Timothy Shay. — Born 
 
 near Newburgh, N. Y.,in 1809, and died 
 in Philadelphia, March 6, 1885. In 1817 
 he removed with his parents to Baltimore, 
 Md. His school advantages were few, 
 and he was considered stupid and un- 
 
 promising as a pupil. His progress was 
 so slow that his father concluded that the 
 attempt to educate him was a waste of 
 time, and he was apprenticed to learn a 
 trade. During his years of apprentice- 
 ship he adopted a system of self-educa- 
 tion through reading. When 18 years of 
 age he became a member of the first 
 temperance society organized in Mary- 
 land, and ever after he was an earnest 
 champion of "the movement. Defective 
 eye-sight forced him to abandon his 
 trade after he had followed it seven years, 
 and during the next three years he was in 
 a counting-room. His new position gave 
 him more time for reading "and writing, 
 and he began to contribute to the press, 
 but without compensation and with no 
 idea of making literature his profession. , 
 Obtaining the editorial charge of a news- 
 paper in 1833, he soon achieved some 
 local reputation. In 1836 he was mar- 
 ried to Eliza Aid en of Portland, Me., 
 who became a devoted wife and bore him 
 seven children. In 1841 he removed to 
 Philalelphia, and began to produce 
 sketches, magazine articles and books 'at 
 a rapid rate. He established a periodical, 
 which, having undergone many changes, 
 is still published as Arthur's Illustrated 
 Home Magazine. He also projected the 
 Children's Hour and the Working-man. 
 Though the earliest of Mr. Arthur's writ- 
 ings were more or less sensational, most 
 of his distinctive work belongs to the 
 order of mild, moral fiction. His remi- 
 niscences of the Washingtonian movement 
 inspired his book, " Six Nights with the 
 Washingtonians," which had a large sale. 
 His best-known temperance tale is " Ten 
 Nights in a Barroom." It became im- 
 mediately popular, and very large editions 
 were sold. In 1872 he published " Three 
 Years in a Man-Trap," another tempe^ 
 ranee story which shared the popularity 
 of its predecessors. 
 
 Atlanta. — See Local Option. 
 
 Austin, Henry W.— Born in Skane- 
 ateles, New York, Aug. 1, 1828, and died 
 in Oak Park, 111., Dec. 24, 1889. He left 
 home at the age of 21 and engaged in 
 business, first in New Haven, Conn., then 
 in Kingston, Can., and Syracuse, N. Y., 
 and finally in Chicago, where he opened 
 a hardware store. By patient industry 
 and judicious investments when Chi- 
 cago was young, he acquired considerable 
 
Australasia.] 
 
 35 
 
 [Australasia. 
 
 property. He was the founder of a 
 thriving suburb of Chicago bearing his 
 name. One of its residents says of this 
 town that "among its 5,000 people no 
 saloon has ever intruded, nor any dis- 
 orderly house, nor have so many as a 
 score of arrests ever been made there from 
 crimes resulting from intoxicating drinks 
 or broils, except of persons from the 
 neighboring city." For 25 years he re- 
 sided in Oak Park, another Chicago sub- 
 urb. Cursed at first with saloons and a 
 foreign population that it was impossible 
 to out-vote, Oak Park is now one of the 
 model temperance towns of Illinois. Mr. 
 Austin was mainly responsible for the 
 reform. The last saloon in the place was 
 banished through his action in leasing for 
 $5,000, for a term of ten years, the 
 premises occupied by it. He was elected 
 to the State Legislature to advocate the 
 idea, originating with him, of setting 
 aside land in Chicago for a system of 
 parks to surround the city. The miles of 
 beautiful park-lands on the west side of 
 the city are the result of his labor. Al- 
 ways a temperance man, Mr. Austin, 
 while a member of the Legislature, se- 
 cured the passage of a bill making land- 
 lords as well as saloon-keepers responsible 
 for the damages resulting from the sale of 
 intoxicants. This was generally regarded 
 at the time as a radical measure. During 
 the Presidential campaign of 1884 he left 
 the Eepublicans to ally himself with the 
 Prohibition party. From this time until 
 his death he was actively identified with 
 the cause of Prohibition, and contributed 
 liberally toward its advancement both by 
 financial support and personal labor. 
 For some time he was Chairman of the 
 Illinois State Prohibition Committee, and 
 afterwards was manager of the Lever. 
 
 Australasia. — Australia is divided 
 into five parts, with areas and populations 
 as follows : (1) Western Australia, 975,920 
 square miles; population, 45,000. (2) 
 South Australia, 903,425 square miles; 
 population, 313,000. (3) Queensland, 
 668,224 square miles; population, 364,- 
 000. (4) New South Wales, 309,175 
 square miles; population, 1,045,000. (5) 
 Victoria, 87,884 square miles; popula- 
 tion, 1,035,000. Two important islands 
 are to be added: (6) Tasmania, 26,375 
 square miles, with a population of 141,- 
 000. (7) New Zealand, 104,235 square 
 
 miles, with a population of 607,000. 
 Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand 
 are British colonies, and, taken together, 
 constitute what is known as Australasia. 
 Of the 1,044 people with whom Capt. 
 Phillips founded the first settlement in 
 Australia (Sydney, 1788), seven-tenths 
 were convicted criminals, and the remain- 
 der their guard, In celebration of the 
 event a pint of rum was given to every 
 man, half a pint to every woman, and a 
 pint of porter to every soldier. For years 
 afterward convicts were cast by the hun- 
 dreds on these shores, and how the drink 
 was honored might be seen from the fact 
 that the very rum barrels bore the stamp 
 of the. Royal Mint. As the State, so the 
 church was founded in liquor. It is 
 recorded that part of the cost for build- 
 ing the first Church of England was paid 
 in Jamaica rum. The evil results were 
 soon apparent, and various Governors 
 raised their voices against the traffic. In 
 1797 Governor Hunter wrote : " The in- 
 troduction of this destructive trade has 
 done immense mischief. Spirituous 
 liquors have completed the ruin of many 
 who might have been perfectly independ- 
 ent." And when the farmers asked for 
 Government relief he said, "Shut up 
 your drink-shops." Governor Blyth writes 
 that in 1807 "the farmers were in debt 
 chiefly because of their parting with their 
 crops for drink." But these warning 
 voices did not avail. Though several of 
 the American and English emigrants 
 during 1835-7 were total abstainers, it 
 was not until 1838 that the real total 
 abstinence movement commenced. In 
 that year (September) Mr. William Rowe, 
 an English pledged abstainer, succeeded 
 in Sydney, with the support of the Gov- 
 ernor, in forming the first Australian 
 total abstinence society. Governor Gipps 
 himself became President of the men's, 
 and Lady Gipps of the woman's branch of 
 the society. Its motto was, " Temper- , 
 ance is moderation in things innocent ' 
 and abstinence from things hurtful." 
 Similar societies were started at Hobart 
 (Tas.) 1839, Adelaide (S. A.) 1840, and 
 Melbourne (Vict.) 1842. Since then 
 nearly all American and English total 
 abstinence societies have been nominally 
 reproduced in Australia. But many, 
 especially the larger ones — and notably 
 the Melbourne Total Abstinence Society 
 — are mere money-making institutions. 
 
Australasia.] 
 
 36 
 
 [Australasia. 
 
 In the beginning, however, the total 
 abstinence societies were doing good 
 work ; but the gold discoveries (1851) 
 brought sudden wealth and spendthrift 
 riotous living. What enormous riches 
 the drink traffic amassed during the 
 decade 1852-G2 is seen from the following 
 official figures, unparalleled, I believe, in 
 drink annals: In Victoria, in 1852, the 
 drink-bill per head reached £21 14 5; in 
 18513 £27 19 7. 
 
 Meanwhile immigrants from America 
 and England had brought news of the 
 political temperance movements in those 
 countries, and in February, 1857, Mr. G. 
 J. Crouch of Sydney inaugurated the po- 
 litical temperance work by starting the 
 New South Wales Alliance. It followed 
 faithfully the footsteps of the United 
 Kingdom Alliance, but found slight sup- 
 port. In 1883 it was reorganized and 
 baptized the New South Wales Local 
 Option League. In the other colonies 
 political temperance movements were 
 begun, but with small results. Of these, 
 specially worthy of remembrance is the 
 one formed more than thirty years ago on 
 pure Maine Law lines by the noble vet- 
 eran philanthropist, Dr. Singleton of 
 Melbourne. It died from want of funds. 
 Meanwhile the traffic grew richer and 
 steadily intrenched itself in legislatures 
 and society. In Melbourne (1880) an 
 International Temperance Convention 
 passed a resolution urging each colony to 
 form an Alliance for securing Local Op- 
 tion. This was soon accomplished, and 
 from then till now the political policy of 
 the temperance forces in Australia has 
 been to secure what is called " complete 
 Local Option " in the matter of public- 
 house licenses. Laws on these lines were 
 passed in New Zealand (1881), in Queens- 
 land (1885), partial ones in New South 
 Wales (1883) and Victoria (1885), some 
 granting Local Option as regards new 
 licenses, and some Local Option as 
 regards excess over what is termed stat- 
 utory number of licenses (on the lines of 
 the Ontario, Can., Crooks act), subject 
 to compensation. Those colonies not yet 
 under Local Option are clamoring for it, 
 and those that have it are dissatisfied — 
 Victoria and New South Wales with the 
 character of the Local Option, New 
 Zealand and Queensland with its 
 results. It is no wonder; for although 
 the Queensland Local Option is the 
 
 acknowledged goal to which all the 
 rest are tending, still, according to 
 the uncontradicted statement of the 
 Victorian Alliance Secretary in the Inter- 
 national Temperance Convention at 
 Melbourne in 1888, "only three 
 public houses had thus far been closed up 
 l)y means of that act." On the same 
 occasion Sir William Fox, ex-Premier and 
 President of the New Zealand Alliance, 
 said of that country : "It may be imag- 
 ined the people can now do what they 
 like. In theory they can, but not in 
 practice. The act has been in existence 
 for seven years and there have been a 
 number of committees with a majority of 
 teetotallers on the Bench, but during that 
 period out of 1,500 public houses in the 
 colony only 25 have been suppressed on 
 the ground that they were not wanted." 
 Still the cry is Local Option, and, if pos- 
 sible, louder than ever. Rev. Mr. Nich- 
 olson's paper to the International Tem- 
 perance Convention (1888) about South 
 Australia, says : "(1) Our first demand 
 is for Local Option in the threefold de- 
 grees provided by the Queensland act, viz. : 
 First, as applied against an increase of 
 licenses ; second, for a definite numerical 
 decrease; third, for the cessation of all 
 licenses where temperance sentiment is 
 strong and permanent. (2) We seek a 
 repeal of the clause that grants a renewal 
 of license as a matter of course." 
 
 Thus the Australasian pseudo-Local 
 Option movement resolves itself into a 
 licensing reform movement such as the 
 United States liquor traffic would proba- 
 bly gladly embrace ; but here the traffic 
 is strong enough to dictate better terms. 
 For example, according to the Good 
 Templar, the leading temperance paper 
 of the colonies, in the general elections 
 of March, 1889, in New South Wales, in a 
 House of 137 members 101 were in favor 
 of Local Option, 19 doubtful, 17 opposed; 
 yet when, on the 2d of August following, 
 after a two months' notice, it was pro- 
 posed to introduce the Liquor Traffic 
 Veto bill, the House was counted out. 
 In Victoria it is even worse. The leader 
 in the Licensed Victualers' Advocate, liquor 
 organ of Victoria, for Feb. G, 1S89, said: 
 " It is an open secret that in the ranks 
 of the trade there is a good deal of sym- 
 pathy with the policy of Local Option." 
 So general was this " sympathy " that the 
 Victorian Alliance issued a special mani- 
 
Australasia.] 
 
 37 
 
 [Australasia. 
 
 festo on the eve of the elections warning 
 electors to " beware of the wolf in sheep's 
 clothing as personified in the publicans' 
 candidate who advocates Local Option." 
 
 In the teeth of the most unsparing 
 opposition it has ever been my fate to 
 observe, I have succeeded in forming a 
 Prohibition nucleus — the Victorian Home 
 Protection party — on the same basis as I 
 adopted in England and Sweden. We 
 are determined to divide the country, if 
 possible, on the issue of home-protection 
 or home-destruction — our platform in- 
 cluding, besides the destruction of the 
 drink, the securing of Woman Suffrage, 
 compulsory State education in citizen- 
 ship and ballot reform. 
 
 Axel Gustafsost. 
 
 Supplemental Facts, from J. W. Mea- 
 den, Editor of the Melbourne Alliance 
 Record. — Among the temperance organ- 
 izations first formed in the Australasian 
 colonies was the Independent Order of 
 Rechabites, which now has a total mem- 
 bership of about 25,000, one-half being in 
 Victoria. The Order of the Sons and 
 Daughters of Temperance is divided into 
 two National Divisions — the "Austral- 
 asian " and the " Victorian and South 
 Australian"— with a combined member- 
 ship of between 9,000 and 10,000. 
 
 The Independent Order of Good Tem- 
 plars has, with varying success, aided 
 during the past years in the work of " re- 
 claiming the fallen and keeping others 
 from falling." It has established Grand 
 Lodges in all the colonies, and has a 
 membership in New South Wales of 
 16,6G8 adults, in Victoria of about 4,000, 
 in Queensland of 3,000 and in New Zea- 
 land of 5,498. 
 
 The newest organization for the promo- 
 tion of temperance principles is the Wo- 
 man's Christian Temperance Union, trans- 
 planted from America by Mary Clement 
 Leavitt, and apparently destined to take 
 deep root in Australia. It is still in the 
 initial stage of its history, but Unions are 
 being rapidly formed throughout Austral- 
 asia. The work of organization has been 
 undertaken by ladies who are not only of 
 devoted spirit but who possess special 
 qualifications for their important duties. 
 Gospel temperance effort is carried on by 
 numerous workers, there are many 
 Bands of Hope, and considerable atten- 
 tion is paid to the temperance movement 
 by the most advanced of the churches. 
 
 The following table shows the annual 
 consumption of liquors and their values 
 in the various Australasian colonies for 
 the year 1887: * 
 
 H 
 
 rjj 
 
 rO 
 
 A 
 
 * 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 pr 
 
 8 
 1 
 
 3 
 s 
 
 Ui 
 
 
 3 
 5' 
 
 > 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 £ 
 
 . 
 
 a. 
 
 S3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l-L 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 M 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 ji 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 <o 
 
 
 to 
 
 -> 
 
 
 SB 
 n.' 
 
 
 I II 
 
 ~3 
 
 2? 1 
 
 t-i CO 
 
 8 3 
 
 £<* 
 
 
 £ IS 
 
 -» eo Q0 tn 
 
 *->■ -~i a> 
 
 a i-h 
 
 "3 
 
 O p 
 
 g 1 
 
 •o C 
 
 Local Option is the accepted policy. 
 The present conditions may be summar- 
 ized as follows: 
 
 i The calculations for Hew South Wales are by the Eev. 
 F B Boyee ot Sydney, and those Tor New Zealand by Mr. 
 C M Gray of Christchurch. Mr. J- D. Merson, who is a 
 recognized authority on the subject of Australasian tem- 
 perance statistics, based his estimates of the other Col- 
 onies upon returns supplied by the respective Govern- 
 ments. 
 
Australasia.] 
 
 38 
 
 [Austria. 
 
 1. New South Wales. — Every three 
 years the people vote on the follow- 
 ing questions : (1) "Shall any new publi- 
 cans' licenses be granted in respect of 
 premises situate within the ward or mu- 
 nicipality for the period of three years 
 from this date ? " (2) " Shall any renewals 
 of publicans' licenses be granted in re- 
 spect of premises situate within the ward 
 or municipality for the period of three 
 years from this date ? " The publican's 
 license fee is £30. Entire Sunday-clos- 
 ing is required, under a maximum pen- 
 alty of £20. Persons apparently under 
 16 not to be furnished with liquor for 
 their own consumption on the premises. 
 
 2. New Zealand. — (1) A Licensing 
 Committee is vested with power to 
 grant or refuse licenses. Those who wish 
 to shut up the saloons must elect men in 
 favor of doing so. (2) A vote is taken 
 every three years to determine whether 
 or not new licenses shall be issued. Pub- 
 lican's license fee, £25 to £40. Entire 
 Sunday-closing required, under maxi- 
 mum penalty for first offense of £10. 
 Children under 16 not allowed to drink 
 on the premises. 
 
 3. Queensland. — This colony possesses 
 the only provision for complete local Pro- 
 hibition by direct vote. A poll may be 
 taken in any division or subdivision, upon 
 the petition of one-sixth of the ratepay- 
 ers. Wine-seller's license fee, £10; vict- 
 ualler's license fee, £30. Entire Sunday- 
 closing required, under maximum penalty 
 of £5. Children under 14 not to be sup- 
 plied under any circumstances. 
 
 4. Victoria. — Electors may reduce the 
 number of hotels to a statutory limit — one 
 hotel for each 250 inhabitants up to the 
 first 1,000, and after that one for each 
 500. Spirit-merchant's license, £25. En- 
 tire Sunday-closing required, under max- 
 imum penalty of £10. Children under 
 16 not allowed to drink on the premises. 
 
 5. South Australia. — Limited Sunday 
 selling allowed between the hours 1 and 
 3 p. m. The Sunday selling may be 
 .egulatedby vote of the rate-payers. Pub- 
 lican's license fee, £30. Children under 
 15 not allowed to drink on the premises. 
 
 6. Tasmania. — Entire Sunday-closing 
 required under maximum penalty of £5, 
 Publican's license fee, £25. 
 
 All the colonies prohibit the sale of 
 liquor to aborigines. 
 
 Austria. — The intemperance statis- 
 tics of the Austrian Empire have strik- 
 ingly refuted the arguments of the soph- 
 ists who propose to counteract the in- 
 crease of intemperance by the introduc- 
 tion of the " milder alcoholics " — beer and 
 wine. Austria comprises eleven different 
 nationalities, some of them addicted to 
 the use of alcohol in its most concentrated 
 forms, as kirschwasser (cherry brandy) 
 in the Tyrol, and slibovitz (a vile spirit 
 prepared by the distillation of plums and 
 prunes) in Carinthia and Slavonic Ulyria; 
 but the best wine and beer districts — 
 German Austria and Western Hungary — 
 enjoy the questionable prestige of pro- 
 ducing the most habitual drunkards, and 
 in them there is the largest per capita 
 consumption of alcohol. In these regions 
 drunken brawls, incident to the revels of 
 •the public tavern, are a more fruitful 
 cause of crime than the frequency of in- 
 ternational border feuds. Temperance 
 has made but little theoretical progress 
 in any part of the Austrian Empire, and 
 the manufacture of distilled liquors is not 
 only tolerated but sedulously encouraged. 
 Still an era of practical reform has been 
 inaugurated by a decided change of hab- 
 its among the upper classes, with the occa- 
 sional exception of the Hungarian nobles, 
 who consider it a duty of hospitality to 
 maintain the convivial custom of their 
 feudal ancestors. Drunkenness, once a 
 boast of cavaliers and prelates, has come 
 to be considered a disgraceful and un- 
 pardonable misdemeanor in the upper 
 social circles of Vienna, Trieste and 
 Prague; and one of our American tem- 
 perance journals recently mentioned, as 
 a noteworthy sign of the times, the fact 
 that several of the officers' messes of the 
 Austrian army have dropped wine from 
 their regular bill of fare, and even from 
 the list of provisions to be kept on hand 
 for use during active service in the field. 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Supplemental Facts. — Fiscal reasons 
 decide alcoholic legislation in Austria, 
 and the financial condition of the coun- 
 try has driven the Government to impose 
 as high a tax as possible without endan- 
 gering the supposed interests of industrv, 
 commerce and agriculture. Hence many 
 legislative acts and many changes in the 
 legislation. In 1835 the ancient duty on 
 consumption was changed to a tax on the 
 vessels for fermentation, according to 
 
Bacchus.] 
 
 39 
 
 [Bacchus. 
 
 their size. This law continued in force 
 till 1862, when it was replaced with a law 
 taxing liquors according to their strength. 
 This again was abolished in 1866, and the 
 previous one was re-enacted. The license 
 fee in Austria is graduated according to 
 the population. In localities of 500 people 
 the fee is 5 florins; in those of 500 to 2,000 
 people, 10 florins; 2,000 to 10,000 people, 
 20 florins; 10,000 to 20,000 people, 30 
 florins; 20,000 to 100,000 people, 45 flo- 
 rins ; and above 100,000 people, 50 florins. 
 (A florin is about 50 cents in American 
 money.) Persons committing crime un- 
 der the influence of liquor are punished 
 with comparative leniency. 
 
 Mulhall (188G) estimated the aver- 
 age annual wine-yield of the Austrian 
 Empire at 310,000,000 gallons, valued at 
 $72,000,000, 1,580,000 acres being de- 
 voted to the cultivation of the grape. 
 This agrees approximately with the esti- 
 mate of the United States Consul at Mar- 
 seilles, who in a report dated Feb. 27, 
 1889, placed the Austrian vintage for 
 1888 at 92,459,500 gallons, and the Hun- 
 garian vintage for the same year at 184,- 
 919,000 gallons. Austria-Hungary ranks 
 after France, Italy and Spain among the 
 wine-producing countries of the earth. 
 She is also one of the chief producers of 
 beer ; Mulhall estimates that the average 
 annual beer product is 245,000,000 gal- 
 lons. The quantities of beer, wine and 
 spirits consumed, respectively, in the 
 Empire are stated by the same authority 
 to be 300,000,000, 245,000,000 and 30,- 
 000,000 gallons per year. 
 
 Bacchus. — The Latin name for Dio- 
 nysus, in Greek mythology the god of 
 wine and the vineyard. The legends relate 
 that he was the son of Zeus (Jupiter) 
 and Semele, daughter of Cadmus, King 
 of Thebes. When he attained to man- 
 hood Bacchus learned the secret of pro- 
 ducing wine from the grape, and imme- 
 diately set out on a long journey through 
 Greece, Asia Minor, Arabia, Persia and 
 India to teach this wonderful art. In 
 Phrygia he met Rhea, who instructed him 
 concerning her religious rites, and he 
 resolved to become a teacher of these 
 also. Euripides represents him as con- 
 quering Asia by means of a good deal of 
 noise and ceremony but no bloodshed, 
 marching at the head of an army of wo- 
 men and men, who, " inspired with divine 
 
 fury," mingled their cries with the clash- 
 ing of cymbals and the din of other mu- 
 sical instruments. Wherever he went 
 this god of confusion taught the people 
 the culture of the vine and the art of 
 wine-making, and also instructed them 
 in honey-making and the cultivation of 
 the soil. Everywhere also he introduced 
 the dances and religious rites he had 
 learned from Rhea. The Greeks held 
 Thebes to be the birth-place of Bacchus, 
 but it seems probable that the worship of 
 this deity originated in India, and was 
 brought into Greece by migrating people. 
 Bagis, one of the names of the Hindu 
 god Schiva, gives a clew to the origin of 
 the name of the wine-god. Among an 
 agricultural people like the Greeks a 
 pastoral deity would very naturally hold 
 a high place in popular worship, and thus 
 Bacchus was honored by four annual 
 feasts, called Dionysia or Bacchanalia. 
 These were the " country Dionysia," in 
 rural towns and villages, the " festival of 
 the wine-press," at Athens, the "an- 
 thestria," minor feasts, and the " Great 
 Dionysia," celebrated at Athens. Orig- 
 inally only women took part in the feasts, 
 giving themselves over to wild dances, and 
 in their frenzy often rending animals and 
 cutting themselves with sharp instru- 
 ments. Later the festivals were popu- 
 larized and characterized by song and 
 dance and processions, headed by an im- 
 age of the god. Finally license was 
 given to every sort of immorality at 
 these orgies, and they were occasions for 
 general debauchery. The institution of 
 the Greek theatre grew out of the worship 
 of Bacchus. The Greek colonists in 
 Southern Italy introduced the worship 
 of the wine-god among the Romans, and 
 in the year 495 B. C. a temple was erected 
 to him. At first the feasts were observed 
 with decency and decorum, the women 
 not being permitted so much as to taste 
 wine, and the men held under the same 
 restraint until they had attained the age 
 of 30; but very soon all restraint was 
 swept away and men and women alike 
 plunged into every excess and the gross- 
 est immoralities. Wives followed their 
 husbands in drunken orgies, and the cor- 
 ruption spread among the young men 
 and women. Things finally reached such 
 a pass that the Roman Senate, in the year 
 186 B. C, was compelled to prohibit the 
 rites and forms of Bacchanalian worship 
 and revels. 
 
Baird, Robert.] 
 
 40 
 
 [Bands of Hope. 
 
 Baird, Robert. — Born in Fayette 
 County, Pa., Oct. 6, 1T98, and died in Yon- 
 kers, N. Y., Nov. 15, 1863. He graduated 
 from Jefferson College, Pa., and from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary. In 
 1823 he became principal of an academy 
 at Princeton. In 1828 he was appointed 
 agent of the New Jersey Missionary So- 
 ciety, and he did much toward found- 
 ing the present system of public schools 
 in that State. In 1*29, as agent of the 
 American Sunday-School Union, he suc- 
 ceeded in increasing the annual income 
 of that organization from $5,000 to $28,- 
 000. In 1836 he published his " History 
 of the Temperance Societies of the United 
 States," and. having gone abroad, he ar- 
 ranged for the translation of the work 
 into French. He remained in Europe 
 nearly eight years, but in that time made 
 two brief visits to America. His efforts 
 abroad were divided between an attempt 
 in the countries of southern Europe to 
 revive the Protestant" faith, and an effort 
 in the northern countries to promote 
 temperance reform. The French edition 
 of his history was widely read both in 
 France and by the French Swiss, the lat- 
 ter being induced by its teachings to in- 
 stitute temperance societies at Geneva 
 and Fribourg. In Holland about 1,100 
 copies of the book were circulated. The 
 Empress of Russia received a copy, and 
 manifested an interest in the temperance 
 movement. King Charles XIV of Swe- 
 den accorded a gracious reception to Mr. 
 Baird, and at his own expense had the 
 book translated and a copy sent to each 
 parish in his kingdom. Quotations from 
 the work were made by the newspapers, 
 and Crown Prince Oscar consented to be- 
 come Patron to the Swedish Temperance 
 Society, formed at Stockholm, May 5, 
 1837. This society issued a second edi- 
 tion of Mr. Baird's history in 1839, by 
 which time the number of temperance 
 societies in the country had increased to 
 150, with 30,000 members. In 1833 King 
 Frederick William III of Prussia sought 
 information about the temperance socie- 
 ties of America, through his ambassador 
 at Washington. Mr. Baird was therefore 
 cordially welcomed by him when he visit- 
 ed Germany in 1836, and the king or- 
 dered a German translation of the work, 
 and presented copies of it to the Emperor 
 of Austria and the other German princes. 
 The first German edition of 6,000 copies 
 
 was exhausted, and n second was issued 
 within a year, while by the king's orders 
 the temperance movement was encouraged 
 and strengthened by the authorities of 
 both church and state. On his second 
 visit t} Europe in 1840 Mr. Baird visited 
 Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Russia. 
 Having arranged in Denmark for a 
 translation of his book into Danish, and 
 the publication of an edition of 2,000 
 copies, he organized a temperance com- 
 mittee in Christiana, Norway, which dis- 
 tributed 800 copies of the Danish edition 
 among Norwegians of influence. In Octo- 
 ber,1840, he had an interview with Em- 
 peror Nicholas at St. Petersburg, who re- 
 ceived him favorably, and issued an edi- 
 tion of 10,000 copies of the book in the 
 Russian language, and an edition of 5,000 
 copies in Finnish. Mr. Baird's personal in- 
 terviews with men of rank and prominence 
 were hardly less potential than the in- 
 fluence of his book. His other published 
 works are "Religion in America," first 
 issued in Scotland, and translated into 
 several languages ; " A Visit to Northern 
 Europe; " "Protestantism in Italy," and 
 " History of the Albigenses, Waldenses 
 and Vaudois." 
 
 Bands of Hope.— Temperance organ- 
 izations for juveniles, established in great 
 numbers throughout all the English- 
 speaking countries, frequently as depart- 
 ments of church and Sunday-school work. 
 In the United States the name " Band of 
 Hope" has been generally changed to 
 " Loyal Temperance Legion," although 
 some local organizations are continued 
 under the old name. The Band of Hope 
 pledge in this country is as follows : 
 
 " I hereby solemnly pledge myself to abstain 
 from the use of all intoxicating drinks, includ- 
 ing wine, be?r and cider, as a beverage; from 
 the UST of tobacco in every form, and from all 
 profanity." 
 
 Concerning the Bands of Hope of the 
 United Kingdom, Mr. Frederick Smith 
 (Editorial Secretary) provides the follow- 
 ing information for this work : 
 
 The first society called a Band of 
 Hope was formed in England in Octo- 
 ber, 1847. Temperance societies for 
 children and young people, on a distinctly 
 total abstinence basis, had existed, how- 
 ever, many years earlier, both in the Brit- 
 ish Isles and the United States. The 
 
Bands of Hope.] 
 
 41 
 
 [Baptist Church. 
 
 origin of the first Band of Hope must be 
 jointly attributed to the efforts of Mrs. 
 Carlile of Dublin, and the Rev. Jabez 
 TunniclifE, a Baptist minister of Leeds. 
 In August, 1847, Mrs. Carlile visited 
 Leeds, to address children in Sunday and 
 day schools on the subject of temperance. 
 Mr. Tunnicliff, who had occasionally 
 accompanied Mrs. Carlile in her visits to 
 the schools, felt convinced that unless 
 something was done to follow up her labor 
 it would be largely lost. Accordingly, 
 before Mrs. Carlile left Leeds, a meeting 
 was called, an organization was formed, 
 a name was adopted and a committee 
 was appointed to perfect the plan. The 
 first Band of Hope meeting was held late 
 in October, when about 300 children sat 
 down to tea, 'more than 200 of them tak- 
 ing the following pledge : 
 
 " I promise to abstain from all intoxicating 
 drinks as beverages." 
 
 The movement spread nowhere with 
 greater success than in the county of its 
 birth, where at the present time (1889) 
 there are probably 2,000 juvenile temper- 
 ance societies of one kind or other. In 
 1851 the first Band of Hope Union was 
 formed. A Union for London was estab- 
 lished in 1855, which in 1864 became the 
 "United Kingdom Band of Hope Union." 
 Countv Unions rapidly followed, and now 
 cover the greater part of England. The 
 United Kingdom Band of Hope Union, 
 with which the various organizations are 
 associated, aims at furthering the inter- 
 ests of the whole movement throughout 
 the country. It assists local Unions and 
 societies by means of its lecturers and 
 deputations, by public meetings, confer- 
 ences, missionary efforts, literature, cor- 
 respondence and advice. Its sphere of 
 work is in Bands of Hope, Sunday- 
 schools, day schools, colleges, orphan 
 asylums, industrial and district schools, 
 training ships, reformatories and the 
 homes of the children. Its latest and 
 most important effort is the " School 
 Scheme," by which, through the kindness 
 of munificent friends, the committee is 
 enabled to devote £2,000 per annum for 
 the next five years to the delivery of sci- 
 entific lectures and addresses in day 
 schools and to other important educa- 
 tional work. The President of the Union 
 is George Williams, Esq., of London, and 
 its Secretaries are Mr. Charles Wakely 
 and Mr. Frederick Smith. 
 
 The latest estimate of the strength of 
 the movement, compiled from the best 
 available data, shows that there are nearly 
 15,000 Bands of Hope and juvenile tem- 
 perance organizations in England, Scot- 
 land, Wales and Ireland, with upwards of 
 1,800,000 members. 
 
 Baptist Church. —The Baptist 
 Church is not represented as a national 
 denomination by any conference or as- 
 sembly of a thoroughly comprehensive 
 nature. But different representative or- 
 ganizations within the church are fully 
 qualified to declare its position upon a 
 question so intimately related to religious 
 interests as is that of temperance. 
 
 The American Baptist Home Mission 
 Society, in session at Chicago, May 27, 
 1890, adopted the following resolutions, 
 reported by Rev. H. A. Delano, D.D., of 
 Evanston, 111., on behalf of the Special 
 Committee on Temperance : 
 
 " Whereas.'We recognize in the liquor traffic an 
 enemy of Satanic and appalling force, menacing 
 the purity of the Christian Church, the virtueof 
 society and the safety of government; and 
 
 •' WAereas,We believe it true policy, principle 
 and duty to antagonize with uncompromising 
 zeal its presence and ravages ; therefore 
 
 "Resolved, That we declare ourselves among 
 its most pronounced and relentless foes, believ- 
 ing that it has no defensible right to exist, and 
 that it can never be reformed, and that it stands 
 condemned by its unrighteous frui's as a thing 
 unchristian, un-American and perilous utterly 
 to every interest of life. 
 
 "Resolved, That we profoundly deplore the 
 results of the recent Supreme Court decision 
 [relating to the inter- State liquor traffic^, where- 
 by Prohibitory laws in Maine, Kansas, Iowa, 
 South Dakota and other States are rendered 
 less efficient and extremely imperiled, and we 
 sincerely hope the Congress of the United 
 States may speedily rise to so meet the exigency 
 of the case, that the last estate of the liquor 
 traffic may be worse than the first. 
 
 "Resolved, That we stand pledged by every 
 legitimate means to work and pray and (as God 
 shall give us wisdom and light) to vote for the 
 absolute abolition and overthrow of the iniqui- 
 tous traffic in State and nation." 
 
 The Baptists of the Southern States 
 hold annual conventions. In May, 1889, 
 they met at Memphis, Tenn., white 
 representatives being present from Mary- 
 land, Virginia, North Carolina, South 
 Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, 
 Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, 
 Kentucky and the Indian Territory. The 
 following resolution, offered by J. B. 
 Cranfill, was adopted : 
 
Barbour, John Nathaniel.] 
 
 42 
 
 [Barnes, Albert. 
 
 " Whereas, The liquor traffic is a most power- 
 ful hindrance to the gospel of Christ, and an 
 aggressive enemy to social order; and 
 
 " Whereas, This traffic is steadily encroaching 
 upon all that Christian men revere and the hu- 
 man heart holds dear; and 
 
 " Whereas. It seeks to destroy the Christian 
 Sabbath and annihilate public morals and the 
 public conscience ; and 
 
 " Whereas All Christian bodies should speak 
 out in no uncertain tones on this question ; 
 therefore, be it 
 
 " Resolved, by the Southern Baptists in Con- 
 vention assembled, That we favor the speedy 
 and entire Prohibition of the liquor traffic ; that 
 we oppose license for this traffic in any and all 
 its forms, through which men buy the right to 
 destroy human hope and happiness and blight 
 human souls, as an off ence against public morals 
 and a sin against God." 
 
 Barbour, John Nathaniel — Born 
 in Boston, Mass., Oct. 4, 1805, and died in 
 Cambridge, Mass., Jan. 29, 1890. He 
 graduated from Eliot School, Boston, tak- 
 ing the highest honor, the Franklin medal. 
 Entering a large mercantile establishment 
 at a small salary, he performed his duties 
 with such fidelity as soon to win the firm's 
 confidence and a place for himself as a 
 partner. With his uncle he established a 
 business house which acquired many ves- 
 sels and built up an extensive carrying 
 trade. From youth Mr. Barbour was a 
 total abstainer from both tobacco and in- 
 toxicating drink despite the jeers of his 
 young associates. He carried his convic- 
 tions and temperance principles into his 
 business, and it was the rule of his house 
 neither to buy nor sell alcoholic liquors, 
 nor allow them on its vessels either for use 
 there or as freight. This stand brought 
 the firm into conflict with all the wholesale 
 grocers dealing in liquors ; and although 
 he was ridiculed and sometimes boycotted, 
 Mr. Barbour could boast that he never 
 compromised his temperance principles 
 for financial advantage. He enjoyed the 
 acquaintance and friendsbip of many of 
 the distinguished men and reformers of 
 two generations. He was as staunch an 
 advocate of the Abolition of slavery as of 
 the temperance cause, and William Lloyd 
 Garrison and John G. Whittier were his 
 personal friends. He freely employed his 
 means to further the causes he espoused, 
 and thus did not permit himself to be- 
 come very wealthy. 
 
 Barley. — The grain from which 
 nearly all of the malt used in brewing is 
 derived. It is the hardiest of cereals, 
 
 growing at higher latitudes than any 
 other and also capable of cultivation in 
 warm climates. Its superiority for brew- 
 ing purposes has always been recognized. 
 It is also largely used in the production 
 of distilled spirits, especially Scotch and 
 Irish whiskies. Mulhall (London, 1886) 
 estimates the number of acres devoted to 
 barley culture and the quantities pro- 
 duced in leading countries as follows : 
 
 Acres. Crop (bush.). 
 
 United Kingdom 2,590,000 90,000,000 
 
 France 3,500.000 80,000,000 
 
 Germany 3.900,000 90,000,000 
 
 Russia 15,500,000 130.000,000 
 
 Austria 5,100,000 81,000,000 
 
 Italy and Spain 4,700,000 95,000,000 
 
 Belgium and Holland. 230.0C0 8.000,000 
 
 Scandinavia 1,300 000 39,000,000 
 
 Roumania, etc 2.000,000 40,000,000 
 
 Europe 38,820,000 653.000,000 
 
 United States 1 1,700.000 40 000,000 
 
 Japan 2,000,000 50,000,000 
 
 Egypt 1,000,000 15,C00 000 
 
 Algeria 2,000 000 45,000.000 
 
 British Colonies 940.000 34,000,000 
 
 Totals 46,460,000 837,000,000 
 
 1 The Census for 1880 states that in that year there were 
 1,997,727 acres devoted to barley-culture, producing 
 43,997,495 bushels. 
 
 Barnes, Albert. — Born in Eome, 
 N. Y., Dec. 1, 1798; died Dec. 24, 18T0. 
 He graduated at Hamilton College, in 
 1820, and from the Princeton Theological 
 Seminary in 1824. In 1825 he was in- 
 stalled pastor of the Presbyterian Church 
 at Morristown, N. J., and in 1830 he took 
 charge of the 1st Presbyterian Church 
 in Philadelphia, where he officiated for 
 more than thirty years. Although emi- 
 nent both as a preacher and scholar he 
 refused all proffered degrees and .titles. 
 He achieved a great reputation as a com- 
 mentator, and his " Notes on the New 
 Testament" enjoyed an extensive circula- 
 tion and became a standard work on both 
 sides of the water. In 1857 he published 
 a work on " The Church and Slavery," in 
 which he took radical ground for free- 
 dom. He was equally pronounced on 
 the liquor question: his sermon on the 
 " Throne of Iniquity " and his tract on 
 " The Traffic in Ardent Spirits " are mas- 
 terly arguments and were widely read. 
 He took the ground that this evil could 
 be suppressed only by law and by Pro- 
 hibitive enactments; and he believed that 
 
Barrooms.] 
 
 43 
 
 [Beecher, Lyman. 
 
 upon the churches and ministers of the 
 gospel rested the great responsibility of 
 leading the attack against the traffic. 
 " The pulpit," said he, " should speak in 
 tones deep and solemn and constant, re- 
 verberating through the land. The watch- 
 men should see eye to eye. Of every of- 
 ficer and member of a church it should 
 be known where he may be found. We 
 want no vacillating counsels, no time- 
 serving apologies, no coldness, no reluc- 
 tance, no shrinking back in this cause. 
 Every church of Christ the world over 
 should be, in very deed, an organization 
 of pure temperance under the headship 
 and patronage of Jesus Christ, the friend 
 and model of purity. The pulpit must 
 speak out. And the press must speak. 
 And you, fellow-Christians, are sum- 
 moned by the God of purity to take your 
 stand and cause your influence to be felt." 
 Concerning the necessity for a more vig- 
 orous method than moral suasion, he said : 
 
 "There is a class of nien, and those most 
 deeply interested in the matter, that you can 
 never influence by moral suasion. They are 
 men who enter no sanctuary, who place them- 
 selves aloof from argument, whose hearts are 
 hard, whose consciences are seared, whose 
 sole motive is gain, and who, if the moral part 
 of the community abandon a business, will only 
 drive it on themselves the faster. What are you 
 to do with such men ? You may go far 
 in the temperance reformation by moral suasion, 
 but it has failed in removing the evil, and, from 
 the nature of the case, must always fail, while 
 the State throws its protecting shield over the 
 traffic." 
 
 For 45 years he was an aggressive and 
 a radical enemy of the saloon and cham- 
 pion of temperance principles. In the 
 beginning the cause was very unpopular 
 and he suffered persecution, but he lived 
 long enough to see it respected and tri- 
 umphing. 
 
 Barrooms. — See Saloon. 
 
 Barrows, Lorenzo Dow.— Born 
 in Windham, Vt., July 1, 1817; died in 
 Plymouth, N. H., Feb. 18, 1878. He 
 received a thorough academic training, 
 and throughout life remained a student. 
 He entered the ministry in 1830 and 
 served Methodist Episcopal churches in 
 Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachu- 
 setts and Ohio. He was for four years a 
 Presiding Elder. From 185C to 1859 he 
 was President of the Pittsburg (Pa.) 
 Female College, and from 18G0 to 1871, 
 and again in 1877, held the same posi- 
 
 tion in the New Hampshire Conference 
 Seminary and Female College. Although 
 feeble in body he was a clear, forcible 
 speaker, effective in debate and aggres- 
 sive for reform, and especially for the 
 temperance reform, in which he became 
 interested early in life. He was one of 
 the organizers of the Prohibition party 
 in New Hampshire, and was nominated 
 as its first candidate for Governor in 1870, 
 receiving 1,167 votes. March 4, 1870, he 
 issued the first number of the Prohibition 
 Herald, a weekly newspaper which he 
 edited and controlled until September, 
 1871. He was not only a gifted speaker 
 but a forcible writer. Many temperance 
 workers owe to Dr. Barrows's words and 
 example their enlistment in the move- 
 ment. D. C. Babcock. 
 
 Beecher, Lyman. — Born in New Ha- 
 ven, Conn., Oct. 12, 1775; died in Brook- 
 lyn, N. Y., Jan. 10, 1863. This renowned 
 preacher graduated from the Theological 
 School of Yale College in 1797, and the 
 next year was ordained pastor of the Con- 
 gregational Church of East Hampton, 
 Long Island, with a salary of $300 a year. 
 While pastor here he married Rosana 
 Foote, who contributed to their support 
 by teaching school. He was installed 
 pastor of the Congregational Church at 
 Litchfield, Conn., in 1810, and remained 
 there 16 years. In 1826 he became pastor 
 of the Hanover Street Church of Boston, 
 and in 1832 was chosen President of Lane 
 Seminary, near Cincinnati, O. He held 
 this position for twenty years, and during 
 one-half that time added to his other du- 
 ties the pastorate of the 2d Presbyterian 
 Church of Cincinnati. Resigning the 
 Presidency of the Seminary in 1852 he 
 ceased his active labors, though doing 
 occasional preaching. Three times mar- 
 ried, Dr. Beecher was the father of 13 
 children, six of whom became clergymen. 
 Two of the family, Henry Ward Beecher 
 and Harriet Beecher Stowe, attained 
 world-wide reputation. 
 
 Perhaps no man in America has done 
 more to mould public opinion on the tem- 
 perance question than Lyman Beecher. 
 He was first aroused to a realization of 
 the magnitude of the drink evil in 1808, 
 while pastor at East Hampton, by observ- 
 ing how a conscienceless grogseller cor- 
 rupted the Montauk Indians. " There 
 was a grogseller in our neighborhood," he 
 writes, " who drank himself and corrupt- 
 
Beecher, Lyman.] 
 
 44 
 
 [Beecher, Lyman. 
 
 ed others. He always kept his jug under 
 the bed, to drink in the night, till he was 
 choked off by death. He would go down 
 with his barrel of whiskey in a wagon to 
 the Indians and get them tipsy and bring 
 them in debt; he would get all their 
 corn, and bring it back in his wagon — in 
 fact, he stripped them. Then, in winter, 
 they must come up twenty miles, buy 
 their own corn, and pack it home on their 
 shoulders or starve. Oh ! it was horrible, 
 horrible. It burned and burned in my 
 mind, and I swore a deep oath in my 
 mind that it shouldn't be so." A little 
 later he was greatly moved upon reading 
 Dr. Benjamin Bush's famous essay on 
 "The Effects of Ardent Spirits on the 
 Human Body a.nd Mind." In 1812, soon 
 after his removal to Litchfield, he lis- 
 tened to the report of the committee ap- 
 pointed by the Connecticut General As- 
 sociation of Congregational Churches to 
 consider the temperance problem and 
 answer the question, " How can drunken- 
 ness be prevented ?" The conclusions of 
 the committee were feeble and evasive; 
 the growing evils of intemperance were 
 deplored, but the committee seemed to 
 be of the opinion that nothing could be 
 done. Beecher's soul was stirred. He 
 immediately arose and moved to discharge 
 the committee and appoint a new one. 
 The motion prevailed and he was made 
 Chairman of the new committee. On the 
 next day he brought in a report which 
 he says, in his autobiography, was "the 
 most important paper that I ever wrote." 
 It recommended that all ministers preach 
 onthesubject of intemperance; that intox- 
 icating liquors be banished from ministe- 
 rial and church meetings; that church 
 members abstain from drinking or traf- 
 ficking in liquors; that parents exclude 
 liquor from their families and admonish 
 their children against it; that farmers, 
 manufacturers, etc., provide other drinks 
 than alcoholic beverages for their labor- 
 ers; that temperance literature be pre- 
 pared and circulated, and that associa- 
 tions be organized for the promotion of 
 temperance and good morals. After 
 much discussion these recommendations, 
 extremely radical as they were for those 
 days, were approved, and it was ordered 
 that a thousand copies be printed for 
 circulation. 
 
 Dr. Beecher's celebrated " Six Sermons 
 on Intemperance," delivered in 182G and 
 
 published in book form in 1827, mark a 
 most important epoch in the temperance 
 movement. Reprinted abroad and eagerly 
 read by many thousands, they did more 
 than any other agency to create a distinct 
 and practical temperance sentiment, and 
 were recognized as the standard authority 
 on the temperance question for many 
 years. In them he indicated the neces- 
 sity for the absolute Prohibition of the 
 liquor traffic. " There is no remedy for 
 intemperance but the cessation of it," he 
 declared. " The time is not distant, we 
 trust," said he, " when the use of ardent 
 spirits will be proscribed by a vote of all 
 the churches in our land, and when the 
 commerce in that article shall, equally 
 with the slave trade, be regarded as in- 
 consistent with a creditable profession of 
 Christianity." The following sentences 
 show the radicalism of his views as to the 
 ways and means necessary for accomplish- 
 ing reform : 
 
 " It is in vain to rely alone upon self- 
 government and voluntary abstinence. 
 This, by all means, should be encouraged 
 and enforced, and may limit the evil but 
 can never expel it. Alike hopeless are 
 all the efforts of the pulpit and the press, 
 without something more radical, efficient 
 and permanent. If knowledge only, or 
 argument or motive were needed, the task 
 of reformation would be easy ; but argu- 
 ment may as well be exerted upon the 
 wind, and motive be applied to chain 
 down the waves. Thirst and the love of 
 filthy lucre are incorrigible. Many may 
 be saved by these means ; but, with noth- 
 ing more, many will be lost and the evil 
 will go down to other ages. 
 
 " The remedy, whatever it may be, must 
 be universal — operating permanently at 
 all times and in all places. Short of this, 
 everything which can be done will be but 
 the application of temporary expedients. 
 There is somewhere a mighty energy of 
 evil at work in the production of intem- 
 perance; and until we can discover and 
 destroy this vital power of mischief we 
 shall labor in vain. Intemperance in our 
 land is not accidental; it is rolling in 
 upon us by the violation of some great 
 laws of human nature. In our views, 
 and in our practice as a nation, there is 
 something fundamentally wrong; and 
 the remedy, like the evil, must be 
 found in the correct application of gen- 
 eral principles. It must be a universal 
 
Beer.] 
 
 45 
 
 [Belgium. 
 
 and national remedy. "What, then, is this 
 universal, natural and national remedy for 
 intemperance ? It is the banishment of 
 ardent spirits from the list of lawful arti- 
 cles of commerce by a correct and efficient 
 public sentiment, such as has turned 
 slavery out of half of our land and will 
 yet expel it from the world." 
 
 Beer. — See Malt Liquors. 
 
 Belgium. — All tradesmen in Belgi- 
 um are taxed, but no special license is 
 required to sell intoxicating drinks. 
 Nothing is easier than to start and con- 
 duct a liquor business. The number of 
 places selling alcoholic beverages has 
 increased enormously in the last 30 years. 
 An official report gives the following 
 figures : 
 
 Year. Drink-awns. 
 
 1850 50,000 
 
 1880 125000 
 
 1884 130,000 
 
 From 1850 to 1880 the population in- 
 creased 25 per cent., while the number of 
 drink-shops increased 150 per cent. It 
 is estimated that there is now one drink- 
 shop for every 41 inhabitants, or for every 
 nine men throughout the country. The 
 unlimited opportunities for drinking, the 
 constant tendency among nearly all 
 classes of people to drink more and 
 more, and the growing impurity of 
 liquors have combined to increase appall- 
 ingly the number of crimes, suicides and 
 cases of insanity. A Belgian writer says : 
 " The moral level of the people is being 
 lowered continually." 
 
 I present a few startling facts from 
 official documents: 
 
 From 1873 to 1881 the people spent on 
 an average 474,323,000 francs, or $94,- 
 864,000 per annum for intoxicating 
 drink. The average quantity consumed 
 each year per inhabitant from 1875 to 
 1881 was as follows: Beer, 55.9 galls.; 
 spirits (at 50$), 2.69 galls.; wine, 0.85 
 galls In 1840 the number of suicides 
 was 204, or 51 per 1,000,000 inhabitants. 
 In 1880 the number was 553, or 97 per 
 1,000,000 inhabitants. In 1846 there were 
 720 cases of insanity per 100,000 inhabit- 
 ants. In 1881 there were 1,470 — increase, 
 104 percent. The increase in the number 
 of crimes since 1840 has been at the rate of 
 141 per cent., allowing for the increase 
 in population. M. Dupetiaux, Inspector- 
 General of Prisons in Belgium, says: 
 
 "My experience extends now over a 
 quarter of a century, and I declare that 
 four-fifths of the crimes and misery that 
 have come before me in my professional 
 or private life have been the result of in- 
 temperance." It has been repeatedly stated 
 on the best authority that four-fifths of 
 the deaths in the hospitals in Brussels 
 are due, directly or indirectly, to drink. 
 What has been done to remedy this state 
 of things ? " La Ligue Patriotiqu'e con- 
 tre l'alcoolism" was started in 1879 under 
 the title " L 'Association Beige contre 
 Tabus des boissons alcoolique." Its work 
 has chiefly been (1) to collect information 
 regarding the drinking habits of the 
 people, together with the evils resulting 
 therefrom, and to spread abroad this in- 
 formation; (2) To endeavor to get Jaws 
 passed to lessen intemperance. All the 
 lawshicherto enacted have been directed 
 against drunkenness rather than for less- 
 ening the temptations to drink. 
 
 In October, 1889, the League took a 
 step in advance by establishing a " Cafe 
 populaire " in Brussels, where all spirit- 
 uous liquors are excluded and refresh- 
 ments are served. There is a reading- 
 room fitted up with a library and news- 
 papers, and amusements are provided. 
 A circular was distributed among the 
 workingmen, calling on them to unite in 
 a temperance society and take a pledge 
 against distilled liquors while retaining 
 the privilege to moderately use fermented 
 liquors. About 80 members have been 
 enrolled. This is the first pledge issued 
 by the League. 
 
 la Antwerp a Good Templars' Lodge 
 has existed for over 12 years, and has 
 done useful work, especially among the 
 seamen ; but as its proceedings are car- 
 ried on in English ami most of its mem- 
 bers are Englishmen it naturally cannot 
 have the same influence that a distinct- 
 ively Belgian society could have. 
 
 In 1885 an International Congress 
 against the abuse of alcoholic liquors was 
 held in Antwerp. One result of it was 
 the introduction into Belgium of the 
 Swiss temperance society, known as " La 
 Croix Bleue." This is a total abstinence 
 society, and it has made some progress 
 in the South of Belgium, chiefly among 
 the Protestant workmen. "La Socirto 
 de St. Jean Baptiste " is the name of an 
 organization started at St. Frond (in Bel- 
 gium) in November, 1886, and now en 
 
Benefits of Prohibition.] 
 
 46 
 
 [Bible and Drink. 
 
 joying the patronage of the Lord Bishop 
 of Liege. It issues the same accommo- 
 dating pledge as the society at Brussels. 
 At the close of 1888 its members num- 
 bered 700 adults and 4,000 children. 
 This society has received the benediction 
 of Pope Leo XIII. 
 
 Chaelotte A. Gray. 
 
 Benefits of Prohibition. — See Pro- 
 hibition Benefits of. 
 
 Bible and Drink. — There are two 
 possible views of the relation which the 
 Hebrew and Greek Scriptures bear to in- 
 toxicating wine, drugs and strong drink : 
 either (1) that they are harmonious in 
 all their statements as the beliefs 
 of inspired men, or (2) that they are 
 the records of various fallible 
 opinions, more or less inaccurate. Of 
 course the proof of the first position 
 fails if those Scriptures contradict either 
 the laws of morals, the principles of sci- 
 ence or the facts of life. Any claim that 
 contravenes reason, conscience and fact is 
 an imposture. We must, however, always 
 distinguish between the Scriptures them- 
 selves and the interpretations put upon 
 them by prejudiced, interested or igno- 
 rant men. As the " pure in heart " can 
 alone see God, so the open-minded truth- 
 seeker and truth-lover is alone fitted to 
 perceive the meaning of his word. 
 
 The great Italian poet has said of 
 twisted expositions of Holy Writ : 
 
 "Men thus at variance with the truth 
 
 Dream, tho' their eyes be open ; reckless some 
 
 Of error; others well aware they err. 
 
 Each the known track of sage philosophy 
 
 Deserts, and has a by way of his own. 
 
 Yet this, offensive as it is. provokes 
 
 Heaven's anger less than when the sacred Book 
 
 Is forced to yield to man's authority, 
 
 Or from its straightness warped." — Dante. 
 
 If the Bible does contain contradictory 
 statements or implications, under God's 
 apparent sanction, then, of course, its au- 
 thority ceases and the known facts of ex- 
 perience and science become the guide of 
 duty. On the contrary, if the Bible is 
 consistent, the consistency may be shown ; 
 and we may add, only the denier of its 
 divinity has the moral and logical right to 
 contend that it does sanction the use of 
 strong drink or disturbing drugs. Let 
 us then examine the book with impartial- 
 ity and record some of the discovered facts 
 that bear on the subject of drink and 
 drinking : 
 
 1. The institutes of the Creator are 
 wise ; yet in Eden, for the most organic- 
 ally perfect pair, no strong drink was 
 provided; the fruits of the earth were 
 their appointed food, and simple water or 
 " meathes from many a berry " their only 
 but sufficient beverage. 
 
 2. It is also the fact that God provided 
 no strong drink for his people, even when 
 wandering in the hot atmosphere of an 
 arid wilderness,, but only water from the 
 rock ; and even then, from the presence 
 of palm-wine made by the foolish sons of 
 Aaron, " strange fire " was ignited, and 
 the offerers perished, being the occasion 
 of the first recorded prohibition of intoxi- 
 cants — a divine example which men would 
 do well to follow. 
 
 3. In the symbolic rites it was not 
 "wine " that represented "the washing of 
 regeneration," but the " water of life " ; 
 while fermentation was the type of moral 
 corruption. (1 Cor. 5 : 6-8.) 
 
 4. The three chief elements of the most 
 sacred institutes of Jews and Christians 
 were water, bread and fruit, and the 
 law of the Passover (Ex. 12 and 34 : 25) 
 commands (1) that the Jews shall con- 
 
 . sume matzah, sweet or fresh things ; (2) 
 that seor (the sour or ferment) shall be 
 put out of sight; (3) that no chomets 
 (fermented thing) shall be used. Strange 
 that a thousand years later the Rabbins 
 narrowed the broad sense of matzah into 
 "biscuit," while now some churchmen 
 would fain decree, and do actually con- 
 tend, that the phrase " fruit of the vine" 
 excludes the juice from its significance, 
 and designates only fermented wine — a 
 dogma in which Christ, fact and science 
 are equally repudiated. 
 
 5. In singular contrast with the lan- 
 guage of the opponents of abstinence in 
 this age, it is a fact that there is not in 
 the whole 40 books of the Bible one soli- 
 tary text that condemns the Nazarites' 
 practice, nor one which commends the use 
 of intoxicating wine. 
 
 6. The Bible records, in manifold texts, 
 how patriarchs and priests, princes and 
 prophets " went out of the way through 
 wine and strong drink," and in language 
 corresponding to the fact not only urges 
 the inherent evil tendency of the article 
 consumed, but denounces a woe upon 
 those who give it to their neighbors. 
 (Hab. 2: 15.) Such drink is called a 
 " poison," a " deceiver," a " mocker " and 
 
Bible and Drink.] 
 
 47 
 
 [Bible and Drink. 
 
 a " defrauder " (" treacherous dealer " in 
 K. V.). The first and last time in which 
 chemah, the generic Hebrew term for 
 " poison " occurs, it is applied to intoxi- 
 cating wine ; ami in descriptive passages 
 the drink of the drunkard is in fact de- 
 clared to be a narcotic brain-poison and 
 a paralyzer of the will. " They have 
 beaten me and I felt it not ... I 
 will seek it yet again." (Prov. 23 : 35.) 
 
 7. The word for " poison " has a meta- 
 phorical use in accordance with the literal. 
 It is the word which characterizes the 
 contents of the " cup of wrath," and is 
 expressive of the divine punishment upon 
 sin (Jer. 25 : 15, etc.). It was not a " cup 
 of blessing " ; and the toxic quality is the 
 whole point and meaning of the figure, 
 as in the 14th chapter of the Apocalypse, 
 in which book the philosophy of Prohibi- 
 tion is also distinctly taught. The bind- 
 ing of Satan precedes the millenium of 
 purity and peace. The divine kingdom 
 is always conditioned upon deliverance 
 from evil and from the pressure of per- 
 petual temptation. 
 
 8. The philology of the Bible plainly 
 discriminates between good and bad wine. 
 The phrase "pure blood of the grape" 
 cannot point to the same thing as " wine, 
 the poison of dragons" ; the wine of 
 " astonishment " (lit., reeling) cannot be 
 the same thing as the contents of the " cup 
 of blessing." We must, therefore, dis- 
 tinguish between the Lord's Kalon-oinon 
 and Satan's Kakon-oinon. 
 
 9. The Bible not only discountenances 
 drink and drinking by plain and strong 
 words, and by recording evil results, but 
 commends and commands abstinence in 
 various and emphatic ways. " I raised up 
 your sons for prophets and your young 
 men for Nazarites; is it not even so? saith 
 the Lord'." (Amos, 2:11, 12.) The strong 
 champion Samson was, before Ms birth, 
 appointed by angelic message to be an 
 abstainer, and his mother was prohibited 
 the toxic drink likewise, lest he should 
 suffer pre-natal injury. The Nazarites 
 are described as fair, ruddy and moral. 
 The priests were commanded, on pain of 
 death, to abstain from strong drink while 
 doing God's work in tabernacle and tem- 
 ple ; and one greater than a prophet, the 
 forerunner of the Messiah, was made an 
 abstainer " that he might be filled with 
 the Holy Ghost." 
 
 10. Abstinence teaching, in various 
 
 forms, permeates both the Old and New 
 Testaments, as well as the Apocrypha, but 
 especially and distinctly is it inculcated in 
 the letters of Peter and Paul. "We," 
 says the latter, "are 'sons of the day,' 
 and, therefore, should be Neephomen, ' no 
 drinkers/" (1 Thess. 5:6-8.) 
 
 11. Before anything can be proved 
 against abstinence, either as a doctrine or 
 a " counsel of perfection," a test must be 
 adduced which connects together three 
 things — God, sanction and intoxicating 
 quality. God's word is one thing; man's 
 opinion about it is another. God's sanc- 
 tion is one thing — his " permission " 
 another. Divorce, slavery, polygamy, 
 even rebellion, were expressly " allowed." 
 God does not coerce us. Lastly, intoxica- 
 ting wine is one thing — " good wine " an- 
 other. Moreover, the Bible, like any other 
 ancient book, must be read in the light of 
 the history of the times in which its vari- 
 ous books were written. What the men 
 of that day would understand by words 
 and laws is the question — not what the 
 moderns may wish the words to mean. 
 Now the great illuminating fact in this 
 inquiry is that abstinence was apart of all 
 the great religions of the East — of Egypt, 
 Bactria, Persia, India — and was practiced 
 or taught by the most eminent men 
 of Greece, like Pythagoras and Epicurus. 
 
 12. Two centuries before Christ, the 
 following passage from Phylarchus shows 
 that its essential truth penetrated the 
 religion of the Pagan world : " The 
 Greeks who sacrifice to the Sun-God 
 never bring wine to the altars, because it 
 is fitting that the God who keeps the 
 whole universe in order should in no way 
 be connected with drunkenness." (His- 
 toria, lib. xii.) In the writings of Jose- 
 phus and Philon the doctrine of absti- 
 nence is distinctly taught, and in the very 
 words of the Christian apostles ; the early 
 Church at Jerusalem practiced it, and 
 Eusebius, in the 17th chapter of his his- 
 tory, tells us not only that it extensively 
 prevailed amongst the Essenes, but also 
 that it was the practice of the holy 
 apostles. 
 
 13. In the light of these historic facts, 
 the contention that Christ, in opposition 
 to the teaching of the prophets and the 
 practice of the Essenes and other pious 
 Jews, should transmute innocent water 
 into toxic wine, by a miraculous brewing, 
 without exciting any remark or inquiry 
 
Bible and Drink.] 
 
 48 
 
 [Bible Wines. 
 
 from either friends or critics, seems the 
 very height of paradox, and cannot be 
 rationally entertained. 
 
 14. Drugged drinks are frequently 
 named, but never as comforters, blessings 
 or legitimate luxuries. Mixed wine, how- 
 ever, is shown in Proverbs to be of two 
 sorts — one the syrup-wine mingled with 
 water at Wisdom's feast, the other 
 drugged wine, upon the seekers of which 
 a woe is elsewhere- pronounced. No com- 
 mentators, of any school or church, have 
 failed to see that the Bible condemns such 
 drinks. The last act of the Redeemer 
 was to refuse the " wine mingled with 
 myrrh," though the Jews often adminis- 
 tered it to criminals about to perish, to 
 abate their sensibility to pain and fear. 
 
 15. The defenders of strong drink en- 
 deavor to prejudice the inquiry by putting 
 a false issue before the people, and by as- 
 suming an absurd principle of criticism. 
 They write of their own "One-Wine 
 theory " and of our " Two- Wine theory " 
 — language utterly unmeaning and inap- 
 plicable. The real contention is whether 
 the Hebrew words yayin and shekar are 
 generic or specific terms — a question 
 which only an iiduction of the terms as 
 used can ever settle. In England, for ex- 
 ample, corn is a generic term for grain, 
 which, indeed, is the same word modified; 
 in North America it has become specific, 
 meaning Indian corn, not all sorts of 
 grain. If the question were about the 
 quality of a spirit, a wife, a man, a metal 
 or a tree, how would the problem be ad- 
 vanced by a foolish clamor about a " one- 
 spirit " or " two-spirit " theory, a " one- 
 wife " or a " two-wife " theory, etc ? The 
 assumption that what a 'word means in 
 one text it means everywhere else is 
 equally absurd ; for it is of the essence of 
 generic terms to be capable of receiving 
 qualifying adjectives. It is the same kind 
 of fallacy as giving a definition with the 
 differentiation left out. As a matter of 
 fact, we have hundreds of examples of the 
 use, during two thousand years, of the 
 word wine (in Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, 
 Greek, Latin, French, German, Spanish 
 and English) for the expressed juice of 
 the grape ; and sometimes, in the earliest 
 use, for the grape-fruit in the cluster. 
 
 16. The expression, " fruit of the vine," 
 as translated from both the Hebrew and 
 the Greek, was applied to the expressed 
 juice of the grape, but was never originally 
 
 used, like " corn," for the natural fruit — 
 the grape in the cluster. For that pur- 
 pose a distinct word was employed. In 
 the course of time, through human ig- 
 norance, the phrase under consideration 
 came to be applied to the fermented juice 
 of the grape - also called " wine " — be- 
 cause men did not understand the change 
 effected by fermentation, as few do even 
 to-day. When employed by our Saviour, 
 however, we may surely assume that he 
 did not fall into the errors of the Rabbins 
 who " made the law of none effect," but 
 selected that form of wine which was not 
 only innocent but " good." 
 
 I close by giving an analysis and con- 
 trast of two things, which may help to 
 illuminate the whole subject: 
 
 The Solid Constituent 
 Parts of Vine-Fhuit : 
 
 I. NATURAL JUICE. 
 
 m..+™ ) These totally van- 
 
 nil >ish from the fer- 
 
 *'° m \ mented juice. 
 
 Albumen 
 
 Sugar 
 
 Tanuin .... 
 
 Tartaric Acid . 
 
 Potash | These three 
 
 Sulphur Especially valu- 
 
 Pbosphorus j able for blood. 
 
 Constituents op Alco- 
 holic Wine: 
 
 II. FERMESTED JUICE, 
 
 1 Alcohol, 2 Acetic Acid, a 
 OZnanthic-^Ethur, 4 Suc- 
 cinic Acid, 5 Glycerine. 
 
 Albumen, 6 pts. out of 7 lost 
 
 Sugar, 4 out of 5 lost. 
 
 Tannin, 4 out of G lost. 
 
 Tartaric Acid, 1 out of 3 lost 
 
 Potash ) 
 
 Sulphur V One-half less. 
 
 Phosphorus ) 
 
 At the top of the left-hand column are 
 the names of two constituents not found 
 in the right-hand column. These are 
 wholly destroyed by fermentation, and the 
 first is the distinctive nutritive constitu- 
 ent of the fruit. At the top of the right- 
 hand column will be seen the names of 
 five constituents not contained in the 
 grape. They are new products generated 
 by the destruction of the gluten, gum 
 and other constituents in both columns. 
 Hence, by a triple process of destruction, 
 addition and abstraction (through fer- 
 mentation) grape-juice loses its essential 
 constituents, and its nutritive character 
 vanishes. In scientific fact, therefore, 
 alcoholic "wine" is not "the fruit of the 
 vine," but an artificial product. 
 
 F. ,R. Lees. 
 
 Bible Wines. — 1. Reasons Against 
 the Unfer mented- Wine TJieory. — No onein 
 reading the Bible from Genesis to Revela- 
 tion, without prejudice, would imagine 
 that there were two kinds of wine, intox- 
 icating and the non-intoxicating, men- 
 tioned in the holy book. He would fiud 
 that the same word for wine is used for 
 that which Noah drank to drunkenness, 
 and that which Melchizedek brought 
 
Bible Winec] 
 
 49 
 
 [Bible Wines. 
 
 forth to Abraham; for that which is 
 called a " mocker," and that which was 
 used as a drink-offering at God's altar; 
 for that which inflames man, and that 
 which makes glad man's heart ; for that 
 which figures God's wrath and man's 
 wickedness, and that which figures our 
 Lord's salvation. (See Gen. 9: 24; 14: 18; 
 Prov. 20: 1; Ex. 29: 40; Isa. 5: 11; Ps. 
 104 : 15 ; Jer. 25 : 15 ; 5.1 : 7 ; Isa. 55 : 1.) In 
 the New Testament he would find the 
 same thing. The same word in Greek is 
 used for that which Jesus drank and 
 made, and that whose excess is deprecated. 
 In neither Testament is the slightest 
 hint given that there was a difference in 
 these drinks. If there had been a dif- 
 ference we should have found a differ- 
 ence in the word used ; or, at least, if the 
 word was the same we should have found 
 some adjective or explanatory phrase to 
 warn us of the difference. For example, 
 when Paul rebuked the Corinthian Chris- 
 tians for their drunkenness at the Lord's 
 Supper, how easy it would have been for 
 him to say to them : " Drink only the 
 unintoxicating wine." If there had been 
 a difference between wines, as intoxicat- 
 ing and unintoxicating, it was his apos- 
 tolic duty to emphasize that distinction 
 at such a crisis. So again, when the 
 same apostle tells the deacons and old 
 women not to use much wine (1 Tim. 
 3:8; Tit. 2:3) he must have meant in- 
 toxicating wine, for what reason could he 
 frame for cautioning them not to use 
 much innocuous juice ? He did not ap- 
 pear to know that there was a non-intox- 
 icating wine. He advises Timothy (not 
 as a physician, but as a friend) to use a 
 " little," and warns against its excessive 
 use. (1 Tim. 5: 23; Eph. 5: 18; comp. 
 1 Pet. 4 : 3.) The little and the excess 
 evidently refer to the same liquid. 
 
 That "fruit of the vine," in the ac- 
 counts of our Lord's Supper (Matt. 26:29; 
 Mark 14 : 25 ; Luke 22 : 18), is the same as 
 wine, and only means the wine used at 
 the time, is evident to anyone who knows 
 that the phrase " fruit of the vine " was 
 the Jewish formula for wine at the Pas- 
 chal feast? The Jews mingled water with 
 the wine at the Passover to avoid drunk- 
 enness, and the blessing said over it was, 
 " Blessed be he that created the fruit of 
 the vine." Our Saviour simply used the 
 Paschal term for intoxicating wine. (See 
 Lightfoot on Matt. 26 : 29.) Herodotus 
 
 uses the same phrase, "fruit of thevine,' ; 
 for intoxicating wine. He represents 
 queen Tomyris assaying to Cyrus: " Be 
 not elated . . . that by the fruit 
 of the vine with which, when filled with 
 it, ye so rave," etc. (Herod. 1 :212). The 
 Greek fathers, who certainly knew what 
 "fruit of the vine" meant, always speak 
 of our Saviour using wine at the Supper. 
 
 Wine is grape-juice fermented. Grape- 
 juice, left to itself, will ferment. To pre- 
 vent fermentation and keep its juice 
 there is need of elaborate restrictive pro- 
 cesses, and they are these that Pliny and 
 Columella refer to, but nowhere do these 
 and other ancient authors refer to these 
 preserved juices as the wine of commerce 
 and the country. They are extraordinary 
 productions, while wine, intoxicating 
 wine, is the only thing known by the 
 name in the ancient poets and essayists. 
 To prove this by quotation would be to 
 write a book of quotations from scores of 
 writers. And what is true of the ancient 
 heathen writers is true of the early Chris- 
 tian fathers. AVe find not the slightest 
 hint of two kinds of wine, the intoxica- 
 ting and the non-intoxicating, in any of 
 them. Clement of Alexandria, who is 
 especially quoted by those who would 
 sustain the two-wine theory, warns the 
 young not to use wine, but never sug- 
 gests an unintoxicating kind. He says 
 of the one kind, which alone he knows : 
 " Toward evening, about supper-time, 
 wine may be used. But we must not go 
 on to intemperate potations." (Clem. 
 Alex. Peed. 2 : 2.) If preserved grape- 
 juice were a common thing in his day, 
 why did not this Christian father 
 urge this as a substitute for intoxicating 
 wine ? 
 
 In all the poets of Greece and Rome, 
 such as Anacreon and Horace, we find 
 wine constantly mentioned as an intoxi- 
 cating drink, if taken to excess. No one 
 in reading these classics would ever sus- 
 pect there were two kinds of wine, the 
 intoxicating and unintoxicating. We 
 cannot prove a negative by quotations. 
 We declare that no ancient author hints 
 even at two kinds of wine, the intoxica- 
 ting and unintoxicating, as the ordi- 
 nary wine drunk by the people, and it is 
 for the two-wine advocates to prove their 
 position by a single honest quotation. 
 There have been plenty of twisted quo- 
 tations unfairly used, but not one hon- 
 
Bible Wines.] 
 
 50 
 
 [Bible Wines. 
 
 estly quoted with its context that sus- 
 tains the two-wine theory. The extraor- 
 dinary preservation of must has been 
 used for the ordinary making of wine. 
 Now must stands to wine just as dough 
 stands to bread ; and must may be called 
 wine just as dough may be called bread. 
 One may loosely say to the baker, " Put 
 your bread into the oven " before it is 
 actually bread ; and so one may say, " Do 
 not touch my wine," to one who is med- 
 dling with the must before it becomes 
 wine. So, also, poetically, one may say, 
 " My vineyard bears the repaying wine;" 
 just as another poet says, " My ship was 
 then the growing trees of the forest." 
 But to suppose that the poet meant the 
 grapes were wine is as wise as to suppose 
 he meant that the growing trees were a 
 ship. We must use common sense in our 
 interpretations. These anticipatory or 
 poetical uses of the word " wine " are 
 found in all writers, but no argument can 
 be founded on their literal truth. 
 
 The two-wine theory is a modern affair. 
 It began in our own century with a few 
 excellent men who longed to meet the 
 intemperance of the day with a new argu- 
 ment, and who said that the ordinary in- 
 terpretation of the word " wine " in the 
 Bible was an obstacle to the theory and 
 practice of total abstinence. They hon- 
 estly thought that they detected a differ- 
 ence in terms and expressions both in the 
 Hebrew and the Greek, on which they 
 could base their theory. Two or three 
 prominent names, of the highest charac- 
 ter and of good scholarship for that day, 
 gave currency to the theory among the 
 less learned philanthropists, who saw no 
 way of escape from the curse of intem- 
 perance but by the total denunciation of 
 wine. The temperance literature at once 
 gave wide circulation to this error, and 
 now there are thousands and tens of 
 thousands who firmly believe that both 
 the Bible and the ancient writers gen- 
 erally recognize two kinds of wine, one 
 intoxicating and the other unintoxicat- 
 ing ; one to be condemned and the other 
 to be praised. A mighty stream of sen- 
 timent has flowed from this little begin- 
 ning, and its prevalence tends to sub- 
 stantiate it. Many sound and strong 
 minds, who have not personally examined 
 the question, give in their adherence to the 
 utterly unfounded theory. This is the 
 way of an error that becomes inveterate. 
 
 We hazard nothing in saying that the 
 present scholarship of the world repudi- 
 ates the theory in toto. Etymologically, 
 historically and scientifically, the theory 
 is condemned by every scholar who has 
 given his thought and study to it in late 
 years. In a brief article like this it is 
 impossible to take up each department 
 and show the processes and results of 
 careful observation The onus probandi 
 belongs to those who assert the theory, 
 which was never heard of until this cen- 
 tury. We have examined scores of books 
 that advocate the theory, and have yet to 
 find the first evidence of its truth. It is 
 purely an invention, honestly prompted 
 in minds to which the w.sh was father 
 to the thought, and naturally grasped by 
 the earnest advocates of total abstinence. 
 We do not wonder at the zeal of such 
 men and women. It is most laudable. 
 A mind that can unmoved see the dread- 
 ful evils of intemperance is an unenvia- 
 ble one. Every lover of his race should 
 be most earnest to meet the usages that 
 are destroying both body and soul with 
 such appalling power. We cannot but 
 commend the energy of all who are en- 
 listed to extirpate the baleful influence 
 of the saloon. And yet we should be 
 careful in the warfare to use no improper 
 weapons and to wield no untruth which 
 will only react against us and stop the 
 progress of reform. The two-wine the- 
 ory, by reason of its baselessness, is, as 
 promulgated, only an advantage to the 
 enemy, who, by overthrowing one weak 
 defense, will impress the public mind that 
 they have conquered in the main strife. 
 If we are to make steady progress we 
 must adhere to truth, and declare wine 
 an evil only in its excessive use; and 
 standing by and with God's word, and 
 by and with the human conscience, 
 too, denounce and hinder excess in every 
 legitimate way. Man's wisdom cannot 
 take the place of God's wisdom. 
 
 Howakd Crosby. 
 
 2. Reasons for the Unfermented-Wme 
 Theory.— The study of ttible wines re- 
 quires notice of their historic mention, 
 the sources of knowledge as to their na- 
 ture, the methods of their preparation, 
 and their uses as beverages and medicines, 
 and in religious rites. The word " wine" 
 occurs in the English translation of the 
 Old Testament about 200 times, and in 
 
Bible Wines.] 
 
 51 
 
 [Bible Wines. 
 
 the New Testament about 40 times. Its 
 special nature is to the English reader 
 indicated by associated terms which either 
 directly or indirectly explain its charac- 
 ter. Thus, the special terms "new" oc- 
 curring 18 times and "sweet" 3 times, 
 its association as a fresh product of the 
 field 25 times with "corn" and 29 times 
 with "oil," as also its issuing from the 
 "press" mentioned about 20 times, indi- 
 cate to the ordinary reader that its 
 nature is to be inferred from these 
 associated statements. Turning to the 
 inspired Hebrew of the Old Testa- 
 ment and to the inspired Greek of the 
 New Testament, the specific meanings of 
 the several terms used, as explained by 
 translators, lexicographers and commen- 
 tators in successive ages, make specially 
 apparent what the ordinary reader has 
 imperfectly recognized. 
 
 In the Hebrew Old Testament no less 
 than ten distinct terms are translated by 
 the word "wine;" only two of which re- 
 quire special attention. The eight less 
 important terms, in the order of the lexi- 
 con, are the following : The word mhisliah, 
 rendered " flagon," used four times,- re- 
 fers doubtless to dried grapes or raisins 
 pressed into cakes. The passages are, 2 
 Sam. 6: 19; 1 Chron. 16: 3; Cant. 2: 5, 
 and Hos. 3 : 1; all of which Fuerst, the 
 latest and ablest in archaeology of Hebrew 
 lexicographers, thus interprets, citing as 
 authority both the Greek translation of 
 the LXX and the Talmud. The term 
 clmmra, Chaldee, used six times by Ezra 
 and Daniel in Babylonia (namely, Ezra 
 6:9; 7 : 22 ; Dan. 5 : 1, 2, 4, 23), and its 
 cognate Hebrew cliemar, used three times, 
 once each by Moses (Deut. 32 : 14), David 
 (Ps. 75 : 8) and Isaiah (Isa. 27 : 2), refers 
 unquestionably, as do its cognate Syriac 
 cliamro and Arabic chemer now constantly 
 used, to intoxicating wines. The term ya- 
 qneb, meaning wine-press, used 16 times, 
 indicates fresh grape-juice issuing from 
 the press. (See Num. 18 : 27, 30 ; Deut. 15 : 
 14; 16: 13; Judges 7: 25; 2 Kings 6: 27; 
 Job 24: 11; Prov. 3: 10; Isa. 5: 2; 16:10; 
 Jer. 48: 33; Hos. 9:22; Joel 2:24; 3: 
 13; Hag. 2: 16; Zech. 14: 10.) The term 
 mimesak, only twice used (Prov. 23: 30; 
 Isa. 65 : 11), rendered "mixed wine," in- 
 dicates a wine made pungent in taste by 
 spices. The word soba, three times used 
 (Isa. 1: 22; Hos. 4: 18; Nah. 1: 10), 
 rendered "wine," "drink" and "drunken" 
 
 and described in Isa. 1: 22 as mixed 
 with water, as the Latin and other trans- 
 lations indicate, is a syrup made of fresh 
 grape-juice, like those used in making 
 effervescing drinks, and common among 
 Mohammedans as the drink called " sher- 
 bet." The word anab, meaning " grape- 
 cluster," used 18 times, once only trans- 
 lated " wine " (Hos. 3 : 1), brings to notice 
 the fresh juice yet in the cluster. (See 
 Gen. 40: 10, 11; 49: 11; Lev. 25: 5 
 Num. 6:3; 13: 20,23; Deut. 23: 24; 32 
 14, 32; Neh. 13: 15; Isa. 5: 2, 4; Jer. 8 
 13; Hos. 3: 1; 9: 10; Amos 9: 13.) The 
 term asis, used five times, rendered 
 " sweet wine" (Isa. 49 : 26, and Amos 9 : 
 13), "new wine" (Joel 1: 5, and 3: 18), 
 and "juice" (Cant. 8:2), derived from 
 asas meaning to " press," indicates the 
 fresh juice oozing from the fruit. The 
 word sliemarim, met five times (Ps. 75:8; 
 Isa. 25 : 6 ; Jer. 48 : 11 ; Zeph. 1 : 12), ren- 
 dered "dregs," "lees," and "wine on the 
 lees," indicates manifestly the juice in the 
 wine-vat before it is drawn off to be stored. 
 To these eight terms rendered " wine " 
 in the English version of the Old Testa- 
 ment, must be added three others indicat- 
 ing products of the grape; which, with 
 the preceding, present the succession of 
 products in ancient and modern times — 
 two yet to be considered excepted — de- 
 rived from the grape referred to in Old 
 Testament history and precept, poetry 
 and prophecy. The word debsh is met 54 
 times. (See Gen. 43: 11; Ex. 3:8, 17 
 13:5; 16 : 31 ; 33 : 3 ; Lev. 2 : 11 ; 20 : 24 
 Num. 13: 27; 14: 8; 16: 13, 14; Deut 
 6: 3; 8: 8; 11: 9; 26: 9, 15; 27: 3; 31 
 20; 32: 13; Josh. 5:6; Judges 14-8, 9 
 18; 1 Sam. 14: 25, 26, 27, 29, 43; 2 Sam 
 17:29; 1 Kings 14:3; 2 Kings 18 : 32 
 2 Chron. 31: 5; Job 20: 17; Ps. 19: 10 
 81: 16; 119: 103; Prov. 16: 24; 24: 13 
 25:16, 27; Cant. 4: 11; 5:1; Isa. 7: 15 
 22; Jer. 11:5; 32:22; 41:8; Ezek. 3 : 3 
 16: 13, 19; 20: 6, 15; 27: 17.) Its abund- 
 ance in the early history of Israel, and its 
 apparent supplanting, at least as a bever- 
 age, by tirosh in Nehemiah's age, is signif- 
 icant. It is rendered " honey," and is in 
 all instances except one, the modern Ara- 
 bic dibs, a sauce of stewed grapes with or 
 without the skins, though usually strained 
 juice — the same juice in Judges 14: 8, 9, 
 18 being, as now on all the shores of the 
 Mediterranean, extracted by the bee in- 
 stead of man. 
 
Bible Wines.] 
 
 52 
 
 [Bible Wines. 
 
 The term shekar, strong drink, as indi- 
 cated specially by the Greek translation of 
 the Old Testament made two and a half 
 centuries before Christ and quoted by Him 
 and His Apostles, was a highly intoxica- 
 ting wine. It is alluded to 23 times in the 
 Old Testament. (See Lev. 9: 10; Num. 
 6: 3; 28: 7; Deut. 14: 20; 29: 6; Judg. 
 13: 4, 7, 14; 1 Sam. 1: 15; Ps. 69: 12; 
 Prov. 20: 1; 31: 4, 6; Isa. 5: 11, 22; 24: 
 .' ; 28: 7; 29: 9; 56: 12; Mic. 2: 11.) 
 The corresponding verb shakar is used 19 
 times. (Gen. 9:21; 43: 34; Deut. 32: 
 42; 1 Sam. 1: 14; 2 Sam. 11: 13; Cant. 
 5: 1; Isa. 29: 9; 49: 26; 51: 21; 63: 6; 
 Jer. 25: 27; 51: 7, 21, 39, 57; Lam. 4: 
 21; Nah. 3: 11; Hab. 2: 15; Hag. 1: 6.) 
 It is rendered " drunken," except in Cant. 
 5 : 1, where it is rendered correctly, as the 
 connection shows, " drink abundantly " 
 — a meaning confirmed by the figurative 
 use in Deut. 32 : 42. Shekar or sikera in 
 Greek is found only once (Luke 1 : 15) in 
 the New Testament citation from the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 The term chomets, derived from the 
 verb chamets, meaning " to leaven," refers 
 to and is rendered "vinegar" — Erench 
 via gar or sour wine —which is the ulti- 
 mate product of the grape when the alco- 
 hol of transient ferment is transformed 
 into acetic acid. It is found five times. 
 (Num. 6:3; Kuth 2: 14; Psa. 69: 21; 
 Prov. 10 : 26 ; 25 : 20.) The verb chamets 
 is found eight times, and is rendered 
 literally "leavened" in Ex. 12:19, 20, 
 34, 39, and Hos. 7 : 4, but is figuratively 
 rendered "cruel" in Psa. 71: 4, and. 
 "grieved" in Psa. 73: 21— mental agita- 
 tion acting like leaven-while it is rendered 
 "dyed" in Isa. 63: 1, since the grape- 
 juice exposed to the air soon becomes 
 acetic acid or vinegar. The noun chamets, 
 found ten times, is rendered "leavened 
 bread" in Ex. 12: 15; 13: 3, 7; 23: 18; 
 Lev. 7: 13; Deut. 16: 3; and "leaven" 
 in Ex.34: 25; Lev. 2: 11; 6:17; 23:17; 
 Amos 4: 5, this latter meaning justifying 
 the conclusion that fermented wine as 
 well as bread was excluded from the He- 
 brew festivals. 
 
 The two terms on which the interpre- 
 tation of the important laws and precepts 
 of the Old Testament as to the use of 
 wine turns, both as a beverage and at re- 
 ligious festivals, are tirosh and yayin. 
 Tirosh is used 38 times. (See Gen. 27: 
 28, 37; Num. 18: 12; Deut. 7: 13; 11: 
 
 14; 12: 17; 14: 23; 18: 4; 28: 51; 33: 
 28; Judg. 9: 13; 2 Kings 18: 32; 2 
 Chron.31:5; 32:28; Men. 5:11; 10:37, 
 39; 13:5,12; Ps. 4:7; Prov. 3:10; Isa. 
 24: 7; 36: 17; 62: 8; 65:8; Jer. 31:12; 
 Hos. 2:8,9,22; 4:11; 7: 14; 9: 2; Joel 
 1: 10; 2: 19,24; Mic. 6:15; Hag. 1:11; 
 Zech. 9: 17.) 
 
 Tirosh is first mentioned by the En- 
 glish word "wine" in Isaac's blessing, Gen. 
 27: 28, 37; it occurs throughout the en- 
 tire history of Israel, and is specially prom- 
 inent at two eras when Israel reached 
 Canaan, in Nehemiah and in the prophets 
 from Isaiah to Zechariah. The entire his- 
 tory of translations, of renderings by lexi- 
 cographers and of Hebrew and Oriental 
 Christian commentators, confirms the be- 
 lief that tirosh is unfermented wine. 
 Fuerst, the latest and best archaeological 
 lexicographer, renders it ungegorener ivein, 
 " unfermented wine." This was prepared, 
 as representations to the life on Egyptian 
 tomb-walls indicate, by drawing off from 
 the top of the vat through a strainer, or 
 in a twisted sack, the sweet watery juice 
 of the grapes, dipping it at once into 
 oiled, jars, and covering it with a film of 
 olive oil — a method now revived and em- 
 ployed by New York importers from 
 Italy' and Spain. This method was tested 
 in February, 1881, at the Columbia Col- 
 lege School of Mines, New York, when 
 strained grape-juice put up in a glass phial 
 covered with olive oil in October, 1879, 
 was found not to have the least trace of 
 alcoholic fermentation. The only excep- 
 tion urged in modern discussion has been 
 based on the interpretation of tirosh in 
 the Greek translation of Hos. 9:11 by the 
 word methusma, and the translation in 
 the Latin Vulgate of methusma by ebrietas, 
 or partial intoxication. This objection is 
 removed by the statement of Stephanus 
 in his Greek Thesaurus, issued at Paris, 
 1575. Stephanus, though aEoman Catho- 
 lic scholar, correcting this translation, 
 thus declares: "Methusma ebrietas qui- 
 dem reddihir in VVLL; sed ahs/ue iillo 
 exnnplo aut nomine auctoris -Mi us ■ a 
 is indeed rendered in ancient versions by 
 ebrietas, but without any example or the 
 name of an authority." 
 
 The other mainly important Hebrew 
 term for wine is yayin, used no less than 
 141 times. (See Gen. 9: 21, 24; 14-18- 
 19: 32, 33, 34, 35; 27: 25; 49: 11, 12; 
 Ex. 29: 40; Lev. 10: 9; 23: 13; Num. 6: 
 
Bible Wines.] 
 
 53 
 
 [Bible Wines. 
 
 3, 4, 20; 15: 5, 7, 10; 28: 14; Dent. 14: 
 26; 28: 39; 29: 6; 32: 33, 38; Josh. 9: 
 
 4, 13; Judg. 13: 4, 7, 14; 19: 19; 1 Sam. 
 1: 14, 15, 24; 10: 3; 16: 20; 25: 18, 37; 
 2 Sam. 13: 28; 16: 1, 2; 1 Chron. 9: 29; 
 12: 40; 27: 27; 2 Chron. 2: 10, 15; 11: 
 11; Neh. 2: 1; 5:15,18; 13:15; Esther 
 1:7,10; 5:6; 7:2,7,8; Job. 1:13, 18; 
 32: 19; Ps. 60: 3; 75: 8; 78: 65; 104: 
 15; Prov. 4: 17; 9:2, 5; 20: 1; 21: 17; 
 23:20,30,31; 31:4,6; Eccl. 2: 3; 9:7 
 10: 19; Cant. 1:2, 4; 2:4; 4:10; 5:1; 
 7:9; 8:2; Isa. 5: 11, 12, 22; 16:10; 23: 
 13; 24:9,11; 28:1,7; 29:9; 51: 21; 55: 
 1; 56: 12; Jer. 13: 12; 23: 9; 25: 15; 35: 
 2, 5, 6, 8, 14; 40: 10, 12; 48: 33; 51: 7; 
 Lam. 2: 12; Ezek. 27: 18; 44: 21; Dan. 
 1:5,8,16; 10:3; Hos. 4:11; 7:5; 9:4; 
 14: 7; Joel 1: 5; 3:3; Amos. 2:8, 12; 5: 
 11; 6:6; 9: 14; Mic.2: 11; 6:15; Hab. 
 2: 5; Zeph. 1: 13; Hag. 2: 12; Zech. 9: 
 15; 10: 7.) _ Yayin, in fact, like "wine" 
 in English, is the generic term covering 
 all kinds of wine, whose varieties are indi- 
 cated specially in the age of Solomon and 
 in his three inspired books. As all lexi- 
 cographers allow, yayin is cognate with 
 Greek oinos, Latin vinum, Italian and 
 Spanish vino, French vin, German ivein 
 and English " wine." 
 
 The proofs that yayin was a term cov- 
 ering all kinds of wine are these : First, 
 It is not found in any of the languages 
 of the Hebrew or Semitic family, — ancient 
 Chaldee, Aramaean or modern Syriac and 
 Arabic. Second, The family of Abraham 
 in Canaan were brought into contact with 
 Phoenecian and Egyptian trade, carried 
 on with all the nations bordering on the 
 Mediterranean from Greece westward ; so 
 that yayin was introduced among the 
 I Hebrews alone of the Semitic family, 
 alike in the days of Abraham, of Moses, 
 of Solomon and of Joel ; and Joel, 800 
 years before Christ and only 700 years 
 after Moses, alludes (3 : 6) to commerce 
 with the " Grecians " as an ancient traffic. 
 Third, The term yayin manifestly in- 
 cludes tirosli, as a single palpable instance 
 proves. In Num. 18: 12 Moses ordains 
 that offerings for the use of the Levites 
 and Tabernacle service shall be in quality 
 of clieleb tirosli, or fresh unfermented 
 wine; the word cheleb being now used by 
 Arab servants in asking for " fresh " milk, 
 meat or any perishable article of food. 
 Again, in Num. 28 : 14, where the quantity, 
 not the quality of the drink is made prom- 
 
 inent, it is said that it shall be " half a 
 hin of yayin." Every jurist interpreting 
 this book of law, as many like Grotius in 
 ages past have done, would rule that the 
 specific statute as to quality cannot be set 
 aside by the general statute as to quantity. 
 The accumulated proofs that yayin is not 
 restricted to intoxicating wine, but that, 
 like its cognate terms oinos, vinum, vino, 
 vin. tuein, and wine, in all ancient and 
 modern languages, it is used for wines of 
 every character, is made demonstrable in 
 this example. That yayin, in the follow- 
 ing passages, does not refer to intoxica- 
 ting wine, but as in Num. 28: 14 to an 
 unintoxicating product of the grape, is 
 shown by the context, by the associated 
 history and by the testimony of the ablest 
 commentators in successive ages. The 
 wine of Gen. 14: 18 cannot be that of 9: 
 21, this incident being regarded as pre- 
 figuring the Passover and Lord's Supper. 
 The washing of garments in yayin, Gen. 
 49: 11, is parallel to the use of chametsin 
 Isa. 63: 1. The association of yayin with 
 fresh products of the field (as in 1 Chron. 
 9: 29; 12:40; 27: 27; 2 Chron. 2: 15; 
 Neh. 13: 15; Jer. 40: 10, 12; Lam. 2: 12; 
 Hag. 2 : 12) has always attested to Hebrew 
 and Christian scholars a fresh product of 
 the grape. The store of " all sorts of 
 yayin" (Neh. 5 : 18) is a declaration as 
 palpable in Hebrew as in Italian, French 
 or English, that yayin covers every va- 
 riety of wine. The terms used with yayin 
 (Psa. 104 : 15), as well as its association 
 with oil and bread, have led both Hebrew 
 and Christian commentators to the assur- 
 ance that an unintoxicating wine is re- 
 ferred to. The purity of the youthful 
 affection pictured in Canticles, the poem 
 of Solomon's true, early love, the country 
 life pictured among vineyards, as well as 
 laws of interpretation, have restrained in 
 all ages the thought that intoxicating wine 
 is referred to in the mention of yayin 
 seven times in this " Song of Songs which 
 is Solomon's." The heaven-wide contrast 
 between yayin in Isa. 55 : 1 and in 28 : 1; 
 56: 12, has never permitted any interpreter 
 to regard the wine referred to as the same. 
 The failing of yayin (Jer. 48: 33) is cer- 
 tainly the failing of the harvest of grape- 
 clusters. The yayin which Daniel re- 
 fused (1: 5, 8) certainly is not the yayin 
 which he drank as an ordinary beverage 
 (10: 8) except during his fast. 
 In the English version of the New Tes- 
 
Bible Wines.] 
 
 54 
 
 [Bible Wines. 
 
 tament, the term " wine " occurs 44 times 
 — 21 times unassociated, ten times with 
 "new," twice with "good," three times 
 with "oil," five times with "press,*' once 
 with " fat" or " vat," twice in the com- 
 pound word " wine-bibber," and once in 
 "excess of wine." The Greek term for 
 wine, with a single exception, in all cases 
 used in the inspired New Testament, is 
 oinos ; this term covering, as do all its 
 cognate terms in other languages, every 
 variety of wine. It occurs uncompounded 
 33 times ; eight times associated with neos, 
 "new," and twice with kalos, rendered 
 " good ; " once associated with lenos, 
 "press; " also three times in compounds, 
 in oinopotes (" wine-bibber "), and once in 
 oinophlugia ("excess of wine"). In the 
 English version the term rendered " new 
 wine" (Acts 2: 13) is gleukos, or a drink 
 grape-syrup; the term lenon, rendered 
 "wine-press," has the Greek oinon only 
 in Rev. 19: 15; and the term rendered 
 "wine-vat" (Mark 12: 1) is hypolenion. 
 
 The fact that oinos covers every variety 
 of wine is demonstrated: First, from 
 usage in classic Greek ; second, from the 
 Greek translation used by Christ and his 
 apostles, in which tirosh, which had no 
 intoxicating element, is generally rendered 
 by oinos; third, from Latin terms used in 
 allusion to unfermented wines described 
 by Roman writers from Cato (B. C. 200) 
 to Pliny (A. D. 100) ; fourth, from the 
 usage of Mark, who, writing for Romans 
 familiar with their own unfermented 
 wines, calls the beverage offered to Christ 
 when nailed to the cross oinos (15: 23), 
 while Matthew uses the term oxos, still 
 called in French vin-gar, sour wine; 
 though in vinegar, the last natural and 
 divinely-ordered product of grape-juice, 
 the alcohol developed in the temporary 
 process of fermentation is converted into 
 acetic acid. 
 
 The application of these attested facts 
 and principles to the divine precepts con- 
 cerning wine used as a beverage, as a medi- 
 cine and as a symbol in religious rites, 
 may be concisely stated. (1) The error 
 of Noah (Gen. 9: 20-27) and its influence 
 on his three sons is universally traced by 
 Hebrew and early Christian writers in 
 Palestine and the East to the specially 
 significant statement of Moses, in har- 
 mony with all his history from Eden to 
 Egypt — " Noah began to be a husband- 
 man; " inexperience, guarded by no such 
 
 express command like that given to Adam 
 the first head of the human race, being 
 the natural and excusable cause of the fall 
 of the second head of the human race. 
 (2) The second stage in this history of 
 Moses, "learned in all the wisdom of 
 Egypt," has led to statements from an- 
 cient Hebrew and Christian equally well 
 attested, that in the age when unfermented 
 wine, known to Moses in Egypt, had re- 
 ceived the specific name tirosh used by 
 Isaac (Gen. 27: 28, 37) it was also the 
 yayin brought forth by Melchizedek to 
 Abraham (Gen. 15: 18) ; the same writers 
 seeing in this a precursor of the Passover 
 and Lord's Supper provision. (3) The 
 fall of Lot through the temptation of his 
 erring daughters, recognized as parallel to 
 that of Eve (Gen. 19: 34, 35), is as univer- 
 sally attested to have been the point of 
 contrast between two kinds of wine, since 
 the " vine " is not affected on the hills of 
 Sodom by other causes than in the neigh- 
 boring valley of Eshcol (Deut. 32: 32, 33, 
 38), one kind being used by pure men 
 like Melchizedek, and an opposite kind 
 by the debauched in Sodom. (4) The 
 life of Joseph in Egypt brings out the 
 fact, before his day inscribed on the tomb- 
 walls of Egypt, with whose scenes in real 
 life Moses was familiar when he wrote of 
 the fresh grape-cluster pressed into Pha- 
 raoh's cup (Gen. 40: 11, 13). (5) It is 
 significant that when the second Passover 
 was observed at Mt. Sinai (Num. 9: 5) it 
 was in accord with the prospective direc- 
 tion that it was to be annually observed 
 only when they came into the Land of 
 Promise (Ex. 12: 24-27; Lev. 23: 9-14); 
 that at the second observance the people 
 had still stores brought out of Egypt 
 (Ex. 12: 36; Lev. 7: 1-80; 9:3), after 
 which no Passover was or could be observed 
 till they had entered into the land of 
 wheat and of the vine (Josh. 5 : 10, 11). 
 (6) It is yet more significant that imme- 
 diately preceding the observance of this 
 second Passover, the law for the Nazarites, 
 who never drank intoxicating wine, as 
 did not the Egyptian priests with whom 
 they had been associated for generations, 
 is given ; that law exempting them from 
 the extreme vow of tasting nothing made 
 from the grape, though in the days of 
 Samson, of Samuel, of Elijah, of Jere- 
 miah, of Daniel and of devout Jews after 
 Christ's coming, abstinence from intoxi- 
 cating wine was required. (Num. 6 : 3, 4, 
 
Bible Wines.] 
 
 55 
 
 [Bible Wines. 
 
 13; Judg. 13: 4, 7, 14; 1 Sam. 1: 11, 15; 
 Jer. 35: 1, 19; Dan. 1: 8; 10: 3; Luke 1: 
 15; Acts 21: 24-26.) (7) It is yet more to 
 be carefully and conscientiously noted, 
 that it was directly after this law for the 
 Nazarites, and when these gifts from re- 
 served stores for the second Passover were 
 exhausted, that the spies entered Canaan 
 and brought from Eshcol the clustered 
 grapes; on which palpable occasion the 
 special law as to the quality of wine offer- 
 ings, now indicated as possible when they 
 should come into that land of the vine, 
 was written ; soon after which the general 
 statute as to quantity was, in the same 
 connection, added by Moses (Num. 13: 23, 
 24; 18: 12; 28: 14). That law as to the 
 quality of wine-offering to be brought, for 
 the priests' use as well as for the public 
 festivals, requires that it be cheleb tirosh; 
 the English, like other versions, making 
 the word chele'i an adjective, as does Fuerst 
 in his Lexicon; cheleb in modern Arabic 
 meaning "fresh" as applied to milk, 
 etc. 
 
 A clear light is thus, by this meaning 
 of yayin, cast on the writings of David, 
 Solomon and the prophets, who con- 
 demned always the use of intoxicating 
 wine and commended the simple " cup " 
 of the country laborers, which was the 
 fresh grape-juice now pressed into the 
 " overrunning cup " in Southern France, 
 Spain, and Italy, and also brought now 
 fresh and unfermented from Mediterra- 
 nean ports to New York. The reader has 
 only to contrast the statements of the 
 same writers to see this truth demonstrat- 
 ed, comparing Psalm 75: 8 with 23: 5 
 and 104: 15; again Prov. 20: 1 and 23: 
 29, 31 with -Cant. 5; 1 and 7: 9; again, 
 Dan. 1 : 5 with 10: 3 ; again, Neh. 2 : 1 
 with 5 : 18 and 13:15; a contrast which 
 the wayfaring man sees, and, if pure in 
 heart, he heeds. 
 
 There is but one plain allusion in the 
 Old Testament to wine used as a medicine 
 (Prov. 31 :6), and this is in perfect accord 
 with the laws of the priests of Egypt and 
 of India, with both of which Solomon 
 had commerce ; intoxicating wine being 
 used only, as afterwards among the 
 Greeks and Eomans, to produce stupe- 
 faction and rest to the nerves in acute 
 pain, as in strangury, and as an anaes- 
 thetic in surgical operations, when dead- 
 ness to sensibility was necessary. In the 
 New Testament it is inconceivable that 
 
 Jesus should, in example and precept, 
 have been behind the law of Greeks and 
 of Eoman moralists in his use and teach- 
 ings as to intoxicating wine ; as it is in- 
 conceivable that he should have appoint- 
 ed for his Supper a wine that would have 
 excluded from his church his chosen 
 forerunner. The five incidents of Christ's 
 life and teachings, which attest Christ's 
 law as to wines, are among the clearest 
 in the New Testament, being especially 
 explained by Christian writers from the 
 2d to the 6 th centuries. First, The 
 wine which He made for the wed- 
 ding (Jno. 2 . 10) is by divine guidance 
 ruling the writer John, as well as in the 
 statement of the governor of the feast, 
 which John heard, designated as kalon. 
 The same word is distinctively applied by 
 Christ to fruit (Matt. 7:16, 20); Jesus 
 with manifest design using the term 
 agathon, " permanently good," as applied 
 to the tree, but the word kalon, " beauti- 
 ful," for the fruit, which is good only 
 when fresh and unaffected by decay. The 
 inspired disciples of Jesus, therefore, 
 manifestly recognized that as fruit-juice 
 unexpressed, so fruit-juice expressed is 
 good only when fresh. Second, The 
 " new wine " preserved in " new bottles " 
 (Matt. 9 : 17 and Mark 2 : 22), in which 
 the term " new " is necessarily added to 
 both wine and bottles for the contrast, is 
 an attestation of the existence and use of 
 oiled-skin bottles, as Origen states; which 
 oiled skins preserved wine from ferment. 
 Third, The charge that Jesus was a 
 "wine-bibber" (Matt. 11: 19 and Luke 
 7: 34) is united with three other charges, 
 recognized as calumnies, namely, tiiat he 
 was "gluttonous," "avaricious" and 
 " licentious ; " calumnies revived by Mar- 
 cion, the apostate, in the 2d century, 
 and from that day in every age fully an- 
 swered. Fourth, The provision for the 
 communion of the Lord's Supper is never 
 alluded to as "wine," but as the "cup," 
 both of the Hebrew Passover and of 
 Christian communion. It is significantly 
 designated as the " fruit of the vine," 
 figuratively and literally "new," to be 
 drunk in Christ's coming kingdom ; all of 
 which statements are declared by early 
 Christian writers as making it clear that 
 the unfermented wine of the Passover is 
 to be that of the communion (Matt. 
 26:27,29; Mark 14:23, 25 and Luke 
 22 : 17, 18, 20) ; whose special significance, 
 
Black, James.] 
 
 56 
 
 [Black, James. 
 
 as the early Christian writers note, is 
 emphasized by Christ's allusion to himself 
 as the " vine " (John 15 : 1), from which 
 the pure " fruit of the vine," alike in the 
 cup and its symbol, flows for man. Fifth, 
 The refusal by Christ of a palliative at 
 the commencement of his agony on the 
 cross, and its reception only when he was 
 expiring, to which is added the statement 
 that this palliative called oinos, "wine," 
 by Mark, was oxos, " vinegar," as stated 
 by Matthew and John, who were eye- 
 witnesses. These cumulative and com- 
 bined statements have in all ages led to 
 the recognition of this double fact : (1) that 
 the wine Christ drank in life was the pure 
 fruit of the vine ; and (2) that even the 
 unintoxicating palliative was refused 
 that his suffering might be perfect. 
 
 There are only two allusions to wine in 
 the apostolic writings requiring notice. 
 The first is Paul's allusion to the Corin- 
 thian feast made to precede the Lord's 
 Supper (1 Cor. 11:21-26), in which 
 the term wine is not used, while the 
 Greek term methao, in English rendered 
 "drunken," is opposed to "hungry," 
 referring to the food, not to the drink 
 provided ; and it means simply " gorged." 
 The second noteworthy allusion is to 
 medicinal wine (1 Tim. 5 : 23) ; which 
 wine, as Greek medical writers from Hip- 
 pocrates to Galen state, and as French 
 medical writers now note, was made from 
 fresh unfermented juice of the grape. 
 G. W. Samson. 
 
 Black, James, the first candidate of 
 the Prohibition party for President of 
 the United States. He was born in Lewis- 
 burg, Pa., Sept. 23, 1823. He lived upon 
 a farm until 12 years of age, occasionally 
 working as a canal-driver during the 
 summer months. Removing with his 
 parents to Lancaster, Pa., in 1836, he 
 found employment in a sawmill and 
 earned enough to engage a private 
 teacher to give him instruction during 
 the winter. Two years later he entered 
 the Lancaster High School. In 1839, at 
 the age of 16, he joined an engineer 
 corps at work upon the Susquehanna and 
 Tide-Water Canal, and his savings ena- 
 bled him in 1841 to enter the Lewisburg 
 Academy, which he attended for three 
 years. In 1844 he began the study of the 
 law, and in 1846 was admitted to practice 
 at the bar in Lancaster, where he has 
 
 since resided. His success in his profes- 
 sion and in other pursuits has placed him 
 in comfortable circumstances. When a 
 lad of 16 years he was associated with 
 drinking engineers. He was once intox- 
 icated, but that experience was sufficient 
 to make him a total abstainer for the 
 remainder of his life, and a radical tem- 
 perance worker. In 1840 he joined the 
 Washingtonians, the first temperance 
 organization in his neighborhood. In 
 1846 he helped to institute a division of 
 the Sons of Temperance." Prominent in 
 the " Maine law " Prohibitory movement 
 of 1852 in Pennsylvania, Mr. Black was 
 that year elected Chairman of the Lan- 
 caster County Prohibition Committee by 
 a convention of men determined to carry 
 the temperance question into politics and 
 secure a State Prohibitory law like 
 Maine's. A temperance legislative ticket 
 having been nominated, Mr. Black, a few 
 days later, made his first public Prohibi- 
 tion speech. It was largely due to Mr. 
 Black's personal efforts that the Maine 
 law movement became popular in Lan- 
 caster County and resulted, in 1855, in 
 the election of two of the five temperance 
 legislative candidates. Besides making 
 speeches and writing for the cause, Mr. 
 Black sometimes contributed as much as 
 $500 yearly to it. 
 
 The Anti-Slavery agitation about this 
 time, and the Civil War a little later, in- 
 terrupted the temperance work and en- 
 gaged the attention and interest of Mr. 
 Black. He aided in organizing the Re- 
 publican party in Pennsylvania, and was 
 a delegate to the first National Conven- 
 ton of that party in 1856. He was a Re- 
 publican in politics until the formation 
 at Chicago in September, 1869, of the 
 National Prohibition party. He was 
 chosen Permanent President of this body. 
 At the new party's Columbus (0.) Con- 
 vention, in February, 1872, Mr. Black 
 was nominated as its candidate for Pres- 
 ident of the United States, and in the 
 election that followed he received 5,608 
 votes. For the four years from 1876 to 
 1880 he was Chairman of the National 
 Committee of the Prohibition party. 
 
 He has also been an active temperance 
 worker outside strict party lines. He 
 was one of the founders of the National 
 Temperance Society and Publication 
 House. In a paper read in a National 
 Convention held at Saratoga, in 1865, he 
 
Blue Kibbon Movements.] 
 
 57 
 
 [Brewing. 
 
 presented the plan of this society, and he 
 afterwards prepared its charter, constitu- 
 tion, by-laws, rules of publication, etc., 
 and was Chairman of the Committee 
 appointed to secure a capital of $100,000 
 as a basis of operations. Having identi- 
 fied himself with the Good Templars in 
 1858, two years later Mr. Black was 
 elected Grand Worthy Chief Templar of 
 Pennsylvania, a position which he held 
 for four successive years. In 1864 he 
 prepared and presented to President Lin- 
 coln a memorial for the abolition of the 
 whiskey rations in the United States 
 army. Mr. Black's ''Cider Tract "caused 
 the Good Templars to declare against the 
 use of cider as a beverage. Prominent as 
 a layman in the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, he was one of the 26 who^in 1869 
 organized the Ocean Grove Camp Meet- 
 ing Association, under whose auspices 
 one of the most delightful seaside resorts 
 of the country is conducted. 
 
 Mr. Black owns probably the largest 
 collection of temperance literature con- 
 tained in any private library in the world, 
 about 1,200 volumes being included in it. 
 Among tbe works published by him are 
 a pamphlet entitled, " Is there a Neces- 
 sity for a Prohibition Party?" (1875); 
 "Brief History of Prohibition" (1880), 
 and " History of the Prohibition Party " 
 (1885). 
 
 Blue Ribbon Movements. — A dis- 
 tinguishing feature of many of the move- 
 ments for the reformation of drinking 
 men has been the bit of ribbon, generally 
 blue or red, worn by the reformed men 
 and others interested. The red ribbon 
 was adopted by Dr. Henry A. Eeynolds, 
 Sept. 10, 1874, as the badge of the Ban- 
 gor (Me.) Eeform Club, which he organ- 
 ized at that time, and which, consisting 
 of reformed drinking men, was the first 
 club of its kind ever formed. Through- 
 out the remarkable pledge-signing cam- 
 paigns that followed in Massachusetts, 
 Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Is- 
 land, Mighigan, Illinois and other States, 
 Dr. Reynolds made the red ribbon the 
 sign of membership in the clubs he start- 
 ed, and they came to be known as Red 
 Ribbon Reform Clubs. The white ribbon 
 was adopted by Dr. Reynolds in connec- 
 tion with the red, the former to be worn 
 by women and by young men under 18. 
 The white ribbon is also worn by all ladies 
 
 of the Woman's Christian Temperance 
 Union. But the blue ribbon has been 
 associated with temperance reform move- 
 ments more extensively than any other 
 badge. It was adopted by Francis Mur- 
 phy, and has been donned by very many 
 thousands in this country whom he has 
 'nduced to sign the pledge. 
 
 The idea was borrowed in England. 
 On Feb. 10, 1878, a conference of tem- 
 perance workers was held in London and 
 a total abstinence campaign was deter- 
 mined on. A central mission was to be 
 established in London with town organ- 
 izations in the provinces as the work 
 spread. The blue ribbon was chosen, 
 and the "Blue Ribbon Army" was 
 adopted as the name of the organization. 
 Mr. William Noble, who took a promi- 
 nent part in the inauguration of this 
 work, had recently returned from a visit 
 to the United States, where he had seen 
 something of the methods employed in 
 the Murphy and Reynolds movements. 
 Pledge-cards were issued and scattered 
 throughout the British Empire, and du- 
 ring the years since they have been trans- 
 lated into several languages, and have 
 found their way into various countries of 
 Europe, into Africa and the Sandwich 
 Islands. More than 1,000,000 pledges 
 have been officially issued, in addition to 
 the pledges issued by independent work- 
 ers co-operating with the movement. A 
 change in the name from " Blue Ribbon 
 Army" to "Blue Ribbon Gospel Tem- 
 perance Movement " has been made, and 
 several branch organizations, such as the 
 "Help-Myself Society "among men, and 
 the " Help-One- Another Society " among 
 women, have grown out of the original 
 movement. 1 
 
 Brandy.— See Spirituous Liquors. 
 
 Brewing. — The process of changing 
 grains or fruits to fermented liquor. It 
 has been known and practised from very 
 early times. The process of brewing beer 
 involves two chief operations : 
 
 1. Producing the Malt. — This includes 
 four successive steps: (1) Steeping the 
 grain in water for two or three days, to 
 swell and soften it. (2) Couching or 
 throwing swollen grain into a large heap 
 where, in one or two days, it will sweat 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to Mr. William Noble for par- 
 ticulars of the Blue Ribbon work in Great Britain. 
 
Briggs, George N.] 
 
 58 
 
 [Brcoks, John Anderson. 
 
 and begin to germinate. (3) Flooring, 
 or spreading it to an even depth of 12 to 
 16 inches, to favor more rapid germina- 
 tion. It is sometimes stirred with shovels 
 and spread over a wider surface, to pre- 
 vent unequal heating and too rapid 
 growth. This stage requires two or three 
 weeks. (4) Kiln-drying, or spreading it 
 from 4 to 10 inches thick on a stone or 
 metallic floor, perforated and made so hot 
 as to kill the grain-germ and check fur- 
 ther growth. The starch has now been 
 changed to sugar. The process is called 
 " malting," and the grain is called 
 " malt." 
 
 2. Brewing the Malt. — Six distinct 
 operations are involved: (1) Crushing 
 the malt between two iron cylinders. (2) 
 Mashing, or mixing the crushed material 
 with warm water, to extract the saccha- 
 rine matter. The mixture is now called 
 " sweet wort." (3) Boiling the wort with 
 hops, the object being to convert any 
 residuary starch into sugar, and to ex- 
 tract from the hops certain elements which 
 give the liquor a bitter flavor and tend to 
 preserve it. (4) Cooling the wort, which 
 must be done very rapidly to prevent 
 acidity. (5) Fermenting the liquid, 
 drawn off into vats of various kinds, and 
 kept at a temperature of 60° to 70° F. To 
 produce fermentation, from 1 to 1£ per 
 cent, of yeast is added. (6) Clearing and 
 storing. Impurities are carried off 
 through an orifice left at the top for that 
 purpose. The resulting liquid is beer, 
 ready now to be stored in oaken barrels. 
 
 Briggs, George N. — Born in Adams, 
 Mass., April 13, 1796; died Sept. 12, 1861. 
 He was of humble parentage, and in his 
 youth served an apprenticeship to a hat- 
 maker. As Governor of Massachusetts 
 from 1844 to 1851, his whole influence 
 was exercised to promote total abstinence, 
 and no liquors were given to his guests. 
 While in Congress he became President 
 of the Congressional Temperance Society. 
 
 British Columbia. — See Canada. 
 
 British "Women's Temperance 
 Association. — This Association was 
 founded by a conference of ladies at 
 Newcastle-on-Tyne, April 21, 1876. The 
 purpose of the conference was to effect a 
 federation of all women's temperance or- 
 ganizations based on total abstinence, it 
 being believed that by such united effort 
 
 more could be accomplished to promote 
 temperance and suppress the liquor traf- 
 fic. The Association is entirely unsec- 
 tarian, and welcomes all women who will 
 accept its simple pledge and work for the 
 common cause. An annual business meet- 
 ing is held every May in London, and an 
 autumnal meeting in some provincial 
 town. Organizing agents are engaged in 
 forming new branches and encouraging 
 old ones. The official organ of the Asso- 
 ciation is the British Women's Temperance 
 Journal (London), published monthly at 
 one penny a copy. Among the other 
 publications are the Non-Alcohohc Cookery 
 Book, and a wall-card of " Simple Rem- 
 edies," both intended to show that alcohol 
 is equally unnecessary in food and medi- 
 cine. The Association has sent numerous 
 petitions to Parliament for the repeal of 
 licenses and the concession of Sunday- 
 closing, and has also urged clergymen to 
 use unfermented wine for sacramental 
 purposes. The local branches are en- 
 gaged in all forms of beneficient endeavor, 
 and the work done by them includes the 
 cultivation of total abstinence sentiment 
 and practice through gospel temperance 
 missions, public meetings, medical lec- 
 tures, drawing-room meetings, garden 
 parties, meetings in young ladies' schools, 
 Bands of Hope and other societies for the 
 young, cottage and factory meetings, sew- 
 ing classes, tract distribution, etc. The 
 branches also make appeals to magistrates 
 at the annual licensing sessions. Several 
 homes for intemperate women have been 
 established. The thirtpenth annual re- 
 port (for the year ending April 30, 1889) 
 shows a total of 409 affiliated societies, 
 with a membership of about 30,000, all 
 officered and conducted by women. The 
 gross receipts for the year were 
 £708 lis. 7d. Mrs. Margaret Bright 
 (See Lucas, Margaret Bright.) 
 
 Brooks, John Anderson, the fifth 
 candidate of the Prohibition party for 
 Vice-President of the United States, born 
 in Germantown, Ky., June 3, 1836. His 
 father was of Irish and Welsh descent, 
 and combined the occupations of farmer, 
 lawyer and preacher, but derived from 
 them only a meagre support. Despite the 
 disadvantages of his early vears the boy 
 was resolved to rise. AVhen 12 years old 
 he joined a debating society, and soon 
 became a proficient speaker. At 16 he 
 
Brooks, John Anderson.] 
 
 59 
 
 [Burxnah. 
 
 made temperance speeches. At the age 
 of 17 he entered Bethany College, and 
 three years later (1856) he graduated 
 with honors. While in college he partici- 
 pated in the heated discussions of the 
 slavery issue, taking the view that the 
 negro was an inferior being and cham- 
 pioning slavery and the customs and tra- 
 ditions of the South. But he advocated 
 free speech and honorable treatment of 
 opponents, and on one occasion risked his 
 life to rescue an Abolitionist from a pro- 
 slavery mob. Although he had looked 
 forward to fitting himself for the legal 
 profession, he decided, after his conver- 
 sion to Christianity under the preaching 
 of Alexander Campbell, to enter the min- 
 istry, and accordingly he became a clergy- 
 man of the sect known as Christians or 
 Disciples. He began his work in his 
 native town, and for several years after- 
 wards was engaged in successful evangel- 
 istic labor. In 1857 he was married, but 
 his young wife died three weeks after the 
 wedding. Two years later he married 
 again. During two years of the Civil 
 War he was President of the college at 
 - Flemingsburg, Ky. His sympathies were 
 ^with the South, but he extended hospi- 
 talities to soldiers on both sides. After- 
 wards he filled pastorates at Winchester, 
 Ky., and at St. Louis, Mexico, Warrens- 
 burg and Bolton in the State of Missouri. 
 He is now minister of a large church in 
 Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 From his youth he was an ardent tem- 
 perance advocate, and at different times 
 he was connected with the Sons of Tem- 
 perance, Good Templars and the Francis 
 Murphy pledge-signing movement. In 
 Missouri hs was identified with the vari- 
 ous Prohibitory movements growing out 
 of the Convention at Sedalia, July 4, 1880. 
 At that convention the Missouri Prohibi- 
 tion Alliance was organized, with Dr. 
 Brooks as its President. A notable agita- 
 tion followed, and, without salary and at 
 his own risk, he canvassed the State, 
 speaking in 100 counties. The first year's 
 work resulted in the election of a Legis- 
 lature pledged to submit a Prohibitory 
 Amendment to the people; but treachery 
 in the State Senate caused the defeat of 
 the submission bill, and the Downing 
 High License law was enacted as a com- 
 promise. After three more years of en- 
 ergetic work Dr. Brooks (1884), received 
 an independent Prohibition nomination 
 
 for Governor of Missouri. Although there 
 had been no previous organization of the 
 Prohibition party in the State, and al- 
 though the entire vote of Missouri for the 
 Prohibition Presidential ticket in 1884 
 was only 2,153, Dr. Brooks polled 10,426 
 votes. 
 
 In the next four years he worked earn- 
 estly and with excellent results to pro- 
 mote Prohibition sentiment throughout 
 the country, making addresses in many 
 States. At the National Convention of 
 the Prohibition party, held at Indian- 
 apolis, May 30 and 31, 1888, he was nom- 
 inated for Vice-President on the ticket 
 with Gen. Clinton B. Fisk. He made 
 many speeches during the campaign. His 
 record as a Southern sympathizer in sla- 
 very times was persistently used against 
 him by political enemies, and the most 
 unscrupulous misrepresentations and at- 
 tacks were made. Yet he had unequivo- 
 cally repudiated his former views. 
 
 Burmah. — Drink appears to have been 
 unknown among the Burmese until 
 southern Burmah was conquered by the 
 English in the early part of the present 
 century. Then liquor came in like a 
 flood. One reason for its rapid spread 
 was given to me by an old native school- 
 teacher, for many years past a Christian. 
 " We saw," said he, " that the English 
 armies were stronger than ours, and that 
 man for man they were better physically 
 than we. The main difference in habit 
 was that they drank alcoholic drinks and 
 we did not; so we concluded that must 
 make the difference, and we began drink- 
 ing deliberately for the purpose of 
 strengthening ourselves. But a few years 
 showed us that we had made a great mis- 
 take, and we drink much less now than 
 we did years ago." King Thebaw kept 
 drink out of Upper Burmah as long as he 
 was in power ; but as soon as the English 
 came in a brewery was erected near Man- 
 dalay " to supply the British soldiers with 
 beer." Very soon shop's were open for the 
 sale of all sorts of intoxicating drinks, 
 and no restriction was placed upon the 
 sale to natives. This I saw on my visit to 
 that city in June, 1887, when the first 
 temperance society — a Woman's Christian 
 Temperance Union — was organized. The 
 Presbyterian chaplain to the forces was 
 then doing good work in the garrison. 
 In June, 1889, Miss Phenney commenced 
 
Cadets of Temperance.] 
 
 60 
 
 [Canada. 
 
 the publication, in Burmese, of monthly 
 Band of Hope leaflets. Each contains a 
 temperance song and a series of questions 
 and answers on the effects of alcohol, 
 opium, tobacco, etc., on the human sys- 
 tem. About 500 of these leaflets are used 
 every month, in 16 different schools and 
 in 12 different stations, from Mandalay in 
 Upper Burmah to Tavoy in Lower Bur- 
 man. Mary Clement Leavitt. 
 
 Cadets of Temperance. — This so- 
 ciety of juveniles originated with the 
 Sons of Temperance in 1843, but has 
 grown into an independent organization. 
 By its constitution young persons (of 
 either sex) of good moral character, be- 
 tween the ages of 12 and 21 years, are 
 eligible to membership. Every person, in 
 joining, is required to take an obligation 
 not to drink, as a beverage, any intoxi- 
 cating liquor, wine or cider, so long as he 
 remains a member. Many of the States 
 and several of the Canadian Provinces 
 have branches. The Order is sub-divided 
 into Grand Sections and Sections. The 
 entire membership is about 10,000. Penn- 
 sylvania is the banner State. The pres- 
 ent national officers (March, 1891) are: 
 Most Worthy Patron, Charles C. Augus- 
 tine, Philadelphia; Most Worthy Vice- 
 Patron, Prank E. Parker, Charlestown, 
 Mass. ; Most Worthy Secretary, Fred. J. 
 King, Philadelphia ; Most Worthy Treas- 
 urer, J. H. Courtenay, New York City. 
 
 California. — See Index. 
 
 Canada. — A slight knowledge of cer- 
 tain prominent physical and political 
 characteristics of the Dominion of Can- 
 ada is necessary to a clear comprehension 
 of the position of the temperance cause 
 in the Dominion. Canada covers an area 
 a little less in extent than that of the Unit- 
 ed States. It includes, besides an enormous 
 extent of unorganized territory, seven 
 provinces, each with a separate Legisla- 
 ture and Government, but all united for 
 national purposes under a Federal Par- 
 liament. The population of the Domin- 
 ion is about 4,500,000. Partly because 
 of geographical conditions this population 
 may be considered as separated into four 
 groups, (1) The Maritime Provinces of 
 Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince 
 Edward Island, on the Atlantic seaboard, 
 with an aggregate population of nearly 
 900,000. (2) the Province of Quebec, on 
 
 the St. Lawrence Kiver, population nearly 
 1,300,000 (largely French), and the 
 wealthy Province of Ontario with a pop- 
 ulation of nearly 2,000,000. (3) the 
 Province of Manitoba in the central prai- 
 rie region, population about 35,000. (4) 
 the Province of British Columbia on the 
 Pacific coast, population about 60,000. 
 Outside these Provinces the scattered pop- 
 ulation is largely governed from Ottawa, 
 which is the national capital. 
 
 The powers and relations of the differ- 
 ent Provincial Legislatures and the Do- 
 minion Parliament are fixed by an act 
 of the Imperial Parliament of Great Brit- 
 ain; and the Privy Council of Great 
 Britain is the highest judicial Court to 
 which appeals in reference to matters 
 of legislation or administration can be 
 referred. Such appeals are not, however, 
 of L-equent occurrence. Canada man- 
 ages her own affairs. No imperial troops 
 are stationed in the Dominion. The 
 principal connecting link between the 
 nation and the British Empire lies in 
 the appointments to the Governor-Gen- 
 eralship of Canada, which are made by 
 the British Crown. Boughly speaking, 
 it may be said that the Parliament of 
 Canada has jurisdiction over all matters 
 relating to commerce, national revenue, 
 military and naval affairs, postal service 
 and the government of extra- Provincial 
 territory, while Provincial Legislatures 
 have charge of matters relating to inter- 
 nal Provincial government, the police 
 power necessary to enforce law and 
 secure order and the control of legisla- 
 tion, creating municipalities and fixing 
 and regulating their powers. Nearly all 
 of the Dominion is divided into munic- 
 ipalities, varying in size and functions in 
 the different Provinces, and exercising 
 very extensive local powers. 
 
 Under its power to deal with questions 
 affecting trade and commerce, the Do- 
 minion Parliament enacted, in 1878, a 
 stringently-worded law of Local Option, 
 by which the total Prohibition of the 
 retail traffic in intoxicating beverages 
 may be secured by any city or county in 
 the Dominion. There is also a general 
 law of total Prohibition for unorganized 
 territory, subject, however, to a provision 
 under which special permits to take liquor 
 into this territory may be issued. Na- 
 tional law also prohibits the sale of liquor 
 to Indians and prohibits sale to any per- 
 
Canada.] 
 
 son on the days on which Parlimentary 
 elections are held. The different Prov- 
 inces enact laws for the licensing, con- 
 trolling and regulating of the liquor 
 traffic within their respective limits. 
 About 35 years ago the Province of New 
 Brunswick, then a Crown colony, enacted 
 a law of Prohibition, which was repealed 
 by the next Legislature before it had any 
 opportunity to show its value or even to 
 reveal its defects. Many years after, in 
 the Legislature of the Provinces of Onta- 
 rio and Quebec, which were at that time 
 united, a proposed measure of Prohibi- 
 tion was defeated by the casting vote of 
 the Speaker. 
 
 CANADIAN- TEMPERANCE SENTIMENT. 
 
 The temperance question has always 
 been in Canadian politics. Shortly after 
 the discovery of the New World, when 
 the northern part of this continent was 
 under military government — established 
 with the dual object of enlarging the 
 possessions of Prance and spreading the 
 doctrines of Christianity — a fierce con- 
 flict was waged between the ecclesiastical 
 authorities who desired to prohibit the 
 liquor traffic among the Indians and the 
 military authorities who were in favor of 
 permitting that traffic. Ever since that 
 time, in some form or other, the country 
 has been endeavoring to deal with the 
 difficulties arising out of the inevitable 
 contest between men willing to make 
 money from their fellow beings' degrada- 
 tion and those opposed to a business so 
 detrimental to the progress of true civil- 
 ization. 
 
 When secret temperance organizations 
 were first set on foot they found in Can- 
 ada an inviting field which Washington- 
 ian and Blue Ribbon movements had to 
 some extent made ready for them. These 
 societies still hold their own. There are 
 Grand Lodges of the Independent Order 
 of Good Templars, Grand Divisions of 
 the Sons of Temperance and Woman's 
 Christian Temperance Unions in every 
 Province of the Dominion. The Eoyal 
 Templars of Temperance are also very 
 strong, and have lately been making 
 remarkably rapid advances. Nearly all 
 branches of the Christian church are sound 
 on the question of temperance, and most of 
 them have made emphatic utterances in 
 favor of total Prohibition. In this con- 
 nection the following recent deliver- 
 
 61 [Cana a. 
 
 ances, respectively, of the General Con- 
 ference of the Methodist Church and the 
 General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
 Church may be taken as specimens : 
 
 Presbyterian General Assembly. 
 " This Assembly declares its conviction that 
 the general traffic in intoxicating liquors is con- 
 trary to the word of God and to the spirit of the 
 Christian religion ; that total Prohibition would 
 be the most effective form of temperance legis- 
 lation, and that it is highly expedient that the 
 State pass a Prohibitory law, and that this 
 result is to be earnestly sought by all right 
 means. This Assembly, with renewed earnest- 
 ness and emphasis, again expresses the hope 
 that the electors, in their choice of representa- 
 tives, will elect only able and good men who 
 are well known to be in sympathy with Pro- 
 hibitory legislation." 
 
 Methodist General Conference. 
 "It gives us unbounded satisfaction to know 
 that there is a great popular uprising all over 
 the land against the great liquor crime. It stands 
 between us and religious, social, moral and 
 political reform. The ballot must execute the 
 will of a free people, and must not be cast for 
 that which is a sin against God and a crime 
 against humanity. The time has come to draw 
 the line between those who stand with the 
 saloon and against the people, and those 
 who stand with the people and against the 
 saloon We therefore recommend that our 
 people, in all municipal and Parliamentary elec- 
 tions, vote only for candidates who, in addition 
 to other necessary qualifications, are known 
 and profe?scd Prohibitionists, and we heartily 
 pledge ourselves to co-operate wilh the Domin- 
 ion Alliance and all temperance organizations 
 in their efforts to educate the electors of the 
 Dominion on the necessity of Prohibitory leg- 
 islation. We cannot admit the statement so 
 often made by those having little or no sympa- 
 thy with Prohibition, that the country is not 
 yet ready for a Prohibitory law; on the con- 
 trary, we are convinced that the country, by 
 adopting the Scott act. showed it was ready for 
 such legislation. We believe the wide growth 
 of public sentiment in favor of Prohibition ren- 
 ders it the duty of our Parliament to pass a Pro- 
 hibitory law that will brand the traffic with 
 pubic condemnation." 
 
 THE DOMINION ALLIANCE. 
 
 Shortly after the federation of the dif- 
 ferent Provinces of Canada in one 
 Dominion in the year 1866, an agitation 
 was inaugurated looking toward a law 
 of total Prohibition. Great petitions 
 from every part of the country were piled 
 up in the Dominion Parliament, and sev- 
 eral Provincial Legislatures passed resD- 
 lutions, all asking the national body for 
 the enactment of such a law. A call for 
 a Prohibitory Convention was issued by 
 16 members of the House of Commons 
 
Canada.] 
 
 62 
 
 [Canada. 
 
 in the year 1875. In response to the 
 appeal, 280 representatives from the dif- 
 ferent Provinces assembled at Montreal. 
 The meeting was presided over by Hon. 
 Senator A. Vidal, and had the advice and 
 assistance of lion. Neal Dow of Port- 
 land, and John N. Stearns of New York, 
 who were present as visitors. The con- 
 clusions of this Convention were summa- 
 rized in the following resolutions: 
 
 "1. That the manufacture, importation and 
 sale of intoxicating liquors to be used as com- 
 mon beverages are found by the Parliamentary 
 Committees, as well as the experience of soci- 
 ety, to be afruitful source of crime and pauper- 
 ism, alike subversive of public morality and 
 social order. 
 
 ' 2. That all attempts to restrict the traffic by 
 license law are unsatisfactory, inasmuch as in- 
 temperance and all the evils connected there- 
 with ara constantly increasing. 
 
 "3 That nothing short of the entire Prohi- 
 bition of the manufacture, importation and sale 
 of intoxicating liquors as beverages would be 
 satisfactory to this Convention, 
 
 "4. That in order that a Prohibitory liquor 
 law, when passed, may have the sympathy and 
 support so indispensably necessary to its suc- 
 cess, it is the opinion of this Convention that 
 the Dominion Parliament should be urged to 
 frame such a law, subject to ratification by pop 
 ular vote.' 
 
 Out of this Convention grew an organ- 
 ization called " The Dominion Alliance 
 for the Total Suppression of the Liquor 
 Traffic," that is still the recognized rep- 
 resentative body of the Prohibitionists of 
 the Dominion of Canada. A branch of 
 it was formed in every Province, and 
 another for the Northwest Territories. 
 The President of the Dominion Alliance 
 is still Hon. A. Vidal of Sarnia, Ont., 
 who has held that important position for 
 14 years and enjoys the respect and con- 
 fidence of Prohibition workers of all 
 classes and opinions^ The Secretary is 
 F. S. Spence of Toronto, Ont. 
 
 THE CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT. 
 
 The proposal of the Montreal Conven- 
 tion of 1875 did not find favor with the 
 Dominion Parliament. Several commit- 
 tees were appointed from year to year to 
 consider the question. A special Board 
 of Commissioners was sent to investigate 
 the Prohibitory laws in the United States. 
 The result of the researches of these gen- 
 tlemen was published in an extensive 
 blue-book. A resolution was adopted by 
 the House of Commons assenting to the 
 principle of Prohibition. Finally, in 1878, 
 
 there was enacted the Canada Temper- 
 ance act, popularly known as the Scott 
 act because it was introduced into Parlia- 
 ment by Hon. E. W. Scott, then Secretary 
 of State. Its principal provisions may 
 be summarized as follows : 
 
 The act is divided into three parts. The first 
 part provides the machinery by which the 
 second part may be adopted or rejected. The 
 second part is the Prohibition part and does 
 not corns into force until it has been adopted by 
 a vote of the electors. The third part provides 
 for the enforcement of the law after its adop- 
 tion. The following is a synopsis of the provis- 
 ions of these respective parts: 
 Part I. 
 One-fourth of the electors in any city or 
 county may petition the Governor-General in 
 Council to have a vote taken upon the act in 
 such city or county. The Governor-General in 
 Council may then appoint a returning officer, 
 fix a day for voting, and make all other needful 
 arrangements for the polling of votes. Very 
 severe penalties are provided for any corrupt 
 practices. No treating of voters is allowed and 
 all places where liquor is sold must be kept 
 closed tha whole of the day of voting. If a 
 majority of the votes polled are in favor of the 
 act, a proclamation will be issued bringing it 
 into force ; but in counties where licenses are in 
 opsration it cannot come into force before at 
 least five months after the voting, nor until all 
 licenses in force at the end of these five months 
 have exp.rad. If no licenses are in force in a 
 county, the act may be brought into operation 
 in that county after three months from the day 
 of the voting adopting it. If the act be adopted 
 it cannot be repealed for at least three years, 
 nor until the repaal has been voted upon and 
 adopted by the electors If the act be rejected 
 or repsaled it cannot be again voted upon for 
 three years. 
 
 Part II 
 Prom the day of the coming into force of the 
 act in anv county or city, and as long as it re- 
 mains in force, no intoxicating liquor shall be 
 sold in any manner or under any pretext except 
 in the ciisss hereinafter mentioned. Persons -who 
 are specially licensed may sell liquor by whole- 
 sale, but only in quantities of not less than ten 
 gallons, or in case of ale or beer eight gallons, 
 and only to licensed druggists, or other whole- 
 salers, or to persons whom they have good rea- 
 son to believe will carry it to and have it con- 
 sumed in some place where the Scott act is not 
 in force. Producers of native wine made from 
 grapes grown by themselves may, when licensed, 
 s;ll such wine to any person in quantities of not 
 less than ten gallons, unless it be for medic- • 
 inal or sacramental purposes, when they may 
 sell as small a quantity as one gallon. .Licensed 
 druggists may sell in quantities of not less than 
 one pint. Not more than one druggist may be 
 licensed in a township, not more than two in a 
 town, and not more than one for every 4,000 in- 
 habitants in a city. Druggists are only allowed 
 to sell liquor for medicinal or sacramental use, 
 or for use in some bona fide art, trade or raanu- 
 
Canada,] 
 
 63 
 
 [Canada. 
 
 facture. L-lquor can be sold for sacrament on 
 a certificate signed by a clergyman ; for medi- 
 cine only on a certificate sigred by a medical 
 man, and for any other purpose only on a certi- 
 cate signed by two Justices of the Peace. The 
 licensed druggist must file all these certificates, 
 must keep a full record of all the sales he makes 
 and report the same to the Collector of Inland 
 Revenue. 
 
 Part III. 
 The penalties for illegal sale are: For the first 
 offense a fine of not less than $50 ; for the sec- 
 ond offense, a fine of not less than $100 and for 
 the third and each subsequent offense, imprison- 
 ment for not more than two months. The 
 clerk or agent who sells for another person shall 
 be held guilty as well as his employer and shall 
 be liable to the same punishment. All liquor 
 and all vessels containing liquor in respect to 
 which offense.j have been committed shall be 
 forfeited. Any person may be a prosecutor for 
 a violation of the act. The Collector of Inland 
 Revenue is requi^d to prosecuta whun he has 
 reason to believe that an offense has been com- 
 mitted. In a prosecution it is not necsssary that 
 a witness shall be able to state the kind or 
 price of liquor unlawfully sold. It is enough to 
 show that unlawful disposal of intoxicating 
 liquor took place. The finding in any place of 
 liquor, and also of appliances for its sale, is 
 prima facie evidence of unlawful keeping for 
 sale, unless the contrary is proved. The husband 
 or wife of a person charged with an offense 
 against the Scott act is a competent witness. 
 Any person attempting to tamper with a wit- 
 ness in any prosecution under the act shall be 
 liable to a fine of £50. Any person who is a 
 party to an attempt to compromise or settle any 
 offense against this act with a view of saving the 
 violator from prosecution or conviction shall, on 
 conviction, be imprisoned for not more than 
 three months. No appeal shall be allowed 
 against any conviction made by any Judge, 
 Stipendiary or Police Magistrate, Sheriff, Re- 
 corder or Parish Court Commissioner. 
 
 THE CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT IN OPERA- 
 TION. 
 
 Immediately after its enactment, the 
 Canada Temperance act was taken hold 
 of by temperance people, the city of 
 Fredericton, the capital of New Bruns- 
 wick, being the first place to vote. A 
 large majority was recorded in favor of 
 the law. Other cities and counties fell 
 into line, and in a short time the greater 
 part of the Maritime Provinces was placed 
 under the act. Later on the Province of 
 Ontario was brought to a great extent under 
 the operation of this law, but unfortu- 
 nately political complications interfered 
 with its success. In Ontario all liquor 
 laws are administered by local Boards of 
 Commissioners appointed directly by the 
 Provincial Government from year to year. 
 This system necessarily makes the issuing 
 
 of licenses to sell liquor a piece of party 
 patronage and brings the liquor traffic 
 actively and interestedly into Provincial 
 politics. The enforcement of the law was 
 defective and irregular. Where it was 
 fairly and effectively carried out, the 
 liquor traffic became arrayed against the 
 party then in power. Where it was not 
 properly enforced, friends of law and 
 order were disgusted and offended. The 
 liquor traffic took advantage of the oppor- 
 tunity, and when the question of repeal 
 was submitted to the electors the active 
 political workers who cared more for 
 party than principle united, in 1887 and 
 1888, to defeat a measure that was an an- 
 noyance to them although a blessing to 
 the community. The law was repealed in 
 every place in Ontario in which it had 
 been adopted. Some repeal movements 
 were also successful in the Province of 
 Quebec. The other Provinces of the 
 Dominion not being affected by the con- 
 siderations referred to, have stood loyally 
 by the act; and in them it is accomplisn- 
 ing very much good. In the Province of 
 Prince Edward Island the legalized retail 
 liquor traffic is extinguished, the Canada 
 Temperance act being in operation in 
 every city and county. 
 
 The results of the adoption and en- 
 forcement of the act in the different parts 
 of the Dominion have been very encour- 
 aging to the friends of moral reform. The 
 consumption of strong drink has fallen 
 off to a remarkable degree, and there has 
 been an equally remarkable reduction in 
 drunkenness and its attendant evils. The 
 annual report of the Inspector of Prisons 
 of the Province of Ontario for the year 
 1888 contains a tabulated list of the 
 commitments to jail for drunkenness in 
 all the counties of Ontario for 11 
 years. The figures for all the counties 
 that were entirely under the Canada Tem- 
 perance act in 1888 show, as compared 
 with the figures for the year 1884 (the 
 last year in which they were entirely 
 under license), a falling off of 50 per cent. 
 in commitments to jail for criminal 
 drunkenness. It is startling to find at 
 the same time that the figures for all the 
 counties that were entirely under license 
 for the two years named show an increase 
 in 1888 as compared with 1884 of 25 per 
 cent, in commitments to jail for drunken- 
 ness. Many similar official statements 
 might be quoted to show thp good that 
 
Canada.] 
 
 64 
 
 [Canada. 
 
 has resulted from the workings of this 
 law. i 
 
 THE LICENSE LAWS OP THE DIFFERENT 
 PROVINCES. 
 
 The salient features of the different 
 license laws in operation in the different 
 parts of the Dominion are briefly given in 
 the following summary : 
 
 Nova Scotia. 
 
 This Province has 19 counties and cities, in 
 11 of which the Scott act is now (Jan. 1. 1890) 
 in operation The license law affects only the 
 remainder of the Province. This law provides 
 for three classes of licenses: (1) A hotel license, 
 permitting the sale of liquor in quantities of not 
 over one quart. Sale may be made only to 
 bona fide guests or lodgers to be used in rooms 
 or at meals. If u hotel-keeper sells in any other 
 way he is fined $100 for the first offense, and 
 for a second, $100 and imprisonment for not 
 more than two months. A person misrepresent- 
 ing himself to be a guest is liable to a fine of 
 $50. The fee for a hotel license is $150., (2) 
 A shop license, fee 8100, permitting sale in 
 quantities of not less than a pint and not more 
 than two gallons to be taken away for consump- 
 tion. (3) A wholesale license, fee §150, permit- 
 ting sale in quantities of not less than 12 gallons. 
 Every sale, under any license, of more than one 
 gallon, must he specially registered. The penal- 
 ties for selling without license are $50 for first 
 offence, ^80 for second, *80 and imprisonment 
 for third. Licenses are issued by the Municipal 
 Councils. The Councils appoint Inspectors who 
 are confirmed by the Government. Every In- 
 spector must be a member of a temperance so- 
 ciety in good standing at the time of his appoint- 
 ment and throughout his term of office. No 
 license may be issued unless the applicant, pre- 
 sents a petition signed by two-thirds of the rate- 
 payers in his polling district. No sale of liquor 
 is permitted between 9 p. m. and 7 a. m. Selling 
 is also prohibited between 6 p. m. on Saturdays 
 and 7 a. m. Mondays. No sale is allowed on 
 any election clay or to any person under 21 years 
 of age or to any unlicensed person who intends 
 to sell. Two Justices of the Peace may 
 prohibit all deal;rs from selling to any 
 particular per on addicted to drunkenness. The 
 husband, wife father, mother, child, master, 
 curator, guardian or caretaker of any personad- 
 dicted to drink, may prohibit any particular 
 dealer from selling to such person. In case of 
 a death through drink, the legal representatives 
 of the deceased may recover damages up to 
 * 1,000 from the person who sold the liquor. 
 Any one injured in person or property by a 
 drunken person has recourse for damages against 
 either the person who did the mischief or the 
 parson who sold the drink. Liquor in respect 
 of which offences have been committed is for- 
 feited and destroyed. 
 
 New Brunswick. 
 
 This Province ha3 16 counties and cities, of 
 which nine are under the Scott act. In other 
 parts of the Province two kinds of licenses are 
 issued : (1) Tavern licenses, varying in prices at 
 
 the option of the Municipal Council, from $23 
 to $200. This license permits sale in quantities 
 not over a quart, to be drunk on the premises. 
 (2i Wholesale licenses, fee varying from $50 to 
 $200. This license permits sale in bulk not 
 to bs consumed on the premises, in quantities 
 not less than one pint. Licenses are issued by 
 the Municipal Council, which also appoints a 
 License Inspector. The applicant for the license 
 must have a petition signed by one-third the 
 ratepayers in his distr ct. The penalties for un- 
 licensed selling are $50 fcr first offence, #80 for 
 second, ¥80 and imprieonment or not more than 
 three months with hard labor for third. The 
 maximum number of licenses that can be issued 
 in a municipality is limited in cities and towns 
 to four for the first 1,030 of population and ore 
 to each 500 after. In rural places the maximum 
 number is three to the first 1,200 of population 
 and one to each 1,000 thereafter. The Munici- 
 pal Councils may still further limit the number. 
 No sale is allowed between 10 p. m. and 6 a. m. 
 or between 7 p. m. on Saturday and 6 a m. on 
 the following Monday. Prohibitions in relation 
 to election days, minors and persons addicted to 
 drink are the same as in Nova Scotia. The Civil 
 Damage and liquor forfeiture provisions are the 
 same as in Nova Scotia. 
 
 Prince Edward Island. 
 
 This Province, being entirely under the Scott 
 act, has no license law in force in any part of 
 it. 
 
 Quebec. 
 
 In this Province licenses are issued by the 
 Collector of Provincial Revenue. They are of 
 seven classes, namely: Licenses for (1) inns, 
 (2) restaurants, (3) steamboat bars, (4) railway 
 buffets, (5) taverns at mines, (6) retail liqucr 
 shops, and (7) wholesale liquor shops. Any per- 
 son applying for a new license must present a 
 petition signed by one-fourth of the voters in a 
 rural municipality, or the ward of a city in 
 which the license is to operate. If the number 
 of voters is less than 50 the petition must be 
 signed by a majcrity of them. Except in the 
 cities of Quebec and Montreal the petition must 
 also be ratified bv the Municipal Council, and 
 no license can be issued to any person who has 
 permitted drunkenness on his premises, or hss 
 been twice fined for selling without a license. 
 Pees range from $56.25 up to $512.50. Penalties 
 for illicit selling range from $75 to $95 for a 
 first offense, double that amount for a second 
 offense, and for a third not less than three 
 months nor more than six months imprisonment. 
 No liquor can be sold after 8 p. m. to soldiers, 
 sailors or servants, or to any person between 
 midnight and 5 a. m., or at all on Sundays, or 
 to drunken persons, or persons under 21 years of 
 age. A provision against selling to habitual 
 drunkards is somewhat similar to that oi Nova 
 Scotia, with the addition that any one purchas- 
 ing liquor for a habitual drunkard is liable to a 
 fine of 850, or three months' imprisonment in 
 default of payment of this fine. The law relat- 
 ing to Civil Damages is the same as that of Nova 
 Scotia. Outside of cities, towrs and villages 
 no Vquor may be sold within three miles of ar.y 
 public work under construction. There is also 
 
Canada.] 
 
 65 
 
 [Canada. 
 
 in the municipal law a Local Option provision 
 by which any Municipal Council may entirely 
 suppress the sale of liquor within its limits by a 
 by-law either absolute or dependent upon popu- 
 lar vote for ratification. 
 
 Ontario. 
 
 In this Province licenses are issued and con- 
 trolled by a board of three Commissioners and 
 an Inspector, appointed by the Government, lor 
 each electoral division. There are three elapses 
 of licenses -tavern, shop and wholesale. The 
 number of tavern licenses that may be issued is 
 limited to four for the first 1,000 of the popula- 
 tion in a municipality, and one to each subse- 
 quent 400 A Municipal Council may pass a by- 
 law limiting the number below this 'maximum. 
 For example, the city of Toronto, with a popula- 
 tion of about 180,000, limits the number of tavern 
 and saloon licenses to 150 An applicant for a 
 license is required to secure endorsement by a 
 majority of the voters in his electoral precinct, 
 and thus license can issue only upon special 
 appeal of the majority. Fees vary in differ- 
 ent places and for different classes of licenses, 
 the lowest possible fee being $90 and the highest 
 $400. JMo liquor is sold from 7 o'clock Satur- 
 day night till 6 o'clock on Monday morning, or 
 on election days. The purchaser of liquor sold 
 illegally is liable to a tine not exceeding $10. 
 A licensee who sails out of hours is fined for a 
 first offense $40, for a second offense $80. and 
 for a thirJ offenss ?-100, with an alternative of 
 imprisonment. A third offense forfeits the li- 
 cense and the licensee is disqualified from ob- 
 taining another for two years. No liquor may 
 be sold to any person under 18 years of age. The 
 Civil Damage law is similar to that of Nova 
 Scotia. Provisions prohibiting sale to intem- 
 perate p;rsons are also similar to those of Nova 
 Scotia. The penalties for illicit sale by persons 
 unlicensed are for a first offense not more than 
 $100 and costs, for a second, imprisonment for 
 four months with hard labor, and for a third, 
 imprisonment for six months with hard labor. 
 Manitoba. 
 
 Licenses in Manitoba are issued by a Beard of 
 Commissioners and Inspector, and are controlled 
 as in Ontario. Outside a city or town with 
 2.000 population, each applicant for a license 
 must present a petition signed by 14 out of the 
 20 householders nearest to his place of business. 
 There are three classes of licenses as in other 
 Provinces. The lowest possible fee is $100 and 
 the highest $300. The statutory limit for the num- 
 ber of licenses is almost the same as in Ontario. 
 No sale is allowed between 10 Saturday night and 
 7 Moqday mornimr, or between 11.30 p. m. and 
 6 a m. on other nights, or on election days, or 
 to persons under 16. Penalties for selling out 
 of hours are very heavy. Penalties for selling 
 without licenses are, for first offense $50 to 
 $250, f»r second offense $250 to $500, for third 
 offense 1500 to $1,000. Alternative imprison- 
 ments range from two months to two years. 
 Provisions prohibiting sale to drunkards are 
 similar to those of other provinces, with the ad- 
 dition that any two clergymen or two Justices 
 of the Peace may prohibit any such sale, and 
 any licensee who violates this provision is 
 heavily punished and loses his license. Occu- 
 
 pants of premises are responsible lor any viola- 
 tion of the law that takes place in their houses. 
 Civil Damages are recoverable up to $1,000 by 
 legal representatives of any per.-on who comes 
 to his death through drunkenness. This Prov- 
 ince has also a Local Option law of its own. 
 Twenty-five per cent. of the voters of any munic- 
 ipality may demand a poll on the question of 
 Prohibition. If two-thirds of the votes cast are 
 in favor of the proposal, then license is aban- 
 doned. Under this provision four-fifths of the 
 territory of Manitoba is now under Prohibition. 
 
 British Columbia. 
 The law in this Province is simple. The 
 whole control of licenses is in the hands of the 
 Municipal Council. Fees vary from $30 to $100 
 for each six months. A Board of Commissioners 
 partly appointed and partly elective agrees to or 
 refuses all applications. There is no limit to 
 the number of licenses that may be issued. 
 Two-thirds of the electors in a polling district 
 must endorse an application for a new license. 
 The penalty for illicit liquor-selling is a fide up 
 to $250. besides the amount that should have 
 been paid for a license. Outside these provis- 
 ions selling is almost unlimited. 
 
 TOTAL PROHIBITION. 
 
 The general plan of work endorsed by 
 the Dominion Alliance is that, while us- 
 ing every means to immediately restrict 
 or prohibit the liquor traffic, nothing 
 should be allowed to distract attention 
 from progress towards the goal of total 
 Prohibition. It is expected that this end 
 will be attained by securing the election 
 to the National Parliament of men who 
 are known and avowed Prohibitionists, 
 and who can be relied upon to support, 
 regardless of party, a law for the entire 
 legal suppression of the traffic in intoxi- 
 cating beverages. To this end Prohibi- 
 tionists are urged to use all their personal 
 influence in their respective political 
 caucuses to obtain the nomination of men 
 who are sound on the Prohibition ques- 
 tion. Only where these efforts fail to se- 
 cure the nomination of a Prohibitionist 
 by one of the existing parties, is an inde- 
 pendent Prohibitionist to be nominated 
 and supported. The Prohibitionist senti- 
 ment in the House of Commons is rapidly 
 growing. A resolution was introduced 
 into that body in 1884 declaring in favor 
 of Prohibition. This resolution was 
 amended so as to make it declare for Pro- 
 hibition when public opinion should be 
 pronouncedly in favor of it. A further 
 amendment for immediate Prohibition 
 was defeated by a vote of 55 to 107. The 
 amended resolution in favor of Prohibi- 
 tion at some time was adopted by a vote 
 
Canada.] 
 
 GG 
 
 [Canada. 
 
 of 122 to 40. Since then some electoral 
 changes have taken place. Sentiment has 
 been advancing. In 1889 the question of 
 immediate Prohibition was defeated by a 
 vote of 59 to 99, and the resolution in 
 favor of Prohibition at some time was 
 adopted by a unanimous vote. The Al- 
 liance, on this line, hopes to ultimately 
 secure the object it has in view. 
 
 POLITICAL ACTION. 
 
 The plan on which Canadian Prohibi- 
 tionists in general are working has been 
 outlined. Their principles and methods 
 are laid down in the following, which is 
 the platform of tne Alliance : 
 
 " 1. That it is of the highest importance to 
 obtain united political action on the part of all 
 those who are in favor of the immediate total 
 Prohibition of the liquor traffic. 
 
 ■'2. That we endorse the action of our friends 
 in the House of Commons, in introducing and 
 supporting the Prohibition resolution of 1887, 
 and we request them to take like action at every 
 session of Parliament until the resolution be 
 adopted and Prohibition secured. 
 
 " 3. That we call upon the friends of Prohi- 
 bition to organize in each of the constituencies 
 for the purpose of preventing the re-election of 
 any member who does not favor such a resolu- 
 tion, and for securing the nomination and elec- 
 tion of candidates who are known and publicly 
 avowed Prohibitionists. 
 
 '4. That where the nomination of such a 
 Prohibition candidate is not otherwise secured, 
 an independent Prohibition candidate be nom- 
 inated and supported at the polls." 
 
 This action, however, does not meet 
 the approval of all Canadian temperance 
 workers. Some are of the opinion that 
 Prohibition obtained on the lines pro- 
 posed would not be sufficiently effective. 
 They believe that the only hope for suc- 
 cess lies in Prohibition secured through 
 an independent political party. In the 
 Maritime Provinces a Prohibition party 
 has been formed and has taken part in 
 several contests, polling in some cases a 
 not inconsiderable vote. The head of 
 this movement is J. T. Bulmer of Halifax, 
 editor of the Canadian Voice, the organ 
 of the party named. In the Province of 
 Ontario there is also an organization 
 known as " Canada's New Party," which 
 is definitely committed to total Prohibi- 
 tion. The leader of the movement and 
 President of the organization is Rev. A. 
 Sutherland, D. D., of Toronto. The 
 party is not solely a Prohibition party. 
 Its platform contains the following 
 planks : 
 
 " 1. Righteousness and truth in public affairs 
 as well as in private business, and no compro- 
 mise with wrong. 
 
 " 2. Equal rights for all creeds, classes and 
 nationalities, but exclusive privileges to none. 
 
 •'3. A national sentiment, a national litera- 
 ture and in all matters of public policy, our 
 country first. 
 
 " 4. The prompt and absolute Prohibition of 
 the liquor traffic, and the honest and vigorous 
 enforcement of all laws for the repression of 
 vice and intemperance. 
 
 " 5. Retrenchment and economy in public 
 expenditure, with the view of reducing our 
 enormous national debt 
 
 "6. Manhood suffrage with an educational 
 qualification — that is, a vote to every freeman of 
 legal age who can read and write. 
 
 " 7. The extension of the franchise to women. 
 
 ' 8. An elective Senate. 
 
 "9. Civil Service Reform." 
 
 CONSUMPTION OF LIQUOR. 
 
 From what has been said it will be 
 seen at once that Canada is largely a Pro- 
 hibition country. The consumption of 
 liquor has been steadily decreasing (not- 
 withstanding the increase in population) 
 as laws have been increased in stringency 
 and Prohibitory territory has increased 
 in area. (See Consumption of Liquoes.) 
 Taking our different Provinces all the 
 the way through, the amount of drink 
 consumed is proportionate to the extent 
 of territory that is under Prohibition, 
 going gradually from British Columbia, 
 in which the Scott act has not yet been 
 tried and where license laws are ex- 
 tremely lax, down to Prince Edward Is- 
 land, where the Scott act is in operation 
 over the whole Province. British Colum- 
 bia's consumption is over eight gallons 
 per head ; Prince Edward Island's con- 
 sumption is less than three-fourths of a 
 gallon. The following table, showing' 
 the per capita consumption for the year 
 1888, will make the point very clear : 
 Gallons of Liquor consumed per capita in 
 different Provinces in 1888. 
 
 British Columbia 8| 
 
 Ontario 5^ 
 
 Quebec %\ 
 
 Manitoba and Northwest Territory 2 
 
 New Brunswick \\ 
 
 Nova Scotia 1 j 
 
 Prince Edward Island (less than) j 
 
 Dominion of Canada (Jess than) 4 
 
 During the year (1888) the Scott act 
 was not in operation in any part of Brit- 
 ish Columbia. It was in force in about 
 20 cities and counties in Ontario, not 
 including, however, any large cities. A 
 large portion of Quebec was under local 
 
Candidates.] 
 
 67 
 
 [Carson, Thomas L. 
 
 Prohibition. A large portion of Mani- 
 toba was under Prohibition through Pro- 
 vincial Local Option; all the Northwest 
 Territories were, however, under Prohi- 
 bition. The Scott act was the law in 10 
 out of New Brunswick's 18 counties and 
 cities. In Nova Scotia it was in force in 
 12 out of 19 counties and cities. It was 
 in operation over the whole Province of 
 Prince Edward Island. 
 
 LAW ENFORCEMENT. 
 
 It is worth while noting that, generally 
 speaking, the liquor law in Canada is well 
 enforced. The difficulties that are met 
 with everywhere in dealing with the 
 liquor traffic exist here, but the traffic is 
 not so openly defiant and is more under 
 control than in most other countries. 
 Persons holding retail liquor licenses are 
 prohibited from occupying seats in any 
 Municipal Council. Law and Order 
 Leagues exist and do a good work in the 
 large cities where the traffic is best organ- 
 ized and most aggressive. Public senti- 
 ment is decidedly against liquor-selling, 
 and the whole business is disreputable. 
 This healthy sentiment is growing and laws 
 are becoming more and more stringent and 
 better enforced. At the present time 
 there are in several Provinces efforts 
 being made for further legislation of an 
 even stronger character, and Canada act- 
 ually presents the probably unique spec- 
 tacle of a steadily diminishing liquor 
 power and a steadily popular progress, 
 on actually effective lines, towards gen- 
 eral sobriety and total Prohibition. 
 
 F. S. Spence. 
 (Formerly editor of the Canada Citizen.) 
 
 Candidates. — See Prohibition Par- 
 ty. 
 
 Carson, Thomas L. — Born in Salem, 
 N. Y., March 3, 1807, and died in Syra- 
 cuse, N. Y., Nov. 21, 1868. While still 
 a boy he removed with his parents to the 
 town of Elbridge, N. Y. Here he lived 
 during the greater part of his life. He 
 early became an earnest worker in the 
 temperance cause. Under the Local 
 Option law of 1846 many towns in New 
 York State voted for " no license ;" but 
 numbers of liquor-dealers continued to sell 
 in violation of law. Mr Carson conceived 
 a plan of organization for the punishment 
 of these offenders, and the complete sup-' 
 
 pression of their unlawful business. The 
 Carson League was established, composed 
 of persons committed in writing to the 
 enforcement of anti-liquor laws and 
 pledged to the payment of the necessary 
 funds to procure counsel and obtain evi- 
 dence against the law-breakers. When- 
 ever money was needed a yro rata assess- 
 ment was made upon the League mem- 
 bers. This organization spread into 
 many sections of New York and extended 
 into other States. A newspaper, the 
 Carson League, was established by Mr. 
 Carson at Syracuse about the year 1853, 
 in support of the enforcement movement 
 and in opposition to the legalized drink 
 traffic as well. By means of this paper 
 Mr. Carson did much toward securing 
 the nomination and election of Myron H. 
 Clark as Governor of New York in 1854, 
 and the consequent enactment of the 
 Prohibitory law of 1855. After this ap- 
 parent triumph of Prohibition he remov- 
 ed with his paper to New York City, but 
 there it was discontinued and he returned 
 to Elbridge. The Court of Appeals 
 found a flaw in the Maine law, as the 
 Prohibitory statute of New York was 
 called, and instead of amending the 
 measure the Legislature in 1857 repealed 
 it and passed a license law. Mr. Carson 
 immediately ■ renewed the war on the 
 drink traffic, employing much the same 
 tactics as were used in the organization 
 of the Carson League. The new society 
 was known as the State League, and a 
 new paper, the State League, was started 
 to support it. Each Leaguer pledged at 
 least $1 a year in payment for the paper, 
 and also agreed not to use or sell intoxi- 
 cating drinks, or vote for any but enemies 
 of the liquor traffic to fill offices that had 
 to do with the enactment or enforcement 
 of liquor laws. This paper he continued 
 to publish until his death. He was a 
 philanthropist and a brave, energetic and 
 self-denying worker, and he died in the ; 
 midst of his labors against the legalized 
 and defiant liquor traffic. He believed 
 that in order to destroy the business law 
 must be brought to bear against it. One 
 of his sayings was that " the best temper- 
 ance tracts he knew of were rumsellers' 
 tracks to jail." With this conviction, on 
 one occasion he secured the prosecution 
 of his own brother (with whom he was on 
 friendly terms) for keeping a hotel with 
 a bar in violation of law. 
 
Catholic Temperance Societies.] 68 
 
 [Cause and Consequence. 
 
 Catholic Temperance Societies. 
 
 —On Washington's Birthday, Feb. 22, 
 1872, the Catholic Total Abstinence Union 
 was formed in the city of Baltimore, Md. 
 It was organized for the purpose of assist- 
 ing to stem the tide of intemperance ; and 
 following in the footsteps of the glorious 
 apostle of total abstinence, Theobald 
 Mathew, his plan of individual pledges 
 was adopted. 
 
 The objects of the Union are as fol- 
 lows: 1. To secure to its members the 
 privilege of being received into societies 
 connected with the Union in any part of 
 America. 2. To encourage and aid com- 
 mittees and pastors to establish new so- 
 cieties. 3. To spread, by means of Catho- 
 lic total abstinence publications, correct 
 views regarding total abstinence princi- 
 ples. 
 
 The constitution states that to accom- 
 plish these objects we rely upon : 1. The 
 practice of our holy religion by all mem- 
 bers, individually. 2. The observance by 
 our members of the maxims laid down for 
 our guidance by the reverend clergy. 3. 
 The influence of good example and kind 
 persuasion by our members upon our fel- 
 low-Catholics. 4. Our connection with 
 the association of prayer in honor of the 
 sacred thirst and agony of Jesus. 5. The 
 appointment of a lecture and publication 
 bureau. 
 
 The pledge of the Union is as follows : 
 
 " I promise, with the Divine assistance and in 
 honor of the sacred thirst and agony of our Sav- 
 iour, to abstain from all intoxicating drinks; 
 to prevent as much as possible, by advice and 
 example, the sin of intemperance in others; and 
 to discountenance the drinking customs of so- 
 ciety." 
 
 The officers of the Union are a Spiritual 
 Director, President, 1st and 2d Vice-Pres- 
 idents, Treasurer and Secretary. While 
 the Total Abstinence Union is the prin- 
 cipal temperance organization of the 
 Koman Catholic Church, there are various 
 subordinate and dependent societies in 
 States and dioceses where the Union has 
 not been regularly formed. All those 
 have been approved by the Plenary Coun- 
 cil of the Church in America; and the 
 Holy Father, Pope Leo XIII, has formally 
 commended and blessed the work in 
 which the various total abstinence socie- 
 ties of the church are engaged. (See Ro- 
 man Catholic Church.) 
 
 With these approvals of our spiritual 
 
 fathers the Union has achieved much suc- 
 cess. It is earnestly working to have a 
 total abstinence society in every parish; 
 and as a means toward, this end, it has 
 provided that the 1st Vice-President shall 
 appoint an organizer for each diocese. 
 The system is now being tried, and good 
 results are hoped for. Special efforts are 
 being made to form cadet organizations 
 in order to bring up the youth free from 
 the cravings of appetite. Many societies 
 of women have been formed for the pur- 
 pose of cultivating the home influence so 
 necessary for the successful continuance 
 of our labors. 
 
 The Union has sent out lecturers to 
 all sections of the country, and has dis- 
 seminated a large number of total absti- 
 nence documents — especially the lectures 
 of Most Rev. Archbishop Ireland and the 
 pamphlets of Rev. Dr. T. J. Conaty. 
 Thus the work of the Union is being car- 
 ried on from Maine to California and 
 from Minnesota to Texas. Our people 
 are advised to shun the flowing bowl and 
 seek safety for home and family under 
 the banner of the Catholic Total Absti- 
 nence Union. The enrolled membership 
 in good standing is now about 56,000. 
 Philip A. Nolan, 
 
 General Secretary Catholic Total Ab- 
 stinence Union. 
 
 Cause and Consequence. — The ori- 
 gin of the stimulant habit is lost in the, 
 cloudland of prehistoric tradition, but 
 the antiquity of the vice does not warrant 
 the belief in the physiological necessity 
 of its practice. The undoubted fact that 
 there have been manful, industrious and 
 intelligent nations of total abstainers 
 would be an almost sufficient refutation 
 of that inference, which is sometimes 
 qualified by the assertion that the 
 vicissitudes of a rigorous climate have to 
 be counteracted by the stimulus of alco- 
 holic beverages. For it can, besides, be 
 proved that the alleged invigorating 
 action of alcohol is an absolute delusion, 
 and the pathological records of contem- 
 porary nations establish the fact that the 
 epidemic increase of intemperance can 
 nearly always be traced to causes wholly 
 independent of any increased demands 
 upon the physical or intellectual energies 
 of the afflicted community. Those ener- 
 gies, in fact, have lamentably decreased 
 among numerous races that once managed 
 
Cause and Consequence.] 
 
 69 
 
 [Cause and Consequence. 
 
 to combine nature-abiding habits with an 
 abundance of vital vigor. 
 
 The inevitable progressiveness of all 
 stimulant habits (see Poisons) is an addi- 
 tional argument in favor of the theory 
 that the poison vice has grown up from 
 very small beginnings, and the genesis of 
 the fatal germ has probably been supplied 
 in the hypothesis of Tabio Colonna, an 
 Italian physician of the 17th Century. 
 " Before people used wine," says he, " they 
 drank sweet must, and preserved it, like 
 oil, in jars or skins. But in a warm cli- 
 mate a saccharine fluid is apt to ferment, 
 and some avaricious housekeeper may 
 have drunk that spoiled liquid till she be- 
 came fond of it, and learned to prefer it 
 to must." Avarice, aided perhaps by 
 dietetic prurience or indifference to the 
 warnings of instinct, planted the baneful 
 seed, and the laws of evolution did the 
 rest. 
 
 As soon as the sale of intoxicating 
 liquors had become extensive enough to be 
 profitable, the managers of the traffic had 
 a personal interest in disseminating the 
 poison habit. Attempts at reform were 
 met by appeals to the convivial instincts 
 of the stimulant dupes, by the seduction 
 of minors and by charges of asceticism; 
 later by nostrum puffs and opium wars. 
 More than 2,000 years ago the worship of 
 Bacchus was propagated by force of arms. 
 The disciples of Ibn Hanbal, the Arabian 
 Father Mathew, were stoned in the 
 streets of Bagdad. The persecution and 
 repeated expulsion of the Grecian Pytha- 
 goreans had a good deal to do with the 
 temperance teachings of their master. In 
 Palestine, in India, in mediaeval Europe 
 every apostle of nature had to contend 
 with a rancorous opposition, often in- 
 spired by motives of sordid self-interest; 
 and our own age in that respect cannot 
 boast of much improvement. In spite of 
 our higher standards of philanthropy and 
 their numerous victories in other direc- 
 tions, the heartless alliance of Bacchus 
 and mammon still stands defiant. In our 
 own country nearly 200,000 men, not 
 half of them entitled to plead the excuses 
 of ignorance or poverty, unblushingly in- 
 voke the protection of the law in behalf 
 of a traffic involving the systematic prop- 
 agation of disease, misery and crime. 
 Wherever the interests of the poison ven- 
 dors are at stake, the nations of Europe 
 have not made much progress since the 
 
 time when the sumptuary laws of Leo de 
 Medici were defeated by street riots and 
 a shrieking procession of the Florentine 
 tavern-keepers. 
 
 The efforts of such agitators are second- 
 ed by the instinct of imitation. "In 
 large cities," says Dr. Schrodt, " one may 
 see gamins of nine or ten grubbing in 
 rubbish-heaps for cigar-stumps; soon after 
 leaning against a board fence, groaning 
 and shuddering, as they pay the repeated 
 penalties of nature, yet all the same re- 
 peating the experiment with the resigna- 
 tion of martyrs. The rich, the fashionable 
 do it; those whom they envy smoke; 
 smoking, they conclude, must be some- 
 thing enviable." Without any intentional 
 arts of persuasion, the Chinese business 
 men of San Francisco have disseminated 
 a new poison vice by smoking poppy-gum 
 in the presence of their Caucasian em- 
 ployees and accustoming them to asso- 
 ciate the sight of an opium debauch with 
 the idea of enjoyment and recreation. 
 Would the opponents of Prohibition at- 
 tempt to deny that analogous influences 
 (the custom of "treating" friends at a 
 public bar, the spectacle of lager beer or- 
 gies in public gardens, etc.) have a great 
 deal to do with the initiation of boy- 
 topers ? 
 
 Ignorance does not lead our dumb fel- 
 low-creatures to vicious habits, and prej- 
 udice is therefore, perhaps, the more 
 correct name for the sad infatuation 
 which prompts so many millions of our 
 young men to defy the protests of in- 
 stinct and make themselves the slaves of 
 a life-destroying poison. Ignorance is 
 nescience. Prejudice is malscience, mis- 
 creance, trust in erroneous teachings. 
 Millions of children are brought up in the 
 belief that health can be secured only by 
 abnormal means. A pampered child 
 complains of headache, of want of appe- 
 tite. Instead of curing the evil by the 
 removal of the cause, in the way so plain- 
 ly indicated by the monitions of instinct, 
 the mother sends to the drug-store. The 
 child must "take something." A young 
 rake, getting more fretful and dyspeptic 
 from year to year, is advised to "try 
 something " — an aloe-pill, a bottle of med- 
 icated brandy, any quack "specific" re- 
 commended by its bitterness or nauseous- 
 ness. The protests of nature are calmly 
 disregarded in such cases. A dose of 
 medicine, according to popular impres- 
 
Cause and Consequence.] 
 
 70 
 
 [Chambers, John. 
 
 sion, cannot be very effective unless it is 
 very repulsive. Our children thus learn 
 to mistrust the voice of their natural in- 
 stincts. They try to rely on the aid of 
 abnormal agencies instead of trusting 
 their troubles to nature. Boys whose 
 petty ailments have been palliated with 
 stimulants will afterwards be tempted to 
 drown thir sorrows in draughts of the same 
 nepenthe, instead of biding their time, 
 like Henry Thoreau, who preferred to 
 " face any fate rather than seek refuge 
 in the mist of intoxication." 
 
 We have seen that the milder stimu- 
 lants often form the stepping-stones to a 
 passion for stronger poisons. A penchant 
 for any kind of tonic drug, nicotine, nar- 
 cotic infusions, the milder opiates, etc., 
 may thus initiate a stimulant habit with 
 an unlimited capacity for development, 
 and there is no doubt that international 
 traffic has relaxed the vigilance which 
 helped our forefathers to guard their 
 homes against the introduction of foreign 
 poison vices. Hence the curious fact that 
 drunkenness is most prevalent, not in the 
 most ignorant or despotic countries 
 (Spain, Bussia, Turkey), nor in regions 
 where alcoholic drinks of the most seduc- 
 tive kind are cheapest, but in the most 
 commercial countries — western France, 
 Great Britain, Holland and North Ame- 
 rica. Hence also the fallacy of the 
 brewers' argument that the use of lager 
 beer would prevent the dissemination of 
 the opium habit. No stimulant vice has 
 ever prevented the introduction of worse 
 poisons. Among the indirect causes of 
 intemperance we must therefore include 
 our mistaken toleration of the minor 
 stimulants, and of the traffic in " medi- 
 cated " quack brandies. 
 
 Alcohol in the course of the last. 2,000 
 years has proved a direr enemy to the 
 welfare of the human race than war, 
 pestilence and the rage of all the hostile 
 elements of nature taken together. Un- 
 questionable statistics demonstrate the 
 fact that the total loss of life (by shorten- 
 ing the average of human longevity) 
 caused by strong drink equals the havoc 
 of perennial warfare. The loss of health 
 more than equals the consequences of 
 malaria in the most unhealthy regions of 
 the globe. The waste of land can be es- 
 timated only by millions of square miles, 
 devoted to the production of food-stuffs 
 to be devoured by breweries and distiller- 
 
 ies. The loss of labor diverts from use- 
 ful or harmless pursuit the energies of 
 some thirty to forty millions of our fel- 
 low men. The moral loss is not confined 
 to the direct influence of the brutalizing 
 poison. The liquor traffic defiles all par- 
 ticipants of a transaction which involves 
 a sin against nature, a crime against 
 society and posterity, and an outrage 
 against the moral instincts of all un- 
 prejudiced human beings. 
 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Central America. — The hereditary 
 abstemiousness of the Spanish people of 
 Mexico and Central America has been 
 somewhat modified by the influence of 
 foreign manners, but, on the other hand, 
 that evil tendency has been checked by 
 the lesson of practical experience in the 
 intertropical seaport towns where the 
 alcoholized foreigners succumb by hun- 
 dreds to epidemics that spare the temper- 
 ate natives. The history of fever and 
 epidemics on the Isthmus of Panama has 
 for centuries confirmed the verdict of Dr. 
 H. E. Ward, who passed many years on 
 the deadly swamp-coasts of the Sunda Is- 
 lands. " I have had the opportunity," 
 he says, "of observing for 20 years the 
 comparative use of coffee in one class of 
 natives and of spirituous liquors in 
 another — the native Sumatrans using 
 the former and the natives of British In- 
 dia, settled here, the other; and I find 
 that while the former expose themselves 
 with impunity to every degree of heat, 
 cold and wet, the latter can endure neither 
 for even a short period without danger 
 to their health." The intelligent natives of 
 the Central American seaport towns 
 regard the rumshops of the foreign resi- 
 dents very much as the Caucasians of San 
 Francisco regard the "opium hells" of 
 their Chinese fellow-citizens, and in ex- 
 tensive districts of the interior alcohol is 
 used only in the form of pulque, the 
 fermented juice of the aloe plant. Occa- 
 sional excesses in the use of that beverage 
 are not wholly confined to the ladinos — 
 the Spanish-Indian country population, — 
 but habitual intemperance is very rare 
 among the educated classes. 
 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Chambers, John. — Born in Stew- 
 artstown, County Tyrone, Ireland, Dec. 
 19, 1797, and died Sept. 22, 1875. His 
 father, William Chambers, was involved 
 
Chambers, John.] 
 
 71 
 
 [Channing, William Ellery. 
 
 in Irish revolutionary enterprises, and 
 fled with his wife and infant son John 
 to America. The refugee settled on an 
 Ohio farm. The boy at the age of 16 
 entered the store of a cousin in Balti- 
 more. At 17 he united with the Asso- 
 ciate Eeformed Presbyterian Church. 
 Deciding to become a minister he spent 
 fiveyearsina school in Baltimore. In 
 1825 he was appointed pastor of the 
 1st Independent Church of Philadelphia. 
 He was gifted with exceptional oratorical 
 powers, and it was not long before he 
 began to use his talents to arouse public 
 sentiment against the indulgence in in- 
 toxicating beverages. He presided over 
 the first public temperance meeting held 
 in Philadelphia, and in 1840 organized 
 among the young men of his congrega- 
 tion a Youths' Temperance Society by 
 means of which many temperance work- 
 ers received their early training. In 1849 
 he was introduced to an audience as 
 "the war-horse of the temperance cause," 
 and ever after he was known as " The 
 War Horse." In the early days of his 
 ministry it was the common custom to 
 serve liquors at funerals. Mr. Chambers 
 gave notice from his pulpit that he would 
 enter no house where liquors were pro- 
 vided, and on one occasion he stood out- 
 side in a drenching rain and refused to 
 officiate until the corpse had been brought 
 to him. Throughout his long ministry 
 he continued the work, seeking by ser- 
 mons, by addresses, by prayers, by pledge- 
 taking, by pecuniary contributions for 
 the aid of reformed inebriates, by train- 
 ing young men and by all other availa- 
 ble methods to promote the temperance 
 reform. His efforts made bitter enemies 
 for him among the liquor-dealers. Once 
 he was confronted on the street by a 
 rumseller, who seizing him by the collar, 
 heaped profanity and abuse upon him. 
 Mr. Chambers listened quietly until his 
 assailant was out of breath and then 
 politely lifted his hat, thanked him and 
 went on his way. He was especially suc- 
 cessful with young men. About two 
 score of the young men of his congrega- 
 tion became clergymen, and a company of 
 thirty youths of his church, headed by 
 John Wanamaker (afterwards Postmas- 
 ter-General), founded the widely-known 
 Bethany Sunday-school of Philadelphia. 
 In the half century of his Christian min- 
 
 istry he admitted 3,585 members to his 
 church. 
 
 Champagne. — See Vinous Liquors. 
 
 Channing, William Ellery, an 
 
 eminent American clergyman, reformer 
 and writer, born in Newport, K. I., April 
 7, 1780, and died in Bennington, Vt., 
 Oct. 2, 1842. At the age of 12 he was 
 sent to New London, Conn., to prepare 
 for college, and two years later, in 1794, 
 he entered the Freshman class at . Har- 
 vard. He graduated from the institu- 
 tion in 1798 and spent the following 18 
 months as tutor in a private family at 
 Richmond, Va. In 1800 he returned to 
 Newport and continued his studies, 
 dividing his time between the public 
 library and the sea-shore. In 1801 he 
 removed to Cambridge, Mass., and being 
 elected Regent of the University entered 
 upon the study of theology. He received 
 approbation to preach in 1802, and his 
 sermons attracted immediate attention 
 for their fervor and solemnity. He was 
 ordained pastor of the Federal Street 
 Church of Boston, June 1, 1803. In the 
 disagreement between the " liberal " and 
 " orthodox " Congregationalists of New 
 England, Dr. Channing was the recog- 
 nized leader of the "liberals," since 
 known as Unitarians. Soon after his 
 marriage in 1814 he began the study of 
 the German philosophers, Kant, Schil- 
 ling and Fichte. After Napoleon's over- 
 throw at Waterloo he preached a sermon 
 on the " goodness of God in delivering the 
 Christian world from military discipline." 
 In 1822 he visited Europe, and upon his 
 return to this country in 1824 the ap- 
 pointment of Rev. Ezra Gannett as his 
 colleague in pastoral work permitted him 
 to devote much more of his time to liter- 
 ature and social reforms. He lectured 
 and preached sermons against slavery 
 and in behalf of temperance, education 
 and prison reform. His best-known 
 effort in advocacy of temperance was 
 his " Address on Temperance," delivered 
 in Boston, Feb. 28, 1837. In this he 
 took radical ground on the question of 
 total abstinence. " It is very plain," 
 said he, " too plain to be insisted on, that 
 to remove what intoxicates is to remove 
 intoxication. In proportion as ardent 
 spirits are banished from our houses, our 
 tables, our hospitalities, in proportion as 
 
Chickering, John White.] 
 
 [China. 
 
 those who have influence and authority 
 in the community abstain themselves 
 and lead their dependents to abstain 
 from their use, in ■ that proportion the 
 occasions of excess must be diminished, 
 the temptations to it must disappear." 
 But while convinced that the liquor traf- 
 fic ought to be prohibited. Dr. Channing 
 was doubtful whether public opinion at 
 that time (1837) was sufficiently aroused 
 to successfully enforce Prohibitory stat- 
 utes. • This is manifest in the same ad- 
 dress: "What ought not to be used as a 
 beverage ought not to be sold as such. 
 What the good of the community requires 
 us to expel no man has a moral right to 
 supply. That intemperance is dreadfully 
 multiplied by the number of licensed 
 shops for the retailing of spirits we all 
 know. That these should be shut every 
 good man desires. Law, however, can- 
 not shut them except to a limited extent, 
 or only in a few favored parts of the 
 country. Law is here the will of the 
 people, and the Legislature can do little 
 unless sustained by the public voice. To 
 form, then, an enlightened and vigorous 
 public sentiment, which will demand the 
 suppression of these licensed nurseries of 
 intemperance, is a duty to which every 
 good man is bound and a service in 
 which each may take a share." His 
 nephew and biographer, Rev. William H. 
 Channing, says of his attitude on the 
 temperance question (" Memoirs of Wil- 
 liam Ellery Channing," vol. 3, p. 30) : 
 
 " With liis habitual love of individual free- 
 dom and his excessive dread of the tyranny in- 
 cident to associated action, he refrained, indeed, 
 from joining the temperance societies and never 
 adopted or advised others to adopt their 
 pledges. But by precept and example he lent 
 the full weight of his influence to the temper- 
 ance reform." 
 
 In 1833 Dr. Channing himself wrote: 
 " The temperance reform which is going 
 on among us deserves all praise, and I 
 see not what is to hinder its complete 
 success. ... I believe the movements 
 now made will succeed because they are 
 in harmony with and seconded by the 
 
 eneral spirit and progress of the age." 
 
 "Memoirs," vol. 3, p. 36.) 
 
 Chickering, John White.— Born in 
 
 Woburn, Mass., March 19, 1808, and died 
 in Brooklyn, N. Y., Dec. 9, 1888. He came 
 from an old New England family, and was 
 the fourth in a line of Congregational min- 
 
 isters. He graduated from Middlebury 
 College in 1826, and from Andover Theo- 
 logical Seminary in 1829. In 1830 he was 
 ordained pastor of the Congregational 
 Church at Bolton, Mass., and after a nine 
 years' pastorate accepted a call to the 
 High Street Congregational Church of 
 Portland, Me., where he remained for 30 
 years. Dr. Chickering was a contributor 
 to various newspapers, and published two 
 books, "The Hill-Side Church" and 
 " Sermons on the Decalogue." He wrote 
 a number of tracts on temperance and 
 gospel subjects, and some of them have 
 been translated into other languages and 
 widely circulated. He also preached of- 
 ten from the pulpit on the temperance 
 question, advocating total abstinence for 
 the individual and Prohibition of the 
 liquor traffic by the State. 
 
 China. 1 — Intoxicating drinks have 
 been used in China from the remotest 
 times. The earliest historical records, 
 which begin at a period more than 2,000 
 years before the Christian era, mention a 
 spirituous liquor as an article already in 
 common use and speak of the drunken- 
 ness of some of the early Emperors and 
 their ministers as a matter of shame and 
 a source of calamity. The art of distil- 
 lation, in all probability, was first dis- 
 covered by the Chinese, but at such an 
 early date that there is no record of it. 
 One tradition ascribes its invention to 
 Tu K'ang, who, Dr. Williams says, was a 
 woman of the Scythian tribes. Dr. Legge, 
 however, says it is not known who Tu 
 K'ang was. Another Chinese tradition 
 declares that this liquor was first made by 
 (Iti, probably) a cook in the household of 
 Yii, who reigned in the 23d Century be- 
 fore Christ. Dr. Edkins has denied that 
 distillation was known among the Chinese 
 before 1280 A. D., and would have us be- 
 lieve that this early liquor was simply fer- 
 mented. But Dr. Legge has shown that 
 the phrase for distilled liquor, on which 
 this argument turns, was used at least as 
 early as 018 A. D. At any rate there has 
 been no such thing as native beer made 
 in modern times. Grapes are grown in 
 many places, but no wine is manufactured. 
 All Chinese liquors to-day are distilled. 
 
 i The editor is indebted to Rev. E. T. Williams (Nankin, 
 China), Rev. C. Hartwell (formerly of Poochow, China), 
 Rev. T. Laurie (Providence, R. I.), and Rev. S. L.Bald- 
 win (Recording Secretary, Mission Rooms of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church, New York). 
 
China.] 
 
 73 
 
 [China. 
 
 ANCIENT TESTIMOKY. 
 
 Whatever opinion as to the period of 
 the discovery of distillation is accepted, 
 it is certain that alcoholic liquors, how- 
 ever prepared, were in use among the 
 Chinese in the most distant ages. The 
 literature of the nation abounds in testi- 
 monies concerning the evils wrought 
 by intemperance, impressive utterances 
 against indulgence and Imperial decrees 
 of a restrictive or Prohibitory nature. 
 Mencius has told us of Yii the Great, the 
 founder of the Hia Dynasty (2205 B. C.) : 
 "Yii hated the pleasant wine" (Legge, 
 " Chinese Classics," vol. 2, p. 202). The 
 common Chinese explanation of this is 
 also given by Legge in a quotation from 
 " The Plans of the Warring States," a 
 history of the times next succeeding Con- 
 fucius: "Eteih (or Iti) made wine which 
 Yii tasted and liked, but he said, 'In 
 after ages there will be those who through 
 wine will lose their kingdoms '; so he de- 
 graded Eteih and refused to drink plea- 
 sant wine." It should be noticed here 
 that Legge, like many other writers, uses 
 the term " wine " for fermented liquors 
 made from millet, rice or any kind of 
 grain. 
 
 And Yii's prediction was too sadly ful- 
 filled. The dynasty he founded came to 
 an end in B. C. 1766, through the over- 
 throw of Kieh, the abandoned tyrant, who 
 to gratify his favorite concubine lavished 
 treasures " in providing her with a splen- 
 did palace, and in the park that sur- 
 rounded it a lake of wine was formed at 
 which ' three thousand men drank at the 
 sound of a drum/ while the trees hung 
 with dried meats, and ' hills of flesh ' were 
 piled up." (Mayers's Manual, p. 82.) He 
 was followed by Tang the Completer who 
 overcame him and bounded the Shang 
 dynasty. But this dynasty came to an 
 end in 1122, by the suicide of Chow Sin, 
 an even more abandoned and cruel tyrant 
 than Kieh if possible, with whom he is 
 classed by the Chinese as one of the " two 
 wicked Emperors." The book of '* Shu 
 King " reports the words of the Count of 
 Wei in 1123 B. C, when lamenting the 
 impending fall of the Shang dynasty. 
 " The House of Yin," said Wei, " we may 
 conclude can no longer exercise rule over 
 the four quarters of the kingdom. The 
 great deeds of our founder were displayed 
 in former ages, but by our maddened in- 
 dulgence in spirits we have destroyed the 
 
 effects of his virtues in these after times." 
 (Legge's translation.) And Wu Wang, 
 who overthrew Chow Sin, in a " Gre .t 
 Declaration " to the princes, officers and 
 people, declared respecting the fallen 
 monarch that "He has been abandoned 
 to drunkenness and reckless in lust." 
 
 But the dissolute royal example had led 
 to a sad state of morals among the people 
 both high and low, and when Wu Wang 
 appointed his brother Fung to rule over 
 the region around the former capital, in 
 the present Province of Honan, he ad- 
 dressed to him the " Announcement about 
 Fermented Liquors " found in Book X of 
 the " Shu King." This remarkable " An- 
 nouncement" antedates the admonitions 
 of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs, and 
 is probably the oldest temperance dis- 
 course on record. It is, in part, as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 " When your reverend father, King Wan, 
 founded our kingdom in the western region, 
 he delivered announcements and cautions to 
 the princes of the various states, their officers, 
 assistants and managers of affairs, morning and 
 evening, saying, ' For sacrifices spirits should be 
 employed. When Heaven was sending down 
 its favoring commands and laying the founda- 
 tions of our people's sway, spirits were used 
 only in the great sacrifices. But when Heaven 
 has sent down its terrors, and our people have 
 been thereby greatly disorganized and lost their 
 sense of virtue, this too can be ascribed to noth- 
 ing else than their unlimited use of spirits: yea, 
 further, the ruin of the feudal states, small and 
 great, may be traced to this one sin, the free 
 use of spirits.' King Wan admonished and in- 
 structed the young and those in office managing 
 public affairs that they should not habitually 
 drink spirits. In all the states he enjoined that 
 their use be confined to times of sacrifices ; and 
 even then with such limitations that virtue 
 should prevent drunkenness." 
 
 Continuing, Wu Wang establishes se- 
 vere Prohibitory rules, as follows : 
 
 " If you are told that there are companies 
 who drink together, do not fail to apprehend 
 them all and send them to Chow, where I may 
 put them to death. As to the ministers and 
 officers of Yin [another term for the Shang 
 dynasty], who have been led to it and been ad- 
 dicted to drink, it is not necessary to put them 
 to death; let them be taught for a time. If they 
 keep my lessons I will give them bright dis. 
 tinction. If you disregard my lessons, then I, 
 the one man, will show you no pity. As you 
 cannot cleanse your way. you shall be classed 
 with those who are to be put to death. The 
 king says, O Fung, give constant heed to my 
 admonitions. If you do not manage right your 
 officers, the people will continue lost in drink." 
 
 Afterwards other expedients were tried 
 to prevent intemperance. About Wu 
 
China.] 
 
 74 
 
 [China. 
 
 "Wang's time elaborate ceremonies in con- 
 nection with drinking were prescribed. 
 Etiquette required that host and guest 
 should bow to each other so many times 
 before each drinking that if they drank 
 together all day " they could not get 
 drunk." Near the beginning of the Han 
 dynasty (B. C. 206) and afterwards, a 
 fine of four ounces of silver was put on all 
 guilty of meeting together and drinking 
 in companies of more than three persons. 
 In B. C. 98 liquors could be made and 
 sold only by the Government. An Em- 
 peror of the Northern Wei dynasty, A. 
 D. 459, made a very severe Prohibitory 
 law. All liquor-makers, liquor-vendors 
 and liquor-drinkers were to be beheaded. 
 In 781 an Emperor of the T'ang dynasty 
 invented a peculiar scheme of Prohibition. 
 All the liquor-shops were divided into 
 three grades, to pay a monthly tax to the 
 Government according to size, and then 
 all persons, officers and people were 
 strictly forbidden to buy or drink. In 
 the Kin Tartar dynasty, 1160, the law 
 was that all officials who drank should be 
 beheaded. In 1279 the Mongol Emperor 
 had a law that all liquor-makers should 
 be banished and enslaved, and all their 
 property and children should come under 
 the control and care of the Government. 
 During the present dynasty no laws have 
 been made respecting the use of liquors or 
 spirits. 1 
 
 A common Chinese saying has been 
 rendered into English thus : 
 
 " First the man takes a dram, 
 Then the dram takes a dram. 
 Then the drams take the man." 
 
 PRESENT DRINK CONDITIONS. 
 
 As has already been stated, the Chinese 
 do not now manufacture fermented 
 liquors, and have not done so in recent 
 times. Moreover their distilled bever- 
 ages are not frequently consumed to ex- 
 cess, and it is probably true that so far 
 as the use of alcoholic beverages is con- 
 cerned China is the most temperate of 
 the great nations of the world. " In an 
 observation of over 20 years in China," 
 writes a former American missionary, 2 
 " I did not see a Chinaman intoxicated 
 more than once or twice, except where I 
 had reason to know that he was intoxi- 
 
 1 These various items have been taken from Dr. Fabers's 
 work in Chinese, entitled ll Civilization, Chinese and 
 Christian. 11 
 
 ' Rev. S. L. Baldwin, New York. 
 
 cated on foreign liquor." The most com- 
 mon distilled beverage made by the 
 Chinese is a species of arrack, prepared 
 from glutinous rice. The law forbids 
 the use of the " sien " or ordinary rice 
 for this purpose, as it is the people's 
 main dependence for food. Wheat, bar- 
 ley, millet and Indian corn are also dis- 
 tilled. Next to rice the " kao-liang " or 
 millet is most frequently used and makes 
 a strong liquor, although none of the 
 Chinese intoxicants are as strong in alcohol 
 as those of Western nations. Thrice-dis- 
 tilled liquor is called " samshu." Chinese 
 arrack contains perhaps two-thirds as much 
 alcohol as American whiskies. Among 
 the reasons assigned for the comparative 
 freedom of the people from drunkenness 
 are : 1. The fact that their diet is light 
 and simple, and does not tend to awaken 
 the appetite for strong drink that goes 
 along with higher living; 2. The general 
 use of tea, which quenches thirst and to a 
 large extent takes the place of liquor ; 3. 
 The great prevalence of the opium habit, 
 taking the place of the alcohol vice with 
 the victims of that habit. There is noth- 
 ing in China corresponding to the saloon 
 of Western countries. The ordinary 
 place of resort is the tea-house, and all 
 affairs are discussed over " the cup that 
 cheers but not inebriates." There is of 
 course a certain amount of drinking at the 
 inns and restaurants. There are no shops 
 given entirely to the sale and drinking 
 of liquors. There may be more drunk- 
 enness, however, than is apparent, for the 
 very reason that drinking is almost 
 wholly confined to the home, where its 
 results are not easily observed, by stran- 
 gers. It is impossible to ascertain the 
 exact amount of liquor of native produc- 
 tion consumed in China. In 1888 there 
 were 198,623 piculs of samshu, valued at 
 552,442 taels, exported from the " open " 
 ports. (A picul is equal to 133^ lbs. and 
 a tael to $1.15.) This, however, can rep- 
 resent only a small portion of the total 
 manufacture. Dr. J. G. Kerr, a medical 
 missionary at Canton, estimates the pro- 
 portion of adults — men and women — ad- 
 dicted to drinking at 60 per cent. At 
 an average daily allowance of four Chi- 
 nese ounces the expense for each person 
 per annum would amount to 2.25 taels, or 
 12.59, if the cheapest liquor is purchased. 
 This is certainly a very moderate esti- 
 mate. There are very few Chinamen who 
 
China.] 
 
 75 
 
 [China. 
 
 do not occasionally drink, for social 
 usage requires it on certain occasions, 
 such as the birth of a son, a wedding, 
 funeral or birthday celebration. It is 
 safe to say there are 150,000,000 adults 
 in China. According to the above esti- 
 mate the annual consumption will ap- 
 < proximate 1,350,000,000 gallons, at a cost 
 of more than $233,000,000. 
 
 But a change for the worse is gradu- 
 ally being effected, and for this change 
 the foreigners, men professing the Chris- 
 tian religion, are responsible. Until 
 recently there was no market in China 
 for foreign liquors. Those shipped to 
 her ports were admitted free of duty be- 
 cause consumed by foreigners alone. Not 
 long since, however (1888), foreign wine, 
 beer and spirits were put upon the tariff 
 list because, as was asserted, the Chinese 
 were already purchasing them in consid- 
 erable quantities. This consumption is 
 increasing rapidly, especially or almost 
 wholly among the official and moneyed 
 classes; for at present their use is limited 
 by the high prices demanded for them. In 
 , the " Eeturns of Trade " for 1888, publish- 
 ed by the customs service, the quantities 
 of wines and spirits entered are given for 
 only nine of the 29 open ports. These 
 quantities had an aggregate value of 331,- 
 936 taels ($381,726.40). Dr. J. G. Kerr, 
 in the article referred to above ( Chinese 
 Recorder, January, 1888), says: 
 
 "The advent of foreigners to China brought 
 with it a terrible evil in the use of opium,' and 
 this is wasting the lives and substance of tens 
 of thousands of her people and rendering the 
 salvation of their souls almost an impossibility. 
 The future threatens an evil many fold greater 
 than opium, as a concomitant of the introduc- 
 tion of Western science and education. The use 
 of native liquors is limited because of the char- 
 acter given them by the crude mode of manu- 
 facture. The consumption of foreign liquors 
 is limited because of their expense. The 
 time will no doubt soon come when alcoholic 
 drinks will be prepared here as they are in the 
 West and as cheaply as native spirits now are. 
 The probability is that their use will increase 
 and drunkenness will become as common as it 
 is in so-called Christian lands and the evils fol- 
 lowing in its train be as great here as they are 
 theie." 
 
 That this danger is not imaginary he 
 proceeds to show by quoting reliable 
 statements as to the effects already real- 
 ized in the neighboring Empire of Japan, 
 where the conditions a few years ago were 
 as they are now in China. There is no 
 regulation by the Chinese Government of 
 
 the traffic in intoxicating liquors beyond 
 the collection of a local tax on the pro- 
 duction, and the import and export dues. 
 The attention of the missionaries in some 
 places is being directed to it as an evil 
 that threatens soon to grow to vast pro- 
 portions. For example, in the city of 
 Shanghai every store kept by a foreigner 
 sells liquor, of which some is consumed 
 on the premises. The yearly revenue 
 from the tax on this traffic amounts to 
 3,600 taels ($4,140). Foreign wines and 
 spirits are very generally used by the well- 
 to-do classes of Chinese in that city. In 
 the English settlement in Shanghai there 
 were 58 arrests of Chinamen for drunk- 
 enness during the first ten months of 
 1889. Temperance effort is carried on 
 by some organizations and individuals, 
 especially by missionaries ; and a cordial 
 welcome was given to Mrs. Mary Clement 
 Leavitt, who visited China in 1886 in 
 behalf of the Woman's Christian Tem- 
 perance Union. 
 
 OPIUM. 
 
 But the drink evil in China, though 
 increasing, is overshadowed by a worse 
 evil — worse, at least, in magnitude. This 
 is the opium habit. No account of the 
 alcohol conditions in this Empire will be 
 complete without presenting the most 
 important facts of the prevalence, alarm- 
 ing growth and frightful ravages of this 
 fearful vice, and indicating the responsi- 
 bility for it and the consequences of its 
 legalization. 
 
 Very little was known until recently 
 concerning the introduction of opium and 
 opium smoking into China. Some writers 
 have stoutly maintained that the vice is a 
 very ancient one, and others have just as 
 stoutly denied that it was ever known in 
 China until introduced by foreigners near 
 the close of the List century. For many 
 of the more important facts given below 
 regarding the history of opium in China 
 we are indebted to the researches of Dr. 
 Edkins, the results of which are set forth 
 in a pamphlet published by order of the 
 Inspector-General of Chinese Customs. i 
 
 The poppy was introduced into China 
 by the Arabs in the 8th Century, A. D., 
 and Chinese physicians at once learned to 
 make a decoction from the seeds for medi- 
 cal purposes. In the 15th Century they 
 
 i Opium; Historical Note; or, The Poppy in China: 
 Shanghai, Kelley & Walsh, 1889. 
 
China.] 
 
 76 
 
 [China. 
 
 began to prepare the juice substantially 
 as it is done to-day, but employed it in 
 medicine only. About 1620 tobacco and 
 tobacco smoking were brought into Amoy 
 from the Philippine Islands, and opium 
 was employed among other things in pre- 
 paring the tobacco for use. Probably in 
 this insidious way the taste for opium 
 was first cultivated. After a time opium 
 instead of tobacco became the chief in- 
 gredient of the mixture, and it was a long 
 while before the tobacco was entirely 
 omitted. It was about the close of the 
 17th Century that the habit of opium- 
 smoking was brought to Formosa from 
 Java, and from Formosa it found its way 
 to the main land. The vice had already 
 become so prevalent in 1729 that the 
 Emperor issued an edict commanding 
 all opium houses to be closed and provid- 
 ing severe penalties for those engaged in 
 the trade. The drug was still imported 
 however, ostensibly for medical purposes, 
 and the habit of smoking it was slowly 
 extending in spite of the prohibition. At 
 the same time native opium was being 
 produced in considerable quantities in the 
 Province of Yunnan. 
 
 In 1767 the importation amounted to 
 about 1,000 chests annually, and the traf- 
 fic was wholly in the hands of the Portu- 
 guese. When the East India Company 
 (British) took charge of the trade in 1781 
 the importation was still about 1,000 
 chests a year. But in 1800 the Govern- 
 ment became greatly alarmed and an 
 edict was issued forbidding the importa- 
 tion of opium by any person for any pur- 
 pose whatever. The severest penalties 
 were prescribed for those violating the 
 law — nothing less than the confiscation of 
 the vessel, the destruction of the opium 
 and the capital execution of the smug- 
 glers. For a time the East India Com- 
 pany suspended shipments, but the 
 temptations held out by the iarge profits 
 caused a formal renewal of the smuggling 
 operations in 1821. Meanwhile the sever- 
 ity of the Prohibitory law had in no wise 
 been relaxed; in L830 strangling was the 
 penalty for selling the drug, and in 1832 
 an offender was executed by strangling at 
 Macao, in the presence of a crowd of 
 foreigners. 
 
 The British Government of India be- 
 came thoroughly committed to the policy 
 of encouraging the illicit business and de- 
 riving from it as much revenue as possible. 
 
 In 1831 and 1834 British men-of-war were 
 sent to Canton to protect the opium in- 
 terests. A crisis came in , 1839. The 
 Imperial Commissioner Lin wrote to 
 Queen Victoria imploring her to put an 
 end to the traffic, and committed to the 
 flames at Canton 20,283 chests of British 
 opium, valued at $10,000,000. This act 
 hastened the rupture with England. There 
 were other causes for war, and it is not 
 likely that China would ever have con- 
 sented without conflict to open her gates 
 to the trader or the missionary ; but En- 
 gland's demand at the close of the war, 
 that the Chinese Government should pay 
 an indemnity of $6,000,000 for the opium 
 that had been destroyed, fixed forever 
 upon her the reproach of espousing the 
 cause of lawless smugglers, and also gave 
 strength to the charge that China's re- 
 jection of British opium was one of the 
 chief causes of the war. The traffic, how- 
 ever, was not even then legalized. The 
 Emperor, Tao Kwang, in reply to Sir 
 Henry Pottinger's demand for its legaliza- 
 tion, said : " True, I cannot prevent the 
 introduction of the poison ; but nothing 
 will induce me to raise a revenue from the 
 vice and misery of my people." This 
 prince was himself a reformed opium- 
 smoker, and had lost his three eldest sons 
 by the vice. 
 
 The establishment of an English colony 
 at Hong Kong did not tend to lessen 
 smuggling. While Sir H. Pottinger is- 
 sued a proclamation declaring the im- 
 portation of opium illegal and an order 
 forbidding all English vessels to enter 
 any but the five treaty ports or to sail above 
 Shanghai, under $500 penalty for each 
 offense, no effort was made to enforce 
 either, but, on the contrary, officers who 
 attempted to execute the order were given 
 to understand that their services were not 
 needed. In 1857 an opium smuggler fly- 
 ing the English flag was fired on, and 
 this was made a pretext for the second 
 Opium War. Canton -was bombarded 
 and England and France co-operated in 
 a demonstration of strength which com- 
 pelled the Emperor to sign the treaty of 
 1860 (negotiated by Lord Elgin), whereby 
 the importation of opium was legalized; 
 and China paid an indemnity of $10,800,- 
 000 to England and $6,000,000 to France. 
 
 Since 1860 the amount nf opium im- 
 ported has increased alarmingly. The 
 following figures show the development 
 
China.] 
 
 77 
 
 [China. 
 
 of the import traffic under England's 
 powerful protection: In 1790, 4,054 
 chests were imported ; in 1799,5,000; in 
 1826, 9,969; in 1830, 16,800. In 1834 
 the trade passed out of the hands of the 
 East India Company into those of Brit- 
 ish officials, and in 1836 the number of 
 chests had increased to 34,000. After 
 that quantities were indicated by piculs 
 (of 133& lbs. each) instead of by chests. 
 In 1850 the imports aggregated 52,925 
 piculs, in 1880 75,308 piculs, and in 1887 
 96,746 piculs. 
 
 Foreign opium having been admitted, 
 there was no longer any reason why the 
 natives should not be permitted to pro- 
 duce the article. 
 
 The quantity of opium now made in 
 China is already two or three times as 
 much as that impo-ted, and the home 
 product is increasing each year. There 
 are still provinces where opium planting 
 is forbidden, but the prohibition is not 
 enforced. There is probably not a single 
 province where it is not grown. Mr. 
 Donald Spence, British Consul at Chung- 
 king, after very careful inquiries, re- 
 ported in 1881 that the annual production 
 of the four south-western provinces 
 amounted to 224,000 piculs. In the 
 same year the customs returns reported 
 12,700 piculs in five other provinces. 
 From special reports gathered by the cus- 
 toms service in 1887 we learn that opium 
 is grown in 16 of the 18 provinces of 
 China proper, besides ' the principalities 
 of Monkdeu and Manchuria. A low es- 
 timate, based upon these figures, would 
 make the total annual production about 
 254,000 piculs — two and one-half times 
 the amount imported. A fair estimate 
 would probably increase the number to 
 300,000. 
 
 Opinions differ very widely as to the 
 number of smokers, some putting it as 
 low as two millions and ethers as high as 
 eighty millions. Inspector-General Plart 
 in 1881, by a calculation based upon the 
 returns of the customs service, concluded 
 there were not more than two millions — 
 one million smokers of foreign opium 
 and the same number of the native ar- 
 ticle. His estimate of the na+ive produc- 
 tion, however, was far too small, as shown 
 by Mr. Spence's report, published the 
 following year. With the correctioTi, Mr. 
 Hart's method of calculation would give 
 not less than 3,250,000 persons addicted 
 
 to the habit in 1881. In his calculation 
 he assumed that 100 catties of raw opium 
 would produce 70 of the prepared drug, 
 and that an average smoker consumes 
 three mace per day. (A mace is one- 
 tenth of a Chinese ounce, which equals 
 an ounce and one-third avoirdupois.) 
 Dr. S. Wells Williams regarded two 
 mace per day a large amount, and it is 
 still so considered in some localities. Mr. 
 Hart's estimate is doubtless correct for 
 the open ports, but it is probably too high 
 an average for the whole Empire. Upon 
 this point he remarks that if the average 
 daily consumption be reduced you in- 
 crease the number of smokers but lessen 
 the hurtfulness of the practice. But 
 even two mace per day is enough to ruin 
 a man and his family in every respect. 
 Raw opium doubtless produces on an 
 average 70 per cent, of pure prepared 
 opium, but it is rarely or never smoked 
 in this condition, being almost always 
 adulterated to a certain extent — in some 
 places with sesamum seed, in others with 
 the ashes of former sm'okings. Some 
 persons prefer the ashes to the original 
 drug. This is notably true in Monkden, 
 where the ashes command as high a price 
 as the opium. One ounce of the ashes 
 added to one ounce of the raw opium will 
 produce an ounce and four-tenths of the 
 prepared mixture, so that it is probably 
 safe to say that there are as many ounces 
 of the prepared article smoked as there 
 are ounces of the raw drug. Estimating 
 the native production at 300,000 piculs 
 annually and the foreign importation at 
 100,000 piculs, allowing each smoker 3 
 mace per day, we reach the conclusion 
 that there are about 5,845,333 smokers. 
 This, however, represents but a small pro- 
 portion of those who suffer from the 
 habit. 
 
 Its evil results are numerous and far- 
 reaching. One can easily tell an opium 
 smoker at sight by his thin, sallow face, 
 sunken eyes and general air of weakness 
 and dullness. The victims find it impos- 
 sible without medical help to break away 
 from it. If a confirmed smoker from any 
 cause is deprived of his opium, or if he 
 attempts without assistance to give up 
 the habit, he will suffer indescribable 
 agony ; tears flow from the eyes, there is 
 dizziness in the head and a burning in 
 the throat, his extremities become cold 
 and his whole body is racked with pain. 
 
China.] 
 
 [China. 
 
 A large number of persons visit the mis- 
 sionary hospitals every year to be cured 
 of the vice. Many come, however, not 
 because they hate the habit, but because 
 they have exhausted their means or in 
 order that they may reduce the daily 
 dose. Probably one-half or three-fifths of 
 those cured renew the practice. The cost 
 of the drug, six cents per mace, soon con- 
 sumes the means of all but the rich, for 
 outside of foreign settlements laborers 
 receive but six to ten ce^ts per day 
 and mechanics from 11 to 15 cents. The 
 habit consumes two or three hours a 
 day, and soon unfits a man for any work. 
 As a result his family is reduced to want, 
 and in not a few cases wife and daughters 
 are sold into slavery to lead lives of 
 shame, the proceeds of the sale going to 
 fill the pipe of the husband and father. 
 Many every year go to swell the ranks of 
 professional beggars. Opium is preferred 
 to food, and if the victim is not rescued 
 he soon destroys himself. The use of 
 opium deadens the moral sense too, so 
 that the smoker becomes wholly unre- 
 liable, especially where the satisfaction of 
 his appetite is concerned. He will lie, 
 steal and resort to any means to fill his 
 pipe. The opium den is also a common 
 resort of harlots and gamblers, so that an 
 opium smoker soon becomes addicted to 
 other vices. In the English and French 
 quarters at Shanghai are numbers of 
 large establishments, handsomely fur- 
 nished, which are nightly frequented by 
 thousands of young men, and where har- 
 lots are permitted, unrestrained, to ply 
 their shameless vocation. In 1888 there 
 were 960 opium houses in the foreign 
 quarter of Shanghai, as against 900 in 
 1887. Each of the establishments pays a 
 tax on every pipe, and the Inspector may 
 count the pipes as frequently as he chooses. 
 From the 960 houses a revenue of 29,359 
 taels ($33,762.85) was collected in 1888. 
 In Nankin (population about 500,000), a 
 representative Chinese city, where there 
 are no foreigners except the missionaries, 
 there were about 8,400 opium dens in 
 1888. 
 
 Besides the injury done to the victim 
 and his family, there is the loss to the 
 State of millions of taels annually which 
 might be expended for useful articles of 
 commerce. Since 1781 India has drawn 
 off from China no lessthan $1,300,000,000. 
 The average price of a picul of foreign 
 
 opium is 391 taels; duty paid, 422.60 
 taels; after boiling, 492.20 taels. 
 The prices of the native drug vary 
 considerably according to locality, the 
 quality of the article and the amount of 
 taxes paid. The average price in 1887 of 
 crude opium was 277 taels per picul, and 
 of prepared opium 357 taels. Snch a 
 traffic cannot but do great injury to legit- 
 imate trade, and many merchants have 
 complained of it on this ground. The 
 growing of native opium is a source of in- 
 jury also because the best soil is used in 
 its production, soil which otherwise would 
 be used in growing breadstuffs. Thus 
 the quantity of food is lessened and its 
 price increased, with very serious results 
 on certain occasions. The use of opium 
 is said also to have a prejudicial influence 
 on the increase of population. In the 
 report of the Missionary Conference held 
 at Shanghai in 1877 it is stated that Dr. 
 Gait showed from the records of the opium 
 patients received into his hospital that to 
 154 married patients of the average age 
 of 33 years, during an average period of 
 7.9 years, only 146 children were born. 
 
 Practically nothing is done to-day to 
 suppress the vice. It pervades all classes. 
 Opium is heavily taxed, but this does not 
 prevent consumption. The import tax 
 on the foreign article is 30 taels per picul. 
 The native opium is variously taxed ac- 
 cording to locality, amounting in some 
 places to 18 taels, in others to 103 taels 
 per picul. In Hankow an attempt was 
 made to levy a tax in the form of a li- 
 cense upon the divans of that city, but it 
 failed. The Government since its dis- 
 couraging experiences before the English 
 wars has made no sustained effort to reg- 
 ulate or suppress the evil. Chinamen 
 say they are not free to deal with opium 
 as they like. Were England to withdraw 
 from the market and lessen the produc- 
 tion in her dominions, the Chinese might 
 be encouraged to another effort. They 
 have shown themselves not incapable of 
 the most energetic measures. There are 
 Chinese statesmen to-day just as earnest 
 as the famous Commissioner Lin and 
 far more intelligent. In 1877 the Vice- 
 roy at Nankin closed every den in the 
 city. Unfortunately he died soon after 
 and his successor allowed the vice to 
 flourish unmolested. 
 
 The influence of such a trade and 
 habit upon the missionary cause can 
 
China.] 
 
 [Chloral, Chlorodyne, &c. 
 
 easily be conceived. There is not only 
 the barrier erected by the vice itself, 
 which shuts the heart against all the 
 appeals of the gospel, but the trade 
 introduced and fostered by a so-called 
 Christian Government has filled the 
 natives with a violent hatred of every- 
 thing foreign. To the heathen there is 
 but little difference between the English 
 trader and the English n'issionary, though 
 year by year that difference is coming to 
 be more clearly understood. The preacher 
 of the gospel is almost daily interrupted 
 in his discourse by the question : " Where 
 does opium come from ? " and to be 
 taunted with the reproach that his people 
 have brought this great curse on the land. 
 No doubt this trade is responsible in a 
 good degree for the slow progress of 
 Christianity in China as compared with 
 its rapid advance in the neighboring Em- 
 pire of Japan. 
 
 No Chinaman, not even the smoker, 
 will justify the habit. All admit it to be 
 wholly evil. Only Englishmen interested 
 in the revenue pretend to say that it is 
 not injurious. But Sir Thomas Wade, 
 one of England's most distinguished rep- 
 resentatives in China, declared : " To 
 me it is vain to think otherwise of the 
 use of opium in China than as a habit 
 many times more pernicious, nationally 
 speaking, than the gin and whiskey 
 drinking we deplore at home." 
 
 THE UNITED STATES AND OPIUM. 
 
 The history of the relations of the 
 United States Government with the Chi- 
 nese Empire shows a gratifying change 
 of attitude upon the opium question. 
 The " Convention for the Regulation of 
 Trade " between the two countries, con- 
 cluded Nov. 8, 1858, provided that the 
 tariff on opium imported into Chinese 
 ports by citizens of the United States 
 should be 30 taels per 100 catties. ' But 
 the treaty of Dec. 17, 1880, proclaimed 
 Oct. 5, 1881 (the United States Commis- 
 sioners being James B. Angell of Michi- 
 gan, John F. Swift of California and 
 William Henry Trescot of South Carolina, 
 and ' the Chinese Commissioners being 
 Pao Chun and Li Hungtsao), provides as 
 follows in Article 2 : 
 
 " The Governments of China and of the 
 
 1 Among the duty-free goods were tobacco, cigars, wine, 
 beer and spirits. 
 
 United States mutually agree and undertake 
 that Chinese subjects shall not be permitted to 
 import opium into any of the ports of the United 
 States; and citizens of the United States shall 
 not be permitted to import opium into any of 
 the open ports of China, to transport it from 
 one open port to any ether open port, or to buv 
 and sell opium in any of the open ports of 
 China. This absolute prohibition, which extents 
 to vessels owned by the citizens or subjects of 
 either power, to foreign vessels employed by 
 them, or to vessels owned by the citizens or sub- 
 jects of either power and employed by other 
 persons for the transportation of opium, shall be 
 enforced by appropriate legislation on the part 
 of China and the United States ; and the bene- 
 fits of the Favored-Nation clause in existing 
 treaties shall not be claimed by the citizens or 
 subjects of either power as against the provisions 
 of this article." 
 
 Chloral, Chlorodyne, Chloro- 
 form, Cocaine and Ether. — These 
 preparations are among the most popu- 
 lar of medicinal agents for inducing sleep 
 or temporarily annihilating pain. The 
 bounds of their legitimate use, however, 
 are overstepped by many, and they be- 
 come inebriants of great fascination 
 and tyrannous strength. Indeed, alcohol 
 is a chief constituent of each, excepting 
 cocaine. Chloral is made by acting on 
 absolute alcohol with dry chlorine ; chloro- 
 dyne is a mixture of chloroform with 
 morphia, Indian hemp, prussic acid, 
 peppermint, etc. ; chloroform is produced 
 by distilling alcohol with chloride of 
 lime; ether is the product of alcohol and 
 sulphuric acid, and cocaine is prepared 
 from the coca leaf, which in its native 
 state is a powerful and ruinous stimu- 
 lant, chewed by the inhabitants of the 
 countries where the plant grows. 2 
 
 All of them excepting ether are of com- 
 paratively recent discovery, and they have 
 
 2 Both Poppig and Von Tschudi give a doleful account 
 of the intemperate use of coca by the inveterate coquero, 
 as he is called— his bad health, pale lips and gums, green- 
 ish and stumpy teeth, and an ugly black mark at the 
 angles of his mouth, his unsteady gait, yellow skin, 
 dim and sunken eyes encircled by a purple ring, his quiv- 
 ering lips and his general apathy all bear evidence of 
 the baneful effects of the coca juice when taken in excess. 
 He prefers solitude, and when a slave to his cravings he 
 will often take himself for days together to the silence of 
 the woods to indulge unrestrained the use of the leaf. 
 The habit must be very seducing, as, though long stigma- 
 tized and very generally considered as a degrading, 
 purely Indian vice, many white Peruvians at Lima and 
 elsewhereretire daily at stated times to chew coca. Even 
 Europeans. Von Tschudi says, have fallen into tbe habit. 
 Both he and Poppig mention instances of white coqueros 
 of good Peruvian families who were addicted to the vice. 
 One is described by Poppig who became averse to any 
 exertion; city life and its restraints were hateful to him ; 
 he lived in a miserable hut. Once a month, at least, 
 when irresistibly seized with the passion, he would disap- 
 pear into the forest and he lost for many days, after 
 which he would emerge sick, powerless and altered. — 
 Coca and Cocairu^J William Martindale (London, 1880), 
 pp. 12, 13. 
 
Chloral, Chlcrodyne, &c] 
 
 80 
 
 [Church of God. 
 
 not been generally employed in medical 
 practice until within the last half cen- 
 tury; but physicians testify that they are 
 already claiming multitudes of victims. 
 All are subtle poisons, speedily produc- 
 ing death when taken in undue quanti- 
 ties. They are more dangerous than 
 alcoholic liquors, in that constant care 
 must be exercised to avoid fatal doses. 
 As intoxicants they are not consumed 
 convivially like liquors, but in secret and 
 alone ; for they do not produce exhilara- 
 tion but lethargy and insensibility. The 
 victim, while under their influence, is 
 therefore not violent, murderous or oth- 
 erwise physically demonstrative; his 
 symptoms rather resemble those of the 
 opium-eater. The effects are as disas- 
 trous as those produced by opium indul- 
 gence — an insatiable appetite, demanding 
 larger and larger quantities and occa- 
 sioning an uncontrollable determination 
 to procure the drug at any expense of 
 money, health or honor ; gradual loss of 
 will, moral sense and self restraint, and 
 ultimately the most serious functional 
 disorders and distresses. Dr. Norman 
 Kerr tells of " a married lady, the wife 
 of a professional man," who "has cost 
 her husband £220 for chlorodyne during 
 the past six years, although she daily 
 drank only one-fourth of the quantity 
 taken by another case in which four 
 ounces were used every day." 1 These 
 seductive poisons are probably not yet 
 taken very extensively among the com- 
 mon people. Dr.Kerr, speaking of chloral, 
 says : " Literary men, barristers, clergymen 
 and medical men, with some highly sensi- 
 tive and nervous ladies, have been the sub- 
 jects of this form of inebriety. I have 
 known no mechanic who has become ad- 
 dicted to chloral, and only one or two 
 individuals engaged in trade or mercan- 
 tile pursuits." 2 The appetite for these 
 different drugs results, in moit cases, 
 from innocent use, for the purpose of 
 wooing sleep or deadening pain; after a 
 few trials a morbid craving is excited, 
 then the unfortunate habit is fixed. 
 Sometimes victims of opium resort to 
 chloral, chloroform, ether or cocaine in 
 the hope of conquering their tyrant, only 
 to find themselves slaves to an equally 
 remorseless foe whose work of destruc- 
 
 1 Inebriety (London, 
 F.L.S., p. 103. 
 » Ibid, pp. 101-3. 
 
 by Norman Kerr, M.D., 
 
 tion is performed with greater rapidity. 
 " Chloroform," says Dr. Kerr, " is speed- 
 ier in operation than any of the other 
 forms of inebriety except ether. The 
 nervous depression, the sickness, the 
 perverted nutrition and the continual 
 languor usher in an infirm and demoral- 
 ized condition of body and brain, which 
 makes of the victim a complete wreck. 
 Unless the mania be resisted and the 
 disease cured, the inevitable consumma- 
 tion by death approaches with startling 
 swiftness. Interspersed with the most 
 transient visions of delight, the life of the 
 chloroform inebriate is but a protracted 
 misery. The visions in the early stage 
 of the diseased manifestations are most 
 agreeable, but later on they become 
 weird and horrid. ... I have gen- 
 erally found the chloroform habit asso- 
 ciated with alcohol. Only in one instance, 
 a medical man, have I seen an abstainer 
 a chloroform habitve. He was, I am 
 happy to say, completely cured." 3 
 
 Christian Church — The American 
 Christian Convention, at its quadrennial 
 session held in New Bedford, Mass., Oct. 
 11, 1886, made the following deliverance : 
 
 "Inasmuch as the subject of the limitation 
 and ultimate extinction of the commerce in in- 
 toxicating drinks is the pre eminent moral 
 question of to-day, and growing in emphasis 
 with each added day; therefore 
 
 "Resolved, That this Convention do an- 
 nounce itself as the patron and aider of all 
 activities and associations that point clearly, 
 definitely and wisely to a direct and immedi- 
 ate erasure of permissions or sanctions of soci- 
 ety or law upon the iniquitous traffic." 
 
 Church A ction. — The representative 
 deliverances of American churches on 
 temperance and Prohibition are given 
 separately under the different denomina- 
 tional names. 
 
 Church of God.— The General Elder- 
 ship — the highest body in this denomina- 
 tion—held a triennial meeting at "West- 
 Newton, Pa., May, 1887. The following 
 is taken from the report of the 'Commit' 
 tee on Temperance, which was adopted by 
 the Eldership : 
 
 " Statistics develop the fact that, as a nation, 
 we annually expend in Home and Foreign Mis- 
 sions the sum of $2,500,000, for tobacco the sum 
 of $600,000,000, and for intoxicating liquors the 
 sum of *900,000,000 These expenditures for 
 liquor and tobacco strike at the influence of the 
 
 3 Ibid, pp. 105-6. 
 
Church Temperance Society.] 
 
 81 
 
 [Civil Damage Acts. 
 
 church, the hom2, and the nation. Since the 
 last meeting of this body a number of iStates 
 have submitted, or are about to submit, the 
 question of Prohibition; and so far as the ques- 
 tion lias been tested by the expressed voice of 
 the people, the sentiment of Prohibition is fast 
 gaining ground. All kinds of license or tax, 
 favoring the liquor traffic, whether high or low, 
 are wrong in principle and demand tiie opposi- 
 tion of the church and of good men and women 
 everywhere. We not only re-affirm the senti- 
 ments heretofore expressed, but as the cause of 
 Prohibition advances we will keep pace with 
 the aggressive movement of the temperance 
 cause until the several States and the National 
 Government shall by Constitutional Amend- 
 ment or statutory law prohibit the importation, 
 manufacture and sale of all intoxicating liquors, 
 including ale, wine and beer as a beverage, and 
 to that end we will labor and in every legiti- 
 mate way use our influence." 
 
 Church Temperance Society. — 
 
 This is the shorter name of the " Tem- 
 perance Society of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church of the* United States of 
 America " It was organized in 1881. It 
 is under the general control of an Execu- 
 tive Board of 30 members, and of the 60 
 Bishops of the Church who act as Vice- 
 Presidents. The object is threefold : (1) 
 Promotion of temperance; (2) Rescue of 
 the intemperate; (3) Removal of the 
 causes of intemperance. Its basis is thus 
 defined : 
 
 " Recognizing temperance as the law of the 
 gospel, and total abstinence as a rule of conduct 
 essential in certain cases and highly desirable in 
 others, and fully and freely according to every 
 man the right to decide, in the exercise of his 
 Christian liberty, whether or not he will adopt 
 said rule, thi- Society lays down as the basis on 
 which it rests and from which its work shall be 
 conducted, union and co-operation on perfectly 
 equal terms for the promotion of temperance 
 between those who use temperately and those 
 who abstain entirely from intoxicating drinks 
 as beverages." 
 
 The country is divided into four general 
 departments : (1) Central, including New 
 York, New Jersey and Connecticut, with 
 headquarters at 16 4th avenue, New York 
 City. (2) New England, including Maine, 
 New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts 
 and Rhode Island, with Rev. S. H. Hil- 
 liard, Boston, as the Department Secre- 
 tary. (3) Pennsylvania, including Penn- 
 sylvania, Delaware and Maryland, with 
 Rt. Rev. Bishop Coleman, Wilmington, 
 Del., as Department Secretary. (4) Ohio, 
 including Ohio, Michigan and Indiana, 
 with Rev. E. R. Atwill, D.D., Toledo, 0., 
 as Department Secretary 
 
 For remedial agencies the Society 
 names the following: (1) The gospel. 
 (2) Coffee-houses as counteractives to 
 saloons. (3) Improved dwellings for the 
 poor. (4) Healthy literature. To help 
 supply the last-named want, it pub- 
 lishes a monthly paper called Temper- 
 ance (New York). Its policy is that of 
 restriction rather than Prohibition. It 
 aims at (1) Prohibition of sale on Sunday. 
 (2) Prohibition of sale to minors. (3) 
 Prohibition of sale to intoxicated persons. 
 (4) High License or tax of $1,000 on every 
 saloon. (5) Only one saloon to each 500 
 people. (6) Local Option. 
 
 No pledge is administered to a child 
 without the written consent of his parents. 
 No alternative pledge can be taken until 
 the person subscribing to it is 21 years of 
 age. No life-pledge is given to any. The 
 conditions of membership are, assent to 
 the constitution and the payment of $1 a 
 year. Outgrowths of the Society are ju- 
 venile organizations called the Knights 
 of Temperance and Young Crusaders. 
 The Chairman of the Church Temperance 
 Society is Rev. W. R. Huntington, D.D., 
 Rector of Grace Church, New York. 
 
 Robert Graham. 
 (Secretary Church Temperance Society.) 
 
 Cider. — See Vinous Liquors. 
 
 Cigarettes.— See Tobacco. 
 
 Civil Damage Acts.— The New 
 
 York Civil Damage act is representative 
 of all measures of similar character. It 
 provides : 
 
 "Every husband, wife child, parent, guard- 
 ian, employer or other persori who shall be in- 
 jured in person or property or means of sup- 
 port by any intoxicated person, or in conse- 
 quence of the intoxication, habitual or other- 
 wise, of any person, shall have a right of action 
 in his or her name, against any person or persons 
 who shall, by selling or giving away intoxica- 
 ting liquors, cause tha intoxication, in whole or 
 in part, of such person or persons ; and any per- 
 son or persons owning or renting or permitting- 
 the occupation of any building or premises, and! 
 having knowledge that intoxicating liquors are 
 to be sold therein, shall be liable, severally or 
 jointly, with the person or persons selling or giv- 
 ing intoxicating liquors as aforesaid, for all 
 damages sustained and for exemplary damages; 
 and all damages recovered by a minor under 
 this act shall be paid either to such minor or to 
 his or her parent, guardian or next friend, as 
 the Court shall direct ; and the unlawful sale or 
 giving away of intoxicating liquors shall work 
 a forfeiture of all rights of the lessee or tenant 
 under any lease or contract of rent upon the 
 premises." 
 
Claret.J 
 
 82 
 
 [Climatic Influences. 
 
 "For information of the extent to which 
 the Civil Damage principle is recognized 
 in the statutes of the various States and 
 Territories, see Legislation. 
 
 Claret. — See Vinous Liquors. 
 
 Clark, Billy James. — Born in 
 
 Northampton, Mass., Jan. 4, 1778, and 
 died in Glens Falls, N. Y., March 20, 1867. 
 He was educated at Northampton Acad- 
 emy, studied medicine with Dr. Hicker of 
 Easton, N. Y., and began its practice 
 soon after in Moreau, Saratoga County, 
 N. Y. In 1821 he was a member of the 
 New York Legislature, and in 1848 a 
 Presidential Elector. He was the origi- 
 nator and organizer of what is known as 
 the first temperance society in history. 
 Having read Dr. Benjamin Rush's famous 
 essay on the " Effects of Ardent Spirits 
 upon the Human Mind and Body," Dr. 
 Clark, one evening in March, 1808, called 
 to see his friend in Moreau, Rev. Libbeus 
 Armstrong, and startled him with the 
 declaration : " We shall all become a com- 
 munity of drunkards in this town unless 
 something is done to arrest the progress 
 of intemperance." Mr. Clark proposed 
 the formation of a temperance society, 
 and with the co-operation of Rev. Mr. 
 Armstrong drafted a constitution for 
 " The Union Temperance Society of Mo- 
 reau and Northumberland." This society 
 was organized April 30, 7.808, 43 men 
 signing the roll. They held regular 
 quarterly and annual meetings, and kept 
 up the organization for 14 years. The 
 constitution provided, among other 
 things, that " no member shall drink rum, 
 gin whiskey, wine or any distilled spirits, 
 or compositions of the same or any of 
 them, except by advice of a physician, or 
 in case of actual disease, also excepting at 
 public dinners, under the penalty of 25 
 cents, provided that this article shall not 
 infringe on any religious rite ; " that " no 
 member shall be intoxicated under penalty 
 of 50 cents," and that " no member shall 
 offer any of the above liquors to any per- 
 son to drink thereof under the penalty of 
 25 cents for each offense." 
 
 Climatic Influences. — Wind and 
 weather are two scapegoats that have to 
 bear the blame of countless sins against 
 the health laws of nature. The conse- 
 quences of indoor life in an atmosphere 
 
 fretting our lungs with tobacco fumes and 
 all sorts of vile gases are ascribed to the 
 influence of the fell March wind. Fast 
 young men suspect a " cold " as the cause 
 of their nervous exhaustion. Gluttons 
 attribute their gastric chills to a draught 
 of cool night air, or a " sudden change in 
 the weather." But the strangest of all 
 climatic delusions is, after all, the theory 
 which explains the intemperance of 
 northern nations as a necessary conse- 
 quence of a low temperature. " Cold 
 weather," our barroom physiologists in- 
 form us, " naturally prompts us to resort 
 to ardent beverages, just as we resort to 
 chimney-fires and warm clothing." " Fire- 
 water " (Spanish, aguardiente) and many 
 similar terms have, indeed, become inter- 
 national synonyms of alcoholic beverages, 
 and together with the caustic taste of 
 such liquors have led to the popular in- 
 ference that alcohol is a chemical fuel, a 
 liquid heat-producer, and under certain 
 conditions a valuable substitute for calo- 
 rific food and warm clothing. The lessons 
 of instinct, however, might help even non- 
 scientific observers to suspect the correct- 
 ness of that conclusion. We may be very 
 sure that among the countless millions of 
 modern topers not one ever began to pre- 
 fer alcohol to more wholesome beverages 
 from a desire to counteract the influence 
 of a low temperature. 
 
 A ragged child, locked up in a cold 
 room warmed at one end by a feeble fire, 
 and furnished with a few thin blankets and 
 a large variety of ardent liquors, would at 
 once make for the fire-place, and after ex- 
 hausting the supply of fuel would use the 
 blankets to supplement its scant dress; 
 but after tasting the alcoholic samples 
 would at once reject them as useless for 
 any present purposes, unless experiments 
 should suggest the plan of flinging them 
 in the fire. In that way alcohol might be 
 utilized as a fuel, but as a calorific bev- 
 erage it is as unavailable as coal-oil. Up 
 in Manitoba, where the mercury sinks to 
 55° below zero, and where half-frozen 
 wolves would not hesitate to devour a pan- 
 ful of biscuits or lick up a plateful of 
 milk and sugar, neither hunger nor frost 
 would tempt them to touch a pailful of 
 brandy, though it might prove the only 
 unfrozen fluid for miles around. The 
 reason is that instinct, through the sense 
 of taste, would inform them that fat, 
 starch and sugar are heat-producers and 
 
Climatic Influences.] 
 
 83 
 
 [Coffee-Houses. 
 
 aliments, but that for the organic pur- 
 poses of the animal system alcohol is as 
 useless as spirits of turpentine. Begin- 
 ners, indeed, are apt to feel chilly after a 
 more than usually large dose of brandy, 
 though years afterwards, when the per- 
 version of instinct has begot a progressive 
 poison habit, alcohol seems to answer the 
 purposes of an organic fuel by initiating 
 the stimulant fever which to the victim of 
 the besetting vice has become a periodic 
 necessity; but for all actual benefit to his 
 system the stimulant dupe might as well 
 have tried to excite that fever by dosing 
 himself with sulphate of quinine. Sci- 
 ence fully explains those facts. 
 
 The experiments of Prof. Eentz and 
 Dr. Hammond have proved that under 
 the influence of alcohol and similar nar- 
 cotic poisons the elimination of carbonic 
 acid is diminished, the supply of animal 
 heat being thus decreased in proportion 
 to the alcoholic dose. For calorific pur- 
 poses, alcohol is not only inferior to fat, 
 starch and sugar, but even to common 
 spring-water which offers its elements of 
 hydrogen in a far more available form, 
 while brandy merely counterfeits a mo- 
 mentary feeling of warmth (the effect of 
 a scorching irritant) but in its net result 
 does not assist but directly hinders the or- 
 ganic process by which the body main- 
 tains its normal temperature. "Are ar- 
 dent spirits necessary ? " asks Captain 
 Edward Perry, after a 12 years' experi- 
 ence in the coldest climate ever braved by 
 Arctic explorers. " I say decidedly, no. It 
 is said they keep the cold out. I say they 
 do not. They let the cold in." 
 
 The idea that alcohol counteracts the 
 malarial tendency of a sultry climate is an 
 equally baneful delusion. Every " bitters "- 
 cursed city of our Southern gulf-coast 
 should publish the memorandum of the 
 Eev. James Gregson, a British missionary 
 who passed many years in the lowland 
 regions of Southern Hindustan. " I can 
 appeal to returns," he says, " which have 
 not been collected by rabid bigots but 
 signed by medical officers, and which tell 
 you what I believe to be the honest truth, 
 that India's bottle has buried more than 
 India's sun. The man who goes to Bengal 
 with the notion that he need not relinquish 
 his liquor, will be in danger of having to 
 relinquish his life. Nearly all those cases 
 of so-called heart-apoplexy would more 
 properly be called bottle-apoplexy." 
 
 The abstinent Arabs have preserved 
 their physical vigor in the burning desert 
 of their native peninsula. How is it that 
 a far more bracing climate has failed to 
 prevent the degeneration of the alcohol- 
 ized Spaniards and Italians ? Shall we 
 adopt the view of a German ethnologist 
 who ascribes that enervation to the lux- 
 uries and vices of the Roman Empire ? 
 In Eome itself that explanation might 
 perhaps hold good; but what about the 
 outlying provinces which, long after the 
 fall of Rome, were conquered by hardy 
 tribes of Northland warriors ? AVhat 
 about Sicily, for instance, where not 
 drunken Romans but abstemious Sara- 
 cens were expelled by a legion of iron- 
 fisted Normans, who, towards the end of 
 the 11th Century, followed Robert Guis- 
 card across the strait of Messina ? It so 
 happens that the descendants of those 
 mail-clad giants can still be traced by 
 their Norman-French names; and it like- 
 wise so happens that an abundance of 
 " good cheap country wine " has turned 
 them into the puniest and sickliest bipeds 
 of the Mediterranean coastlands. 
 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Coffee-Houses.— Coffee-houses as ri- 
 vals of liquor-taverns have been favored 
 almost from the beginning of the active 
 temperance agitation. As early as 1830 
 and 1831 there was a coffee-house move- 
 ment in Scotland, under the auspices of 
 temperance societies, resulting in the suc- 
 cessful operation of such establishments 
 in nearly all the principal towns and 
 cities, but many of them at that time sold 
 the lighter alcoholic beverages as well as 
 tea and coffee. It was in protest against 
 this practice that the Dunfermline Society, 
 Sept. 21, 1830, formed itself into the 
 " Dunfermline Association for the pro- 
 motion of temperance by the relinquish- 
 ment of all intoxicating liquors," and 
 passed a resolution agreeing " to give no • 
 encouragement or support to any coffee- 
 house established or receiving counte- 
 nance from any temperance society, for 
 the sale of intoxicating liquors." 1 In 
 1844 2 " the coffee-houses of Glasgow, con- 
 ducted on strict temperance principles, 
 and provided with news-rooms, etc., were 
 in some respects much superior to the 
 
 1 Dawson Burns's " Temperance History," vol. 1, p. 48. 
 
 2 Ibid, p. 248. 
 
Collier, William.] 
 
 84 
 
 [Commercial Temp. League. 
 
 coffee-taverns and palaces of the present 
 day." But it is more recently, and in 
 England especially, that the coffee-house 
 has become a prominent feature of the 
 temperance movement. Liverpool, Bir- 
 mingham, Bradford and other large cities 
 in England are plentifully supplied with 
 these places, while in London, where the 
 development has been slower, a large 
 number of establishments have been 
 opened by the Lockhart Coffee-House 
 Company, with the prospect of a rapid 
 increase in the number. Two weekly 
 newspapers in London, the Temperance 
 Caterer and the Refreshment News (the 
 latter the organ of the Coffee-Tavern Pro- 
 tection Society), are especially devoted to 
 the coffee-house movement and its inter- 
 ests. In 1872, Rev. Charles Garrett con- 
 ceived the idea of a coffee-saloon in Liver- 
 pool, which should combine every attrac- 
 tion of the liquor-saloon exceptthe bar, and 
 a company was formed, and such a place, 
 with reading-room attached, was opened 
 near the docks. Refreshments were served 
 at the cheapest rates. The enterprise was 
 so successful that there are at present in 
 Liverpool more than GO of these cocoa- 
 rooms, as they are called, while the British 
 Workman's Cocoa-House Company of 
 Liverpool, which has them in charge, has 
 in no year paid less than 10 per cent, 
 dividends. Coffee-houses were established 
 in Bradford after their success was mani- 
 fest in Liver pool, and the Bradford Coffee- 
 House Company has opened 20 places in 
 that city and its suburbs. Birmingham 
 also is plentifully supplied with coffee- 
 houses, or coffee-house hotels, and they are 
 successful from a business point of view, as 
 well as influential in moulding temperance 
 sentiment. The coffee-house movement 
 has extended into Canada and Australia, 
 but has made little progress 'n the United 
 States. Probably the nearest approaches 
 to the English coffee-house to be found in 
 this country are the temperance restau- 
 rants established in various cities by enter- 
 prising or philanthropic persons, those 
 opened and very successfully managed by 
 Joshua L. Baily in Philadelphia being 
 especially worthy of mention. 
 
 Collier, William.— Born in Scit- 
 uate, Mass., Oct. 11, 1771, and died in 
 Boston, Mass., March 29, 1843. He 
 learned the carpenter's trade, and after- 
 wards decided to fit himself for the min- 
 
 istry. He graduated from Brown Uni- 
 versity in 1797, and two years later was 
 ordained as a clergyman. In 1800 he be- 
 came a pastor in New York City, where 
 he remained four years. He had charge 
 of a church in Charlestown, Mass., from 
 1804 until 1820, and then engaged in 
 mission work in Boston. He was a 
 pioneer in the temperance movement and 
 projected and published ihj first temper- 
 ance newspaper in history — the National 
 Philanthropist, started in Boston in 
 March, 182G. Originally a monthly, it 
 was issued weekly after the first three 
 months and until it was discontinued two 
 years later. This paper bore the follow- 
 ing significant mottoes: "Temperate 
 drinking is the downhill road to intem- 
 perance ; " " Distilled spirits ought to be 
 banished from the land, and what ought 
 to be done, can be done." In 1827 Mr. 
 Collier became the editor of the Baptist 
 Preacher. He also compiled a hymn- 
 book, and edited various works for publi- 
 cation. 
 
 Colorado.— See Index. 
 
 Commercial Temper ance 
 
 League. — I had read the delightful 
 work of Rev. E. E. Hale, entitled " Ten 
 Times One is Ten," and had written a 
 letter to the author, in which I boastingly 
 claimed to be a decided temperance man. 
 His reply contained the following sen- 
 tence : " No man is sure he is temperate 
 himself until he tries to make other peo- 
 ple so." That searching sentence led 
 me to conclude that my temperance 
 principles should be heavily discounted, 
 and I resolved to make an advance. I 
 arranged a meeting with Dr. Hale and a 
 few invited friends on a certain day in 
 1886, in C. W. Anderson's insurance of- 
 fice, 185 Broadway, New York. Then 
 and there ten of us organized a " Ten 
 Times One is Ten " Club for temperance 
 work. The widespread organization that 
 has sprung from this beginning is appro- 
 priately called the Commercial Temper- 
 ance League. 
 
 The object of the League is revealed 
 in its mottoes and pledges. The mottoes 
 are the same as those adopted by the 
 King's Daughters : 
 
 "Look up and not down." 
 " Look forward and not back." 
 " Look out and not in." 
 "Lend a hand." 
 
Commission of Inquiry.] 
 
 85 
 
 [Common Law. 
 
 Its pledge is two-fold : (1) To drink no 
 intoxicating liquor as a beverage. (2) 
 To try and get ten others to join the 
 League. We consider that a compliance 
 with the first pledge simply gives the 
 person a start, while adherence to the 
 second means an aggressive movement 
 towards the saloon's destruction. 
 
 The membership cannot be definitely 
 stated. It was over 4,000 prior to Jan. 
 1, 1890. As a large proportion of its 
 members are commercial travelers, it is 
 difficult to keep track of their move- 
 ments^ Upon the basis of 4,000 mem- 
 bers, if each one should keep both 
 pledges, the number would very soon 
 swell to 40,000. But traveling men are 
 exposed to special temptations, and too 
 many fall by the wayside. 
 
 As to methods, the League depends 
 largely upon personal solicitation, al- 
 ways, however, insisting upon two things 
 — abstinence and work. All kinds of 
 temperance activity are encouraged, 
 whether on the score of health or economy, 
 philanthropy or morality, religion or 
 politics. Some of the members do plat- 
 form work, others furnish money for the 
 distribution of literature, and all are ex- 
 pected to be supplied with our pledge- 
 cards for use at any time or place. Clubs 
 have been organized in many of the 
 leading cities. Merchants, clerks, com- 
 mercial travelers, manufacturers, lawyers 
 and ministers have identified themselves 
 with the movement. A large number 
 have taken the double pledge, and been 
 redeemed from the drink slavery, and 
 sleepy church-members have been awak- 
 ened to see that they cannot be consistent 
 Christians unless they "lend a hand" 
 toward the obliteration of the alcohol 
 curse. S. A. Haines, 
 
 President Commercial Temperance 
 League. 
 
 Commission of Inquiry. — See 
 
 United States Government and the 
 Liquor Traffic. 
 
 Common Law. — This term as used 
 in the United States embraces both the 
 common law of England strictly so-called 
 and the acts of theBritish Parliament of a 
 general nature and not inapplicable here, 
 passed before the earliest English immi- 
 grants, who remained permanently here, 
 left their native land on the 19th of De- 
 
 cember, 1606, in the 4th year of James I. 
 (Bishop's 1st Book of the Law, Sections 50 
 to 57.) The common law of England blend- 
 ed together the usages and customs of the 
 nations and clans that successively con- 
 quered and inhabited the island of Great 
 Britain, or parts of it. (2 Wait's A. & D., 
 278.) The earliest decisions made by the 
 Courts of England simply reflected the 
 state of civilization and enlightenment 
 then existing there. These decisions be- 
 came " precedents " or " authority " for 
 subsequent decisions upon the principles 
 involved, and under the rule known as 
 stare decisis the Courts of modern times 
 have followed these early decisions, even 
 in cases where they were contrary to 
 their own notions of right and justice, 
 rather than introduce the element of un- 
 certainty in the law by overruling them 
 and establishing a rule in accord with 
 the advance made in civilization. Hence it 
 has become necessary with every advance 
 made by society in civilization and en- 
 lightenment to change by statutory en- 
 actment some old rule of the common 
 law. This is well illustrated by the legis- 
 lation of modern times on the rights and 
 disabilities of married women. The old 
 common law status of married women has 
 been completely revolutionized by this 
 legislation. 
 
 The selling of intoxicating liquors was 
 looked upon as a lawful means of liveli- 
 hood by the English people centuries ago 
 when the question first came before the 
 English Courts, and hence unless the 
 place where the intoxicating liquors were 
 sold was conducted in a disorderly man- 
 ner no offence was adjudged to have been 
 committed (Bishop on Crim. Law, Vol. I, 
 Sec. 1113; 2 Kent Com., 12th ed., p. 597 
 in note; Cooley on Torts, 2d ed., side- 
 page 605, top p. 718 ; 4 Comyns Digest, 
 p. 822; Faulkner's Case, 1 Saunders's 
 Eep., 249 ; Stevens v. Watson, 1 Salkeld's 
 Rep., p. 45 ; King v. Marriot, 4 Modern 
 Rep., 144; Rex v. Inyes, 2 Showers's Rep., 
 468.) In the case of Commonwealth v. 
 McDonough (13 Allen [Mass.] Rep., 581), 
 decided in 1866, a Boston saloon-keeper 
 was indicted " for the illegal sale and il- 
 legal keeping for sale of intoxicating 
 liquors to the great injury and common 
 nuisance of the citizens of the Common- 
 wealth." After the indictment the stat- 
 ute was repealed under which the indict- 
 ment had been obtained, and so the 
 
Common Law.] 
 
 86 
 
 [Communion Wine. 
 
 prosecution endeavored to secure a con- 
 viction on the ground that the keeping 
 of a saloon was contrary to the common 
 law. The case was carried up to the 
 highest Court in the State and ably 
 argued. In deciding the case the Su- 
 preme Court said : 
 
 "It is further contended that the offence set 
 forth in the complaint was a nuisance at com- 
 mon law, and may be punished as such, if it is 
 held that the statute penalty is repealed. No 
 authority is cited in favor of this position, and 
 those which we have examined are opposed to 
 it. In 1 Bishop Crim. Law. Sec. 1,047, it is said 
 that, aside from statutory provisions, a crime is 
 not committed by selling intoxicating liquors. 
 Merchants have always dealt in wines and other 
 liquors in large quantities, without beiDg sub- 
 ject to prosecution at common law. Inn-keep- 
 ing was a lawful trade, open to every subject 
 without license at common law. If he should 
 corrupt wines or victuals an action lay against 
 him. He might recover the price of wines sold 
 by him by action of debt. (Bac. Ah. Inns 8 
 Co., 147.) So it was lawful to keep an alehouse. 
 (1 Russell on Crimes, 298 in note [2d cd ].) In 
 the argument for the Commonwealth, such 
 places as the defendant is charged with keeping 
 are classed with brothels and gaming-h ousts, 
 and it is argued that they are all equally nuis- 
 ances. But it was not so at common law. Broth- 
 els and gaming-houses were held to be nuisan- 
 ces under all circumstances, but ale-houses were 
 not. unless they became disorderly, and in such 
 cases they were held to be nuisances on account 
 of the disordi rly conduct in them, whether the 
 keeper were licensed or not. As it is not alleged 
 that the defendant kept a disorderly house, he 
 cannot be held guilty of an offence at common 
 law." 
 
 License laws were first enacted in 1552 
 by the British Parliament in the fifth and 
 sixth years of Edward VI. (1 Russell on 
 Crimes, 2d ed., p. 298, note.) License 
 laws continued to exist in England at the 
 time our ancestors departed for America 
 in 1606, but the provisions for granting a 
 license were so locally inapplicable to the 
 American colonies that they have never 
 been held to be in force here by any 
 Court in any reported case. 
 
 From tbe foregoing it will be seen that 
 the common law of the United States on 
 the subject of liquor-selling simply reflects 
 the views entertained on the subject by a 
 half-civilized people ages ago, and that 
 the views of the enlightened people of 
 the United States on the subject can be 
 found only in Constitutional and statu- 
 tory law. As great changes have taken 
 place in public opinion with the advance 
 of civilization in relation to slavery, po- 
 lygamy, lotteries and other things now 
 
 universally regarded as evils but once 
 considered lawful and right, so it is not 
 surprising that public sentiment has also 
 changed in reference to liquor-selling. 
 Samuel W. Packard. 
 
 Communion Wine. — The import- 
 ance of the inquiry whether Jesus appoint- 
 ed intoxicating or unfermented wine for 
 the communion service has interested 
 in every age of the Christian Church 
 able leaders who have regarded it a test 
 question as to the purity of Christian 
 morality. While all the leading writers 
 of the first five Christian centuries recog- 
 nized that the wines made, drank and 
 used at the Passover and Last Supper by 
 Christ were the fresh " fruit " of the vine, 
 the difficulty of obtaining such wines in 
 Africa and Northern Europe led no less 
 than twenty fathers of the first five 
 centuries, and, later, men like Photius of 
 the Greek Church in .the 9th Century, 
 Aquinas of the Roman Church in the 
 13th Century, and Bingham of the English 
 Church early in the 18th Century to an 
 exhaustive study of methods of prepar- 
 ing unintoxicating wines, and to review 
 the discussions and decisions of suc- 
 cessive Christian Councils on commun- 
 ion wine as all-important in Christian 
 morals. Its growing moral bearings, 
 recognized in all branches of the 
 Christian Church, has led on to the 
 exhaustive research which now permits 
 demonstrative conclusions. As the 
 prior question whether Nazarites were 
 to be excluded from the Passover or 
 to be required to violate their pledge of 
 abstinence is settled by the connected 
 records of Numbers, 6th to 18th chap- 
 ters, so Luke's connection, as a Greek 
 physician acquainted with wines, of 
 John's abstinence (1 :15),of popular com- 
 ment on it (7 : 33, 34) and the " fruit of 
 the vine " used at both the Passover and 
 communion observance (22 : 18, comp. 
 Matt. 26 : 29, and Mark 14: 25), is a nec- 
 essary guide to an exhaustive and there- 
 fore conclusive decision as to the wine 
 appointed for the Lord's Supper. With 
 this prior consideration in view, the suc- 
 cessive steps in research are the follow- 
 ing : (1) Christ as a " conforming Jew " 
 must, as to the wine of the Passover, 
 have strictly followed the Mosaic statute 
 and the historic precedent which from 
 the days of Moses to the present time has 
 
Communion Wine.] 
 
 [Communion Wine. 
 
 ruled the character of wine used in He- 
 brew rites. (See Passover Wine.) (2) The 
 word " wine " is not used in the account 
 of the Supper given by three evangelists; 
 but the term "fruit of the vine" is ap- 
 plied by Luke to the cup of the Passover 
 (22:18), and by Matthew (26:29) and 
 Mark (14:25) to the same cup used at 
 the Communion. (3) At no age, in no 
 land and among no people, as among the 
 Komans under their Republic, especially 
 for two centuries before Christ, was the 
 method of preserving wines free from in- 
 toxicating ferment so studied and prac- 
 ticed; while no class of men were so true 
 to moral virtue as were the Roman Cen- 
 turions mentioned in the lives of Christ 
 and of his Apostles; a fact noted by 
 Matthew as a reproof to his countrymen 
 (8:10; 27: 54), and especially repeated by 
 Luke, who wrote for cultured Greeks 
 (7:2,4,5,9; 23:47; Acts 10:1, 2, 7,34, 
 35 ; 21 :32 ; 22 :25, 26 ; 23 :27 ; 27 : 1, 3, 43 ; 
 28 : 16). (4) The fact that from the time 
 of his making " fresh wine," Greek " ka- 
 lon " (John 2 : 10) for a wedding, to his re- 
 jection of wine on the cross, Jesus drank 
 only the unintoxicating fresh product of 
 the grape, confirms not only the former 
 facts stated, but the added fact that the 
 wine of Christ's Supper was the fresh 
 product of the grape. (5) The allusions 
 of Paul, the first to give a written account 
 of the Lord's Supper (1. Cor. 11: 20-26), 
 have by the ablest Christian scholars, 
 from the 2d to the 19th Centuries, been 
 declared to have been conformed to 
 Christ's example, for these reasons : First, 
 Corinth furnished then, and the Greek 
 Isles now export, preserved unfermented 
 wine ; Second, The term " wine " is not 
 used by Paul, as it was not by Christ; 
 Third, The beverage in "the cup" is 
 supposed to be familiar. The Greek verb 
 " methuo," found seven times (Matt. 
 24:49; John 2:10; Acts 2:15; 1 Cor. 
 11:21; 1 Thess. 5:7; Rev. 17:2, 6), 
 means "surfeit," not drunken, as does 
 the noun "methusma" in the Greek 
 translation of Hos. 4:11; the contrast in 
 1 Cor. 11 : 21 being with " hungry," and 
 clearly relating to food, not to articles of 
 drink. 
 
 The facts as to the JN'ew Testament 
 record relating to "communion wine" 
 are confirmed in each age succeeding 
 the day of Christ and his Apostles. Cle- 
 ment in Egypt in the 2d Century alludes 
 
 to the Christian " Enkratites " or total 
 abstainers; who, living in lower Egypt, 
 had no vines; and who, citing the fact 
 that in 1 Cor. 11 Paul does not mention 
 wine but only " the cup," used water at 
 the Lord's Supper. He mentions Greek 
 sects as the Pythagorians, who drank no 
 wine, but cites David's pare beverages, 
 the fresh product of the grape; he de- 
 clares that the cup of the Lord's Supper 
 is the " blood of the grape-cluster," and, 
 stating that the wine Christ made at the 
 wedding was the same, he repeats Christ's 
 words thus: "This is my blood, the 
 blood of the vine," as alluding to John 
 15 : 1, in the figures " I am the vine, and 
 ye are the branches." Origen, in the 
 opening of the 3d Century, alludes to 
 three kinds of wine: the ordinary in- 
 toxicating wine, the wine diluted with 
 water, and the " sweet nectar " of Homer 
 and of the Greeks, which he declares is 
 Christ's appointment. Cyprian, at Car- 
 thage in Northern Africa, in the middle 
 of the 3d Century, cites Melchisedech, 
 quoted by. Christ and Paul as well as 
 David (Psa. 110: 1,4; Matt. 22: 44; Heb. 
 5:6; 6:20; 7: 17, 21) as prefiguring his 
 sacrifice, and so his memorial Supper 
 (Gen. 14:18); and, quoting Gen. 49: 11, 
 he asks, " When here the blood of the 
 grape is mentioned, what else than the 
 wine of the cup of the Lord's blood is 
 set forth ?" He cites David's beverage 
 of fresh grape juice in his shepherd life 
 (Psa. 23 : 5), and the wine made fresh and 
 declared " the best " {optimum in Latin) 
 as that used at the Supper. Zeno, at 
 Verona in Northern Italy, in the 3d Cen- 
 tury, states that the cup of the Lord's 
 Supper was fresh " grape-juice " (mur- 
 ium) ; he declares that it was the simple 
 beverage of Melchisedech, Abraham, Jo- 
 seph and Jesus in Palestine, and also 
 like the Grecian " gleukos " referred to 
 Acts 2:13. Ohrysostom, court-preacher 
 at Constantinople at the close of the 4th 
 Century, condemning the custom of wine- 
 drinking meets the objection that it was 
 appointed for the Lord's Supper; and de- 
 clares that Christ, foreseeing this perver- 
 sion, was careful in selecting the terms, 
 " I will drink no more of the fruit of 
 this, the vine." Jerome, who spent 30 
 years in Palestine at the close of the 4th 
 and the opening of the 5th Century, that 
 he might see, in the land where Jesus 
 lived, and verify every fact in his history, 
 
Communion Wine.] 
 
 [Compensation. 
 
 says of the wine of the Supper, citing 
 Christ's words " The fruit of the vine," 
 that it was fresh from the noble vine 
 (Gen. 49 : 11), and like the " tirosh " of 
 Hos. 2 : 8, 9, 22. Augustine, going from 
 Kome as a gospel herald to. Carthage 
 early in the 5th Century, meeting the dif- 
 ficulty of providing fresh wine for tlie 
 Lord's Supper and the perversion made 
 of Christ's appointment, alludes to Vir- 
 gil's mention in his Georgics of the sim- 
 ple country provision of "milk, honey 
 and must." He cites the -"tirosh" 
 blessed by Isaac, as Christ's beverage ; and 
 he declares that the cup of the Lord's 
 table is what a little child may drink. 
 
 In successive ages since these early 
 Christian leaders saw how vital the ques- 
 tion whether Jesus was behind the Greek 
 and Eoman patriots of his day in guard- 
 ing his followers from perversion of his 
 example and appointment, profound and 
 conscientious scholars in every branch of 
 the Christian Church, in lands where the 
 vine and its richest fruits were not, as in 
 Palestine, native to the cli.me, have 
 reviewed all this testimony. Thus, Pho- 
 tius, a leader in the separation between 
 the Greek and Eoman Churches in the 
 middle of the 9th Century, in main- 
 taining the custom of the Eastern 
 Church, which administers the cup even 
 to children, comments as a native Greek 
 on Christ's words as to " new wine " and 
 " the fruit of the vine " as taught in all 
 former and subsequent ages. Aquinas, 
 born in Italy but spending his early life 
 in France and Western Germany, is 
 called to remonstrate against the wine 
 sometimes used; and retraces at great 
 length the Old and New Testament his- 
 tory, showing that Christ used in his 
 Supper fresh " wine of the vine;" urging 
 that " True wine can be carried to those 
 countries where there are no wines, as 
 much as is sufficient for the sacrament," 
 and stating that where grapes of inferior 
 quality grow, as on the Ehine, " This 
 sacrament can be observed with must," 
 since " must has already the character of 
 wine." 
 
 In the differences that arose between 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church and the 
 various dissenting churches in the close 
 of the 17th and the opening of the 18th 
 Centuries, a thorough and exhaustive 
 review of former authorities was made by 
 Poole, as a scholarly and uncontroversial 
 
 dissenter, and by Bingham of the Estab- 
 lished Church of England ; both reaching 
 like conclusions. The earnest spirit of 
 Whitefield and Wesley reviewed a little 
 later the call for a return to a pure, un- 
 intoxicating wine for the Lord's Supper; 
 and in the early part of the 19th Century 
 Adam Clarke wrought conclusions of 
 former scholars into his commentary. 
 At the era of its publication, many con- 
 scientious Christian leaders, who from 
 the era of Whitefield's first visit had 
 longed and labored in New England for 
 a return to Christ's pure appointment, 
 found in Moses Stuart an intelligent ad- 
 vocate, though his declining age forbade 
 exhaustive research. In 1829, John N. 
 Barbour of Boston imported f:om the 
 Grecian Isles, in bottles, pure wines, 
 which when analyzed by the eminent 
 Dr. John A. Warren were found free from 
 alcohol. The progress of the popular 
 demand by reformed inebriates, like 
 Gough, and. by students like Lees of 
 England and Nott and others in the 
 United States, has steadily confirmed 
 the truth taught bv Christ, and has pro- 
 moted the " grace " which his example 
 and his appointment have inspired. The 
 special confirmation which the monu- 
 ments of Egypt have given as to the early 
 method of preparing and preserving un- 
 fermented wine, and the reopening of 
 Palestine for the repetition of the stud- 
 ies of Jerome, and, yet more, the revival 
 in Italy aud Spain, as well as in Califor- 
 nia, of ancient methods, has facilitated 
 the return to the use of unfermented 
 wine at the Lord's Supper specially 
 sought in Great Britain and America by 
 reformed inebriates. G. W. Samson. 
 
 Compensation. — One of the most 
 perplexing questions arising after the 
 Prohibition movement was fairly inaugu- 
 rated was, Should liquor-manufacturers 
 and sellers be reimbursed for their losses 
 when their traffic is forbidden and their 
 business establishments are closed? In 
 the "United States it was not until forty 
 years of Prohibitory legislation had. 
 elapsed that the question was definitely 
 disposed of by the Court of last resort. 
 Meanwhile decisions for and against the 
 principle of compensation were made by 
 minor Courts; but by common consent 
 the question was held in abeyance every- 
 where in the country throughout this 
 
Compensation.] 
 
 89 
 
 [Compensation. 
 
 period. Although it was much discussed 
 by individual writers — and even some 
 Prohibitionists maintained the affirmative 
 view ' — it is a remarkable fact that no de- 
 finite political following or championship 
 of an important nature was ever com- 
 manded by the advocates of compensation 
 in the "United States. While the liquor- 
 sellers readily secured partisan support 
 for their offensive and defensive schemes 
 in relation to every other phase of policy, 
 they could not persuade political leaders 
 to make a popular issue of the one pro- 
 gramme whose acceptance was essential 
 to the welfare of the traffic. These lead- 
 ers were frequently prepared to stand 
 or fall in opposing Prohibition or Local 
 Option, or in urging even the most scan- 
 dalous of license bills. They were pre- 
 pared to become responsible for elaborate 
 and unscrupulous plans to defeat ad- 
 vanced legislation and protect the licensed 
 dealers. But in spite of the powerful and 
 persevering resistance of political parties, 
 Prohibitory systems were adopted, costly 
 manufacturers' plants became all but 
 worthless, liquors were seized and de- 
 stroyed and wholesalers and retailers suf- 
 fered very heavy pecuniary losses ; while 
 even the most faithful political friends of 
 the traffic made no formal effort of im- 
 portance to award damages. 
 
 UNPOPULARITY OF COMPENSATION". 
 
 This disinclination to take partisan 
 ground in favor of indemnifying dis- 
 possessed license-holders was occasioned 
 by the strong repugnance to compensation 
 prevailing among the people. A compen- 
 sation clause attached to any Prohibitory, 
 Local Option or restrictive license act 
 would have been the most effectual pro- 
 vision that could have been devised for 
 preventing popular consent to the anti- 
 license policy ; but it was unavailable be- 
 cause the device was exceedingly dis- 
 tasteful to the general public. When the 
 Pennsylvania Legislature, in January, 
 1887, was preparing to submit to the peo- 
 ple the question of adding a Prohibitory 
 Amendment to the State Constitution, the 
 caucus of the dominant party (Jan. 4) 
 voted to submit for popular decision at 
 the same time a clause providing "That 
 compensation shall be made out of the 
 public treasury to all owners or lessees of 
 real estate lawfully occupied or used con- 
 
 1 Notably the late W. H. H. Bartrarn. 
 
 tinually from April 1, 1887, until the final 
 adoption of this Amendment, for the 
 manufacture and sale of intoxicating 
 liquors as a beverage so far as the said 
 real estate shall be injured by the adop- 
 tion of the foregoing Prohibition Amend- 
 ment; and the General Assembly shall 
 provide by law for a true and just valua- 
 tion and the payment of losses so sus- 
 tained." The Pennsylvania act of sub- 
 mission was framed and carried through 
 the Legislature by very shrewd partisan 
 leaders, who subsequently showed that 
 they were ready to use any expedient 
 means for protecting the traffic ; but they 
 quickly withdrew their compensation 
 proviso. The caucus eliminated it from 
 the act of submission on Jan. 24. Again, 
 in Nebraska (February, 1887) and in Il- 
 linois (March, 1887) it was proposed by 
 legislative leaders to submit Prohibitory 
 Amendments conditioned on compensa- 
 tion, but these schemes came to nothing. 
 Indeed, actual compensation has never 
 been granted as an incident of Prohibi- 
 tory laws in the United States, 5 and the 
 sense of the people upon the question 
 has been so well understood that no em- 
 phatic expression of it has been invited. 
 Popular objection to compensation has 
 naturally been based chiefly on reasons of 
 economy. The policy if applied in any 
 State would enormously increase the pub- 
 lic budget and taxation — all for the bene- 
 fit of a single class, a class regarded by 
 most citizens as particularly undeserving, 
 corrupt and even criminal. It was not 
 needful for one to be a Prohibitionist to 
 oppose compensation on economical 
 grounds. Besides, the compensation prin- 
 ciple, if approved, would have to be ob- 
 served under license as well as under 
 Prohibitory systems. Should it be de- 
 sired to restrict the number of licenses in 
 any community the restriction would 
 have to be attended by compensation to 
 all licensed dealers deprived of their for- 
 mer privileges. Since it was universally 
 recognized that no efforts to abolish the 
 license system or even to reduce the ag- 
 gregate number of saloons could be made 
 wuh satisfactory prospects of success if 
 compensation were indispensable, the ad- 
 vocates of restriction and other conserva- 
 tive temperance people were equally in- 
 
 2 In some towns, however, liquor-sellers have been paid 
 sums of money from local public funds or by private indi- 
 viduals, in consideration of their willingness to surrender 
 their UcenseB and quit business. 
 
Compensation.] 
 
 90 
 
 [Compensation. 
 
 terested with the Prohibitionists in re- 
 sisting the liquor-sellers' demands. 
 
 But the expediency argument was far 
 from representing the strongest objections 
 entertained by uncompromising antago- 
 nists of the traffic. Thomas Carlyle's re- 
 tort to the publican's plea for compensa- 
 tion, " Go to thy father the devil for com- 
 pensation ! " was the answer that temper- 
 ance radicals were disposed to give. If 
 it was urged that the Government, having 
 become a partner in the licensed liquor 
 business and shared the proceeds, was in 
 honor bound to pay losses incurred by in- 
 dividual liquor-sellers upon discontinu- 
 ance of the partnership arrangement, it 
 was answered that the Government had 
 suffered incalculably in tolerating the 
 saloons and, being a loser by the bargain, 
 had no debt to discharge; that such a 
 traffic ought to be dealt with as a robber 
 and not as a producer ; that the Govern- 
 ment, by making licenses subject to revo- 
 cation for various causes, and by holding 
 itself in readiness to prohibit the business 
 altogether at the call of public sentiment, 
 had served the liquor-sellers with notice 
 to quit, and that since all licenses expired 
 annually and were granted from year to 
 year as special and temporary privileges, 
 there could be no " vested rights," prop- 
 erly so-called. 
 
 EARLY JUDICIAL UTTERANCES. 
 
 In the early stages of the Prohibitory 
 agitation, prestige was given to the most 
 radical claims of the liquor traffic's ene- 
 mies by the very impressive language used 
 by Justices of the United States Supreme 
 Court in deciding the celebrated " License 
 Cases" of 1847. (See 5 Howard, 504.) 
 In separate opinions filed by the individual 
 justices in passing upon these cases, the 
 right to prohibit the traffic was thoroughly 
 sustained. Although there was no formal 
 discussion of the compensation question 
 the failure of the Court to raise this 
 question as one legitimately demanding 
 consideration in a review of the general 
 principles involved was highly significant. 
 Indeed, it was unmistakably to be inferred 
 from the tenor of the Justices' written 
 opinions, that the claim of liquor-sellers 
 to compensation was not recognized by 
 the Court at that time. " The acknowl- 
 edged police power of a State," said Jus- 
 tice McLean, "extends often to the de- 
 struction of property. A nuisance may 
 
 be abated. Everything prejudicial to the 
 health or morals of a city may be re- 
 moved." "If a loss of revenue should 
 accrue to the United States from a di- 
 minished consumption of ardent spirits," 
 said Justice Grier, " she will be the gainer 
 a thousand-fold in the health, wealth and 
 happiness of the people." 
 
 In 1856 the New York State Court of 
 Appeals, in its decision in the case of 
 People v. Wynehamer pronouncing the 
 New York Prohibitory law unconstitu- 
 tional, held that an act operating to de- 
 stroy existing property in liquors was in 
 violation of the provision of the State 
 Constitution that no person should be de- 
 prived of property without due process of 
 law. This view of the Court applied, 
 however, only to liquor property actually 
 existing at the time of the passage of the 
 Prohibitory act ; and the Court was of the 
 opinion that a Prohibitory statute would 
 be valid in principle if operating against 
 prospective and not against existing liquor 
 property. The implication was that the 
 failure to make compensation for property 
 destroyed or injured by the act was, in 
 the opinion of the New York Court of 
 Appeals, sufficient justification for con- 
 cluding that "due process of law" had 
 not been provided for by the framers of 
 the legislation in question. But even this 
 Court avoided direct discussion of the 
 compensation issue. 
 
 JUDGE BREWER'S DECISION. 
 
 It was not until 1886 that the argument 
 for compensation was explicitly defined 
 by a judicial decision of first-rate respec- 
 tability. In the 39 years that had passed 
 since the " License Cases " were before 
 the United States Supreme Court, condi- 
 tions had been altered by the adoption 
 (1868) of the 14th Amendment to the 
 Federal Constitution, declaring in part 
 that " No State shall make or enforce any 
 law which shall abridge the privileges or 
 immunities of citizens of the United 
 States; nor shall any State deprive any 
 person of life, liberty or property without 
 due process of law ; nor deny to any per- 
 son within its jurisdiction the equal pro- 
 tection of the laws." The terms of this 
 Amendment were made the basis for a 
 sweeping decision by the Hon. David J. 
 Brewer, Judge of the 8th Circuit Court of 
 the United States. " In the case of the 
 State of Kansas, ex rcl, v. John Walruff, 
 
Compensation.] 
 
 91 
 
 [Compensation. 
 
 et al, Jan. 21, 1886, Judge Brewer held 
 that while the State could unquestionably 
 prohibit the manufacture and sale of 
 liquors for beverage purposes, such pro- 
 hibition, if unaccompanied by provisions 
 for compensating the owners of existing 
 liquor propeity, would not be in accord- 
 ance with "due process of law." John 
 Walruff: was a brewer, who between 1870 
 and 1874 had erected an establishment at 
 Lawrence, Kan., which was worth $50,000 
 for the purpose of brewing beer, and 
 worth not more than $5,000 for any other 
 purpose. The State of Kansas, in 1880, 
 adopted a Prohibitory Amendment to its 
 Constitution, and subsequently an en- 
 forcement statute. Walruff accordingly 
 claimed damages in the amount of 
 $45,000. 
 
 Judge Brewer, in this celebrated case, 
 argued that WalrurFs liquor property had 
 been " acquired under every solemn un- 
 limited guaranty of protection to property 
 which Constitutional declaration and the 
 underlying thought of just and stable 
 government could give ; " that " debarring 
 , a man by express prohibition from the use 
 ' of his property for the sake of the public 
 is a taking of private property for public 
 uses;" that "national equity as well as 
 Constitutional guaranty forbids such a 
 taking of private property for the public 
 good without compensation," and that the 
 confiscation of Walruff's brewing property 
 was no more to be justified on strict legal 
 grounds than the confiscation of a glucose 
 factory, a concern for the manufacture of 
 playing cards, or even a flouring mill 
 would be in the event of legislative Pro- 
 hibition of such manufacturing enter- 
 prises. 
 
 The significance of the Walruff decision 
 was heightened by important circum- 
 stances. It was delivered by a Federal 
 Court standing next in authority to the 
 Supreme Court. Judge Brewer was a 
 Eepublican and a citizen of Kansas; 
 moreover, as a member of the Kansas 
 Supreme Court he had given his voice for 
 sustaining the Prohibitory law on various 
 Constitutional grounds ' — yet for the sake 
 
 1 But Judge Brewer was equally outspoken for compen- 
 sation when on the Kansas Supreme Bench. In January, 
 1883, in the case of Kansas v. Peter Mugler (29 Kansas 
 152), although all the other Judges fully sustained the 
 Prohibitory law, Judge Brewer filed a dissenting opinion, 
 advocating compensation. In it occurred several remark- 
 able words which were afterwards cited by the Prohibi- 
 tionists as evidence that he was actuated by intolerance. 
 " But as to the case in which the charge is of manufac- 
 turing beer," said he, " and without regard to the pur- 
 
 of the compensation principle he ventur- 
 ed to take issue with the policy of his 
 party and the strong public sentiment 
 prevailing in Kansas, and to champion 
 a programme which, if established, would 
 render his other decisions on the Prohibi- 
 tion question all but worthless in prac- 
 tice. More interesting than anything 
 else was the knowledge that the compen- 
 sation question was now regarded by the 
 United States Supreme Court with pro- 
 found and apparently portentous seri- 
 ousness. In the case of Bartemeyer v. 
 Iowa (18 Wallace, 129) the Supreme Court 
 had said : 
 
 ' ' But if it were true, and it was fairly pre- 
 sented to us, that the defendant was the owner 
 of the glass of intoxicating liquor which he sold 
 to Hickey at the time that the State of 
 Iowa first imposed an absolute Prohibition 
 upon the sale of such liquors, then we concede 
 that two very grave questions would arise, 
 namely: First, whether this would be a stat- 
 ute depriving him of his property without due 
 process of law; and, secondly, whether if it 
 were so, it would be so far a violation of the 
 14th Amendment in that regard as would call 
 for judicial action by this Court. 
 
 "Both of these questions, whenever they 
 may be presented to us, are of an importance to 
 require the most careful and serious considera- 
 tion. Theyarenot to be lightly treated, nor 
 are we authorized to make any advance to meet 
 them until we are required to do so by the du- 
 ties of our position." 
 
 And in the case of Beer Company v. 
 Massachusetts (97 U. S., 25) the Supreme 
 Court had used these still more suggestive 
 words: 
 
 " We do not mean to say that [liquor] prop- 
 erty actually in existence, and in which the 
 right of the owner has become vested, may be 
 taken for the public good without compensa- 
 
 pose for which it was manufactured, while I do not care 
 to formally dissent I must say that my mind is not fully 
 satisfied. The defendant may have manufactured the 
 beer for his own consumption. It certainly is not shown 
 or alleged that he did not, and in a criminal proceeding it 
 is not to be presumed that the defendant has done wrong. 
 And I have yet to be convinced that the Legislature has 
 the power to prescribe what a citizen shall eat or drink, 
 or what medicine he 6hall take, or prevent him from 
 growing or manufacturing that which his judgment ap- 
 proves for his own use as food, drink or medicine.' 1 The 
 raising by the Judge of a most unreasonable supposition 
 in the brewers' favor, and the employment by him of lan- 
 guage closely resembling that appearing in lL personal 
 liberty" arguments, excited severe criticism. 
 
 Judge Brewer was transferred to the United States Cir- 
 cuit Court soon after he gave his dissenting opinion 
 in this case. It was charged by the Topeka Capital, 
 chief Republican newspaper of Kansas, Jan. 26, 1886, 
 that his promotion was due to the representations in his 
 favor made to President Arthur by Senator Vest (Dem.), 
 leading counsel of the brewers. (See the Voice for Jan. 
 16, 1890.) 
 
 Upon his elevation to the Supreme Bench of the United 
 States, Judge Brewer made a statement to a newspaper 
 correspondent reviewing his connection with the compen- 
 sation cases. He recited the facts but expressed no regret 
 for his action. , (See the Voice for Jan. 9, 1890.) 
 
Compensation. J 
 
 92 
 
 [Compensation. 
 
 tion, but we infer that liquor in this case, as in 
 the case of Bartemeyer v. Iowa, was not in ex- 
 istence when the liquor law of Massachusests 
 was passed." 
 
 THE COMPENSATION" CASES IN THE UNITED 
 STATES SUPREME COURT. 
 
 For nearly two years after the Circuit 
 Court's decision in the Walruff case, the 
 Supreme Court refrained from giving 
 its judgment. In October, 1886, how- 
 ever, the Iowa cases of Schmidt Bros. v. 
 E. M. Cobb, and Arthur O'Malley v. J. 
 P. Farley, involving the question of com- 
 pensation, were passed on by the Su- 
 preme Court (119 U. S., 286). At that 
 time one of the nine Justices of the 
 Court (Woods) was incapacitated by sick- 
 ness from joining in consideration of the 
 cases, and the other eight Justices were 
 equally divided. This equal division of 
 the Supreme Court only 14 months 
 previously to its emphatic and all but 
 unanimous denial of the right to com- 
 pensation, is one of the most curious facts 
 in the history of judicial treatment of the 
 Prohibition issue. 1 
 
 In the spring of 1887 two cases car- 
 ried up from the Kansas Supreme Court 
 which that tribunal had decided adversely 
 to the interests of Peter Mugler, brewer, 
 were argued in the United States Su- 
 preme Court. Senator George G. Vest 
 (Dem.) of Missouri, employed by the 
 United States Brewers' Association, rep- 
 resented the liquor side, and tue argu- 
 ment of the Prohibitionists was presented 
 in a brief prepared under the direction of 
 Attorney-General Bradford of Kansas. 
 After the hearing of the Mugler cases it 
 was by mutual consent arranged that 
 another Kansas Prohibition case, that of 
 
 1 Besides the compensation question, the legality of 
 closing liquor establishments by injunction proceedings 
 was involved in the Iowa cases of 1886. It may even be 
 true that the injunction question was a more prominent 
 feature of these cases than the compensation question. 
 But stress was laid on the compensation argument by 
 Cobb's counsel, who said, in their brief: 
 
 "Now whilst by no means conceding the correctness of 
 the decision in the Walrufl case [which involved the ques- 
 tion of compensation solely— Ed.] the distinction between 
 that case and thiB is world wide. In that case the County 
 Attorney was proceeding to abate and shut up a $50,000 
 brewery as a nuisance, and to absolutely prohibit the 
 further manufacture of beer in that establishment^thus 
 of course destroying the business of the owner and ren- 
 dering the whole property comparatively worthless. In 
 the casi. at bar the appellants are sought to be enjoined 
 from keeping a saloon in one corner of their $10,000 brew- 
 ery establishment and from selling beer therein at retail— 
 this and nothing more. No attempt is here made to arrest 
 the operation of appellants' brewery, and the suppression 
 of their saloon would no more interfere with the sale of 
 beer by appellants at wholesale than the suppression of 
 any other one of the 800 saloons . . . supplied with 
 beer by appellants." 
 
 Ziebold & Hagelin, brewers (appealed by 
 the State of Kansas from Judge Brewer's 
 Circuit Court), should be advanced on 
 the docket of the United States Supreme 
 Court so that a decision in it might be 
 reached with that in the Mugler cases. 
 The Court listened to further argument 
 on the 11th of October, 1887, the Hon. 
 Joseph H. Choate (Rep.), of the eminent 
 New York law firm of Evarts, Choate & 
 Beaman, appearing for the brewers. The 
 Prohibitionists were not represented by 
 counsel. It was afterwards shown that 
 the brewers had managed their interests 
 before the Supreme Court with consum- 
 mate skill. Mr. Choate's services had 
 been engaged secretly, and it was not 
 known that he was in the employ of the 
 brewers until his argument had been 
 made. Mr. Vest was paid a fee of $10,- 
 000, and Mr. Choate received $6,144.90. * 
 On the other hand the arguments of the 
 Prohibitionists were not adequately pre- 
 sented. After the hearing on the 11th 
 of October an effort was made by Samuel 
 W. Packard of Chicago, representing the 
 National Prohibition party, to induce the 
 Court to reopen the cases and hear addi- 
 tional argument, but the Court refused, 
 
 Mr. Choate, in urging the claims of 
 Ziebold & Hagelin, set up the following 
 plea: 
 
 "In 1871, while as yet beer was as muchapart 
 of the daily food of the people of Kansas as 
 bread and meat, they purchased a brewery in 
 that State, of which the7 were citizens, invest- 
 ing in it their entire property. From time to 
 time they enlarged and improved it, adding 
 largely to their investment Meanwhile the 
 taxes on their property and business contributed 
 to the support and welfare of the State, as the 
 products of their brewery did to the wholesome 
 sustenance of its inhabitants. It was a peaceful 
 and legitimate industry, as beneficent as the 
 bakers' or the butchers', contributing to the 
 community what for centuries had been a staple 
 beverage of the Anglo-Saxon race." 
 
 SWEEPING DECISION AGAINST COMPEN- 
 SATION. 
 
 On the 5th of December, 1887, the Su- 
 preme Court announced its decision in 
 the two Mugler cases and the Ziebold & 
 Hagelin case. The eight Justices who 
 had participated ,n the " divided " opin- 
 ion of the Court in the Iowa cases in Oc- 
 tober, 1886, were still on the bench. 
 Meantime Justice Wood had died and 
 
 2 Report of proceedings of the United States Brewers' 
 Association, held at St. Paul, May 30 and 31, 1888. 
 
Compensation.] 
 
 93 
 
 [Compensation. 
 
 his place had not been filled. Justice 
 Harlan read the decision, which was con- 
 curred in by Chief-Justice Waite and 
 Justices Miller, Bradley, Matthews, Gray 
 and Blatchford, Justice Field alone dis- 
 senting. * The principles laid down thus 
 received the sanction of the highest Court 
 by a vote of seven to one ; and three of 
 the seven Justices promulgating these 
 principles had radically changed attitude 
 in 14 months. The compensation idea 
 was rejected in explicit and solemn lan- 
 guage, and Constitutional questions 
 scarcely less important than the question 
 of compensation were decided in the inter- 
 est of the Prohibitionists — particularly 
 those affecting the right of a State to 
 prohibit the manufacture of liquor for 
 the maker's own use,, and to enact a law 
 providing for closing liquor premises as 
 nuisances without jury trials. The fol- 
 lowing words from the decision embrace 
 the answer of the Court to the compensa- 
 tion argument : 
 
 "Keeping in view these principles as govern- 
 ing the relations of the judicial and legislative 
 departments of Government with each other, it 
 is difficult to perceive any ground for the judi- 
 ciary to declare that the prohibition by Kansas 
 of the manufacture or sale within her limits of 
 intoxicating liquors for general use there as a 
 beverage, is not fairly adapted to the end of 
 protecting the community against the evils 
 which confessedly result from the excessive use 
 of ardent spirits. There is here no justification 
 for holding that the State, under the guise 
 merely of police regulations, is aiming to de- 
 prive the citizen of his Constitutional rights; for 
 we cannot shut out of view the fact, within the 
 knowledge of all, that the public health, the 
 public morals and the public safety may be 
 endangered by the general use of intoxicating 
 drinks; nor the fact, established by statistics ac- 
 cessible to every one, that the disorder, pauper- 
 ism and crime prevalent in the country are in 
 some degree at least traceable to this evil. 
 
 "The principle that no person shall be de- 
 prived of life, liberty or property without due 
 process of law, was embodied, in substance, in 
 the Constitutions of nearly all, if not all, of the 
 several States at the time of the adoption of the 
 14th Amendment, and it has never been re- 
 garded as incompatible with the principle, 
 equally vital, because essential to the peace and 
 safety of society, that all property in this 
 country is held under the implied obligation 
 that the owner's use of it shall not be injurious 
 
 1 Justice Field was the only Democrat sitting on the Su- 
 preme Bench at that time. He was an uncle to Judge 
 Brewer. He had made a record as a consistent advocate of 
 compensation. (See his opinion in the case of Bartemeyer 
 v. Iowa, 18 Wallace, 129.) In the nephew's decision in 
 the WalrufE case, the only positive opinion from a Supreme 
 Court Justice fully supporting his views that he was able 
 to quote, was an opinion delivered by Justice Field. 
 
 to the community. (Beer Company v. Massa- 
 chusetts, 97 U. S. 32; Commonwealth v. Alger, 
 7Cush. 53.) . . . 
 
 " The question now before us arises under 
 what are strictly the police 'powers of the State, 
 exerted for the protection of the health, morals 
 and safety of the people. . . . 
 
 " As already stated, the present case must be 
 governed by principles that do not involve the 
 power of eminent domain, in the exercise of 
 which property may not be taken for public use 
 without compensation. A prohibition simply 
 upon the use of property for purposes that are 
 declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to 
 the health, morals or safety of the community, 
 cannot in any just sense be deemed a taking or 
 an appropriation of property for the public 
 benefit. Such legislation does not disturb the 
 owner in the control or use of his property for 
 lawful purposes, nor restrict his right to dispose 
 of it, but is only a declaration by the State that 
 its use by any one for certain forbidden pur- 
 poses is prejudicial to the public interests. Nor 
 can legislation of that character come within 
 the 14th Amendment in any case, unless it is 
 apparent that its real object is not to protect the 
 community or to promote the general well- 
 being, but, under the guise of police regulations, 
 to deprive the owner of his liberty and property 
 without due process of law. 
 
 ' ' The power which the States unquestionably 
 have of prohibiting such use by individuals of 
 their property as will be prejudicial to the 
 health, the morals or the safety of the public is 
 not, and — consistently with the existence and 
 safety of organized society cannot be bur- 
 dened with the condition that the i tate must 
 compensate such individual owners for pe- 
 cuniary losses they sustain, by reason of their 
 not being permitted by a noxious use of the> 
 property to inflict injury upon the community. 
 The exercise of the police power by the 
 destruction of property which is itself a public 
 nuisance, or the prohibition of its use in a 
 particular way, whereby its value becomes 
 depreciated, is very different from taking 
 property for public use. or from depriving a 
 person of his property without due process of 
 law. In the one case, a nuisance only is 
 abated ; in the other, unoffending property is 
 taken away from an innocent owner. 
 
 " It is true that when the defendants in these 
 cases purchased or erected their breweries, the 
 laws of the State did not forbid the manufacture 
 of intoxicating liquors. But the State did not 
 thereby give any assurance, cr come under an 
 obligation, that its legislation upon that subject 
 would remain unchanged. Indeed, as was said 
 in Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S., the supervision 
 of the public health and the public morals is a 
 governmental power, 'continuing in its nature,' 
 and ' to be dealt with as the special exigencies 
 of the moment may require; ' and that ' for this 
 purpose the largest legislative discretion is al- 
 lowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with 
 any more than the rjower itself.' So in Beer 
 Company v. Massachusetts (97 U. S. 32): ' If the 
 public safety or the public morals require tiie 
 discontinuance of any manufacture or traffic, 
 the hand of the Legislature cannot be stayed 
 from providing for its discontinuance by any 
 
Compensation.] 
 
 94 
 
 [Compensation. 
 
 incidental inconvenience which individuals or 
 corporations may suffer.' " 
 
 [For the text of the decision in the Kansas 
 cases, see 123 U. 8., 623. See also " The Great 
 Prohibition Decision; with introduction and 
 annotations by Hon. S. W. Packard." (Funk 
 & Wagnalls, New York, 1888.) For notable 
 State Court decisions against the right of com- 
 pensation see 69 Iowa, 401 ; 72 Iowa, 377, and 3 
 Michigan, 330.] 
 
 England's compensation struggle. 
 
 In England the compensation question 
 has been warmly debated and seems to 
 be settled in the negative. Lord Salis- 
 bury's powerful Conservative ministry, in 
 April, 1888, introduced a Local Govern- 
 ment bill of which an important feature 
 was a provision for recognizing a vested 
 interest in existing licenses by granting 
 compensation to liquor-sellers whose ap- 
 plications for renewals should be refused. 
 The plan was skilfully presented, and so 
 unexpectedly that both the House of 
 Commons and the country were taken by 
 surprise. The temperance people at first 
 manifested but little disposition to organ- 
 ize a determined and an aggressive oppo- 
 sition; it seemed idle to hope that a 
 Government measure backed by an enor- 
 mous majority in the House of Commons 
 could be defeated by popular agitation. 
 Some able articles written by Mr. Axel 
 Gustafson directed popular attention to 
 the strongest arguments against compen- 
 sation. Mr. Gustafson challenged the 
 Solicitor-General (who was the projector 
 of the measure) to discuss vital proposi- 
 tions, and especially to consider prece- 
 dents. This official responded, and sev- 
 eral letters were exchanged, appearing in 
 the columns of the Manchester Guardian. 
 Mr. Gustafson showed that no Superior 
 Court in England, in passing on refusals 
 of licensing magistrates to renew licenses, 
 had recognized that liquor-sellers had a 
 vested interest in their licenses. Lord 
 Chief-Justice Cockburn had said, in the 
 Court of Queen's Bench, May 18, 1878: 
 " According to the act of 1828 the Justices 
 have the same discretion to refuse a renew- 
 al as they had to refuse granting a new 
 license." Mr. Justice Field, in the Court 
 of Queen's Bench, November, 1882, had 
 said : " In every case in every year there 
 is a new license granted. You may call 
 it a renewal if you like, but that does not 
 make it an old one. The Legislature 
 does not call it a renewal. The Legisla- 
 
 ture is not capable of calling a new thing 
 an old one. The Legislature recognizes 
 no vested right at all in any holder of a 
 license. It does not treat the interest as 
 a vested one in any way." And Baron 
 Pollock had said- in the Court of Queen's 
 Bench, Jan. 31, 1884 : " The notion that 
 there is a property of the landlord in a 
 license cannot be considered as sound 
 law." In fact, while the agitation upon 
 the Local Government bill was pending 
 (April 30, 1888) Lord Field and Mr. Jus- 
 tice Mills decided, in an appeal case, that 
 the possession of licenses established no 
 vested rights. The recognition of the 
 unsoundness of the compensation argu- 
 ment was so well founded in English 
 jurisprudence that Mr. Nash, barrister-at- 
 law and counsel to the Licensed Victual- 
 lers' Association, had said : " Now, I am 
 sorry to say, having looked into this ques- 
 tion most exhaustively, and having com- 
 pared notes with my brethren well versed 
 in these matters, that there cannot be the 
 smallest doubt that in the strict senss no 
 such thing as a vested interest exists. . . 
 The mere mention of the term ' vested in- 
 terest ' should be avoided, as it infuriates 
 every Court, from the Queen's Bench 
 downwards " * The popular opposition to 
 the bill grew rapidly and the United 
 Kingdom Alliance and other temperance 
 organizations (at first reluctant or despair- 
 ing) were persuaded to fight it with their 
 whole strength. A magnificent and won- 
 derfully enthusiastic meeting in the Man- 
 chester Free Trade Hall, presided over 
 by Sir Henry Roscoe, aroused the country. 
 It was followed by other great gatherings, 
 and the agitation culminated in an extra- 
 ordinary demonstration in Hyde Park, 
 London, on June 2. The strength of the 
 opposition was so formidable that in two 
 bye-elections for Members of Parliament 
 the Government was defeated on the com- 
 pensation issue, a Conservative majority 
 of GG8 at Southampton being changed to 
 a Liberal majority of 885, and a Govern- 
 ment majority of 1,175 at Ayr Boroughs 
 giving way to an adverse majority of 63. 
 The remarkable showing of popular in- 
 dignation caused the Government to 
 withdraw the compensation clauses un- 
 conditionally. 
 
 But in the spring of 1890 the scheme 
 
 'These different quotations are taken from Cardinal 
 Manning's article "Compensation," in the Contemporary 
 lieview for June, 1890. 
 
Compensation.] 
 
 95 
 
 [Compensation. 
 
 was revived by the Salisbury Ministry. 
 A bill drawn even more cunningly than 
 the one presented in 1888 was introduced 
 in the House of Commons and passed on 
 second reading by a majority of 73 (May 
 
 It was pretended that the real object of 
 .the bill was to reduce the number of 
 licenses and thereby " promote temper- 
 ance." Mr. Goschen, Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, in an imposing speech analyz- 
 ing the budget figures, had shown that 
 the Government revenues from the 
 drink traffic were increasing at an enor- 
 mous rate, and that of a surplus revenue 
 of £3,200,000, £1,80.0,000 was due to the 
 increase from liquor sources. The Con- 
 servative statesmen professed great con- 
 cern at this state of affairs, indicating as 
 it did (in their judgment) an alarming 
 growth of intemperance among the peo- 
 ple. Therefore they announced their in- 
 tention, as self-styled friends of temper- 
 ance, to bring about a diminution in the 
 number of public houses (particularly in 
 the number of beer-shops) and to forbid 
 the issuing of additional licenses. It was 
 strenuously and arrogantly claimed that 
 these were the fundamental objects of the 
 bill, and that the whole measure was there- 
 fore a temperance measure. But it was 
 further provided that the owners of all 
 licenses extinguished by the terms of the 
 bill should be granted compensation from 
 the public funds for their losses; and the 
 sum of £440,000 was set apart from the 
 liquor revenue, to be distributed pro rata 
 to the various counties, and applied for 
 buying out licensees. The Conservative 
 leaders and their newspaper organs 
 claimed that this provision for compensa- 
 tion, besides being equitable, was thor- 
 oughly unobjectionable, because the whole 
 of the money used for compensating 
 liquor-sellers would be drawn from the 
 liquor revenue. Mr. Ritchie, in setting 
 forth the merits of the bill in the House 
 of Commons (May 12), made this curious 
 plea : " It must be remembered, whether 
 our purposes be good or bad, our details 
 right or wrong, this money is raised from 
 drink for the purpose of diminishing the 
 sale of drink." The temperance people 
 who fought the measure were savagely 
 denounced, notably by the London Times, 
 as "intemperate temperance fanatics," 
 bent on a policy of " spoliation " and 
 chargeable with responsibility for resisting 
 
 a wise and practical plan for reducing the 
 drink traffic. 
 
 Temperance opposition was instanta- 
 neous. Mr. Gladstone and the Liberals 
 were quick to espouse the anti-compensa- 
 tion cause in the House of Commons. 
 The real purposes of the Conservatives 
 were exposed in many striking speeches. 
 "No valid precedent for compensating 
 publicans can be brought forward, and, 
 therefore, the Government is endeavoring 
 to make a precedent," said W. S. Caine, 
 M. P. " If compensation is once estab- 
 lished," he added, " the difficulties of the 
 temperance people will be increased ten- 
 fold, and a solid wall of 200,000,000 
 sovereigns will be built across a path 
 which is now clear and unobstructed." 1 
 Mr. Caine in very effective language called 
 attention to the hollow mockery of the 
 Government's claim that its desire was to 
 reduce the number of liquor licenses. For 
 example, the amount of money to be ap- 
 plied in London for closing public houses 
 by purchase would be, under the provi- 
 sions of the bill, only £60,000; and Mr. 
 Caine had ascertained by conclusive in- • 
 quiries that the lowest average valuation 
 of public houses in London entitled to 
 sell liquor for consumption on the prem- 
 ises was about £5,000 ; so that the Govern- 
 ment's bill, if enacted, would extinguish 
 only 12 drinking-places in the entire city 
 of London. Mr. Gladstone and others 
 fittingly characterized the bill as one "for 
 the "endowment" of drink-traffickers. 
 Mr. Gladstone showed that if the bill 
 should become a law the value of every 
 public house would immediately be ma- 
 terially enhanced. In a speech in the 
 House of Commons (May 22), answering 
 the Tory claim that the real purpose was 
 to reduce the number of drink-shops, he 
 used these striking words : " The diminu- 
 tion in the number will not entail a cor- 
 responding diminution in the drink traf- 
 fic. The business of the remaining houses 
 will be increased [Hear, hear], and it will 
 be enlarged to the full extent of the ap- 
 parent numerical diminution of the 
 houses. [Hear, hear.] " In conclusion ne 
 spoke impressively of the disastrous influ- 
 ence that compensation would have upon 
 the progress of the temperance reform, 
 saying that it would " throw back for, per- 
 haps, an indefinite period, the cause 
 
 1 It was estimated that £200,000,000 was the amount of 
 capital invested in the liquor traffic in Great Britain. 
 
Congo, Bum on the.] 
 
 96 
 
 [Congressional Temp. Society. 
 
 wnose progress we have observed and 
 registered from day to day, and in the 
 great future triumph of which we have 
 undoubting confidence. [Loud cheers.] " 
 The result of the second effort of the 
 Salisbury Government to force compensa- 
 tion upon Great Britain was even more 
 instructive than that of the first. The 
 meetings of the opposition were, if pos- 
 sible, more numerous and enthusiastic. 
 There was a demonstration in Hyde 
 Park on June 7 which outdid the great 
 gathering of 1888. But the Government 
 clung to the measure with stubborn te- 
 nacity, realizing, no doubt, that this was 
 its last opportunity for enacting compen- 
 sation provisions and thereby winning the 
 permanent, solid and devoted support of 
 the liquor interests for the Tory party. 
 Although the bill had a majority of 73 on 
 second reading, the real struggle came 
 when Parliament considered it in Com- 
 mittee of the Whole. In this struggle 
 the advantage was wholly with the op- 
 position. The Government's majority of 
 73 dwindled to 32 upon an important 
 motion made at the beginning of June; 
 and on June 20 the compensation clause 
 was carried by a majority of only 4 votes. 
 A few days later it was withdrawn ab- 
 solutely. 
 
 Congo, Hum on the. — See Index. 
 
 Congregational Church. — The fol- 
 lowing resolutions were passed by its 
 highest representative body, assembled in 
 Boston, Mass., October, 1889 : 
 
 " Resolved, That the National Council of 
 Congregational Churches hereby declares its 
 unqualified condemnation of this evil of intem- 
 perance, and its sympathy with legitimate 
 efforts for its removal; that it commends to 
 churches and all Christian workers the use of 
 wis? measures to secure as far as possible the 
 universal personal abstinence from all intoxica- 
 ting drinks as a beverage. 
 
 ' ' R -solved, That this Council commends 
 the employment of suitable means and methods 
 to promote the education of the young in the 
 principles of temperance, and in a knowledge 
 of the evils of the use of intoxicants ; and that 
 it expresses its sympathy with the Christian 
 women of our land in their efforts to secure the 
 teaching necessary to attain this end. and to 
 provide for the purity of the home and the sup- 
 pression of the evils of intemperance. 
 
 "Resolved, That the saloon is so great a 
 menace to the peace of society, to the good 
 order and welfare of the communities in which 
 it exists, and so great a hindrance to the advance 
 of the cause of our divine Master, as to demand 
 
 the employment of the wisest and most efficient 
 legitimate means for its removal ; and that we 
 call upon our churches and other bodies of 
 Christians to unite in prayer to God for wisdom 
 and divine guidance in efforts for removing this 
 great evil." 
 
 Congress.— See United States Gov- 
 ernment AND THE LlQUOR TRAFFIC. 
 
 Congressional Temperance So- 
 ciety.— -On the 26th of February, 1833, 
 at a meeting in the Senate Chamber, 
 under a call signed by 25 members of 
 Congress, a Congressional Temperance 
 Society was formed. The constitution 
 for the Society, presented by Theodore 
 Frelinghuysen, was . unanimously adopt- 
 ed. The object of the Society as stated 
 in the preamble to the constitution was, 
 " by example and kind moral influence 
 to discountenance the use of ardent spir- 
 its and the traffic in it throughout the 
 community." Lewis Cass, then Secretary 
 of War, who had the year before issued 
 an order prohibiting the introduction of 
 ardent spirits into any fort, camp or gar- 
 rison of the United States, was made the 
 first President of the Society, with the 
 Secretary of the Senate as its Secretary. 
 There were nine Vice-Presidents, an Ex- 
 ecutive Committee and about one hun- 
 dred members. It was found that the 
 pledge against ardent spirits did not pre- 
 vent the fall of those in the Society 
 whom it was designed to help. In 1842 
 the Society was reorganized on the basis 
 of abstinence from all intoxicating drink, 
 with George N. Briggs as President and 
 nine eminent men as Vice-Presidents 
 from as many different States. At the 
 next public meeting after the Society 
 was reorganized on the basis of total ab- 
 stinence, Thomas Marshall began his 
 speech with the words : "Mr. President: 
 The old Congressional Temperance So- 
 ciety has died of intemperance, holding 
 the pledge in one hand and the cham- 
 pagne bottle in the other." The changes 
 in the membership of the Society by 
 reason of the changes of members of 
 Congress modified the interest in its 
 maintenance and work. There were 
 periods of which there are no records that 
 anything was done; and sometimes great 
 vigor was manifest in the holding of pub- 
 lic meetings, especially at the anniversa- 
 ries. A notable period of activity fol- 
 lowed the revival of the Society in 1867, 
 with Schuyler Colfax and Henry Wilson 
 
Connecticut,] 
 
 97 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 prominent in the movement. The influ- 
 ence of this Society has extended widely 
 over the land, and at times has attracted 
 attention in other countries. 
 
 Henry Ward. 
 
 i Connecticut. — See Index. 
 
 Constitutional Prohibition, 1 or 
 
 Prohibition of the manufacture and sale 
 of intoxicating liquors of every kind for 
 beverage purposes by direct mandate of 
 Federal and State Constitutional law — 
 the goal of the present radical movement 
 against the liquor traffic in the United 
 States. The fundamental power of the 
 Federal Government and of each State 
 Government being denned by a written 
 Constitution, which is the permanent 
 fountain of all statutory legislation, 
 which under our institutions can never 
 be abolished save to give way to another 
 written instrument of equal dignity, and 
 which cannot be changed or amended in 
 any detail without mature deliberation 
 and the observance of carefully prescrib- 
 ed forms, it follows that the Prohibition 
 of the drink traffic, if provided for by 
 Constitutional enactment, will be in the 
 highest attainable degree authoritative, 
 effective and enduring. 
 
 ADVANTAGES OVER STATUTORY PROHIBI- 
 TION AND LOCAL OPTION. 
 
 The fatal imperfections of all other 
 forms of Prohibitory legislation have been 
 made manifest by varied experience. It 
 is always within the power of the Legisla- 
 ture to enact a rigid Prohibitory statute, 
 whether the Constitution commands it 
 to do so or not ; and a Legislature may, at 
 will, prohibit the manufacture and sale 
 of liquor absolutely, over the entire ter- 
 ritory under its jurisdiction, even though 
 the Constitution is silent. But statutory 
 legislation is by its nature unstable and 
 ephemeral because partisan or tentative; 
 the life of a Legislature in the United 
 States never exceeds two years, and in 
 many States the Legislature has but a 
 single session. Though a Prohibitory act 
 of the most satisfactory character may be 
 carried by a great majority through a 
 given Legislature, there is no assurance, 
 so long as the Constitution makes no ex- 
 plicit direction, that it will be retained 
 
 i The Nebraska Constitutional Prohibition campaign is 
 the subject of a special article. (See pp. 443-50.) 
 
 on the statute-books for a period long 
 enough to admit of a fair trial: the very 
 next Legislature, meeting at the end of a, 
 year or at the utmost of two years, is 
 then at liberty to repeal it. Political 
 vicissitudes, popular caprice, the influ- 
 ence of systematic bribery and corruption, 
 the violent opposition of a venal or prej- 
 udiced press, the interference of partisan 
 managers or the organized liquor power 
 of other States, may cause an abrupt 
 change of legislative attitude on the Pro- 
 hibition question and bring about 
 repeal of the act before it has been tested 
 at all, or may accomplish the destruction 
 of a beneficient law while at the height 
 of its usefulness. Of the many States 
 passing Prohibitory statutes before the 
 Civil War, only four (Maine, New Hamp- 
 shire, Vermont and Iowa) have permitted 
 them to survive until the present day ; in 
 most cases the Legislatures rescinded 
 these statutes before five years had ex- 
 pired and in some cases within one year 
 or two years; in other instances, where 
 the laws were allowed to remain nominally 
 in force until after the war, they were 
 promptly wiped out by the Legislature 
 when their enforcement or improvement 
 was seriously proposed; discriminations 
 in favor of the manufacture were made 
 in several of the early statutes, as orig- 
 inally enacted or as amended; some of 
 them exempted (or were soon amended so 
 as to exempt) wine, beer and cider — in 
 fact, many of the conditions that must be 
 heeded if Prohibitory laws are to be gen- 
 uine were ignored or evaded. With Pro- 
 hibition clauses in the Constitutions of 
 those States, the necessity of enacting 
 better statutes could not have been 
 escaped by the Legislatures, and it would 
 have been impossible to repeal them with- 
 out first annulling the Constitutional re- 
 quirements by direct vote of the people. 
 
 The distinguishing virtue of Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition lies in the necessary ex- 
 istence behind it of a majority of the whole 
 popular vote, and a very large majority 
 of the votes of the best citizens. No 
 Constitution or Constitutional Amend- 
 ment can be adopted in any State unless 
 a majority of the people voting on the 
 question, at the ballot-box, shall approve. 
 It follows that the presence of a Prohib- 
 itory article in any Constitution implies 
 a direct decree of the people that there 
 shall be radical Prohibitory law, a decree 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 98 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 that, considering the peculiar difficulties 
 in the way of amending Constitutions, is 
 looked upon as well-nigh irreversible. It 
 is true some of the old Prohibitory stat- 
 utes were passed in obedience to affirma- 
 tive votes of the people on the question, 
 Shall the Legislature enact the Maine 
 law ? But these affirmative votes had 
 the significance of mere plebiscites 
 rather than of responsible majorities; 
 they did not prescribe the scope of the 
 Prohibition or direct that it should in- 
 clude the manufacture, and there was no 
 power by which they could he made bind- 
 ing. 
 
 In a still wider and more import- 
 ant sense Constitutional Prohibition is 
 superior to Local Option. A Local 
 Option act, like a comprehensive Pro- 
 hibitory statute unsustained by a Con- 
 stitutional article, has no assured 
 vitality but may be overthrown with 
 comparative ease by the liquor power or 
 hostile politicians; the repeal of the 
 Local Option laws of Pennsylvania and 
 New Jersey after many counties in each 
 State had voted for Prohibition illus- 
 trates the instability of such measures. 
 Besides, Local Option legislation seldom 
 bestows on the people the privilege of 
 interfering with the manufacture of 
 liquor, and does not frequently provide 
 suitable penalties for illicit sales by drug- 
 gists and others. Again, though a county 
 may vote for Prohibition with practical 
 unanimity, the neighboring counties of 
 the same State may refuse to disturb the 
 rumsellers within their borders, and these 
 licensed dealers may, by infringing the 
 laws of the Prohibitory county, neutral- 
 ize its good effects. But the chief disad- 
 vantage of the Local Option method is in 
 its total failure in the communities where 
 the liquor evil is greatest. Underly- 
 ing the theory and policy of Prohibition 
 is the claim, honored by observance 
 almost everywhere in the United States 
 and thoroughly established by judicial 
 decisions, that because of the admitted 
 dangers of the drink traffic it may right- 
 fully be prohibited in any locality by a 
 ■majority vote regardless of the wishes of 
 'the minority, or in every locality of a 
 whole State by the will of a Constitu- 
 tional majority of the voters or legisla- 
 tors of that State regardless of the pow- 
 erful protests of particular localities. If 
 Prohibitory legislation involves arbitrary 
 
 and seemingly despotic interference with 
 the prevailing sentiment of particular 
 constituencies, this interference is never- 
 theless justified when associated constit- 
 uencies, comprised in the same political 
 unit, declare by a preponderance of sen- 
 timent that the interests of the whole peo- 
 ple demand Prohibitory law for all. 
 With the soundness of this principle rec- 
 ogn zed (and practical recognition of it 
 is inseparable from acceptance of the 
 Local Option idea), the opponents of the 
 liquor traffic need not hesitate to invoke 
 a policy whereby the strongholds of their 
 enemy may be subdued. Any advanced 
 form of Prohibition is, indeed, merely 
 an extension of the Local Option privi- 
 lege; and State and National Prohibition,, 
 secured by Constitutional Amendments 
 ratified by the people, would be but the 
 logical outcome of the earliest and most 
 limited Local Option victory. 
 
 EARLY DEVELOPMENTS. 
 
 The great advantage of incorporating 
 the Prohibition principle in State Consti- 
 tutions was recognized, though imper- 
 fectly, as early as 1850, when, upon the 
 adoption of the present Constitution of 
 Michigan, the following clause was in- 
 serted in that instrument by a vote of 
 30,149 to 9,433: 
 
 " The Legislature shall not pass any act au- 
 thorizing the grnnt of license for the sale of ar- 
 dent spirits of other intoxicating liquors." 
 
 And in 1851 an " additional section " was 
 added to the new Constitution of Ohio 
 by a separate vote of the people, the ma- 
 jority being in excess of 10,000. This 
 " additional section " was : 
 
 " No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors 
 shall hereafter be granted in this State, hut the 
 General Assembly may by law provide against 
 evils resulting therefrom." 
 
 But both the Ohio and Michigan Con- 
 stitutional provisions simply interdicted 
 license — they did not direct the enact- 
 ment of Prohibitory laws. Practically, 
 these interdictions were of little advan- 
 tage to the temperance cause. Although 
 both Ohio and Michigan passed Prohibi- 
 tory statutes before the war, the measures 
 so granted were weak and did not sur- 
 vive. Ohio's related only to consumption 
 on the premises, and Michigan's, modified 
 so as to exempt beer and wine, was re- 
 scinded in 1875. Meanwhile the Anti- 
 License articles of the Constitutions were 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 99 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 found to be absolutely worthless : Ohio's 
 has endured until this day, but its intent 
 has been circumvented by the passage of 
 ingenious so-called " tax " laws ; while in 
 Michigan, affcr the State Supreme Court 
 (October, 1875) had decided that a "tax" 
 law enacted by the Legislature was valid 
 notwithstanding the Constitutional Anti- 
 License clause, the people, in November, 
 1876, consented to the elimination of 
 this clause from the Constitution by a 
 majority of 8,078 in a total of 113,200.' 
 
 It was not until 1856 that the Consti- 
 tutional Prohibition idea as now under- 
 stood was definitely broached, and then 
 the necessity of including the manufac- 
 ture as well as the sale of liquors seems 
 not to have been perceived. In that year 
 William H. Armstrong, Grand Worthy 
 Patriarch of the Grand Division of Sons 
 of Temperance of Eastern New York, 
 proposed and discussed the plan. In 
 1857 he secured a unanimous endorse- 
 ment from the Grand Division, which 
 was renewed at three subsequent sessions. 
 Mr. Armstrong printed in the New York 
 Witness for May 29, 1858, a very thorough 
 article defining the new programme, sug- 
 gesting that an Amendment worded as 
 follows be added to the Constitution of 
 the State of New York : 
 
 "The sale of intoxicating liquors shall not be 
 licensed or allowed in this State excepting for 
 chemical, medicinal or manufacturing purp ises, 
 and then only under restrictive regulations to 
 be made by the Legislature. It shall be the 
 duty of the Legislature to prescribe proper pen- 
 alties for the sale of liquors in violation of this 
 provision, such liquors being hereby declared a 
 common nuisance, and liable to confiscation." 
 
 Although some temperance organizations 
 joined with the Sons of Temperance ot 
 Eastern New York in favoring Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition, no practical steps were 
 taken until the legislative session of 1860, 
 when the following joint resolution was 
 introduced into the New York Senate 
 (see the New York Tribune for April 9, 
 1860) : 
 
 1 A new Constitution was submitted to the people of 
 Michigan for ratification or rejection in 1809, and at the 
 same time the question whether the Anti-License clause 
 Bhould be retained or eliminated was separately submitted. 
 The temperance people then desired the retention of anti- 
 license in the Constitution, and united their efforts for de- 
 feating the new Constitution. The majority against the 
 new Constitution was 38,749 in a total of 182,315, and there 
 was a majority of 13,681 against eliminating the Anti- 
 License clause in a total of 158,605. This record of 18BP, 
 made before it was known that a tax law could be legally 
 framed in spite of the Constitutional anti-license provi- 
 sion, had much the same moral significance that a direct 
 vote for Prohibition would have had. 
 
 "Resolved (if the Assembly concur), That 
 the Constitution of the Stats be amended as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 " ' The sale of intoxicating liquors as a bever- 
 age is hereby prohibited, and no law shall be 
 enacted or b3 ia force after the adoption of this 
 Amendment to authorize such sale, and the 
 Legislature shall by law prescribe the necessary 
 fines and penalties for any violation of this pro- \ 
 vision.' 
 
 "Resolved (if the Assembly concur). That 
 the foregoing Amendment be referred to the 
 Legislature, to be chosen at the general election 
 of Senators, and that, in conformity to Section 
 1 of Article 13 of the Constitution, it be pub- 
 lished for three months previous to the time of 
 such election." 
 
 The Senate approved this joint resolution 
 on the 13th of March, 1860, by a vote of 
 30 yeas (29 Republicans and one Demo- 
 crat) to 6 nays (all Democrats), and the 
 Assembly concurred on April 5, 1861, by 
 69 yeas to 33 nays. The indorsement of 
 the next Legislature was required before 
 the proposed Amendment could go to the 
 people; but the exciting events of the 
 Civil War caused the abandonment of- the 
 plan. 2 
 
 BEGINNING OF THE AGITATION. 
 
 A period of 17 years expired before the 
 next notable demand for Constitutional 
 Prohibition was urged. It is somewhat 
 difficult to determine who is entitled to 
 the credit of first giving practical form 
 to the movement which began to make a 
 stir among the temperance people of Iowa 
 and Kansas in 1878. Mr. B. F. Wright 
 of Charles City, la., lays claim to the 
 honor. In August, 1878 (according to 
 his statement), he suggested the Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition method to Mrs. J. 
 Ellen Foster, who was then conducting a 
 district session of the Woman's Christian 
 Temperance Union in Charles City. 
 " Mrs. Foster " — we quote from Mr. 
 Wright — " did not at first take kindly to 
 the suggestion; but before the State 
 meeting of the Iowa W. C. T. IT., in Bur- 
 lington, in December of 1888, she wrote 
 to me saying she had decided that work 
 for a Constitutional Amendment was the ' 
 best thing to be done, and asking if any 
 special suggestions were to be made for 
 introducing tne plan to the public. I 
 answered this letter in an article pub- 
 lished in the Floyd County Advocate, Sept. 
 7, 1878, setting forth my views at length. 
 
 2 For the facte about the early movement for Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition the editor is indebted to John N. 
 Stearns of the National Temperance Society. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 100 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 Mrs. Foster, as Chairman of the Legisla- 
 tive Committee of the W. C. T. U., elab- 
 orated these views in a very able report 
 that she made to the State W. C. T. IT. 
 Convention, giving due credit ' to a friend 
 living in Floyd County.' " But it is cer- 
 tain that in Kansas at about the same 
 time the idea was definitely considered 
 and acted on. At the session of the Kan- 
 sas State Grand Lodge of Good Templars, 
 held at Fort Scott in October, 1878 (ac- 
 cording to Amanda M. AVay, late G. C. 
 T. of the Good Templars of Kansas), a 
 committee was appointed to prepare a 
 petition to the Legislature asking for an 
 Amendment to the Constitution forever 
 prohibiting the manufacture, sale and im- 
 portation of alcoholic liquors, and also for 
 a Prohibitory law to take effect at once. 
 Petitions were prepared, circulated for 
 signatures and submitted tp the Legisla- 
 ture at Topeka by the officers of the Grand 
 Lodge. 
 
 The Amendment method was not at 
 first approved by all the friends of Prohi- 
 bition in Kansas and Iowa. The Kansas 
 people felt stronger interest in the fate 
 of their bill for statutory Prohibition; 
 and it is a fact that the joint resolution 
 submitting a Prohibitory Constitutional 
 Amendment to the people was brought to 
 the front and passed by the Kansas Legis- 
 lature of 1879 as a political device for de- 
 feating the Prohibitory bill and other 
 restrictive measures, the politicians be- 
 lieving that so radical a proposition as 
 that for a Constitutional Amendment 
 against the manufacture and sale of 
 liquors would never be approved by a mar 
 jority of the popular vote. In Iowa the 
 old Prohibitory statute was still in force 
 in 1878, but it was practically a dead let- 
 ter because of the exemption of wine and 
 beer; and the Iowa temperance people 
 considered it more desirable to labor for 
 a perfected statute than to press the ap- 
 parently hopeless demand for Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition. In February, 1879, 
 a State meeting of Reform Clubs was held 
 at Waterloo, la., and Mr. B. F. Wright 
 earnestly advocated his Constitutional 
 Prohibition scheme; but the differences 
 of opinion were so marked that the Com- 
 mittee on Resolutions of that body, after 
 hours of exciting debate, brought in a 
 conservative report recommending moral 
 suasion and statutory and Constitutional 
 Prohibition. 
 
 EARLY SUCCESSES. 
 
 When, however, the issue for and 
 against Constitutional Prohibition was 
 definitely presented by legislative action, 
 the temperance people quickly under- 
 stood that a rare opportunity was before 
 them. By concentrating their resources, 
 arousing moral enthusiasm and diligently 
 presenting the claims for their policy, 
 they might win a whole State at a single 
 blow, and the victory would be of no un- 
 certain nature. The result of the first 
 campaign, made in Kansas in 1880, fully 
 confirmed the most sanguine hopes ; by a 
 majority of nearly 8,000 the following 
 Constitutional Amendment was adopt- 
 ed: 
 
 "The manufacture and sale of intoxicating 
 liquors shall be forever prohibited in the fcitate, 
 except for medicinal, scientific and mechanical 
 purposes." 
 
 A more substantial victory followed in 
 Iowa in 1S82, the majority reaching 
 nearly 30,000, and the text of the Amend- 
 ment being as follows : 
 
 " Section 26. — No person shall manufacture 
 for sale, sell, or keep for sale as a beverage any 
 intoxicating liquors whatever, including ale, 
 wine and beer. The General Assembly shall, 
 by law, prescribe regulations for the enforce- 
 ment of the provisions herein contained, and 
 shall thereby provide suitable penalties for vio- 
 lations of the provisions thereof." 
 
 These two great triumphs aroused re- 
 markable interest throughout the coun- 
 try. Constitutional Prohibition became 
 the accepted policy of advanced temper- 
 ance workers everywhere in the North. 
 Republican and Democratic Conventions 
 in the different States were besought to 
 pledge submission of Amendments. Leg- 
 islatures were petitioned and every avail- 
 able means of persuasion was used. The 
 striking result of the Ohio campaign of 
 1883 seemed to emphasize the conviction 
 that Constitutional Prohibition was des- 
 tined to sweep the country. That great 
 State, which had persistently nullified the 
 Anti- License article of the Constitution 
 of 1851, and which was dominated politi- 
 cally by the German influence, gave a 
 majority of more than 82,000 for the fol- 
 lowing proposed Amendment : 
 
 "The manufacture of and the traffic in in- 
 toxicating liquors to be used as a beverage are 
 forever prohibited; and the General Assembly 
 shall provide by law for the enforcement of this 
 provision," 
 
 while at the same time an alternative 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 101 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 Amendment providing that "The Gene- 
 ral Assembly shall regulate the traffic in 
 intoxicating liquors so as to provide 
 against evils resulting therefrom, and its 
 power to levy taxes or assessments there- 
 on is not limited by any provisions of the 
 Constitution," was voted down by more 
 than 92,000. Although the Ohio Prohib- 
 itionists were robbed by technicalities 
 of the fruits of their victory, the moral 
 effect was most impressive. Confidence 
 was still further strengthened by the 
 sweeping result in Maine in 1884, the 
 following Amendment being added to 
 the Constitution of that State by a vote 
 of three to one : 
 
 "The manufacture of intoxicating liquors, 
 not including cider, and the sale and keeping 
 for sale of intoxicating liquors, are and shall be 
 forever prohibited. Except, however, that the 
 sale and keeping for sale of such liquors for 
 medicinal and mechanical purposes and the arts, 
 and the sale and keeping for sale of cider may 
 be permitted under such regulations as the Leg- 
 islature may provide. The Legislature shall 
 enact laws with suitable penalties for the sup- 
 pression of the manufacture, sale and keeping 
 for sale of intoxicating liquors, with the excep- 
 tions herein specified." 
 
 Again in 1885 the wisdom of the advo- 
 cates of Constitutional Prohibition was 
 vindicated, In that part qf the Territory 
 of Dakota that has since become the 
 State of South Dakota, a Constitutional 
 Convention framed a Constitution that 
 was to become operative upon the admis- 
 sion of South Dakota into the Union, 
 and the following proposed article was 
 submitted to the people separately and 
 ratified by a majority of about 200: 
 
 " Article 24. — No person or corporation 
 shall manufacture or aid in, the manufacture of 
 for sale, any intoxicating liquor; no person 
 shall sell or keep for sale as a beverage any in- 
 toxicating liquor. The Legislature shall by law 
 prescribe regulations for the enforcement of the 
 provisions of this section and provide suitable 
 and adequate penalties for the violation there- 
 of." 
 
 In the next year (1886) a triumph 
 more gratifying, perhaps, than any that 
 had yet been scored was witnessed in the 
 conservative manufacturing State of 
 Ehode Island, which decreed, by more 
 than a three-fifths vote, that 
 
 " The manufacture and sale of intoxicating 
 liquors to be used as a beverage shall be prohib- 
 ited. The General Assembly shall provide for 
 carrying this article into effect." 
 
 A LON"G SERIES OF DEFEATS. 
 
 Thus in seven years five States and one 
 
 prospective State had approved the prin- 
 ciple of Constitutional Prohibition by 
 popular majorities. In this period no 
 State had recorded a majority against a 
 genuine Prohibitory Amendment, al- 
 though North Carolina, in 1881, had 
 voted down by more than 116,000 major- 
 ity a so-called Amendment that was 
 wholly unsatisfactory to the temperance 
 people. It was naturally believed by 
 most friends of the cause that the move- 
 ment was showing itself to be irresistible. 
 But a long series of defeats now ensued. 
 Before inquiring more particularly into 
 causes and circumstances, we will present 
 the texts of the Amendments voted on in 
 the different States since the Ehode 
 Island election of 1886, and indicate the 
 results. 
 
 Michigan, 1887, defeated by 5,645: " Article 
 4, Section 49. — The manufacture, gift or sale 
 of spirituous, malt or vinous liquors in this 
 State, except for medicinal, mechanical, chemi- 
 cal or scientific purposes, is prohibited : and no 
 property right in such spirituous, malt or vinous 
 liquors shall be deemed to exist, except the 
 right to manufacture or sell for medicinal, me- 
 chanical, chemical or scientific purposes under 
 such restrictions and regulations as may be pro- 
 vided by law. The Legislature shall enact laws 
 with suitable penalties for the suppression of the 
 manufacture, saleand keeping for sale or gift of 
 intoxicating liquors, except as hprein specified." 
 
 Texas, 1887, defeated by 91,357: " Section20. 
 — The manufacture, sale and exchange of in- 
 toxicating liquors, except for medical, mechan- 
 ical, sacramental and scientific purposes, is 
 hereby prohibited in the State of Texas. The 
 Legislature shall, at the first session held after 
 the adoption of this Amendment, enact neces- 
 sary laws to put this provision into effect." 
 
 Tennessee, 1887. defeated by 27,693: "No 
 person shall manufacture for sale, or sell, or 
 keep for sale as a beverage, any intoxicating 
 liquors whatever, including wine, ale and beer. 
 The General Assembly shall by law prescribe 
 regulations for the enforcement of the prohibi- 
 tion herein contained and shall thereby provide 
 suitable penalties for the violation of the pro- 
 visions hereof." 
 
 Oregon, 1887, defeated by 7,985 : "Section 
 1. — The manufacture, sale or giving away, or 
 the offering to sell or give away, or the keeping 
 for sale of any spirituous, vinous, malt, distilled, 
 iermented, or any intoxicating liquor, is prohib- 
 ited in this State, except for medicinal scientific 
 or mechanical purposes. 
 
 " Sec. 2 — The Legislative Assembly shall 
 prescribe bylaw in what manner and by whom 
 and at what places, such liquors or any of 
 them, shall be manufactured or sold, or kept 
 for sale for medicinal, scientific or mechanical 
 purposes. 
 
 " Sec. 3. — This Amendment shall take effect 
 and be in full force in six months from the date 
 of its ratification by the electors. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 102 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 " Sec. 4. — The Legislative Assembly shall 
 without delay pass all necessary laws with suf- 
 ficient penalties necessary to enforce this 
 Amendment." 
 
 West Virginia, 1888, defeated by 34,887: 
 " The manufacture, sale and keeping for sale of 
 all intoxicating liquors, drinks, mixtures and 
 preparations, except as hereinafter provided, 
 are forever prohibited within this State ; and the 
 Legislature shall without delay provide by ap- 
 propriate legislation for the strict enforcement 
 of this provision. But the Legislature may pro- 
 vide by law for the manufacture, sale and keep- 
 ing for sale of alcohol and preparations thereof , 
 for scientific, mechanical and medicinal pur- 
 poses, and of wine for sacramental purposes, 
 under sufficient penalties and securities to insure 
 the due execution of such laws as may be en- 
 acted under this section." 
 
 New Hampshire, 1889, defeated by 5,190: 
 " That the sale or keeping for sale, or manufac- 
 ture of alcoholic or intoxicating liquors, except 
 cider, or any compound of which such liquor 
 is a part, to be used as a beverage, is a misde- 
 meanor and is hereby prohibited." 
 
 Massachusetts, 1889, defeated by 46 626: 
 "The manufacture and sale of intoxicating 
 liquors to be used as » beverage are prohibited. 
 The General Court shall enact suitable legisla- 
 tion to enforce the provisions of this article." 
 Pennsylvania, 1889, defeated by 188,027: 
 ' Article 19. — The manufacture, sale or keep- 
 • ing for sale of intoxicating liquor to be used as 
 a beverage is hereby prohibited, and any viola- 
 tion of this prohibition shall be a misdemeanor, 
 punishable as shall be provided by law. The 
 manufacture, sale or keeping for sale of intoxi- 
 cating liquor for other purposes than as a bev- 
 erage may be allowed in such manner only as 
 may be prescribed by law. The General As- 
 sembly shall, at the first session succeeding the 
 adoption of this ,A.rticle of the Constitution, en- 
 act laws with adequate penalties for its enforce- 
 ment," 
 
 Rhode Island, 1889. repealed the Prohibitory 
 Amendment of 1886 by 18,315 majority. 
 
 South Dakota, 1889, adopted by 6,053: 
 "Article 24. — Wo person or corporation shall 
 manufacture or aid in the manufacture of for 
 sale, any intoxicating liquor ; no person shall 
 sell or keep for sale as a beverage any intoxica- 
 ting liquor. The Legislature shall by law pre- 
 scribe regulations for the enforcement of the 
 provisions of this section and provide suitable 
 and adequate penalties for the violation thereof '•' 
 North Dakota, 1889, adopted by 1 159 : 
 " Article 20. — No person, association or cor- 
 poration shall within this State manufacture for 
 sale or gift any intoxicating liquors and no 
 person, association or corporation shall import 
 any of the same for sale or gift, or keep or sell 
 or offer the same for sale or gift, barter or trade 
 as a beverage. The Legislative Assembly shall 
 bylaw prescribe regulations for the enforcement 
 of the provisions of this Article and shall there- 
 by provide suitable penalties for the violation 
 thereof." 
 
 Washington, 1889. defeated by 11.943: 
 " Separate Article No. 2 — It shall not be 
 
 lawful for any individual, company or corpora- 
 tion, within the limits of this State, to manufac- 
 ture or cause to be manufactured, or to sell or 
 offer for sale, or in any manner dispose of any 
 alcoholic, malt or spirituous liquors, except for, 
 medicinal, sacramental or scientific purposes." 
 
 Connecticut, 1889, defeated by £7,595 : "The 
 manufacture or compounding of and sale or 
 keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors, except 
 for sacramental, medicinal, scientific, mechan- 
 ical or art purposes, shall be and hereby are pro- 
 hibited in this State ; and it shall be the duty of 
 the Legislature to pass laws for the enforcement 
 of this article." 
 
 RECAPITULATION AND GENERAL REVIEW. 
 
 The following table summarizes the 
 main statistical facts in connection with 
 Constitutional Prohibition struggles in 
 the various States : 
 
 QUl^UtSO 
 
 5 3SEO.S? 
 
 TO " 
 
 
 
 ,:"3. : 
 
 
 r r-"^*55=:g. < ^P5=.,-r.- 5? 
 
 cd to i-i cs <x co *>-*>- -3 mod it- -3 to 
 
 O CO CC CO GO GO -5 M GO GO GO 
 
 iocs, 2. 2. ^ -■ 2. 2. 2. 
 f i" pf £, 2. E. — S 2- £. £. 
 
 !; 3: ™ <S co" o" 2 e-S co* ra 
 
 '3SS'S'r?2 
 
 COQCGCOCO'-d 
 
 XCO 
 
 a c 
 
 
 'OtBOitdn'DftrJWsd': oor; n n. co 
 ■ , dT]Ti«']i'r;Ti = ■ 3 3 ^*a ~a ~ •a ™T3 
 
 ■a *a t) v "a "c "o : 
 
 JO >-. j_l CO CD 50 JO *. — k-. IO -1 
 
 fOjOQOJD p c: Si in — zs -J CO GO 
 
 co en oioio os~io -7 01 "co c 
 
 en e^ o co en h 
 
 j^ssis 
 
 A tc >->■ 
 
 O 1-1 to ,£. (i no 
 
 ;0 £ ui h- »C T. _ ;T en "O — ' ~ ii ii CO X -D c 
 
 - >. -J. w in — ' w- ~ - 1 :.. ' :.. - -j: , e j:. co co -•■ - * - 
 tf^sDCoocn*-toojcn.Qo-- 1 -1 >-* o -1 h- en - 
 
 1-1 coco 1-1 cogpeo >-*-}tCfo 
 
 w po cc -si co ~iK © cOjK co ~i 6 bn i3 £■ S S 
 o *. 9 go 1-j a; en "jc en p'lj en "x J x -iVwo"^ 
 -1 *. 10 is 1- 1 c: —> ii ^- cji co — ' x ~! c^ 1-- 1-- 3- co 
 GCCOX~J>- l OO-slii3*.^-COCnCnOCCOOGOO 
 
 O FT ,r, "J. 
 
 5 
 
 ■3 rrj 
 
 2:^ 
 
 « 3 
 
 o 5 r * 
 
 ;e - 
 
 00 ,.,^ ^^!S't 0JX ,**■ "-* en if». en 1-1 *o 
 ^-i ts^jt-c: 00 *- ^ --ij-t *5 -^ *o en ~j -tooi 
 
 -■' ~ i- .= — r: — ii x — — Co r: ^ nt- co Ji 
 
 UiiiO-luSO-lCOCOC10DiOH-i5Ci3;cjii), 
 
 ,-» p a: 3 -j 
 ? S ° 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 103 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 To minutely review all the significant 
 features of- these contests, many pages in 
 excess of the space that can reasonably 
 be allotted in this volume would be 
 required; but since these were the great 
 representative struggles for establishing 
 the principlp of Prohibition it is proper 
 to consider the main facts with some 
 degree of care. 
 
 Tho remarkable contrast between the 
 results of the earlier and those of the 
 later campaigns is first to be explained. 
 While all the States voting on Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition previously to 1887 (if 
 North Carolina be excepted, as it should 
 be) gave favorable majorities aggregating 
 172,898, 11 of the 13 States voting in the 
 years 1887, 1888 and 1889 showed adverse 
 majorities, and the total anti-Prohibition 
 majority in these 13 States was 457,289. 
 By the superficial observer this change 
 may be attributed to a radical, conclusive 
 and permanent reaction of public senti- 
 ment against Constitutional Prohibition; 
 but no intelligent person will make such an 
 interpretation without impartially study- 
 ing the conditions. In truth there was 
 no such reaction if by that term is im- 
 plied a reaction occasioned by dispassion- 
 ate judgment and deliberate pondering 
 of truthful evidence and genuine argu- 
 ment. There was certainly an unmis- 
 takable reaction, not, however, of matur- 
 ed and well-informed public sentiment 
 and therefore not necessarily conclusive 
 or permanent. 
 
 In the first place, dismissing for the 
 present all the explanatory circumstances 
 and examining the figures by themselves, 
 it is seen that in the 11 States giving hos- 
 tile majorities there was a very large ele- 
 ment of qualified voters that took no part 
 in the elections on the issue of Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition. The number of ab- 
 stainers in each State (estimated on the 
 basis of the returns for the nearest polit- 
 ical election at which a tolerably full vote 
 was polled) is set down in the last col- 
 umn of the above table. For example, 
 in the State of Massachusetts there were 
 85,242 votes for Constitutional Prohibi- 
 tion and 131,062 votes against it, an 
 apparent adverse majority of 45,820 ; but 
 at the Presidential election of 1888 the 
 whole vote polled in Massachusetts was 
 344,517, or 128,213 more than the whole 
 vote polled on the question of Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition in 1889; hence the 
 
 anti-Prohibitionists really lacked 41,197 
 of an actual majority of the voting pop- 
 ulation of Massachusetts. The following 
 summary presents more clearly this qual- 
 ifying phase of the anti-Prohibition ma- 
 jorities: 
 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 o 
 
 £i 
 
 ib. 
 rin 
 ac- 
 rity. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 State. 
 
 
 
 as, 
 
 S 5 a 
 
 . (HO • 
 
 
 
 
 Ph 2 g S 
 
 
 Yes. 
 
 No. 
 
 P. 53 
 
 Sf.5-2 
 
 5% « § 
 
 <1 CO V& 
 
 Michigan. . 
 
 178,636 
 
 184,281 
 
 5,645 
 
 17,968 
 
 — 6,162 
 
 
 129,270 
 
 220,627' 
 
 91,357 
 
 7,616 
 
 + 41,870 
 
 Tennessee. . 
 
 117,504 
 
 145,197 
 
 27,693 
 
 41,083 
 
 — 6,696 
 
 Oregon 
 
 19,973 
 
 27,958 
 
 7,985 
 
 7,023 
 
 + 480 
 
 W. Virginia. 
 New Hamp. 
 
 41,608 
 
 76,555 
 
 34,887 
 
 41,317 
 
 — 3,216 
 
 25,786 
 
 30,976 
 
 5,190 
 
 34,160 
 
 — 14,486 
 
 
 85,242 
 
 131,082 
 
 45,820 
 
 128,213 
 
 — 41,197 
 
 
 296,617 
 
 484,644 
 
 188,027 
 
 216,307 
 
 — 14,141 
 
 Rhode I'd.. 
 
 9,956 
 
 28,315 
 
 18,859 
 
 4,840 
 
 4- 6,759 
 4- 2,267 
 
 Washington 
 
 19,546 
 
 31,489 
 
 11,9-13 
 
 7,408 
 
 
 22,379 
 
 49,974 
 
 27,595 
 
 81,625 
 
 — 27,016 
 
 Totals 
 
 946,577 
 
 1,411,078 
 
 404,501 
 
 587,560 
 
 — 61,530 
 
 Taking the footings of this table and 
 attaching the totals for the seven States 
 that gave Prohibition majorities (omit- 
 ting the South Dakota vote of 1885) we 
 have the following results : 
 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 a 
 
 A ~ 
 
 Qualified 
 voters not vot- 
 ing on ques- 
 tion. 
 
 rohibi- 
 s short 
 actual 
 ty. 
 
 
 Yes. 
 
 No. 
 
 Anti-I 
 tionist 
 of an 
 major 
 
 Eleven anti- 
 Prohi b i t i o n 
 States 
 
 Seven Pro- 
 hibition 
 States (includ- 
 ing R. I. vote 
 of 1886) 
 
 946,577 
 730,026 
 
 1,411,078 
 549,916 
 
 464,50lN 
 180,110T 
 
 587,560 
 300,663 
 
 61,530 
 243,387 
 
 Totals 
 
 1,676,603 
 
 1.960-994 
 
 284.391N 
 
 894,193 
 
 304,902 
 
 These figures demonstrate the errone- 
 ousness of the belief that the people, by 
 conclusive majority votes, have repudi- 
 ated Constitutional Prohibition. Even 
 in States where the apparent majorities 
 against the policy were overwhelming 
 there was a very large reserve force which 
 took no part in the elections and which 
 must therefore be counted as neutral. 
 No considerable part of this neutral ele- 
 ment, at least in the hotly-contested 
 struggles of 1887-9, can reasonably be 
 supposed to have been inclined against 
 Prohibition; for in these struggles it was 
 understood that the existence of the 
 liquor traffic of the nation was at stake, 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 104 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 and also that the possibility of testing 
 High License and other alternative meas- 
 ures (believed by a great many citizens to 
 be preferable to Prohibition) depended 
 wholly upon defeating the Constitutional 
 Amendments. Influences of extraordinary 
 potency combined to bring to the polls 
 every opponent of Prohibitory legislation, 
 to win to the anti-Prohibition side every 
 hesitating voter, to confuse the minds of 
 the Prohibitionists themselves and to fill 
 the camp of the neutrals with backslid- 
 ing Prohibition sympathizers. 
 
 Of these influences the most important 
 were: 
 
 1. The concentration, in each State 
 contested since 1886, of the energies and 
 resources of the thoroughly alarmed, 
 powerfully organized and enormously 
 wealthy liquor interest. Previously to 
 1887 the " trade " was not especially ac- 
 tive in the Constitutional Prohibition 
 fights. But after the result in Ehode Is- 
 land in the spring of 188G, the National 
 Protective Association of distillers and 
 wholesale rumsellers was formed, for the 
 sole purpose of defeating Prohibition. 
 From that time forward the liquor traffic 
 of the nation at large made the anti-Pro- 
 hibition cause in each State its own, im- 
 mense sums of money were raised to de- 
 feat the Amendments, and the campaigns 
 were managed with the utmost shrewd- 
 ness and unscrupulousness. 
 
 2. The diligent agitation of High Li- 
 cense and Local Option, in order to sat- 
 isfy conservative temperance people and 
 woo them from their inclination to favor 
 Prohibition. 
 
 3. The artful opposition of the most 
 influential political leaders and the use of 
 the machinery of both the old political 
 parties. 
 
 4. The hostility of well-nigh every im- 
 portant daily newspaper and the conse- 
 quent suppression or perversion by the 
 representative public journals of Prohi- 
 bition argument and evidence. 
 
 5. The employment by the anti-Pro- 
 hibitionists of the most unfair methods 
 of warfare. Newspapers were delibe- 
 rately purchased outright ; false statistics, 
 scandalously dishonest statistical deduc- 
 tions, " manufactured " news dispatches 
 and misleading and meretricious ap- 
 peals of all sorts constituted their stock 
 of campaign material. Kidicule, intim- 
 idation, outrages, violence and fraud con- 
 
 tributed to the anti-Prohibition majorities 
 in all the States. 
 
 Having considered in a comprehensive 
 way the chief general facts, we may now, 
 as briefly as possible in justice to the 
 importance and interest of the cam- 
 paigns, present the main particulars for 
 the separate State contests. 
 
 campaigns of 1880-6. 
 Kansas. ' 
 As already stated, the submission of the Pro- 
 hibitory Amendment in this State was granted 
 by the politicians as a compromise, the Legisla- 
 ture not being willing to pass the Prohibitory 
 statute demanded by the temperance people, 
 but readily consenting to the plan of referring 
 the question to the people. The submission 
 bill was introduced in the Senate on Feb. 8, 
 
 1879, by Senator Hamlin, and was passed 
 by that body Peb. 21— ayes 37 (33 Repub- 
 licans, 2 Democrats and 2 Greenbackers); 
 nays, none; not voting. 3 (all Republicans). 
 The House of Representatives passed it on 
 March 5. the vote standing : ayes, 88 (65 
 Republicans 16 Greenbackers and 7 Dem- 
 ocrats); nays, 31 (17 Republicans. 13 Demo- 
 ocrats and 1 Greenbacker) ; not voting, 14(10 
 Republicans, 3 Democrats and 1 Greenbackeri. 
 It was approved by Governor John P. St. John 
 March 8. and the day of the Presidential elec- 
 tion, Nov. 2, 1880, was named as the day for the 
 popular vote. The State Temperance Union, 
 of which Governor St. John was the President, 
 took charge of the Amendment campaign, and 
 assistance was gh en by the Woman's Christian 
 Temperance Union Good Templars and olher 
 temperance organizations, headquarters being 
 established at Lawrence in charge of Rev. A. 
 M. Richardson. A weekly journal the Kansas 
 Palladium, was published at Lawrence, edited 
 by James A. Troutman. 
 
 The State was thoroughly canvassed. The 
 clergymen were practically unanimous for the 
 Amendment. The Methodist Ppiscopal Confer- 
 ence (at Topeka), Kansas Baptist Convention 
 (at Emporia), State Congregational Association 
 (at Sterling) State Universalist Convention (at 
 Junction City i and Presbyterian Synod of Kan- 
 sas (at Atchison) were among the religious bod- 
 ies that declared heartily for the measure. The 
 State Teachers' Association at Topeka, in June, 
 
 1880, passed a resolution as fo"ows; 
 
 u Resolved, That we heartily indorse the Prohibition 
 Amendment and pledge ourselves to use our influence to 
 secure its adoption." 
 
 The Kansas Agriculturalist, organ of the 
 farmers, emphatically declared " in favor of it, 
 first, last and all the time." But the resources 
 ,of its advocates were meagre : the funds for 
 prosecuting the campaign aggregated less than 
 $2,500. The liquor men organized a " People's 
 Grand Protective Union," with headquarters at 
 Topeka, appealed for help to ''the trade" 
 throughout the country, and received and used 
 large sums of money, although probably not in 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to Eev. A. M. Richardson of 
 Lawrence, Kan. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 105 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 a very systematic way. Among the Prohibition 
 speakers from other States who participated in 
 the contest were Frances E. Willard, George 
 W. Bain, John B. Finch, E. B. Reynolds Frank 
 J. Sibley, Mrs. J. Ellen Foster, Miss Viola E. 
 Dickman, George Woodford, David Tatum, 
 Prof. George E. Foster and J N. Stearns. Some 
 of the leading local speakers were Rev. D. C. 
 Milner Albert Griffin, Rev Richard Wake, 
 Mrs. Drusilla Wilson, Mrs. M. E. Griffith, Mrs. 
 M. B. Smith, Mrs. R. C. Chase, Miss Blanche 
 Heasbeth, Rev. D. P. Mitchell, Rev. J. H. By- 
 ers, Rev. J. R. Detwiler. J. P. Root. Sidney 
 Clarke, A. W. Benson, Judge S. O. Thatcher, 
 W. S. Wait, W. A. H. Hains and John H. 
 Rice. 
 
 The vote by counties was as follows : 
 
 Prohibition 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Allen 1,305 
 
 Anderson 909 
 
 Atchison 1,343 
 
 Barbour 220 
 
 Barton 490 
 
 Bourbon 1,410 
 
 Brown 1,345 
 
 Butler 2,211 
 
 Chase 597 
 
 Chautauqua ... 1 ,051 
 
 Cherokee 2,421 
 
 Clay 1,296 
 
 Cloud 1,454 
 
 Coffey 1,025 
 
 Cowley 3,243 
 
 Crawford 1,655 
 
 Davis 628 
 
 Decatur 146 
 
 Dickinson 1,477 
 
 Doniphan. ... 821 
 
 Douglas 2,711 
 
 121 
 
 1,2 
 
 355 
 611 
 125 
 
 Edwards. 
 
 Elk 
 
 Ellis . 
 Ellsworth. 
 
 Ford 
 
 Franklin 1,967 
 
 Graham 207 
 
 Greenwood 1,059 
 
 Harper 424 
 
 Harvey 1,148 
 
 Hodgeman .... 147 
 
 Jackson 1,056 
 
 Jefferson 1,306 
 
 Jewell 1,557 
 
 Johnson 1,545 
 
 Kingman 265 
 
 Labette 2,082 
 
 Leavenworth.. 1,486 
 
 Lincoln 613 
 
 Linn 1,494 
 
 Lyon 2,337 
 
 951 
 
 870 
 
 8,147 
 
 213 
 
 1,058 
 
 1,964 
 
 1,888 
 
 1,141 
 
 660 
 
 819 
 
 1.944 
 
 907 
 
 1,261 
 
 1,209 
 
 870 
 
 1,469 
 
 607 
 
 251 
 
 1,222 
 
 2,150 
 
 1,602 
 
 194 
 
 564 
 
 463 
 
 781 
 
 488 
 
 1,293 
 
 358 
 
 941 
 
 316 
 
 858 
 
 65 
 
 1,098 
 
 1,723 
 
 1,256 
 
 1,787 
 
 346 
 
 2,123 
 
 8,883 
 
 733 
 
 1,298 
 
 Prohibition 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Marion 1,020 
 
 1,428 
 2,134 
 1,488 
 1,348 
 1,939 
 895 
 
 1,121 
 
 151 
 
 1,006 
 
 Marshall 
 McPherson. . 
 
 Miami 
 
 Mitchell 
 
 Montgomery. 
 Morris .... , . 
 
 Nemaha 1,213 
 
 Neosho 1,528 
 
 Ness 200 
 
 Norton 575 
 
 Osage 2,287 
 
 Osborne . . . . 1,035 
 
 Ottawa 1,163 
 
 Pawnee 604 
 
 Phillips 978 
 
 Pottawatomie. 
 
 Pratt 
 
 Reno 
 
 Republic 1,330 
 
 Rice 1,087 
 
 Riley 1,178 
 
 Rooks 503 
 
 Rush 315 
 
 Russell 443 
 
 Saline 1,410 
 
 Sedgwick 1,868 
 
 Shawnee 3,159 
 
 Sheridan 101 
 
 Smith 1,274 
 
 Stafford 393 
 
 Sumner 2,394 
 
 Trego 220 
 
 Wabaunsee . . . 622 
 
 Washington . . 1,112 
 
 Wilson 1,487 
 
 Woodson .... 748 
 
 Wyandotte.... 1,222 
 
 825 
 
 1,853 
 
 912 
 
 1,751 
 
 1,178 
 
 1,250 
 
 885 
 
 1,185 
 
 1,164 
 
 216 
 
 491 
 
 1,684 
 
 873 
 
 835 
 
 218 
 
 708 
 
 1,208 
 
 142 
 
 932 
 
 1119 
 
 685 
 
 828 
 
 690 
 
 3ii5 
 
 655 
 
 1,207 
 
 1,716 
 
 2,513 
 
 69 
 
 851 
 
 301 
 
 1,201 
 
 120 
 
 990 
 
 1,610 
 
 1,069 
 
 530 
 
 2,481 
 
 Totals* 91,874 84,037 
 
 Majority 7,837 
 
 1 The figures commonly accepted are: For Prohibition, 
 92,302; against, 84,304— majority for, 7,998. These, how- 
 ever, are incorrect. The official figures are those presented 
 above, as certified to the editor of this work, April 18, 1890, 
 by William Higgins, Secretary of State of Kansas, under 
 his official seal. 
 
 Iowa. ' 
 The submission of Constitutional Prohibition 
 in Iowa was due. as in Kansas, to a political 
 compromise. The old Prohibitory law of the 
 State, passed in 1855 by the Democrats chiefly 
 through the influence of Hiram Price (who was 
 at that time a Democrat), had been weakened 
 by the Republicans when they came into power. 
 From the beginning it had seamed to be the 
 policy of the Republican party of Iowa to cater 
 to the large German element of the State ; and 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to B. F. Wrightof Charles City, 
 la., and E. W. Brady of Davenport, la. 
 
 the wine-and-beer-exemption clause was accord- 
 ingly continued, while no effort was made to 
 shut up the numerous flourishing breweries. In 
 1877, however, there sprang up a strong political 
 movement for restoring full Prohibition to Iowa. 
 The activity of the Prohibitionists was increased 
 by the nomination in that year of John II. Gear 
 as the Republican candidate for Governor. Mr. 
 Gear was reputed to be an uncompromising 
 anti-Prohibitinnist; and the friends of Prohibi- 
 tion set up an independent candidate, Elias 
 Jessup, for whom they polled the considerable 
 vote of 10,545— a vote large enough for the first 
 time since the Republicans obtained the 
 ascendancy in Iowa, to deprive their nominee 
 of a majority of the entire popular vote. This 
 demonstration of political strength by the Pro- 
 hibitionists made them still more aggressive, 
 and, as we have seen, the demand for Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition was openly made in 1876. 
 But this demand was held subordinate to that 
 for a strengthened statute. In 1879 Governor 
 Gear aspired to re-election, and the shrewd 
 leaders of his party, in order to avoid the direct 
 issue of improving the Prohibitory statute, 
 caused the following plaDk to be inserted in 
 their platform, adopted at Des Moines in June : 
 
 " That we reaffirm the position of the Republican party 
 heretofore expressed on the subject of temperance and 
 Prohibition, and we hail with pleasure the beneficent work 
 of Reform Clubs and other organizations in promoting 
 personal temperance, and, in order that the entire question 
 of temperance may be settled in a non-partisan manner, we 
 favor the submission to the people, at a special election, of 
 a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting Ihe manufacture 
 and sale of all intoxicating liquors as a beverage within 
 the State." 
 
 In spite of the Republican pledge, the Prohi- 
 bition party that had polled 10,545 votes in 1877 
 did not disband in 1879. Strong pressure was 
 exercised to persuade its leaders not to nominate 
 a candidate against Gear, and Prohibition advo- 
 cates of much prestige— including Mrs. J. Ellen 
 Foster — opposed a separate nomination. Never- 
 theless D. R. Dungan was put in the field as the 
 candidate of the Prohibition party for Gover- 
 nor, and 3,258 votes were cast for him. The 
 respectable strength thus retained, under ad- 
 verse circumstances, by the party Prohibition- 
 ists, convinced the politicians that they would 
 become an organized and determined partisan 
 factor in the event of bad faith. Both branches 
 of the Legislature of 1880 were controlled by 
 the Republicans, and a Prohibitory Constitu- 
 tional Amendment resolution was passed in 
 each House and referred to the Legislature of 
 1880 for final action. That body 'also domi- 
 nated by the Republicans) approved it, and the 
 question was submitted for the decision of the 
 people at a special election to be held June 27, 
 1880. The friends of Prohibition worked har- 
 moniously, made a thorough campaign and 
 carried the Amendment by the following vote: 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Adair 
 
 Adams 
 
 Allamakee . 
 Appanoose. . . 
 Audubon. . . 
 
 Benton 
 
 Black Hawk. 
 
 Boone 
 
 Bremer 
 
 tOHIBI 
 
 Yes. 
 
 TION. 
 
 No. 
 
 1,515 
 
 904 
 
 1,157 
 
 820 
 
 1,151 
 
 1,803 
 
 2,162 
 
 748 
 
 807 
 
 779 
 
 2,198 
 
 2,081 
 
 2,226 
 
 1,755 
 
 2,805 
 
 1,413 
 
 1,268 
 
 1,302 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Buchanan 
 
 Buena Vista.. 
 
 Butler 
 
 Calhoun 
 
 Carroll 
 
 Cass 
 
 Cedar 
 
 Cerro Gordo 
 Cherokee . 
 
 Yes. 
 
 1.862 
 1,064 
 1,609 
 985 
 1,138 
 1,826 
 2,191 
 1,451 
 1,151 
 
 No. 
 
 1,201 
 
 342 
 
 820 
 
 344 
 
 1,556 
 
 1,725 
 
 1,824 
 
 640 
 
 352 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 106 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes 
 
 Chickasaw 1,383 
 
 Claike l,eil 
 
 Clay 707 
 
 Clayton 1,883 
 
 Clinton 2,639 
 
 Crawford 958 
 
 Dallas 2,450 
 
 Davis 1,362 
 
 Decatur 1,340 
 
 Delaware l,r~ 
 
 Des Moines 
 
 Dickinson .... 374 
 
 Dubuque 1,223 
 
 Emmet 214 
 
 Fayette 2,371 
 
 Floyd 1,381 
 
 Franklin 1,071 
 
 Fremont 1,563 
 
 Greene 1,572 
 
 Grundy 1,155 
 
 Guthrie 1,933 
 
 Hamilton 1,344 
 
 Hancock 409 
 
 Hardin 2,175 
 
 Harrison 1,701 
 
 Henry 2,028 
 
 Howard 730 
 
 Humboldt .... 615 
 
 Ida 916 
 
 Iowa 1,192 
 
 Jackson 1,609 
 
 Jasper 3,148 
 
 Jefferson 1,774 
 
 Johnson 1,770 
 
 Jones 2/184 
 
 Keokuk 1,873 
 
 Kossuth 706 
 
 Lee 2,290 
 
 Linn 4,434 
 
 Louisa 1,595 
 
 Lucas 1,529 
 
 Lyon 259 
 
 No. 
 
 1,068 
 
 452 
 
 330 
 
 2,965 
 
 3,537 
 
 977 
 
 1,055 
 
 1,366 
 
 1,137 
 
 1,355 
 
 1,917 3,653 
 
 102 
 
 6,283 
 
 29 
 
 1,528 
 
 1,457 
 
 557 
 
 1,126 
 
 773 
 
 863 
 
 811 
 
 652 
 
 206 
 
 979 
 
 1,330 
 
 1,226 
 
 835 
 
 351 
 
 453 
 
 1,560 
 
 2,356 
 
 1,360 
 
 1,284 
 
 2,608 
 
 1,179 
 
 2,321 
 
 625 
 
 3,552 
 
 2,830 
 
 824 
 
 693 
 
 101 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. 
 
 Madison 1,966 
 
 Mahaska 2,761 
 
 Marion 2,427 
 
 Marshall 2,538 
 
 Mills 1,327 
 
 Mitchell 1,200 
 
 Monona 
 
 Monroe 
 
 Montgomery. . 
 Muscatine . . . 
 
 O'Brien 
 
 Osceola 
 
 Page 
 
 Palo Alto 
 
 Plymouth 
 
 Pocahontas . . . 
 
 Polk 
 
 Pottawattamie 
 Poweshiek. . . . 
 
 Ringgold 
 
 Sac 
 
 Scott 
 
 Shelby 1,813 
 
 Sioux 432 
 
 Story 1,921 
 
 Tama 2,244 
 
 Taylor 1,656 
 
 Union 1,687 
 
 VanBuren.... 1,543 
 
 Wapello 1,465 
 
 Warren 2,131 
 
 Washington . . 2,201 
 
 Wayne 1,849 
 
 Webster 1,498 
 
 Winnebago . . . 557 
 Winneshiek .. 1,411 
 Woodbury.... 1,163 
 
 Worth 784 
 
 Wright 897 
 
 1,284 
 
 1,832 
 
 2,114 
 
 719 
 
 394 
 
 2,206 
 
 511 
 
 750 
 
 419 
 
 4,630 
 
 2,576 
 
 2,211 
 
 1,640 
 
 1,383 
 
 1,467 
 
 No. 
 
 1,103 
 
 1,855 
 
 1,811 
 
 1,798 
 
 1,018 
 
 '881 
 
 B99 
 
 700 
 
 671 
 
 2,023 
 
 278 
 
 168 
 
 965 
 
 306 
 
 1,186 
 
 204 
 
 2,519 
 
 3,468 
 
 1,048 
 
 570 
 
 548 
 
 5,197 
 
 1,231 
 
 558 
 
 553 
 
 1,477 
 
 654 
 
 1,008 
 
 1,543 
 
 2,493 
 
 1,173 
 
 1,679 
 
 1,007 
 
 1,260 
 
 89 
 
 1,696 
 
 1,220 
 
 350 
 
 401 
 
 Totals .... 155,436 125,677 
 Majority.. 19,759 
 
 This decisive result did not, however, imme- 
 diately have its legitimate effect. The Repub- 
 lican State Convention met Aug. 1, 1882 — five 
 weeks after the great Prohibition victory — and 
 strangely refused to allow any expression on 
 the Amendment or Prohibition question to ap- 
 pear in the platform. It was the programme of 
 the leaders to divorce the party, if possible, 
 from the Prohibitory issue, so as to hold the 
 German vote for the Republican candidates for 
 Congress in the coming November. But this 
 cowardly attitude had the contrary effect; gene- 
 ral demoralization ensued and the Republicans 
 lost three Congressmen. 
 
 Another and a more serious repudiation of 
 the will of the people seemed, for awhile, to vi- 
 tiate the effect of the vote. In the fall of 1882 
 the Supreme Court of Iowa, by the decision of 
 four of its Judges, declared, in an appeal case, 
 that the Amendment had not been properly 
 submitted to the people. The Court found that 
 a certain amendment of three words which had 
 been added by the Legislature of 1880 to the 
 original text of the Submission act did not ap- 
 pear in the Legislative Journal as kept by the 
 Clerk of the House. It was admitted that the 
 Constitutional Amendment itself, as voted on 
 by the people, was precisely the same, in every 
 word, as the Constitutional Amendment sub- 
 mitted by the Legislatures of 1880 and 1882; 
 but the Court held that the slight and imma- 
 terial omission in the Clerk's Journal of three 
 words that bad been added to the original text 
 of the act of submission was sufficient to in- 
 validate the popular vote. Accordingly the 
 Constitutional Amendment was on this techni- 
 cal ground annulled. The Prohibitionists quick- 
 
 ly manifested their determination not to lose the 
 Iruits of their victory. A mammoth State Con- 
 vention, on anon-partisan basis, was held a few 
 months later, and it was plainly declared in the 
 resolutions adopted by that body that the domi- 
 nant party would be held responsible for any 
 failure to carry out the unmistakable desire of ' 
 the great majority of the citizens of Iowa. In 
 the next Legislature a statutory Prohibitory law 
 was passed, which was subsequently strength- 
 ened and which, because of its demonstrated 
 success in nearly the whole of Iowa and the 
 support accorded it by the people, has stood the 
 test of all efforts made for its repeal or the modi- 
 fication of its provisions. 
 
 Ohio. > 
 We have seen that Ohio has since 1851 sus- 
 tained a unique relationship to the liquor ques- 
 tion. While the Constitution prohibits license 
 it does not provide for Prohibition. Although 
 the Anti-License clause was at first regarded by 
 the temperance people as a decree in favor of 
 Prohibition, the politicians refused to recognize 
 it as such and the traffic was practically unre- 
 strained. But the representative liquor men 
 and their political friends looked with much 
 dissatisfaction upon the Anti-License clause. 
 Its effect was to discourage all attempts to de- 
 fine the precise status of the business and 
 put it on a permanent and strictly legal basis. 
 Consequently efforts were made to repeal the 
 Anti-License clause and substitute for it a Con- 
 stitutional Amendment permitting license. In 
 1874 such an Amendment was submitted to the 
 people, and the vote on it stood: For, 172.252; 
 against, 179,538; total vote on Secretary of 
 State at same election, 461,425; necessary to the 
 adoption of the License Amendment, 233,713; 
 License Amendment short of a majority, 61 461; 
 majority against license of those voting on the 
 question, 7,286. This defeat of the license ad-' 
 vocates demonstrated the impracticability of 
 the scheme of amending the Constitution in be- 
 half of the liquor interests, although the Demo- 
 cratic party did not ctase to advocate license. 
 Meanwhile the liquor question continued prom- 
 inent in State politics. The Prohibition party 
 maintained its organization and nominated 
 separate candidates each year, and there was 
 every probability that the pressure for Prohibi- 
 tion would increase. The brewers and liquor- 
 dealers — or the responsible men among them — 
 desired a definite law for the "regulation " and 
 protection of the business. The conservative 
 temperance people favored regulation, restriction 
 and revenue, and also advocated Local Option 
 and Sunday-closing. The Germans, forming 
 a very influential element in Ohio, manifested 
 extreme sensitiveness and stood ready to resent 
 at the polls any serious interference with " per- 
 sonal liberty." The State, though naturally 
 Republican, was considered fickle, and the 
 problem of dealing judiciously with the delicate 
 liquor question was a most perplexirg one for 
 the politicians. 
 
 During the administration of Governor Foster 
 — one of the shrewdest of all the Ohio Re- 
 publican leaders — the policy of circumventing 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to Mrs. Mary A. Woodbridge of 
 Ravenna, O., and Oscar B. Todhunterof Cincinnati. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 10? 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 the Anti-License provision of the Constitution 
 by the enactment of " tax " laws at last became 
 the settled policy of the Republican party. The 
 Pond Tax law was passed in 1880, and though 
 soon declared unconstitutional by the State 
 Supreme Court, was followed by the Scott Tax 
 law of 1883. Meanwhile the Republicans ex- 
 perimented with Sunday-closing- legislation, 
 passing the Smith Sunday bill only to repeal it 
 after finding that it was distasteful to the Ger- 
 mans and the whole liquor element. During 
 the 1883 session of the Legislature the chief 
 work before the Republican majority was to 
 frame and pass a liquor tax bill to take the place 
 of the unconstitutional Pond law. The Scott 
 bill (.introduced by Dr. Scott, Representative 
 from Warren County) was accepted by the 
 party leaders after it had obtained the full ap- 
 proval of the brewers. At the last preceding 
 Gubernatorial election (1881) the Prohibition 
 p irty had polled the largest vote ever cast by it 
 up tottut time in Ohio — 16,597, as against only 
 2 010 in 1880. The Prohibitionists now made 
 no secret of their hostility to the Scott bill 
 and demanded the submission of a Prohibi- 
 tory Amendment. Both the Scott bill and 
 the Amendment proposition had active sup- 
 porters in the Legislature, while a strong ele- 
 ment opposed both. Finally a compromise was 
 eff scted, the Amendment advocates voting for 
 the Scott bill and the champions of the Scott 
 bill consenting to submission. This agreement 
 was not carri.'d out, however, until it was ar- 
 ranged that two Amendments should be sub- 
 mitted to the people concurrently, one provid- 
 ing for license and the other for Prohibition, so 
 that the liquor men might have another oppor- 
 tunity to insert a license clause in the Constitu- 
 tion. During the campaign that followed the 
 License Amendment was familiarly known as 
 the 1st Amendment, and the Prohibitory Amend- 
 ment as the 2d Amendment. The day for de- 
 ciding whether license or Prohibition should 
 prevail was also the day of the State and legis- 
 lative elections. J. B Foraker and George 
 Hoadly, respectively, were the Republican and 
 Democratic candidates for Governor. Mr. Po- 
 raker, in a speech delivered soon after his nomi- 
 nation, made the notable declaration that ' the 
 principles of regulation and taxation for which 
 it [the Republican party] declares are eternal 
 and will stand ; and to these principles of reg- 
 ulation and taxation of the liquor traffic, be it 
 known of all men. the Republican party is un- 
 alterably committed." ' Mr. Hoadly, who had 
 been connected with the liquor interests as their 
 lawyer, announced himself as decidedly for 
 license, and both the Republican and Demo- 
 cratic parties were arrayed against Prohibition 
 throughout the contest, although the latter was 
 the more demonstrative. 
 
 The opponents of Prohibition not only had 
 the co operation of the political leaders and or 
 ganizations but commanded the services cf the 
 great newspapers of the State— the Cincinnati 
 Commercial Gazette anifinquirer, the Cleveland 
 Leader and Plain Dealer, etc., most Of them at- 
 tacking Prohibition with extreme bitterness and 
 
 i From a speech before the Lincoln Club of Cincinnati, 
 as reported in the Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, June 
 25, 1883. 
 
 treating the arguments of its friends unfairly, 
 unscrupulously and contemptuously. It was 
 impossible to obtain a hearing for the Prohibi- 
 tion cause in the influential press. The liquor 
 interests, although they did not fight so actively 
 and syslematically against Prohibition as they 
 did in subsequent Amendment contests in other 
 States, were far more aggressive than they had 
 been in either Iowa or Kansas. The brewers 
 offered organized resistance, under the leader- 
 ship of Leo Ebert of Ironton, and the local or- 
 ganizations of saloon-keepers exhibited a lively 
 interest. Besides, the Prohibition movement 
 was discountenanced by many individuals who 
 professed devotion to the interests of " true 
 temperance." One of the particularly discour- 
 aging things was the publication of a letter from 
 Rev. Theodore L. Cuyler D. D., the well-known 
 Eastern temperance champion, in the National 
 Temperance Advocate for October, 1883, in 
 which Dr. Cuyler wrote; 
 
 u The defeat of the Scott law would be a disaster to our 
 cause. It is probably the best law that the present Consti- 
 tution of Ohio makes possible ; and our friends ought not 
 to assume the responsibility of overthrowing it. A partial 
 victory this year in the election of Foraker and the main- 
 tenance of the Scott law must strengthen our hands for a 
 further advance in restrictive legislation. During the Civil 
 War some of the old and impracticable Abolitionists did 
 little else than cavil at and cripple Abraham Lincoln be- 
 cause he did not adopt their shibboleth and pursue their 
 policy. We temperance reformers must not sacrifice our 
 blessed cause to the unreasonable demands of the imprac- 
 ticables. If we can hold the Scott redoubt in Ohio, then 
 are our guns planted just so much nearer the enemy's 
 citadel." » 
 
 Nevertheless the Prohibitionists made a most 
 aggressive, enthusiastic, thorough and hopeful 
 campaign It was in charge of the Woman's 
 Christian Temperance Union. Circulars were 
 addressed to well-nigh every class of citizens — 
 ministers, educators, students, manufacturers, 
 ' railroad companies and their employees, etc , — 
 and abundant encouragement and assistance 
 was volunteered. There were scores of able 
 speakers in the field, including John B. Finch, 
 John P. St. John. George W. Bain, George 
 Woodford. M. V. B. Bennett. Frances E. Wil- 
 lard. Mary T. Lathrap and Walter T. Mills. 
 Crowded meetings were held everywhere, and 
 the masses showed a very cordial feeling. The 
 prospect of victory seemed to grow brighter as 
 the campaign progressed. The evidences of the 
 great strength of Prohibition sentiment were 
 not apparent to the politicians at the outset, but 
 they became distinct in the closing month. 
 John B. Finch one morning announced at Pro- 
 hibition headquarters that a political council had 
 been held in Cincinnati and it had been decided 
 that the Amendment must not carry. Mr. Finch 
 also said that every political device would be 
 used to keep down the vote, and exhibited many 
 Democratic and Republican tickets upon which 
 the Prohibitory Amendment proposition was 
 inaccurately printed. In Hamilton County and 
 
 2 Mrs. Mary A. Woodbridge, commenting on Dr. Cnyler's 
 letter, says: u l The Scott redoubt' repealed the law making 
 the sale of liquor over the bar, or to be drunk on the 
 premises.or upon the Sabbath day, statutory crimes. It gave 
 us a Local Option Sabbath, and gave the liquor-dealerright 
 to sell without filing an application or securing a bond. It 
 removed all restrictions and elevated the business to a legal 
 plane with other trades. Its vaunted Local Option feature 
 gave no power to suppress the sale, only to close places 
 when they became unmitigated nuisances." 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 108 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 other counties all the Democratic ballots had 
 printed upon them, after the 1st Amendment 
 only the word " Yes," and after the 2d Amend- 
 ment only the word "No" — a deliberate device 
 for securing, in behalf of license and against 
 Prohibition the support of all Democrats who 
 were indifferent on the liquor question or who 
 were accustomed to vote the " straight " Demo- 
 cratic ticket without critical inspection. Other 
 unscrupulous tactics were used by the opposi- 
 tion, and the work of the Prohibitionists was 
 thus handicapped in the most effective manner. 
 Notwithstanding all, the vote for Prohibition 
 was so overwhelming, as evidenced by the re- 
 turns received up to midnight of the day of the 
 election, that there was no reasonable doubt in 
 any quarter of the success of the proposition. 
 The figures of the Central Committees of the 
 Republican and Democratic parties on ihat 
 evening indicated a vote for Prohibition many 
 thousands in excess of that subsequently shown 
 by the official returns. Both these Committees, 
 in telegraphic messages, reported 30,000 votes 
 for the Prohibitory Amendment in Hamilton 
 County ; but the official canvass gave only 8,402 
 for the Amendment in a total of 60,761 in that 
 county. There were indisputable evidences of 
 fraud in the count, and the result was that 
 though the Prohibitory Amendment had a 
 majority of 82,214 of those voting on the ques- 
 tion, it lacked 87,467 of a majority of all the 
 votes polled on State candidates, and therefore, 
 according to the requirements of the Ohio Con- 
 stitution, failed of adoption. An effort was 
 made by the Piohibitionists to bring about a 
 recount of the ballots, but it was urged that 
 the docket of the Supreme Court was over- 
 crowded and that, since the Court would soon 
 be Democratic, nothing could come of such an 
 attempt. 
 
 The outcome was, however, a great moral 
 victory for the cause of Prohibition, all the 
 greater in view of the ignominious defeat of 
 the License Amendment. That proposition 
 was supported by the whole strength of the 
 liquor influence and the managers of the Demo- 
 cratic party — the party that carried Ohio on the 
 same day for its State and legislative tickets, 
 polling 359,793 votes for Hoadly for Governor; 
 yet the License Amendment? received only 99,- 
 849 votes, while 192 197 were cast against it, 
 making an' anti-license majority of 92,268 of 
 those voting on the license question, while the 
 license programme lacked 260,807 of a Consti- 
 tutional majority. Yet though the people, by a 
 most extraordinary preponderance of sentiment, 
 showed their preference for Prohibition as 
 against license, every effort to establish the 
 Prohibitory policy in Ohio has been crushed by 
 the politicians of both the leading parties, and 
 the liquor legislation of the State has been 
 shaped, as it was previously to the election of 
 Oct. 9, 1883, in behalf of the liquor interests. 
 
 The following table shows the vote by 
 counties for and against the License and Prohib- 
 itory Amendments: 
 
 License. Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. Yes. No. 
 
 Adams 138 3,150 
 
 Allen 1,002 2,833 3,607 2,379 
 
 Ashland 889 2,777 2,901 2,041 
 
 License. 
 
 Counties. Yes. 
 
 Ashtabula 539 
 
 AthenB 806 
 
 Anglaize 627 
 
 Belmont 1,473 
 
 Brown 720 
 
 Butler 2,240 
 
 Carroll 607 
 
 Champaign 976 
 
 Clark 1,749 
 
 Clermont 1,086 
 
 Clinton 809 
 
 Columbiana 1,252 
 
 Coshocton 493 
 
 Crawford 963 
 
 Cuyahoga 2,850 
 
 Darke 
 Defiance . . 
 Delaware. 
 
 Erie 
 
 Fairfield.. 
 Fayette . . . 
 Franklin. . 
 Fulton.... 
 
 Gallia 
 
 Geauga. . . 
 Greene . . . 
 Guernsey 
 
 1,232 
 874 
 812 
 
 1,366 
 921 
 692 
 
 3,185 
 624 
 248 
 324 
 
 Kill I 
 
 654 
 
 Marion . 
 Medina 
 
 74 
 645 
 577 
 481 
 1,241 
 1,014 
 
 Mercer 
 
 Miami 
 
 Monroe 
 
 Montgomery 4,393 
 
 Morgan 217 
 
 Morrow 877 
 
 Muskingum 1,114 
 
 No. 
 1,241 
 2,420 
 4,467 
 7,408 
 
 ' 4,497 
 
 646 
 
 951 
 
 3,150 
 
 5,158 
 3,051 
 3,538 
 15,341 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Yes. No. 
 
 4,134 
 2,673 
 
 9,037 
 
 434 
 1,772 
 
 4,925 
 2,967 
 1,506 
 2,446 
 
 Hamilton 14,780 34,375 
 
 Hancock 511 
 
 Hardin 812 
 
 Harrison 574 
 
 Henry 679 
 
 Highland 715 
 
 Hocking 548 
 
 Holmes 674 
 
 Huron 542 
 
 Jackson 439 
 
 Jefferson 1,286 
 
 Knox 1,144 
 
 Lake 448 
 
 Lawrence 1,268 
 
 Licking 1,248 
 
 Logan 1,354 
 
 Lorain 615 
 
 Lucas 3,080 
 
 Madison 492. 
 
 Mahoning 2,007 
 
 6,748 
 
 ' 2,406 
 3,028 
 
 ' 3,194 
 3,374 
 
 '"572 
 8,999 
 1,004 
 4,131 
 2,234 
 4,761 
 
 ' '2,604 
 3,001 
 .2,358 
 
 13,459 
 
 2,075 
 6,920 
 
 1,108 
 3,913 
 2,663 
 1,342 
 
 ' '3,337 
 
 ' 2,648 
 
 Noble 563 
 
 Ottawa 387 
 
 Paulding 611 
 
 Perry 491 
 
 Pickaway 943 
 
 Pike 564 
 
 Portage 483 
 
 Preble 1,189 
 
 Putnam 358 
 
 Richland 965 
 
 Ross 1,673 
 
 Sandusky 960 
 
 Scioto 613 
 
 Seneca 757 
 
 Shelby 878 
 
 Stark 1,681 
 
 Summit 1,188 
 
 Trumbull 1,140 
 
 Tuscarawas 930 
 
 Union. 881 
 
 Van Wert 985 
 
 Vinton 333 
 
 Warren 1,192 
 
 Washington 866 
 
 Wayne 975 
 
 Williams 501 
 
 Wood 940 
 
 Wyandot 771 2,351 
 
 3,821 
 2,866 
 
 3,068 
 4,391 
 
 ' 3,832 
 
 2,832 
 2,086 
 2,008 
 2,320 
 
 6,699 
 4,099 
 1,386 
 6,154 
 3,519 
 1,970 
 2,725 
 3,503 
 5,694 
 3,941 
 3,530 
 6,651 
 3,251 
 2,784 
 12,954 
 3,555 
 2,232 
 4,070 
 1,860 
 3,193 
 3,327 
 6,203 
 2,819 
 2,721 
 2,525 
 4,374 
 4,203 
 8,402 
 3,797 
 3,922 
 3,387 
 2,199 
 3,966 
 2,311 
 1,763 
 4,181 
 3,372 
 4,455 
 3,803 
 2,468 
 2,900 
 4,057 
 4,051 
 5,007 
 4,914 
 2,526 
 4,502 
 2,820 
 2,948 
 2,852 
 1,732 
 4,331 
 1,789 
 0,443 
 2,649 
 2,474 
 5,534 
 2,753 
 1,245 
 2,311 
 3,272 
 2,457 
 1,881 
 3,373 
 2,167 
 2,715 
 4,433 
 3,765 
 2,619 
 2,104 
 3,789 
 2,201 
 7,791 
 5,004 
 5,322 
 4,421 
 3,578 
 3,195 
 1,434 
 2,759 
 3,935 
 5,113 
 3,264 
 4,279 
 2,674 
 
 570 
 1,291 
 
 3,785 
 ' 4,949 
 
 1,036 
 3,199 
 
 2,505 
 1,481 
 3,358 
 16,350 
 
 3,762 
 1,392 
 
 8,455 
 
 316 
 375 
 
 41,437 
 
 2,673 
 
 814 
 
 1,083 
 
 1,163 
 
 3,466 
 
 ' 1,190 
 1,940 
 
 '2,388 
 2,731 
 
 ' "624 
 3,738 
 609 
 3,801 
 1,098 
 2,458 
 
 ' 2,047 
 2,536 
 2,126 
 
 12,878 
 1,322 
 3,616 
 
 2,225 
 2,232 
 1,013 
 
 ' 2,841 
 
 ' 2,403 
 
 2,816 
 2,568 
 
 2,643 
 2,070 
 
 ' i',703 
 1,710 
 1,679 
 1,911 
 2,351 
 2,652 
 
 l,8i 
 
 Totals 99,849 192,117 323,189 240,975 
 
 Majorities 92,268 82,214 
 
 Whole vote on State officers 721,310 
 
 Necessary to adopt either Amendment 360,656 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 109 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 Maine. 
 
 The friends of the Maine law have always 
 had difficulty in persuading political leaders to 
 make certain enforcement provisions of the 
 statute thoroughly radical. After 30 years of 
 statutory Prohibition in Maine, the Prohibition- 
 ists were still pleading for important additions. 
 The politicians replied that there was already as 
 much law as public sentiment would sustain. 
 "Very well," answered the Prohibitionists, 
 " Let us test public sentiment by submitting to 
 the people a Constitutional Amendment." Af- 
 ter much hesitation the political leaders assented, 
 and at the legislative session of 1884 (a concur- 
 rent vote of two-thirds being required) the two 
 branches submitted the Amendment, the vote 
 standing in the Senate 21 yeas to 1 nay (a De- 
 mocrat), and in the House 91 yeas (five of them 
 being Democrats) to 30 nays (23 Democrats and 
 7 Republicans). The resolve was approved by 
 the Governor on Feb. 21, and the popular vote 
 was taken at the regular State election in Sep- 
 tember. As originally framed, the Amendment 
 contained the words, "The Legislature shall 
 enact laws," etc. The politicians, before sub- 
 mitting the proposition, voted to substitute the 
 word "may" for " shall," but " shall" was re- 
 stored after a long wrangle. A spirited cam- 
 paign was waged. The Woman's Christian 
 Temperance Union and Good Templars did ac- 
 tive work. John B. Finch made speeches, as 
 did Col. R. S. Cheves of Kentucky, Mr. Mann 
 of Alabama, A. A Phelps of New York, Mr. 
 Munson, Grand Worthy Chief Templar of 
 Maine, United States Senator Frye, Congress- 
 man Dinghy, Miss Frances E. Willard, Mis. L. 
 M. N. Stevens, Mrs. Mary A. Woodbridne. Mrs. 
 Pearson of England, Emily Pitt Stevens of Cali- 
 fornia and many others The anti-Prohibition- 
 ists held no public meetings, but strove in va- 
 rious ways to defeat the Amendment. The 
 Democratic press of the State opposed it, and 
 the Republican newspapers with but few excep- 
 tions discouraged the movement quietly, not 
 daring to offer open opposition. Comparatively 
 little help came to the Prohibitionists from out- 
 side the State in the way of pecuniary contri- 
 butions, but there were some donations: Dr. R. 
 H. McDonald of San Francisco sent a check 
 for 8500. Lewiston was the only city giving a 
 negative majority. 
 
 The election was held while the exciting 
 Blaine-Cleveland Presidential contest was at its 
 height. Persistent efforts had been made by 
 the friends of Prohibition throughout the coun- 
 try to induce the Republican and Democratic 
 parties and their leading representatives to con- 
 sider and discuss the Prohibition issue accord- 
 ing to its merits, and Mr. Cleveland, the Demo- 
 cratic candidate, had inserted in bis letter of 
 acceptance a paragraph opposing Prohibitory 
 laws. Mr. Blaine had not, however, committed 
 himself. Since he was a citizen of Maine his 
 action upon the Constitutional Amendment 
 then pending was awaited with much curiosity. 
 At the election in September he went to the 
 polls in the city of Augusta, voted for the 
 Republican candidates, and, although requested 
 by the ladies to vote also for the Amendment, 
 declined to do so, and ignored that measure. 
 In an address made that evening he said : 
 
 " The issue of a temperance Amendment to the Con- 
 stitution has been very properly and very rigidly separated 
 from the political contest of the State to-day. Many 
 Democrats voted for it and some Republicans voted 
 against it. The Republican party, by the desire of many 
 leading temperance men, took no action as a party on the 
 Amendment. For myself, I decided not to vote at all on 
 the question. I took this position because I am chosen by 
 the Republican party as the representative of national 
 issues, and by no act of mine shall any question be 
 obtruded into the national campaign which belongs 
 properly to the domain of State politics. Certain advo- 
 cates of Prohibition and certain opponents of Prohibition 
 are each seeking to drag this issue into the national 
 canvass, and thus tending to exclude from popular con- 
 sideration questions which press for national decision. 
 If there be any question that belongs solely to the police 
 power of the State it is the control of the liquor traffic, 
 and wiee men will not neglect national issues in the year 
 of the national contest. The judicious friends of Pro- 
 tective tariff, which is the practical issue of the campaign, 
 will not divert their votes to the question of Prohibition, 
 which is not a practical issue in a national campaign." 
 
 The vote by counties stood as follows: 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Androscoggin. 4,480 2,438 
 
 Aroostook 3,809 782 
 
 Cumberland... 0,247 3,856 
 
 Franklin 2,571 G23 
 
 Hancock 3,047 806 
 
 Kennebec 7,168 2,175 
 
 Knox 3,040 755 
 
 Lincoln 2,631 586 
 
 Oxford 4,062 1,718 
 
 Penobscot 7,380 3,078 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. 
 
 Piscataquis 2,212 
 
 Sagadahoc 2,385 
 
 Somerset 4,191 
 
 Waldo 3,492 
 
 Washington... 3,755 
 
 York 7,208 
 
 No. 
 
 356 
 
 741 
 1,227 
 1,108 
 
 812 
 2,750 
 
 Totals.... 
 Majority. 
 
 70,783 23,811 
 46,9?-2 
 
 Neal Dow. 
 
 South Dakota. 
 
 The vote on Constitutional Prohibition in 
 South Dakota in 1885, being simply experimen- 
 tal (since no part of Dakota Territory had at 
 that time been admitted into the Union of 
 States, and there was no prospect of early ad- 
 mission), excited little interest. No general 
 campaign was made, and the indifference of the 
 public was shown by the very small total vote 
 —less than 31,000. 
 
 Rhode Island. 
 
 Rhode Island is the only State in which Con- 
 stitutional Prohibition has been repealed ; she 
 adopted a Prohibitory Amendment April 7, 
 1886, by more than a three-fifths popular vote, 
 and annulled it June 20, 1889, also by morf than 
 three-fifths. The circumstances leading to the 
 repeal are presented in the proper place. (See 
 pr. 124-fi.) 
 
 Long before Constitutional Prohibition was 
 agitated, Rhode Island had enacted and re- 
 scinded Prohibitory statutes. In 1852 a Pro- 
 hibitory law was passed by a Democratic Leg- 
 islature, which was declared unconstitutional 
 in 1853, re-enacted by the "Know-Nothings" 
 in 1855 and repealed by the Republicans in 
 1863. Again in 1874, after a spirited fight, 
 Prohibition was enacted by statute, and again 
 in 1875 the liquor politicians were strong enough 
 to repeal it. These successive victories and de- 
 feats showed the strength of the Prohibitory 
 sentiment, but demonstrated the superior 
 strength of unscrupulous partisan managers. 
 Yet it was apparent that the majority of ll e 
 dominant party would have sustained the 
 Prohibition principle if left untrammeled by 
 the liquor leaders ; for in 1875, on the direct 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 110 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 issue of the repeal of the Prohibition law. the 
 Gubernatorial vote stood: Independent Prohi- 
 bition candidate, 8,724 ; Republican (liquor) 
 candidate, 8,368 ; Democratic (neutral) candi- 
 date, 5,166. After the success of Constitutional 
 Prohibition in Kansas, the friends of Prohibition 
 in Rhode Island abandoned their efforts to 
 re-enact the old statute, and united in behalf of 
 an Amendment to the Constitution. In 1881, 
 1882 and' 1883 they petitioned the Legislature, 
 but were unable to secure even a favorable 
 report from the Legislative Committee. After 
 the adjournment of the Legislature of 1883 the 
 Woman's Christian Temperance Union began a 
 vigorous campaign for submission, and large 
 meetings were held, addressed by Mrs. Mary A. 
 Livermore, Mrs. J. Ellen Poster, John P. 
 St. John, George W. Bain and John B. Finch. 
 In 1884 a petition for submission signed by 
 11,000 citizens was presented to the Legislature, 
 and on March 25 a Submission resolution parsed 
 the House of Representatives by 53 yeas to 8 
 nays ; it was approved by the Senate unani- 
 mously. The endorsement of the next Legis- 
 lature (to be chosen in April, 1884) was 
 required before the Amendment could go to 
 the people. It was now discovered that there 
 had been a technical defect in the proceedings 
 already taken, and the work had to be done 
 anew. Despite the irritations occasioned by 
 the St. Jolm campaign, the Legislature of 1885 
 voted unanimously for submission, and the 
 Legislature of 1886 (March 10) did the same. 
 
 Less than four weeks' time was allowed for 
 the campaign At the start very few of the 
 Prohibitionists hoped for victory. The obsta- 
 cles seemed to be insurmountable. Three-fifths 
 of all the votes cast upon the question were 
 required for the adoption of the article. Rhode 
 Island was then regarded as one of the most 
 conservative States of the Union, the right of 
 suffrage being limited by a property qualifica- 
 tion. The State Census of 1885 showed that 58 
 per cent, of the population was embraced within 
 four cities, while in those cities 30 percent, of 
 the people were of foreign birth ; and the pro- 
 portion of the inhabitants engaged in manufac- 
 turing pursuits was very large. Rhode Island 
 was also, at that time, one of the strongest of 
 Republican States, and it was to be expected 
 that Republican resentment against the Prohi- 
 bitionists stimulated by bitter memories of the 
 St. John campaign, would be practically mani- 
 fested in Rhone Island, as it had been in the 
 New York town meetings that spring. Indeed, 
 the management of the Republican party of the 
 State was thoroughly under the control of the 
 liquor interests. 
 
 The opponents of Prohibition looked with 
 idle curiosity and amusement upon the efforts 
 of the Amendment's friends. They considered 
 the prospects of a Prohibition majority so slight 
 as to require no active attention, and the un- 
 commonly interesting struggle for important 
 political offices absorbed their energies. The 
 position of Attorney- General is a highly influ- 
 ential one in Rhode Island, and the person occu- 
 pying it is directly responsible for the adminis 
 tration of the liquor laws. Attorney-General 
 Colt had been entirely subservient to the rum- 
 sellers, and damaging revelations had been 
 
 made public concerning the conduct of his 
 office. His re-election was desired by the saloon 
 element, which had forced his renomination in 
 the Republican Convention. The affairs of 
 practical politics thus engaged the liquor men, 
 and they ignored the Prohibitory Amendment. 
 Although a considerable sum of money had 
 been provided for opposing the Amendment — 
 about $10,000— it was either not expended at all 
 or was not used effectively. 
 
 At this time Rhode Island was under a low 
 license law, so moderate in its provisions that 
 the most sensitive advocates of the • rights '' of 
 the liquor traffic could have found little fault 
 with it. Yet the liquor-dealers were not con- 
 tent with these easy conditions ; they insisted 
 on nullifying the mild restrictions of the stat- 
 utes, they compelled the officials to disregard 
 the law and they required the dominant party 
 1o accept their servants as candidates for office. 
 The disgraceful situation was well known to the 
 people of the State ; the notorious violations of 
 one of the most moderate liquor laws of the 
 country had been going on for years; it was un- 
 derstood to be impossible to punish even the 
 mest flagrant offenses in the citv of Provi- 
 dence, and the public disgust was intensified by 
 the exposures in the Attorney-General's office. 
 A very large number of people not entirely in 
 sympathy with the Prohibition policy were 
 therefore ready to record their protest against 
 the axisting conditions, and the Prohibitory 
 Amendment provided them an immediate op- 
 portunity. The belief that there was no chance 
 for the Amendment's adoption smoothed the 
 way for these conservative individuals. To 
 understand the triumph of Prohibition in 
 Rhode Island in 1886 this explanation must Le 
 given prominent recognition. 
 
 The Prohibition canvass was very dexterously 
 managed. No important help was received 
 from the press, but on the other hand the lead- 
 ing newspapers did cot offer material opposition. 
 The Providence Journal, at that time the lead- 
 ing Republican daily and afterwards the most 
 powerful antagonist of Constitutional Prohibi- 
 tion in Rhode Island, did not mention the sub- 
 ject until just before the election, when it print- 
 ed a few articles indirectly opposing the Amend- 
 ment. The Providence Telegram (Democratic 
 daily) mildly opposed it. The campaign was 
 under the direction of two organizations, the 
 State Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 
 headed by Mrs. E. S. Burlingame, and an or- 
 ganization composed of representatives of the 
 Rhode Island Temperance Union, Good Tem- 
 plars and other societies, led by Rev. H. W. 
 Conant. Effective literature was freely used, 
 there were many able speakers and the clergy 
 gave active assistance A striking feature was 
 the organization of Blue Ribbon clubs, compos- 
 ed of young men who donned the blue ribbon 
 and sought to awaken general interest. This 
 movement was inaugurated by Senator Colquitt. 
 
 The returns showed not only the triumph of 
 the Amendment but the election for Attorney- 
 General of Edwin Metcalf, candidate of the 
 Prohibition party (endorsed by the Democrats) 
 over Samuel P! Colt, the Republican liquor 
 nominee, by 14,089 to 12,445, although on Gov- 
 ernor the Republicans had a majority of 1,805 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 Ill 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 over both Prohibitionists and Democrats. The 
 following^ table gives the vote by counties on the 
 Constitutional Amendment : 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Counties. Yen. No. 
 
 Bristol 797 575 
 
 Newport 1,557 917 
 
 Providence 9,487 0,502 
 
 Washington 2,087 395 
 
 Totals 15,113 9,230 
 
 Majority 5,883 
 
 Majority in excess of thrue-fifths 507 
 
 James W. Williams. 
 
 CAMPAIGNS OF 1887-9. 
 Michigan. ; 
 
 After the last vestiges of the Prohibitory leg- 
 islation enacted in Michigan before the war had 
 be?n swept away and the Tax law bad been in- 
 stituted, the temp, ranee people made same 
 feeble efforts to restore the old statute. They 
 met definite defeat in the Legislature of 1879, 
 the House of Representatives voting down the 
 Mosher Prohibitory bill by 53 to 37. (The 
 House contained 66 Republicans, 19 Democrats 
 and 13 Labor men, and there were two vacan- 
 cies.) In 1831 (the Sena! e being Republican 
 by 30 to 2 and the House by 86 to 14), more 
 than 100 000 citizens petitioned for the submis- 
 sion of a Prohibitory Amendment. On Feb. 
 23, 1881, during the session of the Legislature, 
 a Republican State Coavention met at Lansing 
 and in its platform placed the following : 
 
 " Resolved, That when the people by petition manifest 
 a desire to alter or amend the Constitution their wishes 
 should receive that consideration to which they are enti- 
 tled as coming from the source of all political power. 11 
 
 But submission wai defeated in the House by 
 a vote of 61 yeas to Si nays — less than the nec- 
 essary two-thirds voting in the affirmative. The 
 Republican State Convention of 1882 (Aug. 30) 
 reaffirmed the submission plelge but the Leg- 
 islature? of 1383 and 18S5 failed to submit. 
 Aug. 26, 18S6, the Republican State Convent ; on 
 agvin pledged submission, and the Legislature 
 of 1887, though not expected or requested to 
 do so, finally redeemed the pledge. a This 
 action was due to the aggression of the Prohibi- 
 tion party. Previously to 1881 the party was 
 very feeble in Michigan, having polled only 942 
 votes for President in 1880. But in 1881 it sud- 
 denly became a serious factor, polling 12,774 
 votes at the comparatively unimportant spring 
 election. For the next four years its votes were : 
 1882. 5,851; 1883, 13,950; 1884 (President!. 
 18,403 ; 1885, 14,708. The repeated failure of 
 the Republicans to redeem their submission 
 pledge made the party Prohibitionists stronger 
 than ever in 1886 ; and Samuel Dickie, their 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to Samuel Dickie. 
 
 2 The work of submission was not ' accomplished, how- 
 ever, without a lively contest. In the House of Repre- 
 sentatives the Submission resolution went through (Jan. 
 13) with little opposition by a vote of 74 yeas to 21 nays 
 (ten Democrats voting m the affirmative and only one 
 Republican voting in the negative). In the Senate 22 
 votes were needed, and 23 of the Senators were Repub- 
 licans. But two of the Republican Senators (Seymour 
 and Hubbell) rebelled, and before the resolution could be 
 carried it was necessary for the Republican leaders to 
 oust a Democrat and swear in a new Republican Senator. 
 The Senate voted to submit -on Jan. 27: ye-ie, 22 (all Re- 
 publicans); nays, 10 (8 Democrats and 2 Republicans). 
 
 candidate for Governor in that year, made a 
 very energetic canvass and polled 25,179 voles. 
 Previously to 1881 very few States had given 
 Republican pluralities as large as Michigan's ; 
 and in 1880 Roscoe Conkling. in reply to a 
 statement that Michigan would rally nobly for 
 a certain candidate for the Republican Pre i- 
 dential nomination, had sneeringly remarked, 
 '• Anybody can carry Michigan 1" But there 
 was a strong Greenback element in the State, 
 which, by fusion with the Democrats, actually 
 defeated the Republican party in 1882, 1883 
 and 1885, and came within about 3,300 of wrest- 
 ing the Electoral vote from Blaine in 1884. 
 With an aggressive Prohibition party in the 
 field, controlling 25,000 votes, the Republicans 
 could not afford to repudiate their submission 
 pledge for a fourth time, and so the Legisla- 
 ture of 1887 decided to submit the Amendment. 
 The friends of Prohibition were not prepared 
 for the contest, but they took prompt action. 
 On Feb. 11 a mass convention was held at De- 
 troit and a State Amendment Committee was 
 organized, composed of 10 Republicans, 10 
 Democrats and 10 Prohibitionists. On Feb. 16 
 Prof. Samuel Dickie was chosen Chairman of 
 this Committee. The campaign was of 46 daj's' 
 duration. Some liberal contributions of money 
 were made, and a great number of prominent 
 speakers from many States gave their serviees. 
 The Good Templars, Sons of Temperance and 
 other organizations were very active, and the 
 State Woman's Christian Temperance Union, : 
 under the management of Mrs. Mary T. La 
 thrap, (President i and Mrs. Emma A. Wheeler 
 (Secretary) was an important factor. No ma- 
 terial help was received from the political 1. ad- 
 ers of the old parties, and the failure of Gover- 
 nor Luce to give his influence for the Amend- 
 ment was especially disappointing, since the 
 Governor was known as a life-long temperance 
 man, and the Farmers' Alliance, with which he 
 had been identified, had adopted energetic Pro- 
 hibition resolutions. Congressmen Allen and 
 Cutcheon were probably the most prominent 
 public men openly supporting the cause. Every 
 d ,iiy newspaper in the State was hostile or silen;. 
 A conspicuous effort was made to command the 
 formal antagonism of conservative men net 
 personally identified with the liquor traffic, and 
 two distinguished gentlemen, D. Bethune Duf- 
 field and Prof. Kent, made speeches against 
 the Amendment. Their arguments were found- 
 ed on the claim that the High License ( or tax) 
 system then prevailing in Michigan was prefer- 
 able to Prohibitory law; and the impression 
 made upon the masses of the people by the r 
 pleas was so effective that Miss Willard after- 
 wards declared that the Michigan Amendment 
 had "died of High Licence." Mr. Duffield 
 was met in debate however, by John B. Finch, 
 who made a very able and eloquent reply, sup- 
 ported by a great array of testimony. The 
 liquor-sellers themselves put no speakers in the 
 ■field, but they operated in secret ways, receiv- 
 ing the co-operation of the traffic in other States, 
 the sum of £5 000 being contributed by the 
 United States Brewers' Association. 
 
 At the election frauds wire perpetrated sys- 
 tematically by the liquor men, especially in 
 Detroit and Gogebic County. It was proved by 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 US 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 what the Detroit Free Press called " shoals of 
 affidavits " that the election in Detroit was a 
 mere farce ; in one precinct from which only 
 nine votes for the Amendment were returned, 
 more than 70 men made affidavit that they had 
 voted for it. Gogehic County was created by 
 the Legislature of 1887 out of Ontonagon 
 County, wljich in November, 1886. cast only 
 1,589 votes. Yet this new county, at the Amend- 
 ment election, returned 2,527 votes, of which 
 2 341 wjre against Prohibition. The evidences 
 of fraud were duly presented, in detail, to the 
 Legislature, which was still in session, but that 
 body refused to appoint an investigating com- 
 mittee. 
 
 The following is the vote on the Prohibitory 
 Amendment by counties : 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Alcona 331 361 
 
 Alger 56 170 
 
 Allegan 4,649 2,728 
 
 Alpena 1,003 1,463 
 
 Antrim .... 1,094 657 
 
 Arenac 362 486 
 
 Baraga 151 371 
 
 Barry 3,099 1,933 
 
 Bay 2,458 5,078 
 
 JBenzie, 693 213 
 
 Berrien 4,112 4,052 
 
 Branch 4,334 1,691 
 
 Calhoun 5,458 3,424 
 
 Cass ... 2,808 1,701 
 
 Charlevoix 1,295 456 
 
 Cheboygan ... 753 973 
 
 Chippewa 640 524 
 
 Clare 682 508 
 
 Clinton 3,389 2,583 
 
 Crawford 219 223 
 
 Delta 222 1,347 
 
 Eaton 5,318 2,088 
 
 Emmet 907 531 
 
 Genesee 4,769 3,190 
 
 188 
 
 225 
 
 Gladwin 
 
 Gogebic 186 2,341 
 
 Grand Traverse 1,355 815 
 
 Gratiot 3,648 
 
 Hillsdale 5,266 
 
 Houghton 
 Huron . .. 
 
 Ingham 5,4' 
 
 Ionia 4,846 
 
 Iosco 1,187 
 
 Iron 129 
 
 Isabella 2,175 
 
 Isle Koyal No returns 
 
 Jackson 5,226 4,302 
 
 Kalamazoo 
 Kalkaska.. 
 
 Kent 
 
 Keweenaw . 
 
 Lake 
 
 Lapeer — 
 
 1,607 
 1,873 
 1,166 2,684 
 1,696 2,264 
 
 ~ 2,648 
 
 2,(1:15 
 
 1,058 
 
 720 
 
 840 
 
 4,215 3,390 
 018 283 
 
 0,642 10,99: 
 153 285 
 
 1,008 570 
 
 2,847 2,636 
 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 No. 
 
 Leelanaw . . . . 
 
 562 
 
 004 
 
 
 . 5,771 
 
 4,784 
 
 
 . 2,949 
 
 2,017 
 
 Luce 
 
 149 
 
 188 
 
 
 392 
 
 557 
 
 
 . 1,719 
 
 4,279 
 
 Manistee 
 
 . 1,527 
 
 1,799 
 
 Manitou 
 
 18 
 
 124 
 
 
 . 1,475 
 
 3,013 
 
 
 . 1,413 
 
 1,094 
 
 Mecosta 
 
 . 2,459 
 
 1,454 
 
 Menominee .. 
 
 . '1,242 
 
 2,601 
 
 Midland 
 
 . 1,320 
 
 691 
 
 Missaukee . . 
 
 . 418 
 
 358 
 
 
 . 2,121 
 
 3,757 
 
 Montcalm . . 
 
 4,631 
 
 2,032 
 
 Montmorency 
 
 . 168 
 
 103 
 
 Muskegon 
 
 . 2,819 
 
 3,882 
 
 Newaygo ... 
 
 2,309 
 
 1,273 
 
 . 4,435 
 
 4,087 
 
 Oceana 
 
 2,053 
 
 731 
 
 
 . 359 
 
 475 
 
 Ontonagon... 
 
 64 
 
 2m; 
 
 
 . 1,680 
 
 750 
 
 Oscoda . . 
 
 178 
 
 132 
 
 
 572 
 
 257 
 
 
 . 2,820 
 
 3,043 
 
 Presque Isle . 
 
 07 
 
 748 
 
 Roscommon . 
 
 160 
 
 174 
 
 Saginaw 
 
 3,181 
 
 9,033 
 
 
 . 2,161 
 
 2.458 
 
 Schoolcraft . . 
 
 . 384 
 
 554 
 
 Shiawassee. . 
 
 . 3,934 
 
 2,241 
 
 St. Clair .... 
 
 . 2,909 
 
 5,875 
 
 St. Joseph 
 
 . 3,321 
 
 2,150 
 
 
 . 3,523 
 
 2,222 
 
 VanBuren. .. 
 
 . 5,111 
 
 1,549 
 
 Washtenaw . . 
 
 . 4,110 
 
 4,999 
 
 
 . 5,860 28,169 
 
 
 . 1,410 
 
 773 
 
 Totals 178,636 184,281 
 
 Majority 5,545 
 
 Texas.' 
 
 In the Amendment contest in Texas, more 
 than in any other State, North or South, the 
 political leaders engaged in a general discussion 
 of the question, and openly took sides upon it. 
 The refusal of the Prohibition managers to 
 accept offers of rpeakers from the North, the 
 publication of Jefferson Davis's letter against 
 Prohibition, the successful efforts of the liquor 
 advocates to control the negro vote and the 
 heavy rural majorities in opposition to the 
 Amendment, were other unique features. 
 
 To satisfy the temperance people, a clause 
 guaranteeing Local Option was placed in the 
 Texas Constitution in 1875. For a number of 
 
 i The editor is indebted to J. B. Cranflll of W^eo, Tex. 
 
 years Local Option work absorbed the energies 
 of the saloon's opponents, but the weakness of 
 this method was finally recognized, and from 
 1831 to 1887 the Legislature was repeatedly 
 p.'titionel to submit a Prohibitory Constitu- 
 tional Amendment. Submission, when ob- 
 tained, was due to the organization and activity 
 of the Prohibition party Until 1886 there had 
 been no separate party movement by the 
 Prohibitionists, although 3 534 votes had been 
 secured for St. Jotin in Texas without 
 organization. In 1886 the Democrats refused 
 to pledge the submission of an Amendment. A 
 Prohibition Convention was then held, a State 
 ticket was nominated with E. L Dohoney as 
 the candidate for Governor, and 19,186 votes 
 were polled for Mr. Dohoney. The Legislature 
 of 1887 promptly voted to submit, the House of 
 Representatives passing the Submission reso- 
 lution by 80 yeas to 21 nays, and the Senate 
 concurring (Feb. 25) by 22 yeas to 8 nays. 
 This Legislature was overwhelmingly Demo- 
 cratic—unanimously so in the Senate, while the 
 House of Representatives contained only six 
 opposition members in a total of 119. 
 
 In the campaign, for which preparations were 
 promptly made, Rev. B. H. Carroll, D.D., was 
 Chairman of the Prohilriiion Executive Com- 
 mittee, and a fund of $15,000 was raised in the 
 State, which was increased by contributions 
 from the North — considerable sums being sub- 
 scribed by reader', of the Voice. The liquor 
 element showed an aggressive disposition from, 
 the start, and with the approval of some of ihe 
 chief Democratic politicians — notably Con- 
 gressman Roger Q. Mills, Lieutenant-Governor 
 Barnett Gibbs, and Speaker Pendleton of the 
 Texas House of Representatives— announced 
 that the anti-Prohibition fight would be 
 essentially a Democratic party fight. These rum 
 champions, at the outset, issued a curious cail 
 for a State meeting, in which they ventured to 
 solicit the attendance among other lovers of the 
 liquor-saloons, of " all who have not yet lost 
 faith in the church, the home and the school; 
 patriots who revere the grandeur of our great 
 State ; all who believe the people Of Texas are a 
 religious people: all Christian people." But the 
 singular inappropriateness of waging a pro- 
 liquor crusade on the basis of religion and 
 morality was soon perceived, and it was decided 
 to abandon sentimental professions and appeal 
 to Democratic partisan prejudices. This 
 assumption that the party was fundamentally a 
 whiskey party aroused the resentment of many 
 prominent Democratic leaders, wlrch was all 
 the stronger since the la;-t Democratic State 
 platform had declared that " the views of any 
 citizen upon the question of Local Option" 
 should not "interfere with his standing in the 
 Democratic party." United States Senator 
 John H. Reagan, ex Senator S. B. Maxey, 
 Congressmen Culberson and Lanham, ex- 
 Congressman Herndon and others pronounced 
 for the Amendment. " In every community," 
 wrote Senator Reagan, " we find men, once 
 honored and respected, reduced to poverty, 
 wretchedness, and dishonor, spending their 
 money and time in drinking saloons, wives 
 weighed down with grief and sorrow and want. 
 and heartbroken and helpless children growing 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 113 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 up in ignorance, beggary and vice, because 
 husbands and lathers have been made drunkards 
 and vagabonds by patronizing the drinking 
 saloons. Millions of dollars are invested in 
 this business of making men drunkards and in 
 producing the . desolation and ruin of women 
 and children, which if employed in agricultural, 
 manufacturing or commercial pursuits, and 
 directed by the' talents and time wasted in these 
 drinking houses, would add untold millions to 
 the aggregate wealth of the State, and make 
 as many thousands of happy families as are 
 now made miserable because this money and 
 time are given to the selling and drinking of 
 intoxicating liquors. In view of these facts, 
 with all respect to the meeting at Austin and its 
 committee, I must express my regret that any 
 effort has been made to make a party question 
 of it ; and especially do I regret that Democrats 
 should seek to identify that great and grand 
 historic party with the fortunes and fate of 
 whiskey-shops, drunkards and criminals." 
 
 But the methods of the Prohibitionists in the 
 campaign were defensive. Their energies were 
 directed chiefly toward competing with the 
 rumsellers for Democratic influence. Proffers 
 from th3 North were rejected ; the help of the 
 women was not invite J ; ' the strongest efforts 
 were made in the cities and the rural districts 
 were neglected, and sufficient attention was not 
 given to cultivating the support of the very 
 large negro element. On the other hand the 
 anti-Prohibitionists (under the management of 
 George Clark, a shrewu Democratic leader, 
 who, it was alleged by Thomas R. Bonner, re- 
 ceived 550,000 for his services) made a very 
 vigorous campaign^ They worked in co opera- 
 tion with the national liquor organizations 
 which, since the narrow escape from defeat in 
 Michigan, had manifested a determination to 
 crush Prohibition in all subsequent contests. 2 
 They received a subscription of $5,000 from the 
 United States Brewers' Association, and sent a 
 committee to canvass for contributions in the 
 Northern cities; and this committee raised 
 large sums, obtaining, it was said. 850,000 in 
 Chicago alone. 3 They made special exertions to 
 win the colored vote, sending out Archibald 
 Cochran (the Republican candidate for Governor 
 in 1886) to work among the negroes. They 
 placed no restraints upon their followers : the 
 most vindictive langua ; e was indulged in, and 
 Congressman Mills bitterly attacked the clergy- 
 men who were advocating the Amendment, de- 
 claring that " the political preachers" ought to 
 be "scourged back to their pulpits." Prohibition 
 meetings were broken up ; at San Antonio, 
 June 7, the venerable Bishop H. M. Turner 
 (colored) of Georgia was mobbed and his audi- 
 ence was dispersed. The support of the leading 
 daily papers was secured for the liquor cause by 
 
 1 The Texas Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 
 however, led by Mrs. Jennie Bland Beauchamp and others, 
 made independent exertions. 
 
 2 The policy of these organizations was thus expressed by 
 the Louisville Weekly Bulletin, a leading whiskey organ, 
 April 13, 1887: , , . 
 
 "If we carry Texas and Tennessee, and defeat the pres- 
 ent Btate of affairs in Atlanta, we can then bid Prohibition 
 defiance and go into Iowa and Kansas assured of re-estab- 
 lishing law and order where all is now confusion." 
 
 s See the Voice, June 83, 1887. 
 
 the payment of generous sums ; the 'Dallas and 
 Galveston News, principal daily of the State, was 
 liberally patronized, an enormous quantity of 
 anti-Prohibition matter being published in it at 
 advertising rates 4 The only daily newspapers 
 advocating the Amendment were the Waco 
 Advance and Day and the Dallas Times-Herald, 
 although all the religious and many of the 
 country weeklies supported it. Very large meet, 
 ings were held by both sides. Ten days before 
 the election there was a mammoth State gather- 
 ing of anti-Prohibitionists at Fort Worth, and to 
 insure order at this great demonstration in favor 
 of the drink traffic the sale of liquor on the 
 grounds was rigidly prohibited and suppressed. 
 The greatest sensation of the campaign was 
 produced on this occasion, a letter from Jeffer- 
 son Davis airainst Constitutional Prohibition be- 
 ing read. His argument was based on opposi- 
 tion to paternal governments, the belief 'that 
 " the world is governed too much." the convic- 
 tion that legitimate personal rights .would be 
 interfered with by Prohibition, the opinion that 
 legislation should be directed against the abuse 
 and not the use of liquor, and the belief that 
 a Prohibitory law could not be enforced. 5 A 
 marked effect was produced by the Davis letter. 
 The vote by counties on the Prohibitory 
 Amendment stood as follows: 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Anderson 1,221 
 
 Angelina 
 Aransas. . 
 Archer. . 
 Atascosa 
 Austin... 
 Bandera 
 Bastrop. . 
 Baylor . . 
 
 Bee 
 
 Bell 
 
 Bexar 
 
 Blanco. . 
 Bosque. 
 
 420 
 6 
 54 
 210 
 32.") 
 231 i 
 774 
 142 
 124 
 
 2,742 
 773 
 371 
 
 1,207 
 
 Bowie 1,558 
 
 284 
 
 S'.IK 
 
 36 
 
 840 
 
 814 
 
 687 
 
 1,028 
 
 4 
 
 Brazoria 
 
 Brazos 
 
 Brewster . . . 
 
 Brown 
 
 Burleson . . . 
 Burnet .... 
 Caldwell.... 
 Calhoun. . . . 
 Callahan . . . 
 Cameron . . . 
 Camp . . 
 
 Cass 
 
 Chambers . . 
 Cherokee . . 
 Childress.... 
 
 Clay 
 
 Coleman . . . 
 
 Collin 
 
 Colorado . . 
 Comal. . . 
 Comanche . 
 
 Concho 
 
 Cooke 2,073 
 
 85 
 
 683 
 
 .621 
 
 ' 107 
 
 ,459 
 
 28 
 
 321 
 
 397 
 
 2,756 
 
 743 
 
 626 1,398 
 
 Coryell . 
 Crosby. 
 Dallas . . 
 Delta..., 
 Denton . 
 
 1.263 
 
 35 
 
 3,626 
 
 770 
 
 1,6311 
 
 3,109 
 
 665 
 
 10P 
 44 
 
 382 
 2,987 
 
 428 
 
 2,479 
 
 84 
 
 253 
 3,501 
 6,344 
 
 507 
 1,494 
 1,321 
 1,031 
 1,965 
 -49 
 1,150 
 1,560 
 
 802 
 1,538 
 
 143 
 
 391 
 1,216 
 
 489 
 2,019 
 
 224 
 
 1 
 
 16 
 
 395 
 
 429 
 2.39;-, 
 2.870 
 1,264 
 1 - 
 
 ' 74 
 
 1,973 
 
 1,763 
 
 16 
 
 6,38) 
 
 692 
 2,354 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. 
 De Witt... 
 
 Dimmit 
 
 Donley 
 
 Duval 
 
 Eastland 
 Edwards . . 
 
 Ellis 
 
 El Paso 211 
 
 Encinal 
 
 Erath 1,013 
 
 Yes. 
 
 415 
 
 61 
 
 34 
 
 17 
 
 -,63 
 
 72 
 
 2,711 
 
 1,111 
 
 4,071 
 791 
 
 399 
 421 
 748 
 152 
 Galvestin 1,206 
 
 Falls. 
 
 Fannin 
 
 Fayette. . . . 
 
 Fisher 
 
 Fort Bend. 
 Franklin ... 
 Freestone.. . 
 Frio. 
 
 Gillespie 
 Goliad. .. 
 Gonzales. . 
 Grayson .. 
 
 Greer 
 
 Gregg 
 
 Grimes 
 
 Guadalupe 
 
 Hale 
 
 Hamilton.. 
 Hardeman. 
 
 Hardin 
 
 Harris .. .. 
 Harrison . . 
 Haskell.... 
 Hays ... . 
 Henderson 
 Hidalgo... 
 
 Hill 
 
 Hood 
 
 Hopkin 1,655 
 
 Howard 86 
 
 Houston 1,088 
 
 Hunt 2,281 
 
 175 
 
 881 
 
 3,991 
 
 21 
 
 680 
 
 1,017 
 
 731 
 
 15 
 
 70S 
 
 139 
 
 228 
 
 1,515 
 
 899 
 
 73 
 
 883 
 
 813 
 
 6 
 
 2,562 
 
 No. 
 
 1,709 
 
 53 
 
 84 
 
 283 
 
 774 
 
 116 
 
 3,337 
 
 1,866 
 
 16 
 
 1,651 
 
 2,894 
 
 2,910 
 
 4,627 
 
 54 
 
 1,595 
 
 749 
 
 2.2.S6 
 
 '236 
 
 2,561 
 
 1,186 
 
 739 
 
 2,069 
 
 4,147 
 
 24 
 
 928 
 
 2,668 
 
 2,045 
 
 1 
 
 998 
 
 181 
 
 309' 
 
 4,323 
 
 2,951 
 
 75 
 
 954 
 
 1,415 
 
 435 
 
 2,695 
 
 589 
 
 2,003 
 
 112 
 
 2,179 
 
 2,764 
 
 4 This journal originated the policy adopted by news- 
 papers in all the States subsequently voting on Prohibition, 
 of refusing to print articles fo-.' or against Prohibition un- 
 less paid for doing so. The liquor, men, having abundant 
 funds, were able to control its columns. 
 
 » For the text of Jefferson Davis's letter, sec "The Po- 
 litical Prohibitionist for 1888," p. 145. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 114 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Jack 
 
 Jackson . . 
 
 Jasper 
 
 Jeff Davis. 
 Jefferson . 
 
 Johnson 2,187 
 
 Jones 269 
 
 Karnes 120 
 
 Kaufman 2,140 
 
 Prohibition 
 
 Yes. No 
 
 495 74( 
 
 193 3U 
 
 144 665 
 22 
 169 
 
 64 
 2S2 
 145 
 39 
 72 
 Lamar 3,164 
 
 Kendall . 
 
 Kerr 
 
 Kimble. 
 Kinney. . 
 Knox . 
 
 762 
 60 
 591 
 447 
 719 
 223 
 
 Lampasas. 
 La Salle . . 
 Lavaca. . . 
 
 Lee 
 
 Leon 
 
 Liberty . . . 
 
 Limestone 1,432 
 
 Live Oak... 
 
 Llano 
 
 Madison... 
 
 Marion 
 
 Martin — 
 
 Mason 
 
 Matagorda 
 Maverick. . 
 McCulloch 
 
 McLennan 3,423 
 
 McMullen 45 
 
 Medina 128 
 
 Menard 59 
 
 Midland 82 
 
 Milam 1,615 
 
 Mitchell 184 
 
 Montague 1,173 
 
 Montgomery . . . 803 
 
 Morris 428 
 
 Nacogdoches.. 731 
 Navarro 2,392 
 
 417 
 371 
 390 
 
 32 
 331 
 114 
 
 25 
 174 
 
 Newton. 
 
 Nolan 
 
 Nueces ... 
 Oldham . . . 
 Orange... 
 Palo Pinto 
 
 Panola 
 
 Parker 1,461 
 
 PecoB 4 
 
 Polk 398 
 
 123 
 142 
 171 
 
 IS 
 20!) 
 509 
 
 74 
 
 512 
 
 2,161 
 
 65 
 
 294 
 
 2,249 
 
 636 
 
 •370 
 
 207 
 
 256 
 
 41 
 
 3,200 
 
 797 
 
 135 
 
 2,393 
 
 1,473 
 
 1,691 
 
 460 
 
 2,528 
 
 213 
 
 626 
 
 747 
 
 1,336 
 
 47 
 
 ■491 
 
 514 
 
 420 
 
 268 
 
 4,413 
 
 71 
 
 842 
 
 125 
 
 28 
 
 2,778 
 
 148 
 
 1,660 
 
 1,059 
 
 609 
 
 1,670 
 
 3,969 
 
 448 
 
 75 
 
 796 
 
 65 
 
 310 
 
 619 
 
 1,508 
 
 1,684 
 
 74 
 
 1,' 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Presidio 1 395 
 
 Rains 375 387 
 
 Red River 1,885 2,052 
 
 Reeves 
 Refugio . . . 
 Robertson . 
 Rockwall . 
 Runnels. . . 
 
 54 
 
 73 
 
 13 
 
 133 
 
 1,423 
 
 3,219 
 
 459 
 
 544 
 
 234 
 
 160 
 
 1,291 
 
 2,494 
 
 256 
 
 188 
 
 336 
 
 713 
 
 222 
 
 KtiO 
 
 8 
 
 79 
 
 527 
 
 389 
 
 53 
 
 12 
 
 144 
 
 124 
 
 924 
 
 1,177 
 
 Sabine 
 
 San Augustine. 
 
 San Jacinto 
 
 San Patricio... 
 
 San Saba 
 
 Scurry 
 
 Shackelford.. . 
 
 Shelby 
 
 Smith 1,719 2,939 
 
 Somervell 253 282 
 
 Starr 18 250 
 
 Stephens 311 295 
 
 Stonewall 16 8 
 
 Tarrant 3,136 2,833 
 
 Taylor 535 270 
 
 Throckmorton. 102 40 
 
 Titus 587 758 
 
 Tom Green 192 512 
 
 Travis 2,421 4,104 
 
 Trinity 451 668 
 
 Tyler 617 669 
 
 Upshur 885 1,259 
 
 Uvalde 206 280 
 
 Val Verde 91 180 
 
 Van Zandt . . . . 1,250 1,807 
 
 Victoria 229 1,178 
 
 Walker 
 
 Waller 
 
 Washington . 
 
 Webb 
 
 Wharton 
 
 Wheeler 
 
 Wichita .... 
 
 Wilbarger 187 118 
 
 Williamson.... 2,338 2,018 
 
 Wilson 378 1,154 
 
 Wise 1,522 2,321 
 
 Wood 1,126 1,558 
 
 Young 330 361 
 
 Zapata 69 
 
 Zavala 61 46 
 
 528 1,392 
 
 385 1,533 
 
 1,592 3,430 
 
 56 694 
 
 225 1,175 
 
 43 113 
 
 129 146 
 
 Totals .... 129,270 220,627 
 Majority 91,357 
 
 lennessee. 
 
 Though the Amendment election in Ten- 
 nessee was held only eight weeks after the great 
 defeat in Texas and was materially affected by 
 that result, it was not productive of a propor- 
 tionately large anti Prohibition majority, or 
 one commensurate with the expectations of the 
 liquor men. The campaign of the opposition 
 was just as unscrupulous and corrupt as in 
 Texas, and the various influences for controll- 
 ing the popular verdict were manipulated with 
 well-nigh equal success. But the Prohibition 
 canvass was made under more favorable condi- 
 tions; the temperance organizations were 
 stronger; the work of education and agitation 
 in behalf of personal temperance and against 
 the saloon had been more thoroughly done ; 
 the smaller area of the State gave better oppor- 
 tunities for systematic management of the con- 
 test, and the benefits of the "Pour Mile" Pro- 
 hibitory law had prepared the people for more 
 radical action. 
 
 After several years of unavailing agitation 
 for the submission of a Constitutional Amend- 
 ment, the Prohibitionists persuaded theLegis 
 lature of 1885 to take the initial step, and the 
 next. Legislature, in 1887, completed the work, 
 appointing the 29th of September, 1887, as the 
 
 day for the election. 1 The State Temperance 
 Alliance (J. H. Fussell. President , and the Slate 
 Woman's Christian Temperance "Union (Mrs: 
 Lide Meriwether, President) were the active 
 forces supporting the Amendment in the cam- 
 paign. The brunt .of the canvass was borne 
 by the trained Prohibition workers, and there 
 was no discrimination against Northern sympa- 
 thizers. "Valuable help was given by leaders 
 like Miss Willard, A. A. Hopkins, Sam Jones, 
 George W. Bain, C. N. Grandisnn and Senator 
 Colquitt. But some assistance was received 
 from eminent public men of Tennessee, like A. 
 S. Colyar, editor of the Nashville American, and 
 ex-Supreme Judges East, Campbell and Free- 
 man. Governor Taylor expressed his intention 
 to vote for the Amendment, but made no effort 
 in its behalf. Most of the leading newspapers 
 were violently opposed to it (particularly those 
 published in Memphis), although the chief 
 Democratic organ, the Nashville American, was 
 neutral. The principal Republican, journal, 
 the Nashville National Review, was intolerantly 
 hostile. 
 
 The anti-Prohibitionists were under the lead- 
 ership of George S. Kinney.President of the State 
 Liquor- Dealers' Association. The United States 
 Brewers' Association donated $3,000 to their 
 campaign fund, and the National Protective 
 Association, at a meeting held in Cincinnati 
 two weeks before the election, appropriated 
 $15,000. Very few public meetings were held 
 by the Amendment's opponents, but their secret 
 work, especially among the leaders of the col- 
 ored men, was perseveringly and shrewdly 
 done. The Knoxville Journal (Rep.) circum- 
 stantially charged that Mr. Kinney offered a 
 Republican Congressman *5,000 for his influ- 
 ence; and the Democratic Collector of Internal 
 Revenue at Nashville compelled all his employ- 
 ees to contribute to the anti-Prohibition cam- 
 paign fund. Prominent lawyers and politicians 
 were also persuaded to perform special services. 
 Col. J. J. Vertrees, a well-known member of 
 the bar, and State Treasurer Atha Thomas pub- 
 lished artful appeals against Prohibition on rev- 
 enue grounds. 
 
 One of the most striking incidents of the con- 
 test was the publication of the following, sign- 
 ed by 400 convicts of the State Penitentiary : 
 
 " To the Voters of the State of : 
 
 " In all ages in the history of mankind, crises, reforma- 
 tions and revolutions have been the direct result of prac- 
 tical experiences by the human family. 
 
 " One of these experiences has taught the people of the 
 State of Tennessee that their prisons are filled, their poor- 
 houses occupied and their paupers created by the direct 
 influences of that soul-destroying demon, Whiskey. We, 
 the inmates of the State Penitentiary, knowing by obser- 
 vation and convinced by undeniable facts that liquor is 
 the cause of all the misery we endure, of all the hardships 
 and privations we subject those to dependent upon us, do 
 hereby most earnestly ask that the voters of this great 
 State may seriously consider the question before them 
 and give their aid in word and deed to the cause of 
 Prohibition. 
 
 "AVe do not say that every prisoner in the State is an 
 habitual drunkard. We do not claim that every criminal 
 act was perpetrated under the influence of whiskey; but 
 we fearlessly assert that three-fourths in , these walls can 
 trace their downfall directly or indirectly 'to that cause. 
 
 1 Both Legislatures had large Democratic majorities. 
 The vote on submission in 1885 stood: Senate, 20 yeas to 
 11 nays; House, 57 yeas to 20 nays. In 1887 the vote 
 stood: Senate, 39 yeas to 2 nays; House, 87 yeas to 4nays. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 115 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 "Wearing the garb of disgrace, being dishonored and 
 counted unworthy to mingle with the people of our State, 
 we yet have the same devotion to our mothers, the 6ame 
 affection for our sisters; and for their sake and for the 
 sake of our children we appeal to you to unite as one man 
 and free the State from a curse created by the hands of 
 men, discountenanced by the law of God. 11 
 
 The table below shows the vote by counties : 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Anderson 1,136 571 
 
 Bedford 2,186 2,232 
 
 Benton 832 812 
 
 Bledsoe 417 327 
 
 Blount 1,611 928 
 
 Bradley 1,282 720 
 
 Campbell 1,080 602 
 
 Cannon 480 945 
 
 Carroll 2,075 1,764 
 
 Carter 1,032 380 
 
 Cheatham 302 1,160 
 
 Cheetar 641 687 
 
 Claiborne 782 484 
 
 Clay 281 755 
 
 Cocke 1,239 1,018 
 
 Coffee 714 1,641 
 
 Crockett 1,453 1,154 
 
 Cumberland... 384 365 
 
 Davidson 7,178 9,980 
 
 Decatur 400 703 
 
 De Kalb....,,.. 603 1,883 
 
 Dickson 641 1,519 
 
 Dyer 1,652 1,661 
 
 Payette 1,393 2,653 
 
 Fentres 156 478 
 
 Franklin 904 2,062 
 
 Gibson 4,178 1,819 
 
 Giles 2,118 3,045 
 
 Grainger 890 789 
 
 Greene 2,483 1,783 
 
 Grundy 355 607 
 
 Hamblin 1,322 471 
 
 Hamilton 3,054 4,177 
 
 Hancock 866 355 
 
 Hardeman 1,072 2,0.35 
 
 Hardin 1,170 1,346 
 
 Hawkins 1,637 1,194 
 
 Haywood 1,327 2,488 
 
 Henderson .... 823 1,230 
 
 Henry 1,796 1,1" " 
 
 Hickman 741 1,676 
 
 Houston 437 507 
 
 Humphreys.... 627 1,350 
 
 Jackson 479 1,36: 
 
 James 219 434 
 
 Jefferson 1,587 1,012 
 
 Johnson 492 589 
 
 Knox 5,984 2,601 
 
 Lake 202 410 
 
 Lauerdale -. 1,317 1,1 
 
 Prohibition' 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Lawrence 614 915 
 
 Lewis 94 252 
 
 Lincoln 1,911 2,840 
 
 Loudon 905 381 
 
 Macon 423 1,117 
 
 McMinn 1,621 
 
 McNairy 880 
 
 Madison 2,152 
 
 Marion 682 
 
 Marshall 1,833 
 
 Maury 2,756 
 
 Meigs 450 
 
 Monroe 1,210 
 
 Montgomery ... 1 ,31 2 
 
 Moore 220 
 
 Morgan 338 
 
 2,27 
 444 
 103 
 71 
 331 
 515 
 
 Obion 
 
 Overton 
 
 Perry . . 
 
 Pickett. 
 
 Polk.... 
 
 Putnam 
 
 Rhea 1,045 
 
 Eoane 1,073 
 
 Robertson 1,237 
 
 Rutherford.... 1,451 
 
 Scott 447 
 
 Sequatchie 83 
 
 Sevier . .. 1,113 
 
 1,173 
 
 2,538 
 
 1,148 
 
 1,510 
 
 3,523 
 
 648 
 
 791 
 
 3,026 
 
 912 
 
 448 
 
 2,577 
 
 1,299 
 
 570 
 
 460 
 
 621 
 
 1,344 
 
 791 
 
 1,001 
 
 8.245 
 
 4,300 
 
 513 
 
 280 
 
 1,223 
 
 Shelby 4,550 10,574 
 
 Smith 897 " 
 
 Stewart — ... 578 
 
 Sullivan 1,870 
 
 Sumner 1,481 
 
 Tipton 1,818 
 
 Trousdale 
 
 Unicoi 
 
 Union 
 
 "Van Buren . . 
 Warren . . . 
 Washington 
 Wayne 
 
 Weakley 2,510 
 
 White 602 
 
 Williamson 1,414 
 
 Wilson 2,219 
 
 300 
 333 
 608 
 134 
 760 
 2,211 
 681 
 
 1. 
 
 1,3C3 
 
 1,005 
 
 2,387 
 
 1,863 
 
 682 
 
 196 
 
 1,006 
 
 355 
 
 1,514 
 
 816 
 
 654 
 
 2,128 
 
 1,353 
 
 2,814 
 
 1.913 
 
 Totals 117,504 145,1 97 
 
 Majority 27,693 
 
 Oregon. 1 
 
 Oregon, at the beginning of her history, en- 
 joyed Prohibition for u. period of five years — 
 from 1843 to 1848. At various times before and 
 after her admission as a State, unsuccessful at- 
 tempts to procure Prohibitory measures were 
 made by the Temperance Alliance and other 
 organizations. In the Legislature of 1883 a bill 
 for submitting a Prohibitory Amendment was 
 introduced, but owing to a technical error it 
 was withdrawn. The Legislatures of 1885 and 
 1887 voted for submission, the latter witi! 
 but three dissenting votes (all Republicans). 
 The temperance sentiment of Oregon had always 
 been considered strong, and the result of the 
 election was a surprise to many persons. It 
 was, however, a perfectly natural consequence 
 of irresistible influences. The Portland Ore- 
 gonian, leading Republican organ, which had 
 probably greater weight with the public of the 
 State than all other newspapers combined, took 
 
 i The editor is indebted to H. S. Lyman. 
 
 most emphatic ground against the Amendment. 
 The power of the Oregonian hid been demon- 
 strated in the political canvass of 1886, when it 
 had bolted the Republican ticket because of the 
 corruption of the party and had given its sup- 
 port to the Prohibition candidates. Although 
 the State had always been reliably Republican, 
 the Oregonian "s attitude defeated the Republican 
 nominee for Governor and increased the vote of 
 the Prohibition party from 492 in 1884 to 2,700. 
 At the same ejection the Chairman of the Re- 
 publican 'State Committee, Joseph Simon, had 
 sacrificed the interests of the decent elements of 
 the party by deliberately " knifing " Hon. J. B. 
 Waldo, Republican and Prohibition candidate 
 for Judge of the Supreme Court, and causing 
 the election of his Democratic opponent, who 
 was a tool of the liquor men. This disgraceful 
 act caused the Oregonian to say: 
 
 " The Republican party has been betrayed by villainous 
 leadership into an alliance with the liquor ring. It has 
 been debauched and prostituted to the liquor ring's ser- 
 vices. It must shake off that leadership, repudiate that 
 alliance or go to its death. It cannot support the infamy 
 of such associations. It will lose all its men of character, 
 conscience and decency, and it will die ignominiously, as 
 it deserves. Redeem the Republican party from the liquor 
 ring! Disenthrall it, or let it die. 11 
 
 But in the Amendment campaign of 1887 the 
 respectable Oregonian and the disreputable 
 Simon united their energies against Prohibition. 
 Simon was still Chairman of the Republican 
 State Committee, and he used his position to 
 help the liquor men. He controlled the distri- 
 bution of the large fund brought into the State 
 a short time before the election by an emissary 
 of the Eastern liquor interests. Under his dex- 
 terous management the Republican counties 
 gave a very large anti-Prohibition majority, al- 
 though the vote of the counties that had gone 
 Democratic in the June election of 1886 was 
 nearly equally divided for and against the 
 Amendment. It was charged that Simon op- 
 posed the Amendment on the distinct under- 
 standing that the liquor vote would be thrown 
 for the Republican parly in the Presidential 
 year of 1888 ; and developments justified this 
 charge. 2 
 
 The Prohibition canvass was conducted by a 
 State League, of which A. M. Smith was Chair- 
 man and G. M. Peirce was Secretary. The 
 various temperance organizations gave cordial 
 assistance. Numerous addresses were made by 
 Oregon workers and by leaders from other 
 States. The exclusion of ex-Governor St. John 
 of Kansas from the campaign, at the demand 
 of intolerant Republicans, caused much dissatis- 
 faction. No important public meetings were 
 held by the liquor men, but they had the ser- 
 vices of some prominent persons, ' especially 
 Abigail Scott Duniway. Characteristic liquor 
 documents, specially appealing to the farmers, 
 taxpayers and public generally, were abun- 
 dantly distributed and frauds were committed 
 at the polls. The election day was stormy and 
 only a light vote was cast in places where there 
 
 2 In June, 1888, the Republican candidate for Congress 
 received 7,407 plurality, and Harrison's plurality in No- 
 vember was 6,769. These pluralities were largely in excess 
 of any that had been obtained in recent years by the Re- 
 publicans in Oregon, even under very favorable conditions. 
 In 1884 Blaine's plurality was only 2,256. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 11G 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 was an honest poll, the total being 47,931 as 
 agairso 54,954 at the State el, ct'on cf lc86. Vet 
 in the county cf Multomuh (containing the city 
 of Portland the vote was 9,476 as against only 
 7,964 for Congressman at th'd exciting contest of 
 1886. 
 The vote by counties follows: 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Baker 
 
 Benton 
 
 Clackamas . 
 Clatsop 
 Columbia. . . 
 Coos . . . 
 
 Crook 
 
 Curry 
 
 Douglas . . . 
 
 Gilliam 
 
 Grant 
 
 Jackson 
 
 Josephine . . 
 Klamath . . . 
 
 Lake 
 
 Lane 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Yes. No. 
 
 849 
 408 
 180 
 019 
 •139 
 129 
 Mill 
 414 
 498 
 553 
 184 
 SI 
 160 
 1,023 
 
 524 
 
 1,239 
 
 1,101 
 
 85li 
 
 5:34 
 
 1T2 
 
 120 
 
 1,067 
 
 303 
 
 535 
 
 1,311 
 
 556 
 
 170 
 
 214 
 
 1,260 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Linn 
 
 Malheur — 
 
 Marion 
 
 Morrow 
 
 Multomah . . 
 
 Polk 
 
 Tillamook. . 
 Umatilla — 
 
 "Union 
 
 Wallowa 
 
 Wasco 
 
 Washington 
 Yamhill . . . 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Yes. No. 
 
 . 1,915 
 
 149 
 
 .. -1,498 
 
 497 
 
 , . 1,945 
 
 258 
 
 1,331 
 
 759 
 
 245 
 
 190 
 
 015 
 
 1,180 
 
 226 
 2,030 
 
 360 
 7,531 
 
 547 
 
 340 
 1,081 
 
 912 
 
 220 
 1,260 
 
 Sid 
 1,077 
 
 Totals. ... 19,973 27,958 
 Majority. . 7,985 
 
 The day of the Presidential election of J888 
 was the day for deciding the question of Con- 
 stitutional Prohibition in West Virginia. This 
 has always been considered unfortunate by the 
 Prohibitionists of that State. The Cleveland- 
 Harrison campaign was very exciting there, and 
 Ih J strength cf the two leading parties was so 
 nearly equal that there was a difference be- 
 tween them of only 506 votes in a total of about 
 160.000. At the same time warm contests were 
 waged for the State, Congressional, legislative 
 and o'her offices. Naturally in this fierce parti- 
 san fight the interests of Prohibition were sacri- 
 ficed. For ether reasons there was not a fair 
 trial of the question on its merits Dissensions 
 among the f • ijnds of Prohibition prevented an 
 energetic and systematic campaign. Proper ef- 
 forts were not made for securing the services of 
 the best Prohibition workers from other States, 
 and the demands of the Prohibition political can- 
 vass throughout the Uiiion engaged well nigh nil 
 the s n eakevs of national reputation. On the 
 other hand tli e anti Prohibitionists were not only 
 favored by conditions, but by abundant funds, 
 aggressive work, corrupt practices, newspaper 
 support and all the other agencies so indus- 
 triously and successfully applied in the typical 
 liquor campaigns against Constitutional Pro- 
 hibition. 
 
 West Virginia's movement for submission be- 
 gan in 1880, and was originated and promoted 
 by representatives of leaeling religious denomi- 
 nations of the State. The submission of the 
 Amendment was due to the organization and 
 activity of the Prohibition parly. In the Demo 
 cratic Legislature of 1887 the House promptly 
 voted for submission l:y 55 to 10, but the 
 Senate, while favoring the measure by a ma- 
 jority, refused to give the necessary two-thirds 
 until the Prohibition managers threatened > to 
 pass a statutory law granting complete Pro- 
 hibition, when the obstructionists permitted the 
 submission resolution to go through.' 2 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to Dave D. Johnson of Parkers- 
 burg, W. Ya. 
 
 2 The Legislature of 18F7 was Democratic in both 
 branches— in the Senate by 14 to 12 and in the House by 30 
 
 A "non-partisan League" was organized, 
 after considerable discussion, to manage the 
 Prohibition campaign; but practically no sup- 
 port was given to it by the Republicans and 
 Democrats who had strenuously demanded its 
 creation, and it did no important work. The 
 Woman's Christian Temperance Union was the 
 most serviceable organization, employing able 
 speakers. But no very large public meetings 
 were held, and the general feeling was apathetic. 
 The liquor managers used money corruptly. 3 
 After the election i Nov. 10) Bonforfs 'Wine and 
 Spirit Circular, the leading national organ of 
 the whiskey-sellers, said: 
 
 tk During months past tons of literature have been scat- 
 tered broadcast over the State, and scarcely a county but 
 has heard a public speaker for our cause, and, wherever 
 possible, a joint debate. Fcr this result, as in each of 
 those preceding it, the trade owes a lasting debt of grati- 
 tude to the National Protective Association, and to the 
 gentlemen who have so admirably directed its affairs." 
 
 The Wheeling Intellif/eneer (Rep. i and Regis- 
 ter (Dem. ), the chief dailies of the State, fought 
 the Amendment unscrupulou ly, and compara- 
 tively few of the country weeklies favored it. 
 The newspapers generally were corrupted by 
 saloon money. The Parkcrsbuig Freeman, 
 State organ of the Prohibition party, was the 
 principal supporter of the cause. An attempt 
 was ma'le to analyze the vote. Since tee 
 Amendment question was printed on the party 
 ballots, it was possible to ascertain, by keeping 
 a tally at each polling place, how the Republi- 
 cans and Democrats stood concerning it. At 
 the direction of the Prohibition State Commit- 
 tee, tallies were kept at 43 precincts in 28 dif- 
 ferent counties, representing about one-twelfth 
 of the vote of the State. Of the 5 283 Demo- 
 cratic voters in these 43 precincts, 2 004 were 
 for the Amendment 2,168 again?! it and 1,121 
 did not vote either for or against Of the 
 5 502 Republican voters. 1,967 supported the 
 Amendment, 2,316 opposed it and 2 316 ig 
 nored it. 
 
 The vote in detail is given ia the following 
 table : 
 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 No. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 No. 
 
 Barbour.. . 
 
 457 
 
 1,919 
 
 Lewis , 
 
 . 1,075 
 
 1,271 
 
 Berkeley.. . 
 
 975 
 
 2,030 
 
 
 225 
 
 1,062 
 
 
 
 
 
 101 
 
 266 
 
 
 .. 1,032 
 
 1,246 
 
 
 .. 1,427 
 
 2,319 
 
 
 928 
 
 691 
 
 Marshall . . . 
 
 .. 1,504 
 
 2 215 
 
 Cabell . .. 
 
 .. 1,398 
 
 1,877 
 
 
 . 1,297 
 
 2,365 
 
 
 411 
 406 
 
 720 
 296 
 
 
 4?5 
 
 780 
 
 Clay 
 
 
 
 
 Doddridge. 
 
 547 
 
 1,431 
 
 Monongalia. 
 
 .. 1,049 
 
 1,732 
 
 
 .. 1,332 
 
 1,850 
 
 
 713 
 
 1,047 
 
 Gilmer 
 
 .. 533 
 352 
 
 1,007 
 790 
 
 
 394 
 
 800 
 
 Grant .... 
 
 McDowell . . . 
 
 
 
 Greenbrier . 
 
 811 
 
 1,999 
 
 
 .. 1,0S0 
 
 537 
 
 
 103 
 
 1,900 
 
 Ohio 
 
 .. l,f'20 
 
 6,951 
 1,332 
 
 Hancock . . . 
 
 527 
 
 321 
 
 Pendleton . . 
 
 253 
 
 
 247 
 
 1,154 
 
 
 .. 413 
 
 742 
 
 Harrison ... 
 
 1,500 
 
 2,329 
 
 Pocahontas. 
 
 .. 330 
 
 813 
 
 
 1,069 
 
 1,842 
 
 Preston 
 
 . . 1,321 
 
 2,538 
 
 Jefferson . . 
 
 .. 1,026 
 
 1,939 
 
 
 970 
 
 1,246 
 
 Kanawha 
 
 2,720 
 
 3,350 
 
 Ealeigh . . 
 
 
 
 to 29. Of the 16 votes againpt Mibmission cast in the two 
 branches, 13 were given by Democrats Liid 3 by Repub- 
 licans. The stubborn fight was due to the great fear of 
 the liquor men that the Amendment would be ratified if 
 sent to the people. It will be remembered that the West 
 Virginia submission struggle was made before the votes of 
 Michigan, Texas, Tennessee and Oregon had given new 
 conr-i're to the traffic. 
 3 Scl- the Voice, Dec. 27, 1888. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 IV, 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. 
 
 Randolph 25 J 
 
 Ritchie 1,30 j 
 
 Roane . 
 Summers . 
 Taylor . . . 
 Tucker .. 
 Tyler ... 
 Upshur . . 
 Wayne . . . 
 
 85:. 
 402 
 
 (iSJ 
 3K5 
 
 rv.i 
 
 1,085 
 835 
 
 No. 
 1,681 
 1,543 
 1,315 
 1,301 
 1,631 
 527 
 1,435 
 1,108 
 1,410 
 
 Counties. 
 Webster . . 
 Wetzel.... 
 Wirt 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Yes. No. 
 
 2d0 
 053 
 
 57 8 
 
 Wood 8,075 
 
 Wyoming 222 
 
 524 
 2,267 
 1,015 
 2,528 
 
 38li 
 
 Totals .. 
 Aggregate . 
 Majority . . . 
 
 41,668 76,555 
 ....118,223 
 .... 34,887 
 
 New Hampshire. 
 
 For a. generation Now Hampshire had been 
 under a partial and defective Prohibition law 
 befo.e any recognitioa of the appeals made by 
 its friends for more stringeut provisions was 
 vouchsafed by the political rulers of the State. 
 The statutes, wnite prohibiting the common 
 sale of intoxicating beverages, permitted the 
 manufacture. Under this peculiar measure 
 several extensive brewing establishments flour- 
 ished, and in time they became exceedingly 
 powerful in State politics. Remarkable and 
 conflicting conditions prevailed. Though una- 
 ble to establish thorough Prohibition the tem- 
 perance people were able to compel the reten- 
 tion of the old law, and one of the most ex- 
 treme ?rohibitio.i advocates of the entire coun- 
 try i Henry W. Blair) was sent to represent New 
 Hampshire in the United States Senate. They 
 were also strong enough to command tolerably 
 satisfactory enforcement of the law in nearly 
 every community excepting a few cities. On 
 the other ban .1. wherever any real advantage 
 was sought by the Prohibitionists the liquor 
 influence seemed to be omnipotent. At one 
 session of the Legislature a deputation of ladies 
 advocating certain amendments was received 
 with great discourtesy, and members of the 
 legislative commltiee filled the room with 
 tobacco smoke waile the ladies presented their 
 case. It was a curious fact that while New 
 Hampshire was intensely Republican her 
 wealth 'est Democratic liquor manufacturer 
 (Frank Jones) had an inlueacc with the Legis 
 lature outweighing that of the best elements of 
 citizens. The explanation of Mr. Jones's suc- 
 cessful opposition to furth r Prohibitory legis- 
 lation was significantly hinted at in testimony 
 which he g ive in the famous bribery investi- 
 gation of 1887. 'idenare a good deal like 
 hogs," said Mr Jones in that testimony: "they 
 don'tlike to be driven. But you throw them 
 down a little corn and you can call them most 
 anywhere." 
 
 In New Hampshire the Legislature has no 
 power to propose Amendments to the Constitu- 
 tion, and such Amendments can be submitted 
 only by Constitutional Conventions held not 
 oftenerthan once in seven years. A two thirds 
 vote of the people is required to ratify and 
 adopt an Amendment. Therefore the Prohibi- 
 tionists of the u«ate in their efforts to improve 
 the law were forced to appeal to the Legisla- 
 ture for statutory action. The Legislature of 
 1837 was asked to pass an act prohibiting the 
 manufacture of liquor, but although the Re- 
 publican State Convention of 1836 had made 
 warm professions of loyalty to the Prohibition 
 ca'ise. the bill against the manufacture was 
 defeated. In January, 1889, the Constitutional 
 Convention met, and the Prohibitionists appeal- 
 
 ed to il to submit an Amendment providing for 
 complete Prohibition. Such an Amendment 
 was accordingly submitted (Jan. 10 . A cam- 
 paign organization of Prohibitionists was 
 effected soon afterwards, with George A. 
 Bailey as Chairman. The different elements 
 of Prohibitionists worked in harmony in the 
 canvass. Chairman Bailey claimed that three-' 
 fourths of the 300 clergymen in the State were 
 "actively engaged" in behalf of the Amend- 
 ment. Governor elect D. H. Goo.lell was 
 a prominent speaker for it, and even so 
 shrewd a Republican politician as Senator Wil- 
 liam E ChanJler wrote a letter endorsing it. 
 It was commonly luiown that the fund used by 
 the liquor people aggregated $10J,000. But 
 they held only one small public mc e ing, which 
 was addressed by William P. To nlinson, a 
 Democratic editor from Kansas. The mist 
 notable feature of the discussion in the press 
 was upon the cider-exemption clause of the 
 Amendment. This clause had been inserted 
 at the instance of some Prohibitionists who 
 thought votes would be gained among the 
 farmers by discriminating in favor of cider, 
 and who reasoned that the Legislature could 
 afterwarJs suppress the alcoholic cider traffic 
 by statute, as the Maine Legislature had done. 
 But by making this exemption the Prohibition- 
 ists introduced a confusing element into the 
 contest, were forced upon the defensive and 
 lost many votes. Although some of the news- 
 papers refrained from offensive hostititv, the 
 behavior of the press in general clearly showed 
 that much of the money of the liquor managers 
 had been placed in the newspaper offices. 
 We give below the county vote:. 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. 
 Belknap . . 
 Carroll . . 
 Cheshire . 
 
 Coos 
 
 Grafton 2,745 
 
 Hillsborough.. 4,956 
 Merrimack — 3,709 
 
 Yes. 
 
 1,593 
 1,375 
 2,ne i 
 1,81 1" 
 
 No. 
 1,568 
 1,231 
 2,381 
 1,144 
 3,02-i 
 7,358 
 4,327 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Rockingham.. 3,301 5,113 
 
 Strafford 3,460 3,303 
 
 Sullivan 1,247 1,520 
 
 Totals ... 
 A£<'regate . 
 Majority . . 
 
 25,780 30,976 
 .... 56,762 
 .... 5,190 
 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 A long and eventful struggle preceded the 
 Massachusetts campaign of 1889 for Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition. In this struggle it was re- 
 peatedly demonstrated that the intelligent 
 class ;s desired Prohibition by a strong majority; 
 and more than once it was found that an actual 
 majority of all the voters exoressing themselves 
 (even allowing for the ignorant and vicious 
 class-s and the whole saloon element) was op- 
 posed to the license system. But this power- 
 ful sentiment, though directed by excellent 
 organizations and devoted individuals, achieved 
 only local, imperfect and temporary successes. 
 The b :?t citizens of Massachusetts, and even the 
 majority of all the citizens, though sentimentally 
 preferring Prohibition wer > unable to cope with 
 the artful liquor power and were forced to ac- 
 cept laws upon which the ingenuity of anti- 
 Prohibition politicians had been expended. In 
 the 20 years from 1869 to 1889, three different 
 systems of liquor legislation were established — 
 the Prohibitory statute of 1869, repealed in 
 1875, the Local Option and license act that was 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 118 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 passed soon afterwards, and the High License 
 and Limitation law of 1888 (in force May 1, 
 1889). 
 
 After the repeal of the Prohibitory law, all 
 the legislation enacted was cleverly devised for 
 satisfying th„ moderate temperance elements of 
 the State. The Local Option and license com- 
 binaiion answered this purpose perfectly. It 
 enabled the people of every town and city an- 
 nually (the towns in March and the cities in 
 December) to declare by majority vote whether 
 licenses should be granted within their respec- 
 tive limits. More than once the aggregate vote 
 of the communities on the license question 
 (even including the results in the large cities) 
 showed a majority against the traffic ; and the 
 sentiment in favor of banishing the saloon was 
 so general that four-fifths of tue communities 
 annually refused to grant licenses. 1 The nor- 
 mal sentiment of Massachusetts was therefore 
 decidedly favorable to Prohibition ; yet the very 
 policy that invited its radical expression in the 
 various localities operated to discourage exertion 
 for the complete redemption of the State. It 
 was argued that the people already had power 
 to stop the traffic, and the conservative citizens 
 manifested comparatively little favor for more 
 advanced demands. Meanwhile the politicians 
 made further concessions, granting a Metropoli- 
 tan Police law for the city of Boston, prohibit- 
 ing the sale of liquors on all public holidays, 
 prohibiting the sale in tenement buildings, re- 
 quiring the rumsellers to remove screens and 
 other obstructions to a full view of their prem- 
 ises from the street, etc. Finally, in 1888, the 
 law establishing a minimum annual license rate 
 of &1.300 for each saloon selling all kinds of 
 liquors for consumption on and off the premises 
 was passed, and the same Legislature enacted 
 another statute limiting the number of saloons 
 to one for each 500 of the population in Boston 
 and one for each 1,000 inhabitants in every 
 other community. These two statutes were not 
 to go into effect until May 1, 1889, and mean- 
 while, in December, 1888, the cities were to 
 vote on the local question of license, and the 
 towns were to vote on the same question in 
 March, 1889. The results of the city votes fully 
 confirmed the expectation that the general pub- 
 lic would accept the bribe held forth by the 
 High License act ; for there was a very strong 
 reaction against locally prohibiting the issuance 
 of licenses. This reaction encouraged the polit- 
 ical managers in the Legislature of 1889 to 
 at last grant to the people the often-refused 
 privilege of voting on a Prohibitory Amend- 
 ment. 
 
 It seems absolutely certain that if compromise 
 measures had not been enacted in Massachusetts, 
 the demand for Constitutional Prohibition 
 would have proved irresistible long before the 
 carefully laid schemes for defeating it were 
 perfected. At one legislative session (1883) 
 petitions for Coostitutional Prohibition from 
 50,000 citizens were presented, and at another 
 session (1884) the petitions had 106.000 signa- 
 tures attached. In consequence of the evasive 
 action of successive Republican Legislatures, 
 
 1 For figures, see the the editor's postscript to the article, 
 Local Option. 
 
 J 
 
 the vote of the Prohibition party increased from 
 1,881 in 1883 to 10,947 in 1887, and some of the 
 most distinguished and devoted temperance 
 Republicans of the State (including Mary A. 
 Livermore and Henry H. Faxon ) openly rebelled 
 against the faithless party. If the Republicans 
 had not been able to point to their Local Option 
 legislation, to Prohibitory conditions in four- 
 fifths of the towns and to stringent restrictive 
 acts, they could not have prevented a vote on 
 Constitutional i rohibition when the temperance 
 forces were eager for a cont.st and before 
 counteractive devices had been set up. 
 
 As it was, the Republican leaders found it 
 necessary to make very plausible professions of 
 friendship for the temperance cause. Their 
 State Convention for 1886 (Sept. 29) declared : 
 
 u Believing, also, that whenever a great public question 
 demands settlement an opportunity should he given the 
 people to express their opinion thereon, we favor the sub- 
 mission to the people of an Amendment to our Constitu- 
 tion prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcoholic 
 liquors to be used as a beverage." 
 
 In 1887 a more elaborate utterance was made, as 
 follows : 
 
 " Recognizing in intemperance the most fruitful source 
 of pauperism, crime, corruption in politics and social 
 degradation, we affirm our belief in the most thorough re- 
 striction of the liquor traffic and the enforcement of law 
 for its suppression. We approve the action of the last Legis- 
 lature in enacting 60 many temperance statutes, and de- 
 mand the continued enactment of progressive temperance 
 measures as the policy of our party. We repeat the recom- 
 mendation of last year's Convention as follows: ' Believing 
 that this great public question now demands settlement, 
 we favor the Submission to the people of an Amendment 
 to our Constitution prohibiting the manufacture and sale of 
 alcoholic liquors to be used as a beverage. 1 In order to have 
 this matter placed before the people, we call upon those 
 who are opposed to the political control of the grog-shops 
 to unite with the Republican party in electing Senators and 
 Representatives who will vote for the submission of the 
 Amendment." 
 
 But the crowning deliverance of the Republi- 
 cans of Massachusetts was that emanating from 
 the State Convention held on April 26, 1888, to 
 choose delegates to the National Convention. 
 It was : 
 
 "The Republican party of Massachusetts has committed 
 itself in favor of pronounced and progressive temperance 
 legislation. It has demanded the restriction of the liquor 
 traffic by every practicable measure, and now it calls upon 
 the National Republican Convention to recognize the 
 saloon as the enemy of humanity; to demand for the peo- 
 ple the privilege or deciding its fate at the ballot-box; to 
 insist that it shall be crippled by every restraint and dis- 
 ability which local public sentiment will sanction; in 
 short, to take that attitude upon the temperance question 
 which will win to the party all foes of the liquor traffic and 
 all friends of good order." 
 
 The popular vote on the Constitutional 
 Amendment, taken under the circumstances to 
 which we have briefly alluded, was necessarily 
 farcical. It was shown by the Boston Trans- 
 cript (April 18, 1889) that of the 29 Senators and 
 161 Representatives voting to submit the 
 Amendment in the Legislature of 1889, only 18 
 Senators and 91 Representatives were sufficiently 
 friendly to the principle of Prohibition to vote 
 for the measure at the polls. The same Legis- 
 lature that passed the submission resolution re- 
 fused to pass a Prohibition statute and even 
 refused to enact a law permitting women to vote 
 on the license question. The controlling Repub- 
 lican influences were skilfully directed against 
 the Amendment, and the Democratic party was 
 openly hostile. The Boston dailies espoused 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 119 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 the liquor cause with great ardor. The Globe 
 (Dem.), Transcript (Rep.) and Herald (Ind.) 
 were especially violent opponents of Prohibi- 
 tion. The Globe gave much prominence to i'alse 
 reports from Kansas and Iowa, printing with 
 great display letten from a lew unimportant 
 newspaper editors of those States who were 
 willing to represent that Prohibition was 
 a failure, and suppressing the abundant 
 testimony to the contrary. The Transcript 
 made a pretended canvass of the clergymen of 
 Massachusetts, and claimed that they were about 
 equally divided for and against the Amendment, 
 although a canvass conducted with impartiality 
 showed that of 1,039 clergymen expressing 
 themselves, 931 were for the Amendment, 91 
 were against it, and 11 were non-committal. 
 The Boston Journal (chief Republican organ), 
 though nominally neutral, was inclined against 
 the Amendment, and compelled the Prohibi- 
 tionists to pay advertising rates for arguments 
 appearing in its columns from the pen of Dr. 
 Daniel Dorchester; and in printing these argu- 
 ments it editorially disavowed responsibility for 
 them. Indeed, all but one of the leading Bos- 
 ton newspapers refused to insert articles favor- 
 able to Prohibition unless exorbitant charges 
 were paid. The only Boston daily supporting 
 the Amendment was the Traveller (Rep.). 
 Great clamor was made on the score that the 
 adoption of Constitutional Prohibition would 
 prevent the farmers from manufacturing cider 
 for vinegar ; and although the Attorney-General 
 printed an official declaration that no such effect 
 would follow, the cider argument was diligently 
 ussd until the end of the campaign. The liq- 
 our managers employed canvassers who obtained 
 numerous signatures from prominent clergy- 
 men, lawyers and business men, to anti-Pro- 
 hibition declarations. A clergymen's ' ' protest," 
 signed by upwards of 60 ministers, was printed 
 a few days before the election. The less earnest 
 temperance people were discouraged from sup- 
 porting the Amendment by the attitude of one 
 of the representative religious organs of New 
 England, the Boston Congregationalist, which 
 on Feb. 21 printed an elaborate editorial article 
 distinctly unfriendly in tone. The Congrega- 
 tionalist 'e course was repudiated by an authorita- 
 tive meeting of Congregational clergymen ; but 
 that journal's arguments, seconded by pleas 
 against the Amendment from several eminent 
 divines, had much weight with undecided 
 voters. The anti Prohibition lawyers argued 
 that the success of Constitutional Prohibition 
 would tend to diminish the respect in which the 
 Constitution was held ; and it was claimed that 
 the lawyers' protest had the approval of well- 
 nigh all the leading members of the bar. The 
 argument was answered in withering language 
 by United States Senator George F. Hoar; and 
 a canvass instituted among the lawyers of the 
 State showed that a large majority of them, out- 
 side of the city of Boston, favored the Amend- 
 ment. 
 
 The saloon element judiciously took no active 
 part openly in the canvass. Having the sup- 
 port of so many prominent men and of the 
 leading newspapers, the liquor-dealers were 
 shrewd enough to recognize that their interests 
 •would be jeopardized by conducting a whiskey- 
 
 sellers' agitation. Bowler Bros., brewers, of 
 Worcester, in a retrospective letter written to a 
 Nebraska correspondent in 1890, said that the 
 experience of " the trade " in Massachusetts had 
 demonstrated the wisdom of refraining from 
 public discussion. " We should advise you," 
 they wrote, " not to hold any public meetings, 
 as those very good Prohibitionists won't attend 
 them, and you will have the hall filled with a 
 gang of loafers which will make you look like 
 Hate's prison birds, and the papers will come 
 out the next day wiih ' A man is known by the 
 company he keeps.'" 1 But the whole anti- 
 Prohibition campaign was really managed by 
 the liquor-sellers exclusively. It was under 
 saloon auspices that the various protests against 
 Prohibition were invited, grouped together and 
 effectively used. The State was literally sown 
 with misleading documents prepared and cir- 
 culated by the National Protective Association. 
 The falsest statements about the results of Pro- 
 hibition were coined and kept before the public. 
 Meanwhile the virtues of High License and 
 Local Option were dwelt upon by every person 
 interested in the liquor business. The following, 
 emanating from the saloon managers and pub- 
 lished with great prominence just before the 
 election, is a specimen of the appeals : 
 
 "NO. On Monday next, April 22, the contest takea 
 place between our preBent High License law, embodying 
 Local Option on the one hand, and Constitutional Prohibi- 
 tion of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, 
 including CIDER, on the other hand. In the light of 
 former Prohibitory experience, and in the interest of the 
 cause of temperance, respect forourlaws : reverence for our 
 State Constitution, commercial prosperity and moderate 
 taxation, every citizen having these considerations at heart 
 Bhould go to the polls and vote NO." 
 
 The campaign of the Prohibitionists was un- 
 der the direction of a non-partisan State Com- 
 mittee, of which E. H. Haskell was Chairman, 
 and Benjamin R. Jewell was Secretary. The 
 different Prohibition organizations co operated 
 harmoniously. Nearly all the leaders of the 
 Prohibitionists in the country took part in the 
 contest. 
 
 Below is presented the vote by counties : 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Yes. No. 
 1,738 930 
 
 Counties. 
 Barnstable. 
 
 Berkshire 2,884 5,301 
 
 Bristol 6,645 7,171 
 
 Dukes 354 73 
 
 Essex 11,426 18,287 
 
 Franklin 8,366 2,711 
 
 Hampden 4,720 7,334 
 
 Hampshire.... 2,859 2,756 
 Middlesex 17,621 23,558 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Nantucket.... 170 213 
 
 Norfolk 5,330 6,964 
 
 Plymouth 4,872 4,768 
 
 Suffolk 12,207 33,686 
 
 Worcester .... 12,050 17,320 
 
 Totals ... 85,242131,062 
 Majority 45,820 
 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 Pennsylvania's majority against Constitutional 
 Prohibition seems colossal; but nearly one-half 
 of it was contributed by the single county of 
 Philadelphia, and nearly three-fourths by the 
 three counties of Philadelphia, Allegheny and 
 Berks, while the whole huge majority of 1 88,- 
 027 came exclusively from the eight counties of 
 Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Lancaster, 
 Montgomery, Lehigh, Northampton, Schuyl- 
 kill and Montgomery— counties containing large 
 cities which were carried for the saloon by the 
 most corrupt and unfair practices. The other 
 
 i The Voice, May 8, 1890. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 120 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 59 coun'i^s, taken as a whole, showed a major- 
 ity for the Amendment, although a number of 
 important cities were embraced within them 
 and unscrupulous and diligent rasistance was 
 everywhere made by l h?. liquor leaders. Under 
 the extraordinary conditions, the large total 
 vote for the Amendment and the preponder- 
 ance of Prohibition sentiment in 59 of the 67 
 counties we're the really significant results of 
 the contest. 
 
 The preference of the people for Prohibition 
 when the issue was presented on its merits was 
 shown both beiore aua ail. r Uie war in lc^B 
 local Prohibitory measures were enacted in 
 obedience to the expi eased desire of the people, 
 and in 1873 42 of tho 66 counties voted for 
 Prohibition under the Local Option act of 1872. 
 The political influence of the liquor element, 
 however, c-.iused prompt repeal in each instance. 
 It is noticeable that the Local Option law was 
 enacted soon after the organization of the Pro- 
 hibition party in Pennsylvania. In the year 
 of its. repeal (1875' the vo'e of that party 
 reached 13,244. although it had been only 4,632 
 in 1874. This exhibition of political indepen- 
 dence by the Prohibitionists was shcrt-lived, 
 however, for in 1876 the party's vote dwindled 
 to 1,319; and it remained unimportant until 
 18S4 when St. John polled 15,5.83. It was not 
 until after the Prohibition party had become an 
 aggressive factor that there was any indication 
 of willingness on the part of the politicians to 
 listen to the demands of the friends of temper- 
 ance. The Prohibition vote cf 1884 was main- 
 tained at the unimportant Stale election of 1885; 
 and in 1886 the Prohibitionists nominated for 
 Governor the Independent-Republican leader, 
 Charles S. Wolfe, and prepared for a vigorous 
 canvass. Then it was that the Republicans 
 began to make concession?. The Republican 
 State Convention of 1883 declared : 
 
 " Whereas* There is an evident desire on the part of 
 a large number of intelligent and respectable citizens of 
 Pennsylvania to amend the Constitution by inserting a 
 clause prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicat- 
 ing drinks as a beverage within the limits of this com- 
 monwealth; therefore 
 
 "Resolved, That it is the opinion and judgment of 
 this Convention that the Legislature of the State should 
 at once adopt measures providing for the submission of 
 this great question to a vote of the people in accordance 
 with the true spirit of our free institutions." 
 
 The political campaign of 1886 resulted in a 
 vote of 32,458 for the head of the Prohibition 
 ticket ; and it was plainly seen that early defeat 
 was in store for theRepublicansunless the tem- 
 perance issue were met. But the political lead- 
 ers artfully resorted to compromise schemes. 
 The Legislature of 1887 proposed a Prohibitory 
 Constitutional Amendment, and then framed a 
 High License and restr'ctivc measure, known 
 as the Brooks law, which, while leaving the 
 traffic practically undisturbed iu 65 of the 
 67 counties, was designed to effect a sweep- 
 ing reduction in the number of saloons in 
 the, cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and 
 Allegheny and thereby satisfy conservalive 
 temperance sentiment and militate against 
 th3 adoption of the Prohibitory Amendment 
 at the polls after the work of submission 
 should have been completed by the Legislature 
 or' U89. (See High License.) The hostile 
 purpose was crowned with complete success. 
 
 Having decided on this shrewd policy the 
 Republicans, in 1887 and 1888, renewed their 
 submission pledge of 188C ; and in 1889 the 
 State Legislature, Republican by a large major- 
 ity in each branch, voted to submit the Amend- 
 ment. ■ The large vote cast by the Prohibition 
 party in 1886 had meanwhile decreased more 
 than one-third, and the politicians therefore felt ' 
 that it was safe to proceed with their unscrupu- 
 lous plans. With the opening of the legislative 
 scssionof 1889, the active liquor men throughout 
 the country began to exhibit great interest in 
 the Prohibition straggle in I 'ennsylvania. They 
 openly boasted that the Brooks law and th ■ pol- 
 iticians would decide the contest in their favor. 
 The situation as viewed from the liquor-sell- 
 ers' standpoint was thus described in the regu- 
 lar Pittsburgh correspondence of Bonfort's 
 Wine and Spirit Circular for Jan. 25: 
 
 " Features in trade have been lost sight of at the present 
 time, and the liquor men generally are absorbed in the 
 question of Prohibition. . . . The dealers here have 
 not yet taken any step toward effecting an organization, 
 but a meeting will be held this week. There will be no 
 foolishness this time. The line of action will be nigh 
 License v. Prohibition. A committee will probably be 
 appointed to confer with a similar representation from 
 Philadelphia. Some dealers in thi; district were in favor 
 of making an effort to have the Brooks law amended 
 [i. <?., in the interest of the liquor traffic — Ed.], but they 
 now see that this would be bad policy when the Pro- 
 hibitory Amendment question has been forced to a verdict 
 from the people. 
 
 u Deilcrs here feel that if the campaign is properly con- 
 duett d, there need be no fear but what the Amendment 
 will te defeated. Temperance people are not a unit in 
 favor of Prohibition by any means. They are already 
 agitating the question, l Is Prohibition what we want? 1 
 and many there are who answer in the negative, and cite 
 the effects of Prohibition in Maine, Kansas and other 
 places where it has been tried and proven most unsatis- 
 factory to those who were responsible for ils enactment. 
 
 " Another thing must not be lost sight of in the opening 
 of this campaign: the Republican party of Pennsylvania 
 has not arrayed itself in favor of Prohibition. It has only 
 promised to let the people have a vote on the question, 
 and Capt. John F. Dravo, who has been delegated by the 
 Republicans to take charge .of the bill in the House, comes 
 out in an interview in a Pittsburgh paper and says : ' There 
 are many prominent Republicans, leaders in the party in 
 this State, who, while voting in the Legislature for a sub- 
 mission of the question, will do all in their power to defeat 
 it at the polls. This is their privilege, and in so doing 
 their true loyalty to the Republican party will not be 
 questioned. The Republican party is not pledged to Pro- 
 hibition. It simply says this question can go to the peo- 
 ple for a decision. If the matter is properly presentedthe 
 intelligent people of this Commonwealth, will probably 
 vote No.' " 
 
 In the same issue of Bonfort's Wine and 
 Spirit Circular the Philadelphia correspondent 
 said : 
 
 " As matters now stand, it is absolutely necessary for the 
 entire trade to organize and get to work. Wake up, espe- 
 cially those who are always known as very generously per- 
 mitting others to do the work. This time it is busine- s; 
 so each and every one lay aside any petty trade jealousies 
 you may.have. The enemy is strong, and to vanquish him 
 requires good work, strong work, and work together, 
 with your battle cry, ' High License against Prohibition.'. 
 Some dealers may not realize this condition of affairs in 
 the trade, but all will very soon find out that, though the 
 trade cannot now defeat Prohibition, High License can, as 
 it will receive the support of a large majority of the press 
 throughout the State, and the almost unanimous support of 
 all fair-minded, sensible and practical men." 
 
 The: secrets of the anti-Prohibition campaign 
 were revealed by its chief manager, Harry P. 
 Crowed, in a confidential interview with Col. 
 R ti. Cheves, in March, 1890. The following is 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.! 
 
 121 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 a portion of the interview, as published in the 
 Voice for April 3, 1890.' 
 
 Crowell: " How did we begin the work? Well, Til tell 
 
 y u U ; + i?" the firet place ' wc k " ew for the last three years 
 that this fight was coming on, consequently we prepared 
 
 " The first meeting of the liquor men was called to con- 
 vene in Harrisburg, which was a failure. The second 
 meeting was held m Philadelphia, and was a success, for 
 at that meeting a State Executive Committee was selected 
 and I was made Secretary with power to act and arrange 
 for the fight. At that meeting plans were also adopted by 
 which money could be raised. In the first place we as- 
 sessed the sales of all beer per annum at ten cents per bar- 
 rel. We levied an assessment of $1,000 on all the large 
 hotels like the Continental, and they paid it like little men, 
 and from $25 to $50 on all the smaller retail shops. Besides 
 each brewer was required to solicit money from all kindred 
 interests— that is, every man in trade with whom they had 
 dealings, thoBe engaged in making barrels, those from 
 whom we bought our horses, and wagons, and grain, and 
 machinery, etc., were solicited to contribute to a campaign 
 fund, and if such persons failed after a reasonable time to 
 do so, a notice was forwarded intimating that a prompt 
 compliance would save trouble and a possible boycott, thus 
 forcing hundreds to help us who did it reluctantly. By 
 this plan we raised over $300,000 which was expended by 
 the State Committee. 2 Besides, local committees in every 
 community raised and expended large sums during the 
 campaign and on election day. Appeals for money were 
 made to the trade throughout the country, and large sums 
 were contributed by the Brewers 1 Association and the Na- 
 tional Protective Association. " 
 
 Cheves: " How did you dispose of this immense amount 
 of money ? " 
 
 Crowell : u Besides the current expenses, we paid it out 
 to the newspapers, politicians, and some for literature and 
 some for public speakers." 
 
 Cheves : "How did you manage to enlist the politicians 
 on your side ? Did you offer them money ? " 
 
 Crowell: "Yes; we would go to the leaders, both Repub- 
 licans and Democrats, and say, ' This is not a party fight 
 and you cannot afford to be against us; if you do we will 
 remember you at the next regular election, but if you will 
 help us we will pay you liberally for your support.' 
 
 "Such State leaders as Bill Leeds, Charlie Porter, who 
 is Chairman of the [Philadelphia] City Republican Com- 
 mittee, Cooper and Dave Martin, and others, and a lot of 
 Democratic leaders we paid $500 apiece, and $200 apiece to 
 local leaders, and $5 apiece to men who worked and 
 manned the polls on the day of election. 3 
 
 1 An effort was made by the newspapers and the poli- 
 ticians implicated to discredit the interview, but Mr. 
 Crowell, in a personal letter written to Col. Cheves before 
 the publication of the interview (see the Voice for April 10, 
 1890), made references to particular features of the con- 
 versation that fully substantiated the truthfulness of Col. 
 Cheves 1 s report. 
 
 * Mr. Crowell meant by this statement that $200,000 was 
 raised in the city of Philadelphia alone. In an explicit 
 article in the Philadelphia Press for June 23, 1889 (evi- 
 dently based on authentic information obtained from liquor 
 headquarters), it was shown that Philadelphia's contribu- 
 tion to the anti-Prohibition campaign fund was $200,000. 
 Undenied reports of the amounts raised in other quarters 
 appeared from time to time during the Amendment cam- 
 paign. According to the Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette, 
 $35,000 was subscribed by the brewers of Allegheny County, 
 and according to a Pittsburgh dispatch in the New York 
 Tribune for May 29, 1889 } an additional sum of $25,000 was 
 contributed by the Retail Liquor-Dealers' Association of 
 Allegheny County. A still more striking indication of the 
 thoroughness with which the liquor traffic throughout the 
 State was levied upon was afforded by a Scran ton dispatch 
 to the New York Times in May, 1889 in which the follow- 
 ing was said: "In the little mining town of Archibald, 
 nine miles north of Scranton, there are 13 saloons. Each 
 of these places has been taxed $100 by the Liquor Com- 
 mittee. If $1,300 can be thus raised in that village it is 
 easy to see what an enormous sum will be raised through- 
 out the State. Then come the contributions from the out- 
 side and the effective work done by the National Liquor 
 League." 
 
 In Philadelphia correspondence to the New York 
 Times, May 6, 1889, it was charged that the brewers of New 
 York City had been forced to contribute $100,000 to the 
 Pennsylvania anti-Prohibition campaign fund, and the 
 truth of this charge was practically admitted by Andrew 
 Finck, a prominent New York brewer, in an interview in 
 the Voice for May 9, 1889. 
 
 3 Mr. Martin was openly in charge of the Republican 
 anti-Prohibition work of the campaign in Philadelphia. 
 
 L Did I pay Quay any money ? Yes; for three years he 
 bled us, and our contributions to him came very near beat- 
 ing us at the polls. It was reported that wc contributed 
 money to defeat Cleveland, and the Democrats got hold of 
 it and a plan was on foot to have the Democratic vote cast 
 for the Amendment as a punishment to the Republican 
 brewers of the State, and it would have succeeded if I had 
 not found it out in time and l fixed ' the boys, but it 
 cost us a big pile of money to do so. We had all the , 
 workers on our side, and the machines of both old parties 
 were with us. We paid the County Commissioners of this 
 county [Philadelphia] to let us have the poll-list exclu- 
 sively for our use with the understanding that we were not 
 to return the list until after the election. So the Prohibi- 
 tionists, with no window-books, no money, no organiza- 
 tion, had no show whatever against us.' 1 
 
 Cheves: " Mr. Crowell, how did you manage to get the 
 newspapers pretty much all on your side ? " 
 
 Crowell: "Why, we bought them by paying down so 
 much cash. I visited the editors in person or had some 
 good man to do so, and arranged to pay each paper for its 
 support a certain amount of money. Throughout the 
 State we paid weekly papers from $50 to $500 to publish 
 such matter as we might furnish, either news or editorial, 
 but the city daily papers we had to pay from $1,000 to 
 $4,000, which latter amount was paid to the Times of this 
 city [Philadelphia], Other papers we could not buy 
 straight out, consequently we had to pay from 30 to (ib 
 cents per line for all matier published for us according to 
 the circulation and ability of the paper. We paid the 
 Ledqer 40 cents per line and the JRecorcl we paid GO cents 
 per line, though it did some good work for us for nothing. 
 It was understood with most all of the papers that we 
 would furnish the matter, and so we employed a man to 
 write for us and prepare articles for publication which 
 would be furnished 10 the papers to be printed as news or 
 editorial matter, as we might direct. The most effective 
 matter we could get up in the influencing of votes was, 
 that Prohibition did not prohibit, and the revenue, taxa- 
 tion, and how Prohibition would hurt the farmers. We 
 would have these articles printed in different papers and 
 then buy thousands of copies of the paper and send them 
 to the farmers. If you work the farmers on the tax ques- 
 tion you can catch them every time. 
 
 In a letter, March 8, 1890, to William E. Johnson of Lin- 
 coln, Neb. (who had written to him as a representative 
 Pennsylvania anti-Prohibition leader, for suggestions as to 
 methods that should be used for defeating Constitutional 
 Prohibition in Nebraska), Mr. Martin wrote in the char- 
 acteristic style of a professional whiskey manager. " My 
 advice to you," said Mr. Martin, "would be to see the 
 President of the Liquor-Dealers 1 Association of the United 
 States, as the Association will be able to furnish you docu- 
 ments to be distributed among the farmers and also among 
 the religious people. As far as the politicians are con- 
 cerned I would advise to take one from each party for each 
 voting district, and by no means have any public discus- 
 sion between advocates of Prohibition or anti-Prohibition. 
 It is my opinion that if the liquor-dealers will take up the 
 High License law and show its advantages as a revenue 
 measure by distributing documents signed by fifty or one 
 hundred of the best citizens of each county in the State 
 favoring High License as against Prohibition, the best 
 results will be obtained." Notwithstanding Mr. Martin's 
 offensive participation in the Pennsylvania contest, he was 
 subsequently appointed Collector of Internal Revenue for 
 the Philadelphia district, by President Harrison. 
 
 Mr. Cooper, mentioned by Mr. Crowell as one of the 
 politicians 111 the pay of the liquor-dealers, was Chairman 
 of the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee, and had. 
 been one of the principal leaders who brought about the 
 submission of the Prohibitory Amendment and the passage 
 of the Brooks law. He, too, was appointed to a lucrative 
 office by President Harrison. 
 
 Senator Quay, in the judgment of impartial observers, 
 was responsible,' more than any other politician, for the 
 manipulations whereby the preliminaries for defeating the 
 Amendment were so artfully arranged. From the begin- 
 ning of the movement for submission in Pennsylvania 
 Senator Quay's power was absolute in the Republican 
 party. He controlled the three Republican State Conven- 
 tions that pledged submission. It was known that he 
 watched and directed every phase of legislative action on 
 the Brooks bill. In the Amendment campaign a word 
 from Senator Quay would have compelled Republican 
 friendship, or at least fairness. But the leading Repub- 
 lican politicians especially identified with Senator Quay in 
 the management of the party were active and unscrupulous 
 opponents of Prohibition. 
 
 For particulars of th<: Republican-Democratic combina- 
 tion in Philadelphia against the Amendment, see the 
 Voice for June 20, 1889. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.! 
 
 122 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 "How did I get the names of farmers? Why, I rot 
 the poll-book in each town and hired some man who was 
 well posted to select the names of every farmer and send 
 them to me, and it was here we got, in onr hest work; for 
 with the politicians, the papers and the farmers you can 
 always win. C. C. Turner, Secretary of the liquor-dealers' 
 publishing house at Louisville, will mail you a list of the 
 farmers in Nebraska. He is a bright fellow, and can do 
 you much good in some v/ays ; but don't let him try to 
 manage the newspapers for you." 
 
 Cheves : "How did you manage, Mr. Crowell, to get so 
 many ministers on your side ? " 
 
 Crowell : u Oh, that is the easiest thing out. No, I did 
 not go to the preachers as I did to the politicians, but I 
 always found out a good man in the church who could 
 work the preacher with but little trouble, for half of the 
 preachers are cowards. 1 Then I hired, for so much a ■ 
 name, some old broken-down newspaper man or politician 
 to go around with a petition and get the names of ministers 
 and lawyers, which we published with fine effect. We 
 talked High License all the time. Never try to defend the 
 saloon; if so, you lose the influence of church members 
 and ministers ; but talk about the revenue, cider, taxation, 
 and especially Prohibition don't prohibit, and clamor for 
 High License. I had thousands of badges printed with 
 High License and gave them out to poll-workers on election 
 day and it had fine effect. 
 
 11 Yew, we understood and agreed to the passage of the 
 High License law before the Amendment was submitted, 
 so that we could use it as a means to defeat Prohibition. 
 And it was that and that alone that saved us. With all 
 our money and political backing we could not have defeated 
 the Amendment on any other plea than High License. 1 ' 
 
 Cheves: " Mr. Crowell, has High License, which has re- 
 duced the number of saloons, reduced to any extent the 
 consumption of liquor ? " 
 
 Crowell: "No sir; on the contrary the consumption of 
 liquor has increased. The sale of beer in this city has in- 
 creased 20 per cent, the last year, and gradually increased 
 every year since the adoption of the Brooks law. While 
 the number of licensed saloons has been reduced under 
 High License, unlawful drinking places have increased. 
 At first the officers made an effort to enforce the law, but 
 now it is a farce and no effort upon the part of the authori- 
 ties to suppress illegal sales is being made. Yet I honestly 
 believe High License is the only practical way in dealing 
 with the traffic. I am sure it will help the business, make 
 it more respectable by putting it in the hands of a better 
 class of men. 
 
 " Yes, we had a few speakers, but as a rule they are no 
 good. I think it is throwing money and time away on 
 them, for all who go out to hear our speakers are generally 
 on our side to start with. Yes, we had Kate Field, and. 
 paid her $250 and expenses per day, but she is no good — 
 money wasted. We also had Rev. Sikes and Mr.Tomlinson 
 of Topeka, but they are not worth fooling with. Let the 
 speakers go. Get up good literature of your own, and send 
 it especially to the farmers. Make a plea for High License 
 and the battle is yours— that iB, if you have the papers and 
 politicians with you, and you can get them if you have the 
 money. 
 
 u No, you need not go to Quay. He tries to be on both 
 sides. It was reported during our campaign that he would 
 vote for the Amendment. Our Committee investigated the 
 report. Q,uay denied it and satisfied us that it was false. 
 But all of Quay's strongest personal friends and supporters 
 were with us beyond doubt, and, it was understood, with 
 his approval. It was for that influence we contributed 
 liberally to his support for three years. 
 
 u I never want to go through such another fight. It al- 
 
 1 It must not be imagined that there was any general op- 
 position to the Amendment among clergymen. As in all 
 other States, a large majority of those expressing them- 
 selves favored Prohibition with great enthusiasm. To the 
 hearty co-operation of the clergy the Prohibitionists owed 
 much of the organized and active work that was done. 
 But there were some notable exceptions. The Roman 
 Catholic Archbishop in Philadelphia (Ryan) opposed the 
 Amendment on High License and other conservative 
 grounds, and the Catholic Total Abstinence News (organ of 
 the Roman Catholic total abstinence societies) also opposed 
 it, although earnest support was given by some Catholic 
 pastors and laymen, particularly Martin I. J. Griffin of 
 Philadelphia. Bishop Whi taker (Protestant Episcopal) of 
 Philadelphia was understood to be inclined against Pro- 
 hibition, and various influential clergymen throughout the 
 State, in interviews or otherwise by example, gave encour- 
 agemen' to the anti-Prohibitionists. Very few clergymen, 
 however, engaged actively in the anti-Prohibition work. 
 Several men alleged to be of the cloth made speeches op- 
 posing the Amendment; but in most instances these in- 
 dividuals were of questionable reDutation. 
 
 most killed me. Besides, my business suffered greatly, 
 for I was nearly three years with the burden of the fight on 
 my shoulders, and for it all I was paid only $5,000, and 
 some of the trade kicked about that. 
 
 u When the campaign closed we were in debt $50,000 on 
 account of debts contracted with the newspapers, but the 
 Committee made an appeal and raised the amount and 
 settled all claims." 
 
 Immediately after the appearance of the 
 Crowell interview, particulars of a lawsuit in- 
 stituted in Philadelphia were published, which 
 thoroughly confirmed the main assertions made 
 by the anti-Prohibition manager. Moore & 
 Sinnott, wholesale liquor-dealers of Phila- 
 delphia, sued Harry P. Crowell and the Penn- 
 sylvania State Brewers' Association for the sum 
 of $22,800. In the Amendment campaign 
 Moore <fc Sinnott had advanced $38,000 to the 
 anti-Prohibition fund, ' with the understand- 
 ing that this amount would be repaid — 40 per 
 cent of it by the Liquor-Dealers' League and 
 60 per cent, by the State Brewers' Association. 
 The #38,000 was advanced when the Anti- 
 Prohibition Committee was short of money, and 
 was applied for the following-mentioned pur- 
 poses: $20,000 to the newspapers for " advertis- 
 ing" ; $13,000 "to the window-book men en- 
 gaged to work the polls," and 85,000 as a re- 
 tainer to Lewis C. Cassidy (Democratic poli- 
 tician) " on account of the $20 000 promised 
 him for his work in the campaign." Specifica- 
 tions of the amounts paid to particular news- 
 papers were also made by Moore & Sinnott, as 
 follows : 
 
 May 20, Belaioare County Citizen $500 00 
 
 May 25, Philadelphia Inquirer 1,504 52 
 
 June 7, Catholic Standard 175 00 
 
 June 15, Catholic Standard 150 00 
 
 June 15, Commercial List 187 25 
 
 June 17, Philadelphia Record .. 300 00 
 
 June 17, Evening Bulletin 500 00 
 
 June 17, Philadelphia Inquirer 776 00 
 
 June 17, Evening Star 225 00 
 
 June 20, Philadelphia Ledger (various bills) 145 30 
 
 June 24, Evening Bulletin 250 00 
 
 June 27, North 'American 2,942 20 
 
 June 27, Philadelphia Inquirer 208 10 
 
 June 27, Philadelphia Times 3,516 30 
 
 July 2, Evening Telegraph 4,000 00 
 
 July 2, Eveninq Bulletin 500 CO ' 
 
 July ft, Philadelphia Record 2,182 00 
 
 July 15, Detective services 300 00 
 
 July 15, Extra work for city papers 575 00 
 
 July 15, Schuylkill Navy 280 00 
 
 Total $19,216 67 1 
 
 i This list represents only the Bums paid to Philadelphia 
 and two other newspapers out of the particular contribution 
 provided by Moore & Sinnott— a single liquor firm. It is 
 merely a partial list of sums expended for subsidizing the 
 press. Throughout the State it was the policy of the liquor 
 men to buy the columns of all newspapers that could be 
 induced to print anti-Prohibition matter. The EaBton 
 Daily Express, having printed, during the campaign, an 
 article that created false impressions, a correction was sent 
 to its editor from the office of the New York Voice, and 
 the following letter was received in reply : 
 
 11 The Voice, New York.— The reply to the Philadelphia 
 Record, which you sent us, we will have ' the fairness ' to 
 publish if you will remit or agree to pay 60 cents an inch 
 for it, which is just the rate paid for the article (with a-i 
 advt. mark to it), to which you refer. Business is busi- 
 ness. The Voice is for Prohibition— for revenue, no doubt. 
 We are in business to do business. Yours, 
 
 "The Express. 
 
 "Easton, Pa., May 22, 1889." 
 
 The circumstances thus made clear by testi- 
 mony from anti-Prohibition sources were also 
 d .fined by other indisputable evidence Chair- 
 man Palmer of the State Amendment Commit- 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 123 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 tee, although a Republican in politics, on the 
 night of the Amendment election explained the 
 result by saying: "The defeat of the Prohibi- 
 tion Amendment in Pennsylvania was occa- 
 sioned by the combined villainy of the Repub- 
 lican and Democratic machines, using every 
 practice known to corrupt politics " In an in- 
 terview in the Voice for June 20, 1889, Mr. 
 Palmer used the following graphic language in 
 speaking of the hostility'and unfairness of the 
 press : 
 
 " The newspapers of the State, with few exceptions, 
 have been nothing but common prostitutes. This language, 
 in view of the trutii, is not strong, but calm and gentle. 1 
 do not complain because they have opposed Prohibition 
 but because they have permitted the saloons to use their 
 columns for the most shameful purposes— for systemati- 
 cally deceiving the people. They have printed bogus dis- 
 patches and unhesitatingly used what they knew was bogus 
 matter in a way to mislead even newspaper men. If their 
 editors deny this charge they deliberately write themselves 
 down liars. They have printed articles manufactured 
 right here in Philadelphia under the guise of honest dis- 
 patches from Des Moines, Topeka, Atchison and other 
 places in Prohibition States, giving what pretended to be 
 facts and figures, and asserting the failure of Prohibitory 
 laws and the havoc wrought by them. These ' dispatches ' 
 have been printed in the ordinary way in the news columns, 
 without any marks to distinguish them as paid matter; yet 
 they have been paid for from the rum funds at so much 
 per line, and this disgraceful work has been going on all 
 over the State right along from the beginning of the cam- 
 paign. 
 
 " We have sent to the Prohibition cities and obtained 
 from the highest authorities the most conclusive denials 
 of the statements mad i in the bogus ' dispatches. 1 These 
 denials we have carried to the newspapers that printed the 
 false assertions, hoping that motives of decency and fair- 
 ness would persuade the editors to make corrections. Bat 
 their charge for doing justice was 50 cents a linej with the 
 condition that each correction should appear with an ad- 
 vertising mark. 1 
 
 " We took some of these denials to the Philadelphia 
 Ledger, George W. Childs's paper, and the best that the 
 organ of that great philanthropist would do for us was to 
 print them in the advertising columns under the head, 
 'Political Notices.' On the other hand, the Ledger has 
 
 fiven two columns of the space on its editorial page to matter 
 urnished by the liquor-dealers, which was Inserted in 
 such a way that even a newspaper man would not know 
 that it was not genuine reading matter. 
 " When we had our great meeting in this city, at which 
 
 1 Particulars might be adduced in abundance. We cite 
 a single instance : 
 
 The Voice, during the campaign, sent letters concerning 
 the practical workings of Prohibition to all the County 
 Probate Judges in Kansas. For 87 of the counties replies 
 were received from Probate Judges, for seven counties 
 from other county officials, for two counties from reliable 
 private citizens and for one county from a former Probate 
 Judge— making 97 of the lOfi counties of Kansas from 
 which answers to highly practical questions were returned. 
 The Voice printed all the answers without discrimination, 
 a few of them being more or less unfavorable to Prohibi- 
 tion in certain respects. The county of Comanche was one 
 of the counties from which no reply was received. But 
 Mr. Widaman, the Probate Judge of that county, a man 
 opposed to Prohibition, wrote out unfavorable replies to 
 the questions and had them published in an anti-Prohibi- 
 tion newspaper. Judge Widaman's report concerning Pro- 
 hibition, standing by itself, was from any general point of 
 view wholly insignificant. Comanche was a newly or- 
 ganized county of Kansas, casting less than a thousand 
 votes at the Presidential election of 1888. Moreover it was 
 more than probable, from Judge Widaman's tone, that he 
 was not an unprejudiced observer. Yet the report made 
 for this insignificant county by a manifestly biased man 
 was eagerly reprinted by the intelligent editors in Penn- 
 sylvania as consequential evidence of the failure of Pro- 
 hibition to accomplish its oojects in practice. Meanwhile 
 the remarkable replies produced by the Voice from 97 of 
 the 106 Kansas counties were wholly ignored by the Penn- 
 sylvania newspapers, and it was impossible to induce any 
 influential journal to convey to the public the results of 
 this exceedingly interesting and apposite investigation un- 
 til, just before the election, the Chairman of the State 
 Amendment Committee by paying " advertising " charges 
 had them inserted in the Philadelphia Press. 
 
 L^av^r^TZ ?™ ided , an( i «P"ke, we had to pay the 
 i\fi%, fhf J- T a t , w °- colun "i report, the other papers 
 giving the affair only meagre notices. Had it been an 
 ordinary political meeting ft would have been worth a° 
 least two columns to any paper as a matter of news 
 h„^S' mo ? e 7' was what the newspapers greedily 
 clamored for. I know of one daily paper in this city that 
 
 ' P°ay nstionm aid t8elf '" th<i ^^Sontato for^Mo 
 i ay ns $10,000 and we are yours ; otherw se we so in for 
 
 wi'tn a that a *10 <^ W ° rth " d0 " ara an - d cent8 - Co'ne down 
 
 witn that 810,000, you, or we w e about vour ranse 
 
 print all the dirty slanders that are furnished from C 
 headquarters and play the deuce generally with Prohbi- 
 tion,and you shall have no redress or fairness from ub 
 
 vertisin^ fa?esf Jaf is^TtVis l^oFV^l 
 ml d an de b V y°ns e a?fitu h d e e,V 0ble ** 0f ««» P-Sl^ 
 
 The campaign of the Prohibitionists was 
 begun under unfortunate circumstances There 
 were disagreements between the Republican 
 temperance people and the party Prohibition- 
 ists, but the latter acted with forbearance and 
 made sacrifices. The State Committee was 
 headed by Henry W. Palmer, formerly Attor- 
 ney-treneral of the State. It worked under 
 great disadvantages, less than $5,000 being sub- 
 scribed for its use. Good service was rendered 
 however, by county and local organizations' 
 1 he only very notable meeting arranged by the 
 State Committee was the one held in the Phila 
 delplna Academy of Music, at which Governor 
 Beaver presided. But much vigor and enthu- 
 siasm characterized the agitation in nearlv all 
 parts of the Stale. Valuable assistance was 
 rendered by many of the foremost citizens 
 Especially noteworthy were the friendly utter- 
 ances of T. V. Powderly, national head of the 
 Knights of Labor; Judge John F.White who 
 had become famous throughout Pennsylvania 
 by his rigid interpretation of the Brooks law in 
 Allegheny County; ex-Chief-Justice Daniel 
 A^new, who contributed numerous important 
 newspaper articles, and Postmaster-General 
 John Wanamaker. The Philadelphia Journal 
 of United Labor, national organ of the Knights 
 of Labor, emphatically advocated the Amend- 
 ment. The Prohibition papers of the State led 
 by the Scranton People and Philadelphia 
 Quill, gave intelligent support. 
 The vote by counties was as follows : 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Adams 2,167 3,505 
 
 Allegheny 19,611 45,799 
 
 Armstrong ... 3,760 3,913 
 
 Beaver 4,751 3,221 
 
 Bedford 2,829 3,677 
 
 Berks 3,229 22,438 
 
 Blair 0,322 4,038 
 
 Bradford 6,903 3,498 
 
 Bucks 4,698 9,018 
 
 Butler 5,614 3,191 
 
 Cambria 2,758 4,190 
 
 Cameron 511 373 
 
 Carbon 1,530 3,882 
 
 Centre 4,589 2,654 
 
 Chester 8,415 6,723 
 
 Clarion 3,701 2,241 
 
 Clearfield 5,152 3,570 
 
 Clinton 2,135 2,181 
 
 Columbia 2,607 3,848 
 
 Crawford ... 
 Cumberland 
 
 Dauphin 5,062 8,737 
 
 Delaware.. 
 
 Elk 
 
 Erie 
 
 518 4,014 
 
 " 4,422 
 
 8,737 
 
 4,539 5,595 
 
 826 1,579 
 
 5,163 8,978 
 
 7.154 4,142 
 
 843 414 
 
 Pranklin 3,605 4,914 
 
 Fulton 543 1,142 
 
 Fayette — 
 Forest . 
 
 Counties 
 
 Greene 
 
 Huntingdon..! 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 Juniata 
 
 Lackawanna . . 
 
 Lancaster 
 
 Lawrence . 
 
 Lebanon 
 
 Lehigh [ 
 
 Luzerne 
 
 Lycoming 
 
 McKean 
 
 Mercer 
 
 Mifflin 
 
 Monroe 
 
 Montgomery . . 
 
 Montour 
 
 Northampton.. 
 Northumb'rl'd 
 
 Perry 
 
 Philadelphia .. 
 Pike 
 
 Potter 
 
 Schuylkill... . 
 
 Snyder 
 
 Somerset 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 Susquehanna .. 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Yes. 
 3,143 
 
 3,016 
 4,966 
 4,076 
 1,337 
 
 No. 
 2,831 
 2,391 
 2,067 
 2,452 
 1,431 
 V,»S9 9,896 
 7,290 18,271 
 4,486 1,588 
 1,460 6,752 
 1,779 11,684 
 11,145 14,967 
 4,556 5,681 
 
 3,054 
 fi.R.'iS 
 2,034 
 970 
 4,038 
 1,199 
 
 2,058 
 2,882 
 1,335 
 2,585 
 14,358 
 1,621 
 
 2,986 11,152 
 
 5,062 5,60.1 
 
 1,908 2,214 
 
 26,468118,963 
 
 260 969 
 
 1,575 1,546 
 
 4,180 16,490 
 
 947 2,359 
 
 2,079 3,451 
 
 6C7 961 
 
 4,781 2,305 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 124 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Tioga 4,713 3,637 
 
 Union 1,605 I,4i3 
 
 Venango 5,409 1,908 
 
 Warren 3,532 2,672 
 
 Washington .. 6,762 4,757 
 
 Wayne 2,521 2,770 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Westmoreland 8,292 8,184 
 
 Wyoming 2,259 1,041 
 
 York 6,341 11,407 
 
 Totals 296,617 484,644 
 
 Majority.... 188,027 
 
 Tallib Morgan. 
 
 Rhode Island's Repeal. 
 The movement for the repeal of the Rhode 
 Island Prohibition Amendment was begun 
 immediately after its adoption. It was made a 
 part of the Constitution at the State election 
 held April 7, 1886. The Legislature was to 
 meet at Newport in May, and it was expected 
 that suitable statutory legislation would then 
 be passed. A bill was drawn up by a commit- 
 tee of Prohibitionists and presented in their 
 behalf by Attorney-General Metcalf. The 
 Republicans controlled the Legislature by 30 to 
 7 in the Senate and 64 to 8 in the House. It was 
 not expected that any hostility or unfairness 
 would be encountered, and the State was wholly 
 unprepared for the complications that ensued. 
 The Legislature enacted Mr. Metcalf's bill, 
 adding }o it a provision for a State Constabulary. 
 This change was not seriously objected to by 
 the temperance people, although they had re- 
 frained from asking for the new machinery lest 
 opposition should be aroused on the score of 
 expense. But when, immediately afterward, 
 Gen. Charles R. Brayton. a lobbyist and a man 
 of clouded reputation, supposed to be on inti- 
 mate terms with the liquor element, was made 
 Chief of the Constabulary, it was charged that 
 the law was being used for personal and politi- 
 cal purposes. Yet some Prohibitionists, hoping 
 that Gen. Brayton would prove loyal to his 
 trust, did not join in the demand for his retire- 
 ment. Angry contentions followed, and in the 
 confusion that reigned the merits of the demand 
 for the honest enforcement of the Prohibitory 
 act received comparatively little attention. 
 
 The public officials of the city of Provi- 
 dence, continuing the policy of comparative 
 non-interference with the liquor traffic that they 
 had observed under the license law, made no 
 real effort to enforce Prohibition. Prohibitory 
 law entered a city whose Mayor, Aldermen and 
 even policemen of lowest grade recognized no 
 obligation to enforce any liquor act. whatever 
 its conditions. The city's prosecuting officer 
 was so related to prominent liquor-dealers, both 
 socially and as professional counsel in civil bus- 
 iness, that, while possibly willing to prosecute 
 cases actually forced upon him. he found it easy 
 1o point out to executive officers all risks, how- 
 ever improbable, that they were liable to en- 
 counter. Before the expiration of a single year 
 the name of this prosecutor was appended to a 
 memorial to the Legislature testifying that Pro- 
 hibition was " incapable of enforcement." By 
 every me. ns available to him this very influen- 
 tial law officer did all in his power to discourage 
 loyalty. Attorney-General Metcalf, though 
 honestly desiring to do his duty, was delayed by 
 appeals and exceptions and was unable, during 
 his brief term of office, to obtain convictions. 
 There was at no time an honest trial of Prohi- 
 bition on its merits, except during the admin- 
 
 istration of Attorney-General Horatio Rogers 
 (1888-9); and Mr. Rogers did not have the co- 
 operation of the other officials or the cordial 
 support of his party. Although Gen. Brayton 
 resigned as Chief of State Police in 1887, and 
 was succeeded by Edward F. Curtis (who was 
 a more acceptable man), the new Chief, though 
 better sustained by the Prohibitionists than 
 Brayton had been, struggled against a defective 
 statute which limited his powers and oppor- 
 tunities Throughout the period of Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition in Rhode Island the Pro- 
 hibitionists found themselves balked by the 
 politicians at every step. They refrained 
 from using retaliatory methods; the vote 
 of the Prohibition party at State elections 
 was suffered to decline from 2,585 in 1886 to 
 1.895 in 1887 and 1,326 in 1888; and the 
 partisan managers therefore found in the elec- 
 tion returns no sufficient indication that their 
 surrender to the liquor element would be 
 attended by serious danger. On the other 
 hand, the earnest Republican Prohibitionists 
 endeavored to persuade their party to grant 
 satisfactory amendments to the law, and much 
 work was done by 1hem within party lines, at 
 limes, apparently, with prospects of success ; 
 but the liquor Republicans were able to 
 counteract their influence. The bitter and 
 unscrupulous hostility of the press was another 
 important element. Public opinion in Rhode 
 Island was practically controlled by two power- 
 ful daily newspapers, the Providence Journal 
 and Telegram, which fought the Prohibitory 
 law with extreme rancor. Both the Journal 
 and the Telegram magnified the violations of the 
 law and attributed them to the Prohibition 
 policy rather than to the perfidy of official and 
 political conspirators. Yet it was declared by 
 the chief law officer of the State, Attorney- 
 General Rogers, that Prohibition could have 
 been made a complete success if the authorities 
 had shown any honest disposition to respect 
 their oaths of office. 1 
 
 We summarize briefly the chief developments 
 following the enactment of the statute and pre- 
 ceding the repeal campaign : 
 
 1887. — At the State election in April the Re- 
 publican party lost control of the State Govern- 
 ment for the first time in 30 years Its defeat 
 was due to the public disgust occasioned by con- 
 troversies, and to other complications. Dem- 
 ocratic success did not, however, signify a vic- 
 tory for the cause of enforcement, since the 
 Democratic party was thoroughly committed to 
 the liquor cause. The Democrats retained con- 
 trol until April, 1888 . and during this year the 
 liquor-dealers suffered little or no molestation. 
 
 1888 —The Legislature at its January ses- 
 sion, completed the preparations begun in 1887 
 for submitting to the people a Constitutional 
 Amendment removing the restrictions on the 
 franchise — restrictions against male foreign- 
 born citizens and restrictions establishing a 
 property qualification for voters. At the April 
 election this Amendment (known as the Bourne 
 Amendment) was adopted. At the same elec- 
 tion the Republican party triumphed on a plat- 
 
 i The Voice, June 27, 1889. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 125 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 form containing the following apparently ag- 
 gressive declaration : 
 
 " The people of Rhode Island, acting in their sovereign 
 capacity, have, by a Constitutional majority, added to 
 their fundamental law Article 5, known as the Prohibitory 
 Amendment. The Constitution which at any time exiBts, 
 till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole 
 people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. For the mainte- 
 nance of the integrity of the State and the preservation of 
 good order, we recognize and emphasize that it is the duty 
 of the General Assembly to make all needful laws for giv- 
 ing effectiveness to Constitutional provisions; and it is 
 the imperative duty of all State, municipal and town 
 executive officers faithfully, impartially, persistently and 
 effectively to enforce said laws. To the making and 
 enforcing of such laws we pledge ourselves as a party, 
 and we denounce as hurtful to the best interests of the 
 State all attempts to evade the laws and all compromise 
 with law-breakers.' 1 
 
 This was regarded as a pledge by the Repub- 
 licans to enfoice the law and to strengthen the 
 statute by adding to it the features of the Kan- 
 sas Injunction act ; and the party managers, in 
 consideration of continued support, made 
 promises that were satisfactory to the temper- 
 ance Republican leader, Henry B. Metcalf. 
 The Legislature (Republican by 31 to 6 in the 
 Senate and 61 to 11 in the House) met at New- 
 port in May and refused to act upon the In- 
 junction bill after it had been practically killed 
 in the House (34 yeas to 31 nays) by the addi- 
 tion of an amendment providing for jury trials 
 in all cases where questions of fact should be 
 raised. At this session the bill authorizing the 
 Chief of State Police to employ counsel in seiz- 
 ure casts was defeated, and a resolution for the 
 resubmission of the Prohibitory Amendment 
 was introduced. It was afterwards learned 
 that the Legislature's behavior was due chiefly 
 to the coirupt influences brought to bear by 
 Gen. Brayton, whose services as a lobbyist had 
 been secretly retained by the liquor men. In 
 this year, as before stated, Attorney- General 
 Rogers made his commendable efforts in behalf 
 of enforcement. 
 
 1889.— The Injunction bill, with the damag- 
 ing Amendment added in 1888, came up for 
 final consideration in the Legislature in Jan- 
 uary. Although its virtue was practically de- 
 stroyed, the temperance people thought it was 
 worth fighting for. But it was indefinitely 
 postponed in the House (Feb. 13), the vote 
 standing: Yeas. 46 (39 Republicans and 7 
 "Democrats); nays, 25 (22 Republicans, 2 
 Democrats and 1 Prohibitionist); absent, 1 
 (a Democrat). The Legislature next voted 
 to resubmit the Prohibitory Amendment. 
 In the House the vote stood (March 8) ; 
 Yeas, 41 (35 Republicans and 6 Democrats); 
 nays, 25(21 Republicans, 3 Democrats and 1 
 Prohibitionist); not voting, 6 (5 Republicans 
 and 1 Democrat). The vote on resubmission 
 in the Senate (March 13) was as follows ; Yeas. 
 21 (16 Republicans and 5 Democrats) ; nays, 15 
 (13 Republicans, 1 Prohibitionist and 1 Inde- 
 pendent). At the April election there was an 
 independent movement of Republicans, known 
 as the "Law Enforcement party," which 
 polled 3,597 votes and left the regulars in a 
 minority, although all but one of their candi- 
 dates were afterwards elected by the Legisla- 
 ture. The single Republican whose election was 
 prevented was the courageous Attorney-Gene- 
 eral, Horatio Rogers. Although he was nomi- 
 
 nated by the Republican, Prohibition and 
 Fourth parties, enough Republicans turned 
 against him, at the dictation of the saloon ele- 
 ment, to elect his Democratic opponent. At 
 the next session of the Legislature, in May, the 
 work of resubmission was promptly finished, the 
 final vote standing: in the Senate— yeas, 23 
 (13 Republicans, 9 Democrats and 1 Independ- 
 ent); nays, 11 (10 Republicans and 1 Prohibi- 
 tionist) ; not voting, 4 (3 Republicans and 1 
 Democrat) ; in the House— yeas 56 (20 Repub- 
 licans and 36 Democrats) ; nays, 13 (10 Repub- 
 licans, 2 Prohibitionists and 1 Democrat); not 
 voting. 3 (2 Republicans and 1 Democrat). It 
 was arranged that the popular vote should be 
 taken on June 20, 1889, leaving only 20 days 
 for the campaign. Moreover, Pennsylvania 
 was to vote on a Prohibitory Amendment on 
 June 18, and all the leading Prohibition speak- 
 ers were engaged in that State. The time for 
 the election'was deliberately chosen for the pur- 
 pose of insuring repeal ; it was expected that 
 Pennsylvania would give a heavy anti-Prohibi- 
 tion majority on the 18th, which would be de- 
 moralizing to the Prohibitionists in Rhode Is- 
 land on the 20th. In order to remove all doubt 
 of the rtsult, the Legislature pas ed a special 
 act providing that the new Ballot Reform law, 
 which was to have taken effect on the 1st of 
 June, 1889, should not take effect until the 30th 
 of June; and thus it was arranged that the Pro- 
 hibition election should occur under the old 
 law, a measure that facilitated bribery and 
 frauds. 
 
 In the campaign and at the polls the advan- 
 tage was wholly with the anti-Prohibitionists. 
 It is true intelligent argument and fair discus- 
 sion were not used by the repealers, their 
 appeals were addressed to prejudice, and while 
 their whole case rested on the supposed supe- 
 riority of High License to Prohibition they 
 could offer no evidence in favor of High 
 License. But they had almost exclusive con- 
 trol of the agencies for influencing voters. The 
 two leading political organizations worked for 
 repeal openly. Even the New York Tribune 
 made this admission in its Rhode Island cor 
 respondence, June 21: 
 
 "The reasons for this great Prohibition repulse are 
 many, outside of the merits of the question. The re- 
 pealers were abundantly supplied with money. The 
 money was raised by the Liquor-Dealers' Protective Trade 
 Association. They had the use of the ward workers of 
 both the Democratic and Republican parties." 
 
 The chief newspapers refused to permit the 
 Prohibitionists to present the reasons against 
 repeal in their columns. An application to the 
 Providence Journal for fair treatment drew the 
 following answer: 
 
 " Dear Sir : In reply to your note I would say that the 
 terms for the advertising columns of the Journal and 
 Bvlletin can be obtained at this office, with the condition 
 that the matter be of unobjectionable character. 
 "Yours very truly, 
 
 "Albebt M. Williams, Editor." 
 
 In confidential letters to William E. Johnson 
 of Lincoln. Neb., in 1890, several prominent 
 liquor-sellers of Rhode Island related the 
 secrets of the campaign. Thomas Grimes, a 
 wholesale liquor-dealer of Providence, wrote: 
 
 " The way we handled our campaign here was, we got 
 the Chairman of the Democratic State Central Committee 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 126 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 and the Chairman of the City Committee interested in our 
 behalf, also Gen. C. R. Brayton, the head-pin Republican 
 worker in the State, who is well up in all things pertaining 
 to politics; he took care of the Republican State and City 
 Committees which we paid him $6,000 for hie services; 
 in addition it cost us through the newspapers, pamphlets 
 and circulars, $31,000 to do away with Prohibition in this 
 State. I should recommend you to get the newspapers 
 interested in your behalf; it is the strongest point you can 
 use. 11 
 
 Gen. Brayton himself wrote as follows: 
 
 "William E. Johnson, Dear Sir: I have had experi- 
 ence in opposing Prohibition. I managed the repeal of 
 our State Prohib. Amendment last June. It is too early to 
 commence your campaign as you do not vote until next 
 November. 
 
 u For a fair remuneration I will come to Nebraska in 
 September, organize your campaign aud start you all 
 right. 
 
 " I would like to know before July 1st if I am to come, 
 bo that I may bring with me such documents as we used. — 
 Yours truly, Chas. R. Brayton, Box 150. 
 
 " Providence, R. I., March 13. 1890. 
 
 " I refer you to Hon. Frank Jones of Portsmouth, N. H. ; 
 Mr. Weld, Secretary of Mass. Anti-Prohib. Com., Boston, 
 Mass. ; Mr. James Hanley, Mr. Thomas Grimes and Molter 
 Bros., of Providence, R. I." 
 
 Jesse P. Eddy, a very well-known Providence 
 rumseller, in giving advice to the Nebraska 
 anti-Prohibitionists, based on the experience 
 gained in Rhode Island, wrote; 
 
 "Don't have any joint discussions; don't have any 
 speeches unless you can get minister to meet minister. . . . 
 Have four or five goocT writers, and have their articles 
 published in your papers— if not gratis, pay for them— and 
 send the papers with the articles in to all the voters, far and 
 near. Secure the politicians and wire-pullers to talk 
 against it in every town, dwelling on the expense, in- 
 crease of taxes, kitchen bar-rooms, attic slums and cellar 
 dives, and the increase of drunkenness caused by Prohibi- 
 tion. . . . Hire politicians to talk privately against 
 this measure. The newspaper is your greatest lever. . . Get 
 correspondents from Kansas, Rhode Island, Massachu- 
 setts, Maine (iu fact from every State where it has been 
 tried) to write up its failure. Have this correspondence 
 published in your newspaper (not all in one paper, but 
 from different States in different papers), paying for the 
 publishing of them if required. . . . Of course in pub- 
 lishing these letters, don't give the name of the writer. 
 Use anorn deplume. . . . Hire all the ward and town 
 politicians and workers to work for you." 
 
 The vote by counties stood: 
 
 Repeal of Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Bristol 1,083 353 
 
 Kent 2,146 1,061 
 
 Newport 2,426 744 
 
 Providence 21,327 6,090 
 
 Washington 1,333 1,708 
 
 Totals 28,315 9,956 
 
 Majority 18,359 
 
 Majority in excess of three-fifths 5,352 
 
 South Dakota ' and North Dakota. 
 
 These two States adopted Prohibitory articles 
 as features of their original Constitutions — not 
 as Amendments. They entered the Union fully 
 committed to Prohibition. As in other States, 
 however, the question of Constitutional Prohib- 
 ition was decided in them by separate votes of 
 the people. The triumphs in the two Dakotas, 
 won in the fall of 1889, were the first victories 
 for Constitutional Prohibition since Rhode Is- 
 land was carried in the spring of 1886. Mean- 
 while nine States successively had voted against 
 the policy. 
 
 Although the southern part of Dakota Terri- 
 tory gave a majority for Constitutional Prohib- 
 ition in 1885, the action taken in that year was 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to S. H. Cranmer of Aberdeen, 
 S. D. 
 
 without effect, since Congress refused to pro- 
 vide for the erection of a State Government in 
 any part of Dakota. The Territorial Legislature 
 instead of enacting a Prohibitory statute, passed 
 a JUocal Option and High License law in 1887. 
 Under this measure the majority of the counties 
 voted for local Prohibition, and it was seen that 
 there was a very strong balance of sentiment 
 against license throughout the Territory. On 
 Feb. 22, 1889, Congress passed an Enabling act, . 
 providing for the admission of South Dakota, 
 North Dakota. Washington and Montana as 
 States, each of the proposed States being ve- " 
 quired to frame a Constitution and, on the 1st 
 of October. 1889, to hold an election to ratify 
 its Constitution and elect State officers. The 
 South Dakota Prohibitionists had been active 
 since 1885. The Local Option campaigns had 
 aroused much interest. In March, 1888, the 
 Prohibition party was organized, and at the 
 election in November of that year its candidate 
 for Congress polled 1,336 votes (including 418 
 secured for him in North Dakota) Immediately 
 after the 1888 election the Prohibition party be- 
 gan an active agitation in behalf of Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition. The work was broadened in 
 the spring of 1889, when anon partisan Conven- 
 tion was held at Huron, and a non-partisan Exec- 
 utive Committee was selected, with V. V. Barnes 
 as Chairman. Soon afterwards the South Da- 
 kota Farmers' Alliance, in State Convention, 
 declared emphatically for Constitutional Pro- 
 hibition. The Methodist Episcopal Conference 
 also adopted very radical resolutions, intimating 
 plainly that the Republicans would be held re- 
 sponsible if the movement should fail in South 
 Dakota. The campaign opened early and ex- 
 tended to all the counties, many well-known 
 speakers from other States being employed. 
 In August the South Dakota Republican Con- 
 vention met at Huron, and at the dictation of 
 the farmers inserted the following plank in its 
 platform by a nearly unanimous vote: 
 
 " Recognizing the pernicious influence of the traffic in 
 intoxicating liquors upon every interest of our Common- 
 wealth, we favor national and State Prohibition of such 
 traffic and the adoption of the article of our Constitution 
 relating thereto, and the enactment and enforcement of 
 such laws as the wisdom of the people may enact." 
 
 The Republicans adhered to the spirit of this 
 declaration with reasonable faithfulness. The 
 Democrats pronounced for High License ; but 
 even in the Democratic party Prohibition senti- 
 ment was so strong that a Prohibitory resolu- 
 tion received more than 50 votes in the State 
 Convention. 
 
 The liquor men of South Dakota had a very 
 large fund at their disposal, sent from the East. 
 It was currently reported that in addition to 
 this fund they received $80,000, transferred 
 from Novth Dakota, where it was thought there , 
 was no danger of the adoption of Prohibition. 
 A considerable part of this money was ex- 
 pended in buying the favor or the silence of 
 the press. "High License" was the watch- 
 word of the opposition, and many thousands of 
 silk badges with "High License" printed on 
 them were distributed just before the election 
 by the saloon managers. 
 
 The South Dakota vote by counties was as 
 follows : 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 127 
 
 [Constitutional Prohibition. 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Counties. Yes. No 
 
 Aurora 690 
 
 Beadle 1,623 
 
 Brown 2. 
 
 Brookings 
 
 Brule 
 
 Buffalo 
 Bon Homme 
 
 Butte 
 
 Custer 
 
 Campbell 897 
 
 Clark 1,214 
 
 1,422 
 118 
 773 
 024 
 143 
 342 
 
 Coddington 
 Charles Mix 
 
 Clay 
 
 Day 
 
 Douglass . . 
 
 Duel! 
 
 Davison. . .. 
 Edmons 
 Pall River.. 
 
 Faulk 
 
 Grant 
 
 Hamlin 
 
 Hand 1,141 
 
 Hanson 515 
 
 Hughes 545 
 
 Hutchinson . . . 401 
 
 97 
 575 
 904 
 1,082 
 425 
 502 
 837 
 607 
 301 
 02(i 
 834 
 749 
 
 605 
 1,179 
 1,576 
 714 
 134 
 744 
 1,065 
 154 
 527 
 20X 
 566 
 1,020 
 458 
 569 
 771 
 599 
 418 
 621 
 571 
 33 1 
 459 
 582 
 328 
 077 
 53! I 
 710 
 1,188 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Yes. No. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Hyde 320 
 
 Jerauld ... 598 
 
 Kingbury 1,305 
 
 Lake 
 
 191 
 
 315 
 619 
 
 7m 
 
 Laurence 1,223 2,103 
 
 Lincoln 1,072 
 
 McCook 
 
 McPherson 
 
 Marshall 
 
 Mead 
 
 Miner 
 
 Minnehaha 
 
 Moody 
 
 Pennington 
 
 Potter 
 
 Roberts 
 
 Sanborn . 
 
 655 
 2911 
 857 
 445 
 725 
 !,265 
 910 
 701 
 438 
 267 
 828 
 Spink 1,855 
 
 Sully 
 Turner. . .. 
 Union . . 
 Walworth. 
 Yankton . . . 
 
 842 
 801 
 630 
 355 
 622 
 454 
 !,515 
 426 
 855 
 418 
 129 
 361 
 997 
 279 
 845 1,106 
 817 952 
 433 126 
 767 1,251 
 
 441 
 
 Totals 39,509 33,456 
 
 Majority 6,053 
 
 In North Dakota the victory for Prohibition 
 was a surprise to all. The Prohibitionists had 
 practically admitted that it would be impossible 
 to carry both of the Dakotas, and, believing that 
 conditions were most promising in South Da- 
 kota, they had decided to concentrate there. 
 Local efforts were made in North Dakota by a 
 few devoted persons, but no outside help of 
 importance was received. The Republican 
 party treated the question with more caution 
 than was shown in South Dakota. One of the 
 most notable influences contributing to the suc- 
 cessful result was the support of Prohibition by 
 the Scandinavian element. In some localities 
 settled almost exclusively by Scandinavians, 
 the vote was nearly unanimous for Prohibition. 
 
 The following table shows the North Dakota 
 vote in detail : 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Barnes 
 
 Burleigh 
 
 Benson 
 
 Bettineau 
 
 Billings 
 
 Cass 
 
 Cavalier 
 
 Dickey 
 
 Eddy 
 
 Emmons 
 
 Foster 
 
 Grand Forks . . 
 
 Griggs 
 
 Kidder 
 
 Lamoure 
 
 Logan 
 
 Morton 
 
 McHenry 
 
 McLean 
 
 Mcintosh 
 
 Mercer 
 
 Yes. 
 
 861 
 269 
 292 
 365 
 4 
 
 No. 
 745 
 799 
 212 
 228 
 53 
 
 1,739 2,156 
 439 
 
 966 
 212 
 106 
 148 
 
 537 
 158 
 347 
 186 
 
 ,534 
 
 1,432 
 
 345 
 
 180 
 
 186 
 
 151 
 
 414 
 
 395 
 
 26 
 
 61 
 
 358 
 
 644 
 
 163 
 
 101 
 
 69 
 
 170 
 
 166 
 
 199 
 
 22 
 
 63 
 
 Prohibition 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Nelson 540 276 
 
 Oliver 29 40 
 
 Pembina 1,483 1,137 
 
 Richland 1,011 885 
 
 Pierce 124 70 
 
 Ransom 670 557 
 
 Ramsey 591 
 
 410 
 304 
 394 
 
 Rolette 112 
 
 Stark 171 
 
 Stutsman 509 809 
 
 Steel 444 172 
 
 Sargent 620 577 
 
 Traill 1,117 824 
 
 Towner 148 216 
 
 Walsh 1,760 1,132 
 
 Wells 124 190 
 
 Ward 220 138 
 
 Totals 18,552 17 
 
 Majority 1,159 
 
 Washington. 
 This State came into the Union simultane- 
 ously with the Dakotas. Considerable interest 
 in the Prohibition question had been displayed 
 for some years. In 1886 a Local Option law was 
 passed, under which many counties were car- 
 ried against license. The Prohibition party was 
 organized in 1888, polling 1 137 votes for its 
 candidate for Congress. The "Washington Tem- 
 perance Alliance, Woman's Christian Temper- 
 ance Union and other organizations agitated for 
 the principle of Prohibition. In the Constitu- 
 
 tional Prohibition campaign of 1889 the move- 
 ment was directed by the Temperance Alliance 
 (under the management of Rev. E. B. Sutton). 
 No help of consequence was received from 
 other States. The liquor-dealers made a deter- 
 mined fight. They commanded the co-operation 
 of the Democratic and Republican parties. In 
 King County, tha most populous county of 
 Washington, the Chairman of the Republican 
 Committee had ballots prepared from which the 
 words "For Prohibition" and "For Woman 
 Suffrage" were erased, leaving the words, 
 "Against Prohibition" and '■ Against Woman 
 Suffrage." The farmers did not support Pro- 
 hibition with the usual alacrity. They betrayed 
 considerable susceptibility to Ihe liquor-sellers' 
 tracts, and the influence of the hop-growers 
 (who form an important factor of the agricul- 
 tural population of Washington) was seriously 
 felt. The Scandinavians, as in the Dakotas, ex- 
 hibited a decided preference 1 for Prohibition. 
 The vote on the Prohibitory article stood : 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Adams 
 
 Asotin ... . 
 Chehalis. . . 
 
 Clalam 
 
 Clarke .. . 
 Columbia... 
 Cowlitz.. . . 
 Douglas . . . 
 Franklin. .. 
 Garfield 
 Island. . . . 
 Jefferson . . . 
 
 King 
 
 Kitsap 
 
 Kittitas 
 
 Klickitat .. 
 Lewis .... 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 Mason 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Yes. No. 
 .. 157 
 123 
 517 
 210 
 600 
 484 
 402 
 251 
 
 210 
 147 
 794 
 173 
 1,105 
 745 
 503 
 
 38-1 
 
 >.580 
 284 
 609 
 554 
 802 
 674 
 169 
 
 72 
 446 
 142 
 945 
 
 3,965 
 526 
 
 1,599 
 448 
 
 1,0.36 
 
 1,082 
 329 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. 
 
 Okanogan 99 
 
 Pacific 200 
 
 Pierce 2,110 
 
 San Juan. 
 Skagit 
 
 Skamania 
 
 Snohomish 
 
 Spokane 
 
 Stevens 
 
 Thurston 
 
 Wahhiakum... 
 Walla Walla.. 
 
 Whatcom 
 
 Whitman 
 
 Yakima 
 
 Totals 
 
 154 
 
 499 
 
 31 
 
 464 
 
 1,994 
 184 
 624 
 65 
 788 
 836 
 
 1,822 
 341 
 
 No. 
 
 336 
 
 355 
 
 4,665 
 
 176 
 
 846 
 
 89 
 
 821 
 
 2,827 
 
 406 
 
 962 
 
 308 
 
 1,534 
 
 1,109 
 
 1,878 
 
 589 
 
 . 19,540 31,489 
 Majority 11,943 
 
 Connecticut. ' 
 Connecticut's " Maine law," enacted in 1854, 
 was gradually weakened by amendments, until 
 in 1872 it was repealed by the Republicans. 
 The license and Local Option system that suc- 
 ceeded it was never satisfactory to the temper- 
 ance people, and their discontent was expressed 
 in various ways, but never very effectively until 
 the Prohibition party movement was revived at 
 the election of 1884 and became a menacing 
 force. In 1882 the Republicans proposed a Pro- 
 hibitory Amendment for submission to the peo- 
 ple, only to repudiate it in 1883. The 2,305 
 votes for St. John in 1884 and 4,692 for Forbes 
 in 1886 alarmed the politicians, and the submis- 
 sion plan was again brought forward in 1887, 
 when the House decided to submit by 147 yeas 
 to 41 nays (104 Republicans and 43 Democrats 
 voting in the affirmative and 14 Republicans and 
 27 Democrats in the negative). This action was 
 considered insincere, but when the Legislature 
 of 1889 assembled prominent temperance 
 leaders urged the completion of the work, and 
 petitions signed by 30,000 persons were pre- 
 sented by the Connecticut Temperance Union. 
 Representatives of the liquor traffic appeared 
 before the legislative committee and opposed 
 submission; and on the 17th of April the prop- 
 osition was defeated in the House. But live 
 
 " The editor is indebted to Allen B. Lincoln, editor of 
 the Connecticut Borne. 
 
Constitutional Prohibition.] 
 
 128 
 
 [Consumption of Liquors. 
 
 days later came the news of the rejection of 
 Constitutional Prohibition in Massachusetts by 
 45,00J majority; and the Connecticut political 
 managers felt that it would be safe to permit the 
 people to vote on the question, and the Amend- 
 ment was accordingly submitted. 
 
 The Democratic press and leaders showed no 
 sympathy for the measure but the most influ- 
 ential opposition came from the Republican 
 newspapers and workers. In June tl.ere was a 
 conference of representative Republicans at 
 Hartford, and it was decided that the b^st policy 
 would be to ignore the Amendment during the 
 campaign and to make a general and vigorous 
 attack upon it iust before the election. The 
 liquor men made unscrupulous use of all the 
 methods employed by them in Massachusetts 
 and Pennsylvania. They took care to cultivate 
 the favor of the High License people. In May 
 Edwin B. Grave?, a Democratic editor, started 
 in Hartford an avowed liquor organ called the 
 Connecticut Herald. He not only fought the 
 Amendment, but opposed High License. His 
 injudicious course was disapproved of by the 
 liquor leaders, and in August his paper expired 
 from want of support Much was made of the 
 cider argument; and anti-Prohibition editorials 
 from the Congregatimalist and Christian Union, 
 as well as tracts written and opinions given by 
 various clergymen, were placed in the hands of 
 nearly every voter. 
 
 There was no general organization of Pro- 
 hibitionists effected for conducting the cam- 
 paign. The Prohibition party, "Woman's Chris- 
 tian Temperance Union, Connecticut Temper- 
 ance Unio.i and other forces worked independ- 
 ently of one another, though there was no an- 
 tagonism The Connecticut Temperance Union 
 was ba^ed 0:1 the " non-partisan " idc a, and was 
 understood to have Republican tendencies ; but 
 its Secretary, Rev. Alpheus Winter, though 
 making earnest appeals to the Republican tem- 
 perance eljm.'n', found it impossible to secure 
 efficient co-ope:-ation. United States Senator 
 Orville H Piatt, though known as a professed 
 believer in Prohibition and as the author of 
 Prohibitory bills at Washington, declined to 
 take any part in the canvass or 1o give any en- 
 couragement to the cause. United States Sen- 
 ator Jose >h R. Haw! y. the most prominent 
 Republican of Connecticut, in a letter to his 
 personal org in, the Hartford Oourant, declar d 
 his opposition to the Amendment. All the 27 
 daily pap:rs of the State werj ho tile, and not 
 more than half a dozen of the weeklies sup- 
 ported the agitation with any earnestness, so 
 successful had the liquor managers been in their 
 attempts to buy up the press. Able service was 
 rendered, however, by the Connecticut Some, 
 the State Prohibition organ. 
 
 The vote on the Amendment was as follows : 
 
 Prohibition. 
 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Fairfield 3,810 9,558 
 
 Hartford 4,508 10,673 
 
 L'tchfleld 2,232 3,945 
 
 Middlesex 1,454 2,120 
 
 New Haven.. .. 5,301 14,448 
 
 New London . 2,391 5,2.12 
 
 Prohibition. 
 Counties. Yes. No. 
 
 Tolland 1,020 2,000 
 
 Windham 1,662 1,0:38 
 
 Totals 22,379 49,974 
 
 Majority 27,595 
 
 [For particulars about the work so far done 
 in behalf of National Constitutional Prohibi- 
 
 tion, see the article by Senator Henry W. Blair, 
 National Prohibition. 
 
 Consumption of Liquors. — In esti- 
 mating the annual consumption of liquors 
 in a country an approximation is all that 
 is possible. The total quantity produced, 
 added to the total quantity imported 
 during a given year, less the total quan- 
 tity exported, will not necessarily repre- 
 sent the exact quantity consumed ; for a 
 portion of each year's product and im- 
 portations will. naturally remain as stock 
 in the hands of manufacturers, importers 
 and buyers. But the aggregate year's 
 supply may be assumed to represent the 
 year's demand; and when comparisons 
 for a series of years are to be made, the 
 factor of annual supply may, for the 
 purpose in view, be regarded as coinci- 
 dent with the factor of consumption. 
 
 The consumption of intoxicating 
 liquors in the United States, for beverage 
 purposes, has steadily increased since 
 1840. Not only was the total amount 
 consumed during the year ending June 
 30, 1SS8, more than eleven times the 
 amount consumed in 1840, but the aver- 
 age annual consumption of all kinds of 
 liquors for each individual has increased 
 during the same period from 4.17 gal- 
 lons to 14.30 gallons. The table on the 
 opposite page, from the Quarterly Eeport 
 of the Chief of the United States Bureau 
 of Statistics for the three months ending 
 March 31, 1889, presents in detail the 
 consumption of intoxicating liquors in 
 the United States since 1840. 
 
 These figures show that the quantity 
 of drink consumed per inhabitant has 
 enormously increased during the period 
 covered. The increased consumption of 
 malt liquors is especially noticeable, the 
 average annual per capita consumption 
 having advanced from 1 36 gallon in 
 1840 to 12.48 gallons during the year 
 ending June 30, 1888. The per capita 
 consumption of wine has nearly doubled 
 since 1840, while the aggregate consump- 
 tion shows an increase from 4,873,096 
 gallons in 1840 to 36,335,068 gallons for 
 the year ending June 30, 1888. More 
 than one-third of this increase in the eon- 
 sumption of wine, it will be noted,*has 
 been brought about since 1886, and the 
 increase is confined entirely to the con- 
 sumption of wines of domestic produc- 
 tion. The active efforts made by the 
 California wine men to popularize their 
 
Consumption of Liquors.] 
 
 129 
 
 [Consumption of Liquors. 
 
 £ „ ft a - S 1 
 
 p> 
 
 of Wine and 
 rom the repor 
 8 was taken 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 IE 
 
 o 
 
 | 
 
 ST 
 
 §1 
 
 »XJ 
 
 
 
 '3 
 p 
 
 -J 
 
 rr 
 
 o "3 
 
 p- 
 
 CD — . 
 
 
 1— < 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 O 
 
 pr 
 o 
 
 S 
 
 <d 
 
 * S* ^ " ° 
 
 g» o 2 o -«• 
 2. g 2 ^ & 
 £. a ' P o 
 
 * g. gd B 
 
 p- 2. <5. &3 « 
 
 5 o 5" ""^ £"■ 
 
 CD 
 
 O 
 
 p 
 ■/. 
 
 X 
 Q 
 7. 
 
 g 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 p 
 <" 
 
 p 
 
 «■ 3. ^ 
 
 2". O* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 gw§ 
 
 O g 
 
 
 
 f-l- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 y 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 CD 5 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P 
 
 1. s I 
 
 So g 
 
 2, » m 
 
 ,_i 
 
 a. 
 p 
 
 1— 1 
 
 P 
 
 n 
 
 P 
 
 
 M. O 
 
 01 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 3 
 
 Cf <» 
 
 
 cn 
 
 
 h-l CD 
 
 
 
 4- 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 cc 5* 
 
 •0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 O CO j 
 
 p* & 
 
 P M, 
 
 
 
 1— J 
 
 
 
 c 2 
 
 nq 
 
 nrq 
 
 
 p p. § 
 
 9 y 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 3?3 
 
 en- ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 2. 
 
 
 -t» 
 
 
 OOP 
 
 O CD 
 
 c^ 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 £» 
 
 E 
 
 CD 
 
 s 
 
 
 P 3 H, 
 
 *< p 
 
 0' 
 
 0' 
 
 
 
 p" 03 
 
 
 
 
 ST. " O 
 
 "0 
 - 1 
 
 *E 
 
 
 
 ^3 0" 
 
 1 t 
 
 CD 
 M 
 
 X3 
 
 
 
 
 p^ 
 p 
 
 a 
 P- 
 
 n 
 
 CD 
 
 
 S3 O J- 
 
 B ° 3. 
 SCO 
 
 Mi X? 
 
 to 
 3 S 
 
 •a 
 
 c? 
 
 & 
 p 
 
 p 
 & 
 a* 
 
 Q 
 
 1 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 13 © S 
 
 he 
 
 K 3 
 
 *■" CD O 
 
 s z 3 
 
 Si 
 
 -a 
 
 J» 5 
 
 SI" 
 
 
 p 
 
 C/q 
 
 a- 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 CtS" t? 
 
 n y 
 
 
 
 
 ISP 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ £0 00 
 "3-1 
 c ft ° 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c - sr 
 
 
 
 
 
 ft S. ° 
 
 V\ p 
 
 
 
 
 » 1 i 
 
 • 3 
 
 
 
 
 1 ** 
 
 8 1 
 
 J 1 w 
 
 
 
 
 P* P B) 
 
 
 
 
 
 - ■ r. 
 
 _ ; ... -v-^ggW-^--(--(OOtt5"Oi-f£iOC>CO>-'tDSeo5L 
 
 oi~i«o-QOit.oocncDotiro--!-iaoaJ«icisocooi-S- 
 
 5" ^isp j- 1 00 S a PS*>#-;- L *z>jP p> #- go co ** ee ©S3S 3 
 
 TT. ^j ii *T^ ta-l J-. l'II "Th ,-TT K^ 'O'n J\ *l_i "^f*^s""rv ■^,'^p.^— ."^k— "^^ - 
 
 «-}aooicsicbcii(iOi-iixoio"i- ._ . 
 . i :; -■ 'j x x - 1 7. c •! 4- " ■£ u> o cc 7 -■- — 
 
 Si -j oi *^ *- 4> is -^r (i k Ar "•= Vr It Is bamocc to i-^ S 
 c; o o a ao ©m ^ w o o aD'tii-i'<j oi'' 
 
 *^jfk.*i.jp. 05 GC OT tn Ut rfi. **._fp- Olj<IJO OfflOOsDOi^jv 
 
 ~ cj -^ <t- "-^ co a to^D cn"co"ts >— i "o^ji^&"—j Go'k-'"'K-'"o »i %? 
 oi-or :.-. - ■ - :. : : io -• cc w co " -5 J & ci -.c -c +: ^. 
 *-oopw O' toao k^ o Mpw«c cscocccoai^Dh^-ccg' 
 bilo'cx-i'j- "O — c-. o o>~i-j w^-ico"toa(*^c:'c*3 s 
 
 ■ >-•• <=•- co it, c. oi 4- o b: 3- co & ci % 
 
 ■ OOCODlClOOcSCOiOtO' 
 
 MMOOW-lUn- 
 
 CO CO tO tO tO *0 JO <Z (i ii JO tO tO l-i tO i-K-i >-i h-i !-> 
 OjC»wpWOiiiX»-WMppp7. P^P 1 tO i-'OS Ji-rv 
 Colop CO GtJ 3j 
 
 — _C4-u:- J £OOli-'OODXCO»10000i-iC003 
 ~. ~. /0 en 4- x to to — CO A- CO O CO '-' CO cc — r. — - ' -^ - 
 
 
 39 
 
 P o 
 
 Imported spirits 
 
 entered for 
 
 consumption, 
 
 p«&S 
 
 G.*o 2 3 
 
 ft ? CD B> 
 
 *CJ CD CD 2" 
 
 -12 3 3*° 
 
 P r & CD 3- 
 
 icnotc: 
 /-jo" 
 
 - 4- Cl 
 
 r» u. 4- 
 
 4^- CO 
 
 •—4- _.._... 
 
 cow -} w o! w ~i X co ta w o a. 
 to~-i" 
 
 CD GO a 
 
 C-' c: 
 
 'c co" 
 
 :. ;..: 
 t£> GO 
 
 CO~ j 
 
 CO to 10 tO tO lO to i-' 
 
 OOfflOOWOOMWr. 
 
 riOiC7SH^hJ.tnC04>t0O3CTit>C 
 -tO^OJOj^ 00 COOT h-i too 
 
 ft O O O ot-»"t."GO -icn S 
 C©4-00-}C0 05 0-JO<!. 
 
 to_to_toto_toj- 
 
 Cn CO to O 00 
 
 So to ci h- 5 
 **.J- l .P j-'.J" 
 "to co *- -i as "o "c; o» t 
 
 3 co go O'^'tDQ't-'Ic'tO o"^- 1 1.' 
 
 -■QCM-}Ccco-3*.CMKiC 
 ■>OM»WWi-'--iO«H40- 
 
 -t-1 
 
 S. 4- 
 -[OS 
 
 CstTiC 
 
 -' X 
 to :-- 
 
 4O*-0 
 
 Eg 
 
 -4-COCOCOCOtOtOC 
 
 - i-i 4- i-* o o — u: ; 
 
 ^jt_ 4- -IJCOO +-pDC 
 
 ■* to "cs "^c Is CO lo Ol c 
 ' (i o » io j; i.-' <i -.. 
 5 O pi O pSOT CO +-i - 
 
 -ti-ij-coaicoi— 'Ot 
 
 •- ~. X Cii C X -" ^: - 
 5 wl w> (0 ~i -J ~1 Ol i> 
 
 com 4- c 
 x c; — c 
 
 * Gi O 
 ncsso 
 
 ;pg 
 
 "X V, 
 
 -n-itocnoi-Q t^gooto i-'-ieoa'O' 4-.oooco-> <;■ ^v 
 a w c m ci ii -s X -i -. r. i : x ;-. '- /.jM-i-i^f s 
 -IOOC5 to cojxp; jc p — p co (opfpij— pi__— pijt-jOjUs 
 ^OT^^%^ogo"h- i '4^o J io"'t- b b x'j-'ic/ x"bV« x ? 
 -j 4- ct — ' 4- o 'X o o -^) 4- i-i x 4- ci co co yi co o; en — . 
 co co ^ en co -i co oi o o to ui en yi ^; to co i-i i-i >-• co -> 
 
 ftg^s. 
 
 "° OlS' 
 
 a oS =ft3 
 B "• 9-a 5 
 
 p P P.C0 £-7^ 
 
 & p 5- p i-g 
 
 sea| E 
 
 pj i 
 
 =0 
 
 oooooooooooooopoooooooS. 
 
 jOMuooofflCoQo-icsaiocsa-iQOOTWt- 
 
 scoiiooii-'fr-^aJQf ^ooajoi^MococoNs 
 
 ^ &CD — 
 
 £ « 
 
 
 
 r/5 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 N 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 rn 
 
 o 
 
 
 H 
 
 Si 
 
 
 r- 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 w 
 
 re 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 i> 
 
 W 
 
 
 Si 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 w 
 
 > 
 
 H 
 
 >* 
 
 <l 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 h^ 
 
 > 
 
 O 
 
 14- 
 
 W 
 
 t9 
 
 O 
 
 i> a 
 
 h- 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 <-) 
 
 l-i 
 
 ^ 
 
 > 
 
 r 1 
 
 h^ 
 
 t* 
 
 a 
 
 G3 
 
 O 
 
 a 
 
 (-5 
 
 o 
 
 >'/) 
 
 ^ 
 
 2i 
 
 ►■a 
 
 s> 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 s 
 
 -A 
 
 ^ 
 
 W 
 
 
 l?i 
 
 
 M 
 
 
 M 
 
 M 
 
 
 •Jj 
 
 w 
 
 
 
 
 >■ 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 M 
 
 nn 
 
 Q 
 
 > 
 ►n 
 
 M 
 
 a 
 
 00 
 
 O 
 
 tr 1 
 
 
 id 
 
 o 
 
 t" 1 
 
 
 t-i 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 CO 
 
 -i 
 
 H 
 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 ii 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 C/J 
 
 r-] 
 
 
 t-i 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 ial 
 
 H 
 
 d 
 
 !zi 
 
 M 
 
 H 
 
 W 
 O 
 
Consumption of Liquors.l 
 
 130 
 
 [Consumption of Liquors. 
 
 wares, with the co-operation of the 
 State Government, are no doubt respon- 
 sible for a very large percentage of the 
 increase. 
 
 In the consumption of distilled spirits 
 there has been little change since 1870, 
 though previously to that year there was 
 an apparent average annual per capita 
 consumption of nearly double the pres- 
 ent amount. The apparent decline is 
 not due to any marked discrimination by 
 the drinking public against distilled 
 liquor as a beverage, but to the effects of 
 the heavy Internal Eevenue tax on alco- 
 hol, which by vastly increasing the cost of 
 alcohol has caused many manufactur- 
 ers and others who formerly used the 
 article extensively in their business, to 
 practically abandon it. For the five 
 years 1858-62 inclusive, just before the 
 Internal Eevenue tax became operative, 
 the average price of a gallon of whiskey 
 in the New York market was 24 cents. 
 July 1, 1862, a tax of 20 cents on each 
 gallon of distilled spirits produced was 
 imposed by the Government; and this 
 tax continued in force till March 7, 1864, 
 when the rate was advanced to 60 cents a 
 gallon. July 1, 1864, the tax was raised 
 to 11.50 on every proof gallon of distilled 
 spirits; and again, Jan. 1, 1865, it was 
 advanced to $2 a proof gallon. As a 
 result of this tax the average price of 
 alcohol rose from 541- cents a gallon in 
 1862 to 12464 in 1864 and $4,255 in 
 1865. One effect of the great increase 
 in the price of alcohol was to reduce at 
 once to a minimum the quantity of dis- 
 tilled spirits vised in the mechanic arts. 
 
 A United States Eevenue Commission, 
 appointed in 1865 to revise the whole 
 Internal Eevenue system (David A. Wells, 
 Chairman), made a report in 1866 in 
 which the following interesting explana- 
 tions were made (p. 161) : 
 
 "The first and undoubtedly the largest ele- 
 ment in such reduction [in the amount of alco- 
 hol consumed in the arts, etc.], has been the 
 disuse of alcohol for the preparation of burning 
 fluid, which is commonly prepared by mixing 
 one gallon of rectified spirits of turpentine 
 (camphene) with from four to five gallons of 
 alcohol. . . It would appear by inves- 
 
 tigations made into this subject by the Commis- 
 sion that the amount of alcohol converted into 
 burning fluid by mixing with rectified spirits 
 of turpentine (camphene) and consumed during 
 the year 1860. could not have been less than 
 12,000,000 gallons, which must have necessi- 
 tate. 1 the use of upwards of 19,000.000 gallons 
 of proof spirits. At the South and "West, how- 
 
 ever, large quantities of burning fluid were 
 prepared by mixing the alcohol directly with 
 the crude or commercial spirits of turpentine 
 without subjecting the- latter constituent to rec- 
 tification, which amount being allowed _ for 
 would probably increase the figures above given 
 by one-third, and make the total consumption 
 of alcohol, for the preparation of burning fluid 
 during 1860, 16,000,000 gallons, requiring over 
 25,000.000 gallons of proof spirits. 
 
 '■ Since 186 i the production and consumption 
 of burning fluid in the United States have 
 almost entirely ceased. " 
 
 Thus was destroyed in one branch of 
 business alone, independently of bever- 
 age consumption, an annual market for 
 over 25,000,000 gallons of proof spirits. 
 
 On page 162 of the report the following 
 is said : 
 
 " Another important element in the reduc- 
 tion of the production of distilled spirits in the 
 United States in 1864-5, as compared with the 
 production of 1860, has been the extensive dis- 
 use of alcohol for a multitude of industrial pur- 
 poses other than the manufacture of burning 
 fluid. From 1856 to 1862 the price of alcohol 
 in the New York market ranged from 30 to 60 
 cents per gallon, and this excessive cheapness 
 induced a most extensive use of it in the manu- , 
 facture of varnishes, hat stiffening, furniture 
 polish, perfumery, tinctures, patent medicines, 
 imitation wines, transparent soaps, percussion 
 caps, picture frames, and in dying, cleaning, 
 lacquering, bathing and for fuel. With the 
 increase of the price since July, 1862, to %A and 
 upwards per gallon, the use of alcohol for all 
 the above-named purposes has largely dimin- 
 ished or entirely ceased 
 
 "In some instances entire branches of busi- 
 iness have been destroyed in consequence of 
 the great advance in the price of alcohol. An 
 instance in illustration of this may be mention- 
 ed in the manufacture of an article known as 
 'wallosin,' a good substitute for whalebone 
 
 in umbrellas Another business that 
 
 has been more seriously affected by the increas 
 ed price of alcohol in consequence of the tax is 
 the manufacture of iron utensils — pots, kettles 
 and pans — enameled upon their interior sur 
 
 faces The manufacture of vinegar 
 
 from whiskey has also been largely diminished 
 by reason of the great advance in price of the 
 distilled spirits used. . . . Druggists and 
 pharmaceutists have estimated the reduction in 
 the use of alcohol in their general business as 
 one-third to one-half Manufactur- 
 ers of medical tinctures and proprietary medi- 
 cines almost universally represent to the Com- 
 mission that the domestic demand for their 
 preparations has fallen off in consequence of the 
 high price of alcohol, to the extent in some in- 
 stances of more than two-thirds. . . . The 
 business of manufacturing fluid or solid ex- 
 tracts, or the concentrated medical principle of 
 plants, also suffers greatly by reason of the in- 
 creased cost of alcohol. ... In all 
 branches of the industrial arts where the contin- 
 ued use of distilled spirits is indispensable, and 
 no cheaper substitute can be provided, the 
 
Consumption of Liquors.] 
 
 131 
 
 [Consumption of Liquors. 
 
 utmost economy in its employment is every- 
 where reported." 
 
 Of the consumption of distilled spirits 
 at that time for beverage purposes the 
 Commission declared that " through the 
 absence of all positive data any conclu- 
 sions which may be arrived at must nec- 
 essarily be regarded as only approximate ;" 
 and on page 168 the Commission said : 
 " We are inclined to consider the esti- 
 mate of a gallon and a half per head for 
 the consumption of the United States as 
 somewhat exaggerated." 
 
 In 1869 the average tax per gallon of 
 distilled spirits was reduced from $1.97 
 to $0.54, and in 1870 it was still further 
 reduced to $0.50. Under these reduc- 
 tions the per capita consumption in- 
 creased from 1.61 gallon in 1869 to 2.07 
 gallons in 1870, but in the next year 
 another decrease was witnessed. In 1874 
 the average tax was again raised to $0.65 
 per gallon, and since 1876 it has stood at 
 about the present rate of 90 cents a gal- 
 lon. Prom the facts above given it is 
 safe to assume that the consumption of 
 distilled spirits for beverage purposes has 
 been diminished very little, if any, in 
 the United States during the period cov- 
 ered by the foregoing table, notwithstand- 
 ing the enormous increase in the per 
 capita consumption of wine and malt 
 liquors. 
 
 The report of Hon. John "W. Mason, 
 Commissioner of Internal Kevenue, for 
 the year ending June 30, 1889, shows a 
 still further increase over the preceding 
 years in the consumption of malt liquors 
 and distilled spirits. The following table 
 gives in detail the quantities of liquors, 
 malt and distilled, withdrawn for con- 
 sumption in the United States during the 
 fiscal years 1888 and 1889: 
 
 Articles Taxed. 
 
 Fiscal Year End- 
 ing June 30. 
 
 In- 
 crease. 
 
 De- 
 crease. 
 
 1888. 
 
 1889. 
 
 Spirits distilled 
 from apples, 
 peaches and 
 grapes gall'e 
 
 Spirits distilled 
 from materials 
 other than ap- 
 ples, peaches 
 and grapes, gal's 
 
 Fermented fi q - 
 
 888,107 
 
 70,677,379 
 24,680,204 
 
 1,249,593 
 
 78,915,047 
 25,119,853 
 
 361,486 
 
 5,"237,6e8 
 439,634 
 
 
 THE UNITED KINGDOM. 
 
 The consumption of liquors in Great 
 Britain and Ireland is shown in the fol- 
 lowing table, compiled from the " Sta- 
 
 tistical Abstract for the United King- 
 dom " (1887), and the accounts relating 
 to the trade and navigation of the United 
 
 Kingdom : 
 
 Statement showing the Annual Consumption of Do- 
 mestic and Foreign Distilled Spirits, Wine, Domestic 
 and Foreign Beer, and the Averagl Consumption of 
 each per capita of population, in the United Kingdom, 
 during each year for a series of years: 
 
 
 
 
 00 00 cc GCD 
 00 X GO GOG 
 
 -i ci en tt» £ 
 
 CGOOGGDCGGC'QCrG&QOQCOO 
 ■"OOG0»>05CtiM»K)m 
 
 to to to to to tO tO 
 
 c: © »}_pcjo_Jo — 
 Vies" 
 
 >i~ SO 
 
 pp 
 
 wj- *-* OB CO b* --1 h- MixioV- 
 
 totototococococotototo,-. 
 
 t© O' CO *- © 5 
 i-i i-i £1 -^ CD 3 
 
 SOtCsiM«»W§, 
 -. o.'. :• (i. <;,-( c- rj: 
 
 '*.Ok-ii'_ CO ^ 
 
 «DGO(OtO-IQOOi01©CO©-^lO©i-iQOOQ!; 
 
 tO ©_JO Ui -3 JO CO _© O ©JO^l- © tO N>_> _. ... 
 
 ■o ffl oi x ~ ;; - -.: — ; - c :'-;«r.oc*.. 
 
 OWMM ■GCGOt7t©XC:©©CO-J©COCJi 
 
 COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO*-^if-*-*..COCO~ 
 
 ©_ai © ~*_p -3 4- c-- ocjo .PJ^ >° P^j^i^ "^ 
 '. . 'r, "~ u: © © x 'r, '— '<: x co © © '— 'i ■: i i 5l 
 
 ~ — 00 - CO CO - ■ — - ~ --■(-— CJI © <T. © ft- 
 
 to oi i-i •- 1 K_4- oc -i JX j- 1 cox O'jf-jt-p- iv 5 
 r"lo _- }";»"*© © © go" 
 
 -. j- -.c ^_! x cr- <_0 X ~] > 
 t © to 'GC -i co i-i © u> co to oo ' 
 
 FISCAL 
 YEARS. 
 
 0O©^C7»CO^©i]-*'.UTtO©COt:iCOf->tO 
 
 +. CO CO CO jpi- jt*. 4i- 
 
 '—■"*!.% qcV co to 
 
 fe 3 y to £ ^i ffi 
 
 2 
 
 cc ;; v. ~ go -i © 
 •— © ©p-tj-ijo. 
 
 ©"io cc'iiolip ■ 
 
 ©> -1 CO tO -1 tf- OO • 
 
 MOtDO«3-JOr 
 ^ ifc GO (O — L © ~1 
 © *- CO X 00 ©to : 
 
 ■_t 1;t ;.o CO i— ' i— ' 'GO ■ 
 -3 ** tO GO >->■ tO OI - 
 
 CO JO j-JO J© ~'t £~ . 
 GO-tlo©^o'© © ' 
 
 ■x -> - 1 <~ — ■*- CO ' 
 
 -^ *^ © go y CO a- ■ 
 
 J. © CI (3 iO CO ■ 
 ■i CJi © GO © CO 
 
 .3 
 
 The per capita consumption of distilled 
 spirits and wine in the United Kingdom 
 is slightly less than in the United States, 
 the quantities of distilled spirits per capi- 
 ta being respectively in 1887 0.93 and 0.38 
 gallons in the United Kingdom as against 
 1.18 and 0.54 gallons in the United States. 
 The per capita consumption of beer in 
 the United Kingdom is, however, almost 
 three times as great as in the United 
 States, being for 1887 in the ratio of 32.88 
 
Consumption of Liquors.] 
 
 132 
 
 [Consumption of Liquors. 
 
 to 11.96. Owing to the enormous quan- 
 tity of beer consumed, the total per capita 
 consumption of intoxicating liquors in 
 the United Kingdom is more than double 
 that in the United States, being for the 
 two nations in 1887 33.14 gallons and 
 13.68 gallons. 
 
 FRANCE. 
 
 In France the consumption of wine is 
 almost equal to the consumption of beer 
 in the United Kingdom, while the quan- 
 tity of distilled liquors consumed for each 
 individual does not differ materially from 
 that drank in the United States. 
 
 Statement showing the Annual Production, Impor- 
 tation, Exportation, and Consumption of Distilled 
 Spirits, and the Average Consumption per capita of 
 population, in France, dnring each year from 1870 to 
 1885, inclusive: 
 
 [Prom " Annuaire Statistique de la France," 1888.] 
 
 £33 3? 863 
 
 QXCOCCCJOCOCOCCCOX 
 
 3 -i -vi -q -i -3 -J -i -i -t 
 
 5QO-10SCi>C».COKpp-*0 
 
 so "aa so J- 1 J— ~ J J " J ° r J 3D J- > r I i s i' s i J <? 
 lo^t-.V. i-i "-1 0?"4- bt "f CO V bs Is to b. J: 
 4V "- 1 i,0 -3 CO as CO CO -1 4- 4- -1 ^ -J' sp -l 5 
 
 i— c$4-co^pr x<o;s cop' P;'+-w;i? 
 x o; x CO - 3 - ' —■ J- C' yw^ci.-(i 
 
 C» CJT -3 "S> 4- -J CO OS CO CO CO 4- X -! -3 OS 
 
 OiO-Ji.-lClCSUiCOtSl- 1 '- 
 
 > co pj^ to asjo-i cs O' i 
 
 „.... .. S^^-C!^ao"i» Vbsbo £ 
 
 os4i.toio~'-iuiji.cs t£osa:go-iu' - 
 
 Q0CO-3GO 
 
 >f>. O Or 4^ pi CO 
 
 
 isy3!3i-i -i -i to o«; 
 
 ' - jj '--, J 4- J -^ -3 "to © "ji -> ? 
 .—.*—. ^ .— /-^ p/-, *.i *Tt — i V\ 
 
 ilD Ol (i M O W O 4- C >— 'OO- 
 
 -3 "T -1<! CC W 0?5 -1 M M O *■ « ^ K! Q 
 
 -i^gobwVoico'bw'b-r/i b> x $: 
 
 Oi -"! 4- OS <C — i C< CO CO- /O -3 "-3 -3 tO —* 3 
 
 io cji to^ p w as m co « wod aw s a ?■ 
 
 CS~^ o">-'bsbl~tO"tS b' tobi SS (O -iV- "-S ." 
 ~104-4->-'t0 04--}OiO^->X<-J4-tO 
 as d- sc Sia>cDo:~ctW»-'OiOOiX~lis 
 
 CO X B;1Q StWjOKl^^KKEw ^ 
 
 5** 
 
 O-IG^O^CUOiJ 
 
 ;f::;(Sl ". >-• "-" C£ -i 7. 'jXffltDtDW-/, 
 v ' ■- C-' to O CJ< CO <S SO tO OS -3 ~J i- 1 00 ■ 
 
 M 
 S3 
 
 B 5 
 
 Statement showing the Annual Production, Impok- 
 tation, Exportation, and Consumption of Wine, and 
 the Average Consumption per capita of population, in 
 France, during each year from 1870 to 1886, inclusive. 
 [From "Annuaire Statistique de la France," 1888.] 
 
 -"I 
 
 x a 
 
 X 
 
 cs o 
 - o 
 co = 
 Q0*s; 
 
 cccoaiooox-ia^-'OXB*.aif _ 
 
 O«4-i-'lii-'3C«S:-!~4-W0'0li. 1 
 
 JO J-" CO OS pr JS p" ©~3 CvCSpi ~- j-^ojo o a 
 -3 bo oobVrc.^boV.V/^^bsbr O ?o"jo cs ^3 
 
 i-ii«i.4-OV-''-l-JiMCiMi-'i5 00WO 
 CO CO CO OXCG Xpoj- ' CO^O-JOJOps J-^J- 1 3 
 
 to,oa-"-".cox 
 CO CO 4^ i- 1 O t* tO 4- 
 
 ooisc!oi-'coy 
 
 tO tO W W ^ tO >-•■ _ 
 
 (L2"i-ic5oCC:^M4^— ' i-* muu CO 
 
 CO ~ ■&- -3 os -3 CO -"3 tO X -3 ~1 -1 -3 CO CO CO a 
 
 x '— '-■>'<; bo bo - 3 '- co bs x '-3 "os lobs "os « S: 
 
 - ! x — — ~ ~ ' —■ — — X CO : CO X - > "S CO ~ CO 
 
 4- - > ~. p> x ps j, i — . c ; p. x j— co — p> y- 4- i 
 
 (X V. X O S f ^ b W V4iti M *. C="4- 3 ^ 
 
 M-ixoco-Uo-ioaoi-ac: co lt 
 
 bb"'-''i."3i « O *3 M V" b CO o j *.ctV _ 
 
 ■00 — L'O'/li- 00 - ' X - ' X - ! ~ CO L CS CS ±- Cj> 
 
 co~i_jjic; j- r. c. x c x x a oi odju w w a 
 c-> "Vo ~3 -3 '— cs'to o "x "co ci"cn"jobi'j-;"is £5 
 x ' c -s x — x -or - ■ . co ro - > — x to op so <a 
 
 - ; — CO CO ~ CO — — O XjU CO CO CiOJO i-CJi s 
 
 O CO OS CD cs"*. o*i" 
 
 .._ „o-joo " 
 
 CJI O i- 1 »Ck >P- 01 
 
 -7»CSCSC^C:CSCO*3COCO«5COOOCC'lff\ 
 *-. X U' -3JSj-3piO00^~10Cpi WO-lOt-lo; 
 
 bi -ik-^-'b -i *- xbo'ssb'co"'-' bs cs ~i 5- 
 
 -3 Lt -^ CO — ~ — X 10 l: OC in 'O-IOXmJ 
 O-l CO O C0^j^& WJJ»j;OCOjS0j<l ISjtiJ-'g 
 »wb^bV^Q"bb4>'b''l-0'-!l5 ** 
 r. co — ' — ts co .c ci -> -;-> — 00 ~ — x c ■ 
 1-^ to M OS Ot O CO -3 COS 4- 
 
 oicocsk-i~i(ci~ji- 
 
 OtOOa"i-'Cr.li«~''00-3XW4-M-. 
 ( - • -r xnOML'O CO -S ~ - 3 X ~. - 3 - 3 ~ - . 
 
 to -oo; -or -c y "X c -3 co co po> jo co co p 1 cc ^ 
 
 "^ ^ "^ ^' r -' '^ ?"- ^ t E ^ S ^ C = V- io~" 
 
 bo '-''x "It-bscnbo --»b: '^booobrbobibo -ji..' 5 
 •s -s CO CO — C' - <-, — C- iC - CO \Z c 
 
 i> 
 
 SpSH 
 
 It will be noticed from these tables 
 that the annual per capita consumption 
 of distilled spirits in France seems to be 
 on the increase, while the per capita con- 
 sumption of wines is decreasing. The 
 " Exportation " column is particularly in- 
 teresting. Despite the destructive work 
 of the phylloxera, France exports nearly 
 as much wine now as she did in 1870. 
 The United States imports annually 
 more than $6,000,000 worth of French 
 wines and brandies. Little attempt is 
 made to deny that practically all the 
 wines and spirits intended for export are 
 adulterated. A Paris dispatch to the 
 American newspapers, dated Aug. 28, 
 1890, said : 
 
Consumption of Liquors.] 
 
 133 
 
 [Consumption of Liquors. 
 
 " The French papers are very much exercised 
 over the McKinley bill as well as the Customs 
 Ad ninistrative bill [high tariff measures then 
 pending in the United (States Congress.— Ed.]. 
 La France, commenting on the rumor that the 
 measure is one of retaliation, and that the 
 United States seriously contemplates the pro- 
 hibition of all adulterated French wines, says 
 that as there is scarcely a single bottle of wine 
 produced in France which is not manipulated 
 with plaster of Paris or other extraneous sub- 
 stances, such a measure will exclude all French 
 wines from the market of the States, and warns 
 the French that they had better come to terms 
 with America, since it offers reciprocity." 
 
 GERMANY. 
 
 In Germany beer, again, is the great 
 national drink. 
 
 Statement showing the Annual Production, Impor- 
 tation, Exportation, and Consumption of Distilled 
 Spirits, and the Average Consumption per capita of 
 population, in Germany, during each year from 1870 to 
 1687, inclusive: 
 [From " Statistisches Jahrbuch fur das Deutsche Reich."] 
 
 p^ 
 
 B % 
 
 P (5 
 c ^ 
 
 s| 
 
 c & 
 
 
 K-oc^oo — co^os^c^;:: cjt - 1 ri =i en w z- 
 tO ~f <0 CO iO tO -] -i --3 — J ' OS O' CO VO ;D ^ 
 
 k^SxHski.-.l^-^x^kr 
 
 < i -t— "-Z- 4— -j: V' <: c. o> in w ■>! ~1 M -! O CO ^ 
 
 «. to 
 
 JOJ-'^OKJJ-'J- 1 J-'J-'j-'J^j- 1 ^ 1 - 1 * 
 
 '+»"btt-i"bi"bi ct toli^-*^— os os -'axs'jj: 
 os — © to — o-i ~ os os 4- ■; x _' — <- ~. z 
 
 - ; — -4_ V •_,' OS - > X; O' Orr 7 ( p X ;— X -J- -T. i 
 
 ;e> wt :o oij- 1 © oo ciji- *- © © os os -.mo jr. d" 
 OS +-£OQ © Oi obqi-il; OJ ^ 55 3 5 ?' 5* 
 ssxm to ocjo^x -i — — pijz xv: os © $ 
 x x -'"os'r. '- V- 1 " 1 os(0-('x"i^ '- '?'-' i= ■' 
 Oi J- -"> to v: -i - 1 C ^' ~ ^ - -' i J J" f M 
 
 , .4-. i-mo to "j' "-"'- © ~ os - 1 - 1 os to ?o os J- ~ 
 --l'jso X — x © x x - > - © — © os- x z 
 
 3 i-i 00 OS CJ' -"» tO-l OS-1 O5J0T © J-MO ©> jjn J 
 
 3C»OOTQt$l-^0~2 95'os to — "X V_* <_-V "' 
 
 c ~. x -: '-. x .r <■■ J- t^cjioo-}^© ~ 
 
 o 2 ? 
 
 Statement showing the Annual Production, Impor- 
 tation, Exportation, and Consumption of Beer, and 
 the Average Consumption per capita of population, in 
 Germany, during each year from 1872 to 1887, inclusive: 
 [Prom " Statistisches Jahrbuch fur das Deutsche Reich," 
 1888.] 
 
 m 
 
 OCXOCTOOCaOGOOOQCaDGoao 
 
 
 i_l ^ _ o o OiO 5500000050^ 
 
 O O "-* -I OS OS h-i 00 ?0 tO 4~ 4- tO © co ^ 
 0_Cr©>©CC ■ o: X js v X id _p »1 on jr. ^ 
 cn-i os-l'x^-' ©qo "to -* OiKi os *-"•-' S: 
 
 CI OS ©> ib. 10 4_ Gl 3- -"> -"} GO 4- Q O On 3 
 
 j- 1 cr.caiziiz i^ p~- yj ~' r~- <o ojt Jl oo go i 
 VcoVp'>-'*.0' os'-" ooo'la'ii'io'to 'f 
 
 CJicSOiEOvT/SWaCCOOOCKio 
 ClOCO>-iCOOS4-i-.^i-iCiOTClOBC7t 
 
 OS K>J0_J0^-0__tG JO _J5J0 OS OS OS Wj-'J- t » 
 — . ;; - 1 o ■ — o: x -c . - o: X ■ - > - - 
 
 _— .0 OS OS -- jT. ,-- j^ 0~(-l OSji- OT 0~ 
 
 "3o1o"~jo"^i o'—t'to'^'^ oc: laci"^? 1 
 -~ - ■- ■ — -- -0-> CJi CJi 4- toco O O 
 
 -r, -_- *— y. ,U OS OS -I ->■ 
 
 z ~~ ; 
 
 - .. ppo--opo_ 
 
 ^- y._;ij^-^' -jr.; i__^ -ip 3 -i ;' ci 
 
 ar.-ibx+--tc*i-'b7j'bcjTX os ~f- 
 
 vi !.•—-> — X C-M^XO-lMrj 
 
 — ~. o; -! x m (i O X ti O x a en ^. 
 
 T3 
 
 S".* 
 
 ^9^ 
 
 2^3 
 
 't^ '^ "+. o, ', i "^ b, '^ x "rt- '— <i '-' J ~ "x ^ 
 ~ -z /- ._ s- -^ T- ~ - ' X :c i- o c; — >- 
 
 c; x ,C w- O C 
 
 -^ ~ ^ r r: ~ -^ -^ ~ -z ^ o ^ -.r x ^ 
 
 ~ T ' — -' 7^ ^ '^ ~ '^ 7T ; f ri '- Z 7-' - 
 
 CO -_> X. ~. -> y. 1; x cc -> co j; ^ ^- Oi c 
 ox": 
 
 to so fo {O !0 t2 (O iO to ^o to M (O ?i (I cr- 
 
 J^COCOCOtO(OtO-'COC04-J.*-CO^g 
 
 Thus the per capita consumption of dis- 
 tilled spirits is about the same in Germany 
 as in France and Great Britain, and is 
 slightly less than in the United States. 
 The per capita consumption of beer, 
 which seems to be slightly on the in- 
 crease, is about twice as large as in the 
 United States, and one-fourth less than 
 in the United Kingdom. 
 
 DENMARK AND SWEDEN. 
 
 In Denmark and Sweden the average 
 per capita consumption of distilled spirits 
 is very much larger than in any nation 
 heretofore considered, being for each 
 country, respectively, in 1886, 4.23 and 
 
Consumption of Liquors.] 
 
 134 
 
 [Consumption of Liquors. 
 
 2.47 gallons, although there seems to be 
 a slightly decreasing tendency in Den- 
 mark. 
 
 Statement showing the Annual Production, Impor- 
 tation, Exportation, and Consumption of Distilled 
 Spirits, and the Average Consumption per capita of 
 population, in Denmark and Sweden, during each year 
 for a series of years: 
 
 opaccoK a 
 
 k-i CO CD "- K> Ol 
 
 ta so >■- o n(i if- 
 
 C5 
 
 -. co ; 
 ; — i 
 
 _ CDtOOSQ? 
 ET tO-lCO** 
 
 05&3JD5O OOSCj- 
 V-l Ol iiV tO ^ 
 
 to -i tox ~-o 
 
 -} j- i-iC0- 
 cs 10 CO JO OT - 
 
 MOStOOi- 1 - 
 
 JQ_ M 
 
 OS o» it* eo to 
 
 51 
 
 00 co oo «o jo a 
 
 oa Veo"i* *• £5 
 
 CO OT 4s- O i- 1 "^ 
 
 toosw ^oss 
 
 Voi -1 00 CO ?° 
 
 01 H- 1 4X -J tO 
 
 Ol iO Ol CD tO 
 
 or 01 CO -1 < 
 
 -i cs~to fi 
 
 00 4- tfci 
 
 OS Ol OS 00( 
 
 05 
 
 QOSOSOSOSOCi 
 
 E82S"8| 
 
 CO (SO GO Mj- 1 3 
 "hi m"sD w'-l ? 
 OS i- 1 SO IO Q 
 1-"- j i-'os-S 
 
 iOCO 
 
 — 
 
 ■3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 to to 
 
 "MM 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 4- O CO tO Oi 
 to Oi so to CO 
 
 V 
 
 OiM.Xiiii-* 
 01-2^4- CO "1 Si 
 
 OS OS O' 4- <U ? 
 CS -3 -1 SO 00 
 Ot O- 4- 4- i- 
 
 3^ 
 
 -a o 
 
 CO 4-0 •- 
 
 - 1 SO CO 1 
 - t—* 4- j 
 
 
 Millions op Gallons. 
 
 Alcohol. 
 
 Wine. 
 
 Beer. 
 
 Spirits. 
 
 Equiv. 
 in Alco. 
 
 Galls, per 
 Inhabit'nt. 
 
 1.45 
 
 Austria. .. 
 
 300 
 
 245 
 
 30 
 
 53.0 - ; 
 
 Belgium. . 
 
 4 
 
 170 
 
 10 
 
 11.4 
 
 2.07 
 
 Holland. . 
 
 8 
 
 35 
 
 12 
 
 8.2 
 
 2.05 
 
 Italy . 
 
 480 
 
 SO 
 
 10 
 
 50.2 
 
 1.76 
 
 Portugal.. 
 
 (50 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 7.0 
 
 1.55 
 
 Russia... . 
 
 30 
 
 63 
 
 145 
 
 80.6 
 
 1.05 
 
 Spain — 
 
 220 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 24.0 
 
 1.48 
 
 Of all the civilized nations from which 
 we have detailed official reports as to the 
 consumption of liquors, the Dominion of 
 Canada must be credited as the most tem- 
 perate. The total average per capita con- 
 sumption of all intoxicating liquors in 
 Canada for the year ending June 30, 1888, 
 was but 4.61 gallons, 3.76 gallons being 
 malt liquors. 
 
 Statement showing the Annual Consumption of Do- 
 mestic and Foreign Distilled Spirits, Wine and Malt 
 Liquors, and the Average Consumption per capita of 
 population, in the Dominion of Canada, during each 
 year from 1881 to 1888, inclusive: 
 
 Detailed statistics for the other coun- 
 tries of Europe are not at hand. Mulhall 
 (edition of 1886) gives the following to- 
 tals : 
 
 5050000030x0000 
 
 
 
 Oo— josoift-.coioi-'- 
 
 TEA 
 
 ENDI 
 UNE 
 
 
 CO 2 3 
 
 
 ? © » 
 
 M ii«*. CO CO CO CO ^ 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -i Ol GO M "-* -J X CO ■ 
 
 
 r 
 
 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 -T <^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Oi JX OS 4- O ■*- tO — §" 
 
 "" 4- b-o to "x JJ 
 
 f 
 
 3C'X©"««xdi ; ' 
 
 SI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CD 
 
 CO CO_CO Ol ot_4s-_4s* co (^ 
 
 "tO Cs'co'tO Ol QC"4>"SD ft 
 
 H3 
 
 
 
 O 
 O 
 « 
 CO 
 
 j-i COJt- GO CD JO Oi OS g* 
 
 
 4* co^^o'co'oo ww3 
 
 JkOSi-'OCn-Qt-iCS'Sa 
 OlCO-^COds-OOSQG' 
 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 
 Galls. 
 
 .01 
 1.03 
 1.13 
 
 1.21 
 .78 
 ,84 
 .74 
 
 .8^ 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 i-3 
 
 
 
 
 r„«i 
 
 
 
 
 E* 
 
 S3 
 
 OO 
 
 O OO 'X SO -I Oi CS GO f 
 
 
 
 
 
 Gall 
 
 £ TJ 
 
 
 F" 
 
 
 H'OKKiKlit.COWJi 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 "■" J -!'(i~b- 1 3X' :i 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0* 
 
 > 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 t- 1 
 
 
 
 ,© 
 
 
 
 
 
 cs go co <&>■ 4- -j <-* -1 f 
 
 "S 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 OS CJI CO to CO CO to '^ 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 tO X w X SO Ot SO — ' 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 -,, 
 
 o 
 
 
 -5 "3 
 
 
 
 
 
 <ioi— 'X— -oxco^r- 
 
 OS O OI -1 <0 tO 4- CO . 
 
 
 
 
 
 If 
 = - 
 
 I'm 
 
 
 The following comparative table is from 
 the quarterly report of the United States 
 Bureau of Statistics for the three months 
 ending March 31, 1889: 
 
Oorea.] 
 
 135 
 
 [Corea. 
 
 Comparative summary of the Consumption per capi- 
 ta of Population in the United States, the United 
 Kingdom, Feance, Germany, Denmakk, Sweden and 
 the Dokinion of Canada of Distilled Spirits; and in 
 the United States, the United Kingdom, France and 
 Germany of Wines and Malt Liquors, during each 
 year from 1881 to 1887, inclusive: 
 
 [From original official data.] 
 
 S.3 
 
 $39 
 
 a srsr 
 
 - ~ 1 S 3 
 
 B 2 g L«, 
 
 SO H a r+ r+ 
 
 Erg map. 
 
 W 2J 
 S'g 
 
 o 
 
 5 
 
 
 *r< 
 
 Kg 
 
 «5 
 
 tO t3-C> CO 00 
 
 <D in >-* to o CO g 
 (-. CO *- 10 © -t ?* 
 
 CO to- — • CO O 
 
 
 coco^coo 
 
 <5 
 
 i too 
 -1 *- 
 
 5 
 
 »o? to ift-ic towbipK 
 <i55 »-' to oo en £.>-'■ 52 ?• 
 
 CCCOw to>-» 
 ^ jo J*. "^ 
 
 WCI CD 00 
 
 kH^ 
 
 <& 
 
 £ 
 
 CO GDGC? 5 
 
 («) No data. 
 
 Note. — The years referred to are those specified in the 
 preceding tables. 
 
 C. DeF. Hoxie. 
 
 Corea.— This country, so long called, 
 and most justly, "the Hermit nation," 
 and opened to the world by American 
 diplomacy under Commodore E. H. Shu- 
 feldt, U. S. N., in 1882, is situated be- 
 tween China and Japan. It has an area 
 of 82,000 square miles, and a population 
 of about 12,000,000. The official name 
 of the kingdom is Cho-sen, or Land of 
 Morning Calm. The people are less con- 
 
 servative and stolid than the Chinese, 
 and less enterprising and mercurial than 
 the Japanese, and exhibit a happy me- 
 dium in physique and temperament be- 
 tween the two. Owing to the general 
 prevalence of the meat-eating habit on 
 account of the abundant animal food, 
 and because also of the remarkable ab- 
 sence of tea in a country midway between 
 the greatest tea-producing countries of 
 the globe, the use of alcoholic drinks is 
 general. The pages of Corean history 
 from ancient times are stained with the 
 records of drunkenness and dissipation. 
 A characteristic incident is related of 
 Yasuhiro, an envoy of Japan to Sc oul, 
 the Corean capital, in A. D. 1592, when 
 the veteran noted that the Corean dig- 
 nitaries were prematurely old from dissi- 
 pation instead, of from campaigns and 
 toils. The vocabulary of the language is 
 surprisingly rich in terms relating to the 
 various kinds of intoxicating drinks, cups, 
 measures and degrees of drunkenness. 
 The native liquor, by preference, is a 
 strong spirit made from rice, though the 
 whiskey imported over the border from 
 Manchuria is much in vogue. Eice, mil- 
 let and barley are employed, and both 
 fermented and distilled liquors are pre- 
 pared from these grains. These drinks 
 vary in color, taste, strength and smell. 
 They range from beer to brandy in in- 
 toxicating power. In general they are 
 sufficiently smoky, oily and alcoholic, and 
 little attempt is made except for the 
 costly grades to extract the fusel oil gen- 
 dered in the process of distillation. The 
 Government levies a malt tax on the in- 
 dustry, but makes no attempt to regulate 
 the traffic, except " for revenue only." In 
 case of a failure of crops, as in 1876 and 
 1889, or even during severe shortage, the 
 manufacture and sale of the native bever- 
 age are forbidden in certain sections under 
 sev ,re penalties. It is said that in the 
 city of Ai-chiu or Wiju on the north- 
 western border, there are 1,500 families 
 supported by the traffic in intoxicants. 
 All travelers, their own vocabulary, his- 
 tory and folk-lore agree in charging to 
 the Coreans habits of gluttony and. dissi- 
 pation which are fostered by the general 
 use of liquor. Corea is one of the poor- 
 est countries in the world, though by 
 right and nature it might become one of 
 the richest ; and much of its extreme 
 poverty may be fairly laid to the national 
 
Cornell, John Slack.] 
 
 136 
 
 [Cost of the Drink Traffic. 
 
 passion for alcoholic drink. " Drunken- 
 ness is in great honor in this country," 
 writes Dallet, with whom Ross agrees. 
 " If a man drinks of rice-wine so as to 
 lose his senses, no one considers it a crime. 
 A mandarin, a great dignitary, a minister 
 even, can, without loss of reputation, roll 
 under the table at the end of his dinner. 
 Or he may sleep himself sober, and his 
 assistants, instead of being scandalized at 
 this disgusting spectacle, congratulate 
 bim on being rich enough to be able to 
 procure so great a pleasure." Unfortu- 
 nately, to the native production of intoxi- 
 cants is now added the new danger from 
 the liquor-sellers of Christendom. In the 
 annual trade reports and returns for 1888, 
 issued by the Custom House at Seoul, we 
 find that malt liquors, wines and spirits 
 were imported in 1887 to the amount of 
 $14,014, and in 1888,116,098. One gleam 
 of hope however is in the active prosecu- 
 tion of Christian missionary labors, and 
 the establishment of churches, already 
 two in number. The dissemination of 
 Christian temperance principles along 
 with the planting of tea and the cultiva- 
 tion of taste for non-alcoholic drinks will 
 improve the sad state of things in this 
 country so cursed with official corruption, 
 disease and needless poverty. 
 
 [See " Corea. the Hermit Nation," and 
 "Corea Without and Within." besides the 
 writings of Ross, Dallet, Carles, Lowell, and 
 the letters of missionaries.] 
 
 William Elliott Griffis. 
 
 Cornell, John Black. — Born in Far 
 Rockaway, Long Island, Jan. 7, 1821, 
 and died in New York City, Oct. 26, 
 1887. He was descended from prominent 
 ancestors. One ancestor was a member 
 of the Colonial Legislature of New York 
 (except for two years) from 1739 to 1764; 
 another, the grandfather of John B., was 
 a member of the New York General 
 Assembly for seven years at the close of 
 the last century. The founder of Cornell 
 University, Ezra Cornell, and his son, 
 Gov. Alonzo B. Cornell, are descended 
 from another branch of the same family, 
 as is also ex-President Woolsey of Yale 
 College. When 17 years of age John B. 
 Cornell came to New York City and was 
 apprenticed to his brother George, who 
 was then senior member of an iron firm. 
 In 1847 John and his younger brother 
 William set up in the iron business for 
 themselves, and the new firm soon ac- 
 
 quired the high standing it has since 
 held. Mr. Cornell was active in enter- 
 prises of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 In the year 1872, and again in 1876, he 
 was sent as a lay delegate to the General 
 Conference, and he was a prominent 
 member of important church boards, 
 such as the Board of Managers of the 
 Missionary Society, the General Com- 
 mittee on Missions and the Book Com- 
 mittee. He also held the more import- 
 ant positions of President of the New 
 York City Church Extension and Mis- 
 sionary Society, and President of the 
 Board of Trustees of Drew Seminary. 
 He was an ardent Abolitionist at a time 
 when his views on slavery cost him much 
 of his popularity among his friends, and 
 in later years he was a staunch party 
 Prohibitionist, a most generous contribu- 
 tor to the cause. 
 
 Cost of the Drink Traffic.— The 
 
 expenditures of the people of the United 
 States for the support of the drink traffic 
 fall naturally under two heads : (1) Di- 
 rect expenditures, or the sums paid by 
 consumers for intoxicating liquors, and 
 (2) Indirect expenditures, or those paid 
 by the people on account of the crime, 
 pauperism, drunkenness, disorder, idle- 
 ness, sickness, poverty, taxes, etc., due to 
 the traffic. 
 
 1. DIRECT COST. 
 
 The report of the Commissioner of 
 Internal Revenue for the year ending 
 June 30, 1889, shows that the quantities 
 of domestic liquors withdrawn for con- 
 sumption during that year were : 
 
 Distilled spirits. . 77,164,640 proof gallons. 
 Fermented liquors. . 25,119,853 barrels. 
 
 In computing the cost to the consumer 
 of the domestic distilled spirits used for 
 beverage purposes it is necessary, first, to 
 consider that the 77,164,640 proof gal- 
 lons withdrawn for consumption in 1889 
 included a certain unknown quantity of 
 alcohol used in the arts, manufactures, 
 etc. Although this quantity isunknown,it 
 may safely be estimated at not more than 
 10 per cent, of the total distilled product 
 (see Alcohol), or 7,716,464 gallons. 
 Deducting this sum there remains 69,- 
 448,176 proof gallons of spirits drank by 
 the people in 1889. But the alcoholic 
 strength of a proof gallon in the ware- 
 house (50 per cent.) is largely reduced 
 
Cost of the Drink Traffic] 
 
 137 
 
 [Cost of the Drink Traffic. 
 
 by the time the article reaches the bar- 
 room, by adulteration and by dilution 
 with water. The average retail strength 
 is not in excess of 40 per cent.; and 
 therefore the aggregate volume of bever- 
 age spirits is increased fully one-fifth — 
 that is, the 69,448,176 proof gallons of 
 beverage spirits withdrawn for consump- 
 tion in 1889 became 83,337,811 gallons 
 when ready for sale over the bar. The 
 average retail price of a gallon of spirits 
 to the consumer is, at a low estimate, $6. * 
 Therefore the retail cost' of distilled 
 spirits consumed for beverage purposes 
 in the United States in 1889 is found to 
 have been $500,026,866 on the basis of a 
 
 conservative reckoning 
 
 During the same period the people 
 drank 25,119,853 barrels of domestic 
 beer, as shown by the Internal Revenue 
 returns. A barrel of beer contains 31 
 gallons 2 or 496 half -pints, a half -pint 
 being, approximately, the capacity of an 
 ordinary beer-glass. Each glass (or half- 
 pint) retails for five cents; and the aver- 
 age retail price per barrel, accepting the 
 figures just given, is consequently $24.80. 
 But it must be borne in mind that a con- 
 siderable portion of the beer used, es- 
 pecially among the working classes, is 
 sold by the bucket or "growler," and 
 carried away to be consumed at home or 
 in the shop; and when so sold the price 
 is much lower than by the glass. On the 
 other hand each , glass or bucket of beer 
 contains a large percentage of froth. 
 Taking all the elements into considers 
 tion it seems reasonable to think that $18 
 per barrel is a very low estimate of the 
 average cost of beer to the public ; and if 
 this estimate is accepted the total retail 
 cost of domestic beer in 1889 was $452,- 
 157,354. 
 
 Besides distilled spirits and beer the 
 United States now consumes annually 
 about 30,000,000 gallons of domestic 
 wine. (See Consumption of Liquors.) 
 The average value of this product to the 
 
 1 In order to obtain an expert estimate, the editor sub- 
 mitted the question to Robert A. Greacen, a prominent 
 wholesale liquor-dealer of New York, who said: "A gal- 
 lon of whiskey will make about 80 ordinary -sized drinks, 
 but it is safe to reckon 75 in order that there may be no 
 dispute. Bartenders often reckon 60, to allow for their 
 own treats. 11 A drink of whiskey is seldom sold for less 
 than 10 cents, except in the very lowest dives, where some- 
 times it may be obtained for seven or even Ave cents. On 
 the other hand, saloons of the more pretentious class 
 charge 15 cents per drink, or two drinks for a quarter. It 
 is obvious, therefore, that our estimate of $6 per gallon to 
 the consumer is considerably below the actual average. 
 
 2 Internal Revenue Laws of the United States, Chapter 5, 
 Section 3,339. 
 
 consumer may safely be reckoned at $2 
 per gallon, making a total cost of $60,- 
 000,000 for domestic wines. 
 
 During the year ending June 30, 1889, 
 according to the report of the Chief of 
 the Bureau of Statistics, the imports of 
 liquors and their stated values were as 
 follows : 
 
 Stated 
 
 Quantities. Values. 
 
 Maltliquors 2,524,(181 gals. $1,361,990 
 
 Brandy 400,089 " 1,076,265 
 
 Other distilled spirits 1,137,458 " 851,822 
 
 Champagne and other spark- 
 ling wines 315,870doz. 4,251,413 
 
 stiU **» j 3 g£l^ 9 
 
 Total $10,996,849 
 
 But the values here stated were the val- 
 ues of the liquors before they had left the 
 Custom House. Allowing for the import 
 duties charged upon them, subsequent 
 increase of volume by means of dilution 
 and adulteration, profits made by import- 
 ers, wholesalers and retailers, etc., it is 
 entirely fair to estimate that at least 
 100 per cent, must be added to the 
 stated value before the cost of these im- 
 ported liquors to the public at large can 
 be approximately indicated. That is, the 
 aggregate retail cost of imported liquors 
 in 1889 may be put at $21,993,698. 
 
 Collecting the various items, we have 
 the following summary of the direct cost 
 of the drink traffic to the people of the 
 United States for the year ending June 
 30, 1889: 
 
 Domestic distilled spirits, 83,337,811 gal- 
 lons, at $6 $500,026,866 
 
 Domestic beer, 25,119,853 barrels, at $18. . . 452,157,354 
 
 Domestic wines, 30.000,000 gallons, at $2. . 60,000,000 
 
 Imported liquore of all kinds, $10,996,849, 
 
 to which add 100 per cent 21,993,698 
 
 Total $1,034,177,918 
 
 In this estimate no account is taken of 
 the illicit whiskey of the " moonshine " 
 stills, cider, home-made wines or smuggled 
 liquors. It must also be considered that 
 the calculations made above are conser- 
 vative, inclining to understatement rather 
 than to overstatement. Probably a juster 
 estimate of the total direct cost would be 
 $1,100,000,000. Even this figure is 
 smaller than the one obtained by apply- 
 ing to the official returns for 1889 the 
 methods of calculation used by Har- 
 greaves. On the other hand, certain sta- 
 tisticians have made lower estimates. F. 
 N. Barrett, editor of the American Gro- 
 cer, at the request of the Chief of the 
 Bureau of Statistics in 1887, submitted a 
 
Cost of the Drink Traffic] 
 
 133 
 
 [Cost of the Drink Traffic. 
 
 report on the subject, which was printed 
 in a special report issued by the Bureau. 
 Mr. Barrett, in a letter accompanying his 
 analysis, indicated his anti-Prohibition 
 sentiments by an uncomplimentary allu- 
 sion to '■ fanatical advocates." According 
 to his figures, the annual direct expendi- 
 ture for drink in the United States, on 
 the basis of Government statistics for the 
 year ending June 30, 1886, was $700,- 
 000,000. 1 He estimated the average price 
 of whiskey at 7£ cents per drink, or §4.50 
 per gallon, instead of 10 cents and $6, 
 the figures that we have adopted ; and he 
 reckoned the price of domestic beer to 
 the consumer at 50 cents per gallon, or 
 $15.50 per barrel, instead of $18 per bar- 
 rel, the price that we give. Mr. Edward 
 Atkinson, at about the same time, made 
 an independent calculation, agreeing 
 with Mr. Barrett's conclusion that the 
 direct expenditures for drink at that 
 time aggregated about $700,00.0,000 per 
 annum. This estimate of $700,000,000 
 is the lowest one that has been made in 
 recent years. 
 
 The total direct cost of the drink traf- 
 fic is steadily increasing. Eor the year 
 ending June 30, 1889, the quantity of 
 distilled spirits withdrawn for consump- 
 tion showed an increase of 5,599,154 gal- 
 lons over the quantity withdrawn the 
 previous year — that is, allowing 10 per 
 cent, for spirits used in the arts, etc., and 
 adding one-fifth to the remainder on ac- 
 count of dilution and adulterations, there 
 was an increase of 6,047,086 gallons, in- 
 dicating an increased cost during the 
 year to the public of $36,283,416 for do- 
 mestic distilled spirits alone ; at the same 
 time the domestic beer consumed showed 
 an increase of 439,634 barrels, indicating 
 an increased cost of $7,913,412 on account 
 of domestic beer." Thus in 1889 the di- 
 rect cost of drink to the public (omitting 
 wines and imported liquors of all kinds) 
 was $44,195,828 greater than in 1888. 
 Comparisons with other years show re- 
 sults more or less striking. It is manifest, 
 therefore, that the direct cost of the 
 traffic is increasing at the rate of from 
 $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 per year. 
 
 In speaking of the direct cost we have 
 not here made allowance for the sums 
 paid by liquor-makers and sellers for grain, 
 lin-is and grapes, buildings, machinery 
 
 1 Mr. Barrett's estimates, if made for the year ending 
 June 30, 1889, would show a total direct expenditure for 
 that year of not less than $800,000,000. 
 
 and appliances, labor, etc: It is, of course, 
 understood that the money paid by the 
 people for drink is not all retained by the 
 drink-dealers, but is in part paid by them 
 in turn to persons engaged in various pur- 
 suits. But the magnitude of the profits 
 of the liquor traffic is noi under considera- 
 tion in this article. Even if the aggregate 
 sums paid back by the liquor traffic to 
 the people, or special classes of the people, 
 were large enough to balance precisely the 
 sums paid by the people for liquors, the 
 traffic would not on that account be a 
 contributor to the general welfare. Upon 
 this subject Mr. E. J. Wheeler comments 
 in a logical manner in his book, " Pro- 
 hibition: The Principle, the Policy and 
 the Party." " Suppose," says he, " that 
 $700,000,000 is the sum paid each year for 
 drink in this country. Mot a dollar of 
 this sum, it may be, will be lost to the 
 nation; but the labor and the material 
 used in making and marketing the liquor 
 for which this sum was expended are lost 
 to the nation. The value of that ma- 
 terial and labor is represented by the 
 $700,000,000 after the taxes and license 
 fees are deducted. Suppose, by way of 
 illustration, that this nation withdraws 
 from other forms of industry 500,000 
 men, and sends them to labor for one 
 year in the construction of the Nicaragua 
 canal. Let $700,000,000 be the sum paid 
 them for their labor, their transportation, 
 the cost of machinery, and all their ap- 
 pliances. And suppose, further, that in 
 one way or another every dollar of this 
 sum is by the end of the year returned 
 again to the nation, either in exchange 
 for provisions purchased, or in bank de- 
 posits, or in some other form. The na- 
 tion would not have lost a single dollar 
 of the $700,000,000, but it would have 
 lost the equivalent of that sum., in the 
 necessaries, comforts and luxuries sup- 
 plied to these men. If the work they 
 have in the meantime performed has 
 created a canal whose value is $700,000,- 
 000, the nation has lost nothing but in- 
 terest. If the work has proved valueless, 
 the loss has been $700,000,000 plus the 
 interest. If the work has proved to be 
 positively destructive, the amount of 
 value destroyed must be added to the 
 $700,000,000 to ascertain the full extent 
 of the loss." By similar processes of cal- 
 culation the accounts for and against the 
 liquor-traffic must be made up. 
 
Cost of the Drink Traffic! 
 
 139 
 
 [Cost of the Drink Traffic. 
 
 2. INDIRECT COST. 
 
 It is still more difficult to give exact 
 figures of the indirect cost. The items 
 to be taken into account are so numerous 
 and the statistics are often so unsatisfac- 
 tory that any conclusion which may be 
 suggested must be the result of interpre- 
 tation rather than of direct calculation. 
 In relation to a few of the most import- 
 ant items it is possible to deal with ap- 
 proximate figures. 
 
 1. Pauperism. — Mr. Fred. H. Wines, 
 in the Compendium of the 10th Census 
 (1880) says : " It is almost if not quite im- 
 possible to obtain the statistics of pauper- 
 ism." He reports 67,000 inmates of 
 almshouses in 1880. The average cost 
 of their support would be about $100 a 
 year, making a total of $6,700,000. In 
 the State of New York the official report 
 for 1888 gives the cost of out-door relief 
 as about two-thirds of the cost of main- 
 taining paupers in almshouses. Estimat- 
 ing at this rate for the whole country, we 
 should have $4,466,666 for out-door relief, 
 making $11,166,666 expended in the na- 
 tion on account of pauperism in 1880. 
 On the very reasonable assumption that 
 three-fourths of this was due to intem- 
 perance, we should have a total of 
 $8,374,889 given from public funds for 
 maintaining paupers created by the drink 
 business. There can be no doubt that 
 this estimate is much under the mark. 
 It does not include any part of the sums 
 paid to pensioners of various kinds. Be- 
 sides, the expenditures of charitable 
 organizations, under the direction of 
 churches, societies and private individ- 
 uals, are left out of the account. 
 
 2. Crime. — Similar difficulties are en- 
 countered in estimating the cost of crime. 
 Mr. Wines, in his pamphlet, " Crime, the 
 Convict and the Prison," says: "The 
 problem involves many estimates, some of 
 which are very obscure." Taking the num- 
 ber of inmates of prisons and reformatories 
 as given in the Census of 1880, 70,000, and 
 reckoning the expenditure (including 
 prisons and repairs) at $200 a year per 
 inmate, he estimates the total cost of 
 crime in the United States in 1880 at 
 $15,000,000. To this should be added 
 the cost of arrest and trial, making, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Wines, "$50,000,000 annually 
 raised by taxation to defend the com- 
 munity against the ravages of crime." 
 Judge Noah Davis and many other ex- 
 
 perienced and impartial observers declare 
 that three-fourths of all crime is due to 
 intemperance ; and conservative processes 
 of calculation therefore indicate a total 
 expenditure of $37,500,000 per annum for 
 crime due to drink, — assuming that Mr. 
 Wines has approximated the actual 
 amount in reckoning the entire outlay at 
 $50,000,000. But there is good reason for 
 believing that he has not done so. On 
 pages 546-7 we print figures and deduc- 
 tions indicating that in cities of the 
 United States having an aggregate pop- 
 ulation of about 17,000,000, the expenses 
 of the police department alone, on account 
 of offenses due to drink, are in excess of 
 $26,000,000 annually. 
 
 3. Insanity, etc.— The Census returns 
 show that 168,982 insane and idiotic 
 persons were enumerated in the United 
 States in 1880. The enumeration was 
 far from complete. At $200 each per 
 year (the cost of many exceeding this) 
 the cost of the insane and idiotic to the 
 public would exceed $33,000,000 annually. 
 In view of the great perplexities of the 
 problem we shall charge only one-fourth 
 to the saloon, making $8,250,000. Besides 
 the insane and idiotic there are other 
 " defectives," the deaf, dumb and blind, 
 cripples and the like, and multitudes who 
 stand on the "border lines." Consider- 
 ing the universally recognized fact that 
 the hereditary influence of drink is one 
 of the most prolific causes in the produc- 
 tion of defective persons, the money used 
 in caring for these victims of liquor must 
 reach an appalling total. 
 
 4. Sickness. — Dr. Hargreaves, by what 
 seems a reasonable computation, 1 esti- 
 mates that there are 150,000 persons simul- 
 taneously sick in the United States in con- 
 sequence of intemperance. It is probable 
 that an equal number of temperate 
 persons are made sick through the 
 intemperance of others, especially women 
 and children, who suffer terribly from 
 want of fuel, clothing, food and all 
 the comforts of life because of the 
 drunkenness of husbands and fathers, 
 not to speak of the sufferers from absolute 
 violence and abuse. If this be conceded, 
 and the average cost of medical attend- 
 ance and medicine be placed at the low 
 figure of $1 a day, the total annual cost 
 will be $109,500,000. 
 
 i Worse than Wasted, p. 54. 
 
Cost of the Drink Traffic] 
 
 140 
 
 [Craig, William H. 
 
 QUALIFYING FACTOES. 
 
 In computing the indirect cost it is 
 requisite, however, to allow for any items 
 to the credit of the traffic. The most 
 important item is that of revenue paid by 
 it to Federal, State and local authorities. 
 For the year ending June 30, 1889, the 
 taxes from distilled and fermented liquors 
 collected by the Internal Eevenue De- 
 partment of the Federal Government ag- 
 gregated $98,036,041.59. In the same 
 year the total expenditures of the Inter- 
 nal Revenue Department amounted to 
 $4,185,728.65, of which perhaps one-fourth 
 was paid for collecting the taxes on 
 tobacco, oleomargarine, etc., leaving up- 
 wards of $3,000,000 expended in 1889 for 
 collecting the Federal revenues from 
 liquors. Hence the aggregate annual in- 
 come of the National Government from the 
 drink traffic on account of Internal 
 Eevenue is not in excess of $95,000,000, 
 to which add customs duties from liquors 
 aggregating $7,786,399.87 — making a 
 grand total of about $102,800,000. 
 
 In the same year the total number 
 of dealers in liquors paying Internal 
 Eevenue taxes was 181,783. It is not a 
 fair assumption that all of these dealers 
 were regularly licensed by State and local 
 authorities; and it must be remembered 
 that a great many were druggists, selling 
 liquors for medicinal and similar purposes 
 under merely nominal license fees. It 
 will probably be right to take it for granted 
 that not more than 170,000 of the 181,783 
 persons who paid Internal Revenue taxes 
 were regularly and exclusively engaged in 
 the liquor business under State and local 
 license laws in 1889. About one-third of 
 these dealers were in the distinctively low 
 license States of New York, California, 
 Wisconsin and Maryland, States in which 
 the annual license rate, striking an aver- 
 age, is certainly not in excess of $150. 
 The distinctively High License States, 
 like Massachusetts, Nebraska, Minnesota, 
 Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois and 
 Missouri, contained less than one-third. 
 From these figures it seems proper to con- 
 clude that the average annual, license fee 
 per liquor-dealer paid into State and local 
 treasuries is not more than $250. Esti- 
 mating that there are now in the United 
 States 170,000 persons subject to ordinary 
 license charges, the total revenue of State 
 and local Governments from the traffic 
 is $42,500,000. From this a certain sum 
 
 must be deducted for the cost of collect- 
 ing — say 5 per cent., or $2,125,000; leav- 
 ing a balance of $40,375,000, which added 
 to the Federal revenue gives an aggregate 
 of about $135,000,000 revenue per an- 
 num paid by the drink traffic in the 
 whole of the United States to Federal, 
 State and local authorities. 
 
 In considering whether other items to 
 the credit of the traffic may justly be al- 
 lowed for, it is very difficult to adopt a 
 basis of reasoning that will be acceptable 
 to all persons. It is claimed by pro-liq- 
 our statisticians that the sums paid for 
 labor are to be counted absolutely to the 
 credit of the traffic. On the other hand 
 it is maintained that if the traffic were 
 utterly destroyed the laborers now en- 
 gaged in it would find other employment, 
 while many thousands whose working 
 power is now ruined or impaired by 
 drink would find their wage-earning 
 power improved. The same antagonistic 
 claims are set up by different persons in 
 considering the significance of the ex- 
 penditures made by the traffic for ma- 
 chinery, buildings, material, etc. In the 
 opinion of the opponents of the traffic, 
 these expenditures count for less than 
 nothing when viewed from the standpoint 
 of wise national economy. It is, there- 
 fore, impossible to make allowance for 
 them in this article. 
 
 The estimated revenue ($135,000,000 
 per annum) seems, therefore, to stand as 
 the sole item to the credit of the traffic in 
 reckoning its cost to the people of the 
 United States. Against this revenue is an 
 expenditure, direct and indirect, of prob- 
 ably about $2,000,000,000, annually in- 
 creasing at from $40,000,000 to $50,000,- 
 000. And in estimating the indirect cost 
 we have taken no account whatever of 
 losses from fires due to intemperance, de- 
 preciation of property values, losses due to 
 the stimulation of allied evils like gambling 
 and prostitution, losses resulting from the 
 enforced illiteracy and ignorance of mul- 
 titudes whose ability to strive for better 
 things is destroyed by the saloon, etc , etc. 
 It is manifestly within the bounds of 
 moderation to believe that the money 
 equivalent of these unestimated losses 
 approximates if it does not exceed the 
 entire boasted revenue. 
 
 Craig, William H. — Born in Gait, 
 Canada, Aug. 18, 1849, and died at his 
 home in Kansas City, Mo., April 9, 1890. 
 
Crime.] 
 
 141 
 
 [Crime. 
 
 He came to the United States in 1864, 
 and although but 15 years of age attached 
 himself to the commissary department of 
 the United States Army and served until 
 the end of the Civil War. He purposed 
 studying for the ministry, but his eyes 
 failing him during his course at the North- 
 western University at Evanston, 111., he 
 was obliged to give up the plan, and be- 
 gan his business career as clerk in a Chi- 
 cago house. He was married, September, 
 1877, to Jennie E. Northup of Joliet, 
 111., and in 1878 they removed to Kansas 
 City, where Mr. Craig entered the real 
 estate business and amassed a fortune. 
 He was a prominent member of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. A total 
 abstainer from boyhood, he always advo- 
 cated the principle of the Prohibition of 
 the liquor traffic. Upon joining the 
 Prohibition party he became a recognized 
 leader of it in the West. Soon afterwards 
 he began the publication of the Kansas 
 City Herald, a weekly journal devoted to 
 the interests of the new party and tem- 
 perance reform. This paper never paid 
 expenses, but Mr. Craig continued to is- 
 sue it until 1889, when he disposed of it 
 to local Prohibitionists who afterwards 
 permitted it to expire. Mr. Craig made 
 large donations to the Prohibition work : 
 one year the Woman's Christain Temper- 
 ance Union of Missouri received from 
 him a check for $1,000. As the candi- 
 date of the Prohibition party for State 
 Treasurer of Missouri in 1888 he received 
 4,524 votes. 
 
 Crime — The study of mental pathol- 
 ogy has clearly established the fact that 
 the faculties and propensities of the 
 human mind can be stimulated or de- 
 pressed by purely physical agencies. 
 There are drugs that excite the activity 
 of the imagination, and injuries to certain 
 parts of the cerebral organism tend to 
 weaken the memory; just as other drugs 
 stimulate the functions of the digestive 
 organs, while the laceration of certain 
 nerves or sinews may result in lameness 
 or the loss of sight. The influence of 
 alcohol thus affects the higher faculties of 
 the human brain. It torpifies the moral 
 instincts and weakens the faculty of log- 
 ical inference, while at the same time it 
 stimulates the propensity of combative- 
 ness. Animals fuddled with alcoholic 
 drugs become ill-tempered and aggress- 
 
 ive —often to the degree of attacking their 
 own keepers. By a half-ounce dose of 
 strong rye-brandy Dr. Hermann Gessner 
 of Munich excited a usually gentle deer- 
 hound to a pitch of fury which came near 
 endangering the life of the experimenter. 
 " The greater part of the exciting influ- 
 ence of alcohol," says Prof. Otto of Up- 
 sala, is directed toward the posterior and 
 inferior portions of the brain ; in other 
 words, it excites chiefly the organs of the 
 animal propensities, and according to 
 the law that whatever stimulates strongly 
 one class of cerebral organs weakens an- 
 other class, alcohol, while it adds vigor to 
 the animal propensities, enfeebles the 
 intellectual faculties and the moral sen- 
 timents." 
 
 The history of crime has invariably 
 confirmed that conclusion. "The places 
 of judicature I have long held in this 
 Kingdom," says Sir Matthew Hale, 
 Chief-Justice of England, " have given 
 me an opportunity to observe the original 
 cause of most of the enormities that have 
 been committed for the space of nearly 
 20 years; and by due observation I have 
 found that if the murders and man- 
 slaughters, the burglaries and robberies, 
 the riots and tumults, the adulteries, for- 
 nications, rapes and other outrages that 
 have happened in that time were divided 
 into five parts, four of them have been 
 the issues and products of excessive 
 drinking." 
 
 Just 200 years later an independent 
 observer of our own country arrived at 
 almost exactly the same conclusion. Dr. 
 Elisha Harris of New York, in a mon- 
 ograph on the subjective causes of crime, 
 published in 1873, says : " As a physician 
 familiar with the morbid consequences of 
 alcoholic indulgence in thousands of suf- 
 ferers from it, as a student of physiology 
 interested in the remarkable phenomena 
 of inebriation, and as a close observer of 
 social and moral tendencies, it was easy 
 for the writer to believe that not less than 
 one-half of all crime and pauperism in 
 this State depends upon alcoholic ine- 
 briety. But after two years of careful 
 inquiry into the history and condition of 
 the criminal population, he finds that his 
 conclusion is inevitable that, taken in 
 all its relations, alcoholic drinks may 
 justly be charged with far more than 
 half of the crimes that are brought to 
 conviction in the State of New York, 
 
Crime.] 
 
 142 
 
 [Crime*. 
 
 and that fully 85 per cent, of all con- 
 victs give evidence of having in some 
 larger degree been prepared or enticed 
 to do criminal acts because of the phys- 
 ical and distracting effects produced upon 
 the human organism by alcohol." 
 
 Prison officials of every civilized coun- 
 try have confirmed that verdict. "By 
 far the most fruitful single cause of 
 crime is the temptation of the public tav- 
 ern," says prison chaplain Eberts of 
 Brunswick, Germany, " and though pov- 
 erty or revenge may in many cases prove 
 to have been the proximate cause of law- 
 less acts, intemperance and the conse- 
 quent habits of shiftlessness would in 
 nine out of ten cases be found to have 
 developed the original bias of the moral 
 disposition that lured trespassers from 
 the path of rectitude." " I have heard 
 more than 15,000 prisoners declare that 
 the enticements of the ale and beer- 
 houses had been their ruin," says the 
 Eev. Mr. Clay, Chaplain of the Preston 
 (England) House of Correction, " and if 
 every prisoner's habits and history were 
 fully inquired into it would be placed 
 beyond a doubt that nine-tenths of the 
 English crime requiring to be dealt with 
 by the law arises from an English sin 
 which the same law scarcely discourages." 
 " The alleged vindictiveness of the Latin 
 races," says Prison Inspector Longinotti 
 of Naples, " is rarely noticed in rural 
 districts where the poverty of the peas- 
 ants or other causes have made temper- 
 ance an involuntary virtue. In the cities 
 brawls and vendettas are children of the 
 same fiend that has proved a fruitful 
 parent of idleness and unchastity. In- 
 temperance, aided perhaps by the social 
 temptations of city life, is the chief cause 
 of crime." " On examining the reports 
 of the Prison Inspectors for the Provinces 
 of Quebec and Ontario," says a report to 
 the Dominion House of Commons, "your 
 Committee further find that out of 28,289 
 commitments to the jails for the three 
 previous years, 21,236 were committed 
 either for drunkenness or for crimes per- 
 petrated under the influence of strong 
 drink." 
 
 In summing up the prevalent causes 
 of crime we shall find that intemperance 
 must, in every case, be regarded either 
 as a direct or indirect factor of the con- 
 ditions favoring the development of a 
 vicious disposition. 
 
 1. Drunkenness excites the instinct of 
 destructiveness and thus becomes a direct 
 cause of violence, and often of wholly un- 
 provoked assaults. 
 
 2. Inebriety clouds the perceptive fac- 
 ulties and thus disqualifies its victims for 
 judging the consequences of their acts or 
 realizing the force of dissuasive argu- 
 ments. 
 
 3. Habitual intemperance weakens the 
 influence of self-respect and eventually 
 almost deadens the sense of shame. 
 
 4. Intemperance tempts to idleness — 
 the parent of vice. 
 
 5. Intemperance is a chief cause of 
 poverty, and thus indirectly of the crimes 
 prompted by hunger and distress. 
 
 6. Alcohol tends to beget a disincli- 
 nation to intellectual employments, and 
 thus neutralizes a chief agency of reform. 
 
 7. Intemperance begets a hereditary 
 disposition to idleness and vice. The 
 lineage of the notorious Jukes family 
 has been traced to a man who is de- 
 scribed as a hunter, sometimes a vagrant 
 and always a hard drinker, and seven- 
 eights of whose descendants were either 
 paupers or habitual criminals. In the 
 thirtieth aunual report of the Executive 
 Committee of the Prison Association of 
 New York we find the detailed premises 
 of an estimate that the total loss to soci- 
 ety by the crime and the shiftlessness of 
 that family amounted in 75 years to nearly 
 a million dollars. With rare exceptions 
 the female descendants of that genera- 
 tion of dram-drinkers were almshouse 
 pensioners or harlots. The males, with 
 still rarer exceptions, were thieves, va- 
 grants or paupers. 
 
 It has often been urged by the apolo- 
 gists of the drink habit that a good deal 
 of the mischief charged to the influence 
 of alcohol is an unavoidable conse- 
 quence of ignorance and poverty; but 
 aside from the fact that drunkenness is a 
 chief cause of illiteracy and pauperism, 
 it is a suggestive circumstance, confirmed 
 by the testimony of many competent ob- 
 servers, that "want and distress, uncom- 
 bined with dissolute habits, are rarely 
 productive of crime." Thus in temperate 
 Hindustan, a famine threatening the very 
 existence of eleven million human 
 beings resulted in nothing more criminal 
 than an increase of vagrancy. The fearful 
 distress of the Silesian weavers in 185C-8 
 led to an increase in the frequency of 
 
Crusade.] 
 
 143 
 
 [Crusade. 
 
 petty thefts (pilfering of field produce 
 by starving children), but to not a single 
 act of violence, riot or armed robbery. 
 Whole families, on the point of death by 
 actual starvation, remained in their houses, 
 quietly awaiting the action of the relief 
 committee, and, restrained by life-long 
 habits of frugality and self-denial, declined 
 to resort to acts of lawless vengeance 
 even when the insolvency of their em- 
 ployers was clearly proved to have been 
 a fiction of fraud. The history of our 
 Labor reforms abounds with similar in- 
 stances of self-denial under extreme prov- 
 ocations to lawlessness, wherever the 
 counsels of moderation were seconded by 
 habits of sobriety; while, on the other 
 hand, even the rigor of military disci- 
 pline has not always been able to prevent 
 a pandemonium of crime when alcohol 
 added its fuel to the fire of violent pas- 
 sion. The Austrian General Tilley ex- 
 plained the monstrous outrages commit- 
 ted during the sack of Magdeburg by the 
 frank admission that he had lost the reins 
 of discipline. " They got wine enough 
 to make four-fifths of them drunk," he 
 said, "and all the protests of my officers 
 were unavailing against the rage of an 
 uncontrollable plurality." Similar scenes 
 followed the defeat of the Kussian army 
 in the defiles of Zorndorf. "The van- 
 quished infantry," says Carlyle (" His- 
 tory of Frederick the Great," vol. 5, p. 
 368), " broke open the sutler's brandy 
 casks, and in a few minutes got roaring 
 drunk. Their officers, desperate, split 
 the brandy-casks. Soldiers get down to 
 drink it from the puddles, furiously 
 remonstrate with the officers, and kill 
 a good many of them — a frightful blood- 
 bath and brandy-bath and chief nucleus 
 of chaos then extant above ground." 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 [For particulars of the prevalence of crime 
 under different systems of liquor legislation, see 
 High License, Prohibition, Benefits of, 
 and the Index.] 
 
 Crusade. — The "Woman's Crusade was 
 certaiuly one of the most striking move- 
 ments of the latter half of the 19th Cen- 
 tury. It was without precedent in the 
 history of crusades in that it was con- 
 ducted by women alone. It was without 
 precedent in its high and noble purpose, 
 and in its immediate and far-reaching re- 
 sults. First inaugurated in Ohio during 
 
 December, 1873, it was preceded by some 
 marked and unusual events in that State. 
 In the winter of 1872, at Springfield, 0., 
 two saloon-keepers were tried under the 
 Adair law, which in 1870 had been so 
 amended that the wife or mother of the 
 drunkard could bring suit for damages in 
 her own name against the liquor-seller. 
 In both these suits Mrs. E. D. Stewart 
 (" Mother Stewart "), who became a fore- 
 most leader in the Crusade, appeared as 
 advocate for the drunkard's wife.. The 
 trial was by jury in the Justice's Court, 
 and Attorney G. C. Rawlins for the prose- 
 cution insisted on Mother Stewart's plead- 
 ing the cause of those much-wronged 
 women. She made an able plea and won 
 both suits. During the same year she 
 went on Sunday, disguised in a long gos- 
 samer and sun-bonnet, to a saloon near 
 her church and bought a glass of liquor 
 which she took home with her. This 
 evidence of violated law caused the clos- 
 ing of the saloon. She tried to persuade 
 the Springfield women to open a crusade 
 against the saloons, but they were too 
 timid. 
 
 Dr. Dio Lewis spoke in Fredonia, N. 
 Y., Dec. 14, 1873. He told the story of 
 his mother and her friends praying for 
 the liquor-dealer who was destroying 
 their homes. He incited the women to 
 form a society for the purpose of visita- 
 tion to the saloons. Mrs. Judge Barker 
 was chosen President and leader. An 
 appeal to the liquor-dealers was drawn up, 
 and saloons were visited by 100 women, 
 but the work was soon abandoned and the 
 saloons were not closed. A similar effort 
 was made in Jamestown, M". Y., Dec. 17, 
 1873. A band of 62 women visited sa- 
 loons, but their closing was not effected. 
 It was but a few days after these efforts 
 in Fredonia and Jamestown that the 
 whole country was thrilled by reports of 
 the uprising of women in Hillsboro and 
 Washington C. H., Ohio. 
 
 On the 23d of December, 1873, Dio 
 Lewis spoke in Hillsboro. He declared 
 that the dram-shops could be closed if 
 only the women had energy, persistence 
 and a true Christian spirit. A motion to 
 put the new idea into execution was car- 
 ried by a rising vote. In a very short 
 time the names of 75 ladies of standing 
 and influence were enrolled. A commit- 
 tee of three was appointed to write an ap- 
 peal. The Chairman of this committee 
 
Crusade. J 
 
 144 
 
 [Crusade. 
 
 was the wife of Judge Thompson and 
 daughter of an ex-Governor of the State 
 of Ohio, Mrs. Eliza J. Thompson, who 
 became the leader and mother of the Cru- 
 sade. She was not present at the lecture, 
 but her young son was, and he went home 
 full of the strange doings that were to be 
 inaugurated. He told of the meeting ap- 
 pointed for the next morning in the 
 Presbyterian Church, and urged his 
 mother to go. The young daughter also 
 brought her Bible opened at the 14(jth 
 Psalm, saying, "I believe it is for you." 
 Mrs. Thompson read, and new meanings 
 flashed through her soul. She no longer 
 hesitated, but went at once to the church, 
 where a goodly audience was already as- 
 sembled. She was unanimously chosen 
 leader, and opening the Bible she read the 
 146th Psalm, which has ever since been 
 called the " Crusade Psalm." By request 
 Mrs. Gen. McDowell led in prayer, and al- 
 though she had never before heard her 
 own voice in public, she spoke with 
 " tongue of fire " and the audience melted 
 in tears. Mrs. Cowden, wife of the 
 Methodist minister, started the hymn, 
 
 '* Give to the wind thy fears, 
 
 Hope, and be undismayed; 
 God hears thy sighs and counts thy tears: 
 
 He will lift up thy head." 
 
 While thus singing, Mrs. Thompson 
 said : " Let us form in line, two by two, 
 the small women in front, the tall ones in 
 the rear, and let us proceed on our sacred 
 mission, trusting alone in the God of 
 Jacob." Seventy-five women fell into 
 line, while more than that number re- 
 mained to pray in the church. The band 
 called at three drug-stores whose propri- 
 etors signed a pledge binding themselves 
 to sell liquor only on physicians' pre- 
 scriptions. One druggist, Dr. Dunn, re- 
 fused to sign the pledge offered, and fi- 
 nally brought suit against the ladies for 
 " trespassing and obstructing his busi- 
 ness." They visited hotels and saloons 
 until the " number of drinking-places 
 was reduced from 13 to one drug-store, 
 one tavern and two saloons that sold 
 most cautiously." Morning prayer-meet- 
 ings were held every day (save Sunday) 
 during the winter and spring, and a 
 wonderful influence seemed to permeate 
 the whole community. 
 
 From Hillsboro, Dio Lewis went to 
 Washington C. H., Dec. 24, 1873, where 
 he again told the story of his mother's 
 
 efforts, and again called on the women to 
 adopt this plan for the tescue of their 
 homes. A " praying band " was formed. 
 Fifty-two women enrolled their names as 
 Committee of Visitation. A " Commit- 
 tee of Responsibility," composed of 37 
 men, was also appointed. Three ladies 
 were chosen to draw up an appeal to 
 liquor-sellers. Mrs. George Carpenter 
 was Chairman of the Committee and 
 leader of the " band." The appeal pre- 
 pared by these ladies was generally used 
 in Ohio and other States. It was as 
 follows : 
 
 " Knowing, as you do, the fearful effects of 
 intoxicating drinks, we, the women of Washing- 
 ton C. H., after earnest prayer and deliberation, 
 have decided to appeal to you to desist from 
 this ruinous traffic that our husbands and 
 brothers, and especially our sons, be no longer 
 exposed to this terrible temptation, and that we 
 may no longer see them led into those paths 
 which go down to sin and bring both soul and 
 body to destruction. We appeal to the better 
 instincts of your hearts, in the name of desolate 
 homes, blasted hopes, ruined lives, widowed 
 hearts, for the honor of our community, for our 
 happiness, for the good name of our town, in 
 the name of God who will judge you and us, 
 for the sake of your own souls which are to be 
 saved or lost. We beg, we implore you to 
 cleanse yourselves from this heinous sin. and 
 place yourselves in the ranks of those who are 
 striving to elevate and ennoble themselves and 
 their fellow men. And to this we ask you to 
 pledge yourselves." 
 
 From the morning meeting of Dec. 26, 
 40 of the very first women of Washing- 
 ton C. H. marched from the church and 
 began their work of visitation and prayer. 
 Meanwhile other ladies, with many gentle- 
 men, remained in prayer at the church; 
 and while the women went from saloon 
 to saloon — not omitting hotels and drug- 
 stores, — every few minutes the tolling of 
 the church-bell told all who could hear 
 that concerted action and prayer were 
 moving upon the saloon. All that day 
 doors were open and uniform courtesy was. 
 shown. The next day doors were locked 
 and the band knelt in the snow on the 
 pavement. But in spite of locked doors, 
 the day was marked by the first sur- 
 render ever made by a saloon-keeper of 
 all his liquors in answer to prayer. He 
 gave his entire stock into the women's 
 hands to do with it as they chose. Hun- 
 dreds of people crowded the street, while 
 shouts, cries, laughter, praises and ring- 
 ing of church-bells formed the accom- 
 paniment to the gurgling stream of " fire- 
 
Crusade.] 
 
 145 
 
 [dishing, Henry Dearborn. 
 
 water " as it flowed away and hid in the 
 earth. On the 2d of January, 1874, in a 
 great mass-meeting, announcement was 
 made that " the last liquor-dealer had un- 
 conditionally, surrendered." The result 
 of eight days of prayer and song was the 
 closing of 11 saloons and the pledging of 
 three druggists to sell only on physicians' 
 prescriptions. The next week a liquor 
 house in Cincinnati pledged $5,000 to 
 break down the movement. A new man 
 took out a license, and a stock of liquors 
 was forwarded to one of the deserted 
 saloons. The Crusaders followed the li- 
 quors and remained in the saloon, engaged 
 in prayer until 11 o'clock at night. They 
 returned the next day and remained with- 
 out fire or chairs a part of the time locked 
 in, while the would-be dealer went away. 
 The next day a temporary tabernacle was 
 built in front of the saloon, and the wo- 
 men continued in prayer. Before night 
 the man surrendered, and the saloon was 
 closed. 
 
 The history of this movement in Wash- 
 ington C. H. and Hillsboro is essentially 
 its history in hundreds of towns in Ohio 
 and other States. Like a prairie fire it 
 swept through all the Northern States to 
 the Mississippi River, and west into Ne- 
 braska and Kansas, and also into some of 
 the Southern States — notably Kentucky, 
 West Virginia and Missouri. In a few 
 places in Ohio some roughness was shown 
 by policemen; but generally much cour- 
 tesy was the rule. In Cincinnati and 
 Pittsburgh, Pa., the women were arrested 
 and taken to jail, but no trial took place. 
 Very false impressions were given by the 
 newspapers. In parts of this country and 
 in Europe the Crusade was thought to 
 resemble the Reign of Terror in Paris, 
 and the Crusaders were likened to the 
 French women who filled the streets of 
 that fated capital. Nothing could be 
 farther from the truth. The women who 
 led and who participated in the Crusade 
 were persons of the highest social stand- 
 ing. They were the first women of the 
 churches, wives and daughters of Gov- 
 ernors, Judges, clergymen and leadiag 
 business men. They were women of abil- 
 ity, of unimpeached Christian character, 
 and of the highest culture. Never in 
 one single instance were they guilty of 
 any act of violence. Never did they 
 touch any liquor-dealer's property until 
 under the influence of song and prayer, 
 
 which seemed to bring heaven down upon 
 him, showing him the heinousne£s of his 
 destructive business, he surrendered and 
 gave them permission to do what they 
 would with his stock of liquors. One 
 German saloon-keeper called the Cru- 
 saders "Dem Rock in Ages Women." 
 The power of that remarkable uprising of 
 women has not been spent, neither will it 
 be until the mission for which it was sent 
 is accomplished. 
 
 Clara C. Hoffman. 
 
 Cumberland Presbyterian 
 Church.— The General Assembly, at 
 Kansas City, Mo., May 16, 1889, adopted 
 the minority report of the Committee on 
 Temperance, declaring in part as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 " 1. That nothing short of Constitutional and 
 statutory Prohibition of the manufacture and 
 sale of alcoholic liquors as beverages by the 
 United States and the several States will be 
 satisfactory, and to this end we will pray and 
 work. 
 
 ' ' 2 That admitting that it is a crime, ' it can- 
 not be legalized without sin.' It cannot be li- 
 censed without legalizing it ; therefore to vote 
 for license is sin. 
 
 " 3. That the manufacture of and dealing in, 
 or in any way favoring such dealing (this in- 
 cludes revenue officers, such as gaugers, store- 
 keepers, etc.), is inconsistent with the Christian 
 character, and should receive church discipline. 
 
 ' ' 4. That we, as a church, stand squarely and 
 unequivocally in favor of Prohibition, and here- 
 by pledge ourselves to aid in every laudable en- 
 terprise that in any way looks to the overthrow 
 of the accursed liquor traffic, now licensed and 
 protected by the general Government and most 
 of the States. . . . 
 
 " This report is to be considered as advocat- 
 ing the principles of Prohibition, and not as an 
 indorsement of any political party." 
 
 Cushing, Henry Dearborn.— Born 
 
 in Salisbury, N. H., Oct. 15, 1803, and 
 died in Washington, D. C, in October, 
 1881. When he was a boy his parents 
 removed to Orange, N. H. The school 
 advantages there were poor, but he did 
 much general reading from books bor- 
 rowed of a neighbor who lived six miles, 
 from his home. At the age of 15 he was< 
 thrown upon his own resources on ac- 
 count of the poverty of his family. Prom 
 that time until he was 18 he worked upon 
 a farm, taught school, and studied a term 
 or two at an academy. He began the 
 study of Latin at his home, walking six 
 miles twice a week, after a full day's 
 work, to recite to his teacher. At 18 he 
 
Daniel, William.] 
 
 146 
 
 [Delano, William H, 
 
 found employment in Boston, and after- 
 wards engaged in business with a brother 
 at Bangor, Me., only to return to Boston 
 in 1842, having suffered reverses. In 
 the last ten years of his life he devoted 
 much of his energies to the temperance 
 cause. He was an active member of the 
 Massachusetts Temperance Alliance, and 
 took a prominent part in its discussions, 
 sometimes speaking from the platform 
 but oftener presenting carefully-prepared 
 papers. In 1878 he issued an able tract 
 on "City Governments/' and 10,000 
 copies were circulated by the Alliance. 
 For two years before his death he was an 
 invalid. Always a most generous contrib- 
 utor of money to temperance work, in 
 his will he bequeathed 5 per cent, of a 
 valuable estate to be used by the President 
 of the Massachusetts Temperance Alli- 
 ance in furtherance of Prohibition. He 
 also addressed the following words in his 
 will to his heirs : " I should have given 
 more to the temperance cause but for a 
 belief that it can be best sustained by 
 living men and women. So I commend 
 that cause to my heirs, and hope they will 
 sustain it by their example, money, in- 
 fluence and votes." 
 
 Daniel, William, fourth candidate of 
 the Prohibition party for Vice-President 
 of the United States; born on Deal's 
 Island, Md., Jan. 24, 1826. His father 
 was a native of North Carolina, and his 
 mother of Maryland. He was educated 
 in the public schools and at Dickinson 
 College, graduating in 1848. He studied 
 law and was admitted to practice in 1851. 
 In 1853 he was elected a member of the 
 Maryland House of Delegates and intro- 
 duced a Prohibitory liquor bill similar to 
 the Maine law. He was re-elected to the 
 House in 1855 on the temperance issue, 
 and in 1857 was returned to the State 
 Senate as an advocate of Local Option. 
 After serving one term he removed to 
 Baltimore, where he has since resided, 
 pursuing his profession. In 1864 he was 
 a member of the Maryland State Consti- 
 tutional Convention. He was a champion 
 of freedom, and took a prominent part in 
 the discussions of that body which re- 
 sulted in the emancipation of Maryland's 
 slaves. At first a Whig in politics and 
 afterwards a Republican, Mr. Daniel was 
 an earnest advocate of the Prohibition of 
 the liquor traffic almost from the begin- 
 
 ning of his career. He was chosen Presi- 
 dent of the Maryland State Temperance 
 Alliance, organized in 1872, and retained 
 that position until 1884. Through the 
 influence of this Alliance and especially 
 the efforts of its President, a Local Option 
 law was enacted in Maryland, under 
 which Prohibition was carried in several 
 counties. Mr. Daniel attended the Na- 
 tional Prohibition Convention of 1884 at 
 Pittsburgh, as the head of the Maryland 
 delegation, and was made Temporary 
 Chairman of the body. He was nom- 
 inated for Vice-President and received 
 150,626 votes. From 1885 until 1888 
 he was Chairman of the Maryland 
 State Prohibition Committee. He has 
 been identified with the interests of the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, and has been 
 active in Sunday-school work, in the 
 Young Men's Christian Association, and 
 in efforts for the elevation of the negro. 
 He was for many years a member of the 
 Board of Trustees for Dickinson College. 
 
 Deaths from Drink. — See Longev- 
 ity. 
 
 Delano, William H. — Born in Her- 
 kimer County, N. Y., in 1816, and died 
 in Bedford, 0., in 1885. He never at- 
 tended school, but educated himself by 
 reading, and was so far advanced at the 
 age of 16 that he successfully taught a 
 district school. His father and several 
 brothers were addicted to the use of al- 
 coholic liquors, but William, early in life, 
 pledged himself to total abstinence and 
 to warfare against the traffic. At the 
 age of 17 he determined to enter the 
 ministry, and, not able to acquire a col- 
 lege training, he began preaching in 1835, 
 and from that time until his death in 
 1885 was a clergyman in the Baptist 
 Church. He was an Abolitionist, and 
 while preaching in central New York he 
 was a " conductor " on the " underground 
 railroad" and helped many a slave to 
 reach Canada. He sometimes stood guard 
 with a shot-gun to protect the slaves he 
 had secreted in his house. He took part 
 in the famous " Jerry Eescue " at Syra; 
 cuse, N. Y. He was not less enthusiastic 
 in the temperance cause, and was con- 
 nected with the Sons of Temperance, the 
 Good Templars and the AVashingtonian 
 movement. In 1880 he went over to the 
 Prohibition party, and although well ad- 
 vanced in years labored zealously for its 
 
Delavan, Edward Cornelius.] 
 
 147 
 
 [Delirium Tremens. 
 
 success until his death. While pastor at 
 Garretsville, 0., in 1878 and 1879, his 
 opposition to the saloon was so obnoxious 
 to the liquor interests that his church 
 building was blown up with gunpowder. 
 
 Delavan, Edward Cornelius.— 
 
 Born in Schenectady County, N. Y., in 
 1793, and died in Schenectady, N. Y., 
 Jan. 15, 1871. He acquired a fortune as 
 a wine-merchant. In 1828, in company 
 with Dr. Bliphalet Nott, he organized, in 
 Schenectady, the New York State Tem- 
 perance Society. In 1831 he defrayed 
 the expenses of Kev. N. Hewitt's temper- 
 ance mission to Europe. In 1834 he per- 
 suaded Dr. Justin to draw up a temper- 
 ance declaration, to which he secured the 
 signatures of Presidents Jackson, Madi- 
 son, John Quincy Adams, Van Buren, 
 Tyler, Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, 
 Buchanan, Lincoln and Johnson. The 
 declaration was as follows : 
 
 " Being satisfied from observation and ex- 
 perience, as well as from medical testimony, 
 that ardent spirit, as a drink, is not only 
 needless but hurtful and that the entire disuse 
 of it would tend to promote the health, the 
 virtue and the happiness of the community, 
 we hereby express our conviction that should 
 the citizens of the United States, and especially 
 the young men, discontinue entirely the use of 
 it, they would not only promote their own 
 personal benefit but the good of our country 
 and of the world." 
 
 As early as 1835, as Chairman of the 
 New York State Temperance Society, 
 and by reason of his personal activity, he 
 was recognized as the most prominent 
 leader of the temperance cause in New 
 York. The American Temperance Intel- 
 ligencer and the Temperance Recorder, pub- 
 lished at Albany, were virtually under 
 his control, and their wide circulation 
 made them more influential than all the 
 15 other temperance journals then pub- 
 lished combined. The Recorder, the 
 monthly organ of the New York State 
 Temperance Society, started March 6, 
 1832, had at that time a circulation of 
 over 200,000 copies. He engaged in a 
 discussion of the Bible wine question in 
 1835, and his arguments attracted gene- 
 ral attention. He accused the Albany 
 brewers of using foul water in their busi- 
 ness, and eight suits at law for damages 
 aggregating $300,000 were brought 
 against him. One case came to trial five 
 years later, and upon his acquittal the 
 others were dismissed. He was prominent 
 
 also in the agitation against the use of 
 fermented liquors. When the American 
 Temperance Union was organized in 1836 
 he became Chairman of its Executive 
 Committee and donated $10,000 to its 
 treasury. In 1838 he visited Europe, tak- 
 ing with him to England a large supply 
 of temperance literature, including 800 
 volumes of Dr. Edwards's " Permanent 
 Temperance Documents." In Prance, 
 on Nov. 12 of this year, Mr. Delavan had 
 an interview with King Louis Philippe, 
 who agreed to sign a declaration express- 
 ing his opinion that the habitual use of 
 intoxicating liquors was injurious, if Mr. 
 Delavan thought it would benefit 
 France. 
 
 Delaware. — See Index. 
 
 Delirium Tremens. — Delirium tre- 
 mens, or mania a potu, is a nervous dis- 
 order caused by the habitual use of alco- 
 holic stimulants, and in regard to its 
 pathological tendency may be defined as 
 nature's ultimate protest against the con- 
 tinuance of the alcohol vice. The first 
 remonstrance comes in the form of nau- 
 sea, languor and sick headache— symp- 
 toms familiar in the experience of every 
 incipient toper. Loss of appetite and 
 general disinclination to active exercise 
 are the penalties of intemperance in its 
 more advanced stages of development, 
 and those injunctions remaining un- 
 heeded, nature's ultimatum is expressed 
 in the incomparable distress of nervous 
 delirium. Insomnia, cr chronic sleep- 
 lessness, is superadded to a chronic loss 
 of appetite; headaches and dizziness al- 
 ternate with fits of frantic restlessness ; 
 the pulse becomes feeble and rapid, the 
 breath feverish, and twitchings of the 
 motor muscles keep the hands and tongue 
 in a trembling motion ; the patient raves 
 or talks incessantly and is terrified by 
 ghastly visions. Continued sleeplessness 
 aggravates these symptoms to an appall- ; 
 ing degree and at last results in utter 
 exhaustion of the nervous system. From 
 that state of far-gone debility, the drug- 
 doctors, incredible as it may seem, often 
 attempted to rouse the patient by the use 
 of alcoholic stimulants. That mistake, 
 suggested by the delusion that alcohol is 
 a source of nerve-force, made delirium 
 tremens, in hospital practice, an almost 
 invariably fatal disease; and that expe- 
 rience has at last enforced a progressive re- 
 
Delirium Tremens.] 
 
 148 
 
 [Democratic Party. 
 
 form in the treatment of the disorder. 
 "I haVe come to the conclusion/' says 
 Dr. James Edmunds, "that the use of 
 spirits in the case of delirium tremens 
 does nothing but injure the patient, and 
 probably hastens his death. I now, 
 without the slightest hesitation, in every 
 case should immediately stop the spirit, 
 and I find that very few cases of delirium 
 tremens, if treated on that plan, will 
 prove fatal." "If you follow the old 
 treatment," says Prof. Palmer of the Uni- 
 versity of Michigan, " you will lose half 
 you>- patients. If you follow the treat- 
 ment I give, you will save nearly all. In 
 the hospital of Edinburgh the expectant 
 treatment is found to save nearly all the 
 patients. They used to lose nearly all." 
 Abstinence from alcohol in the treat- 
 ment of delirium tremens is certainly 
 favored by the circumstance that the 
 patient loses his appetite for all virulent 
 stimulants whatever, and temporarily, in- 
 deed, loathes the very odor of alcoholic 
 liquors. The patient should be kept as 
 quiet as possible without a resort to vio- 
 lent means of restraint. The progress of 
 cerebral congestion can generally be kept 
 under control by applying ice to the 
 head ; and if the irritation of the digest- 
 ive organs causes the stomach to reject 
 food administered in the usual manner, 
 the vital strength of the organism may 
 be sustained by means of nutritive injec- 
 tions. Experience has proved that it is 
 not advisable to repress the attempts at 
 muscular exertion altogether (as by the 
 use of straight-jackets), but merely to 
 guard the patient against serious injury, 
 and allow him by the restlessness of his 
 movements to bring on a sufficient degree 
 of exhaustion to induce sleep. A short 
 slumber obtained in that way, rather 
 than by the use of narcotics, has nearly 
 always a restorative effect; and by the 
 law of periodicity, aided by such artifices 
 as the temporary darkening" of the bed- 
 room windows, drowsiness leading to 
 more or less protracted sleep can be made 
 to recur at certain hours of the day. 
 After the partial subsidence of the more 
 violent symptoms, the patient may be 
 permitted to enjoy the occasional benefit 
 of out-door exercise; but his diet should 
 for at least a month be limited to semi- 
 fluid, non-stimulating articles of food, 
 such as rice-gruel with a little butter and 
 sugar, pea-soup, milk porridge and soft- 
 
 boiled eggs. Cooling applications to the 
 head should be continued, and the ut- 
 most care should be taken to guard the 
 convalescent against the temptations of 
 his besetting vice, as half an ounce of 
 brandy is often sufficient to bring on a 
 violent and frequently incurable relapse 
 of delirium. Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Democratic Party. 1 — As a national 
 organization the Democratic party has 
 become the avowed and persevering op- 
 ponent of Prohibitory legislation in the 
 United States. Viewed broadly, it is rec- 
 ognized as the special champion and pro- 
 tector of the liquor interests. By a crit- 
 ical examination of its tendencies and 
 actions, the impartial observer discovers 
 that this general verdict admits of local 
 exceptions and certain qualifications ; but 
 no discriminating estimate of the party's 
 attitude and performances can be justly 
 expressed in milder words. 
 
 EARLY PERFORMANCES. 
 
 The so-called rum power, as an organ- 
 ized and aggressive factor in national 
 politics, is a creation of the revenue leg- 
 islation of the Civil War. The Prohib- 
 itory and restrictive laws enacted in many 
 States before the war period were obtain- 
 ed with comparative ease, because the 
 traffic was not then the disciplined and 
 watchful foe that it has since become. 
 In the absence of formidable organized 
 resistance, the earnest demands for Pro- 
 hibition by multitudes of the best citi- 
 zens prompted political leaders of all 
 parties to make concessions to agita- 
 tors so reputable and so determined. 
 The Democrats, in these years, mani- 
 fested a generous inclination to incor- 
 porate the Prohibitory principle (at 
 least nominally) in the statutes of the 
 country. The first Maine law (1S46) 
 and the revived and strengthened Maine 
 law of 1851 were passed by Democratic 
 Legislatures. Other rude Prohibitory 
 laws (those of Illinois, 1851 ; Minnesota, 
 1852; Miohigan, 1853; Ohio, 1854; Iowa, 
 1855; Indiana, 1855; Nebraska, 1855; 
 Mississippi, 1855, and Texas, 1855), are 
 to be credited to the Democrats. But 
 even in that formative period the Demo- 
 cratic party, in representative and critical 
 struggles for Prohibition, gave indication 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to John A. Brooke, D.D., Kan- 
 sas City, Mo. 
 
Democratic Party.] 
 
 149 
 
 [Democratic Party. 
 
 of the vigorous pro-saloon policy that was 
 subsequently to distinguish it. Among 
 the most important Prohibition contests 
 made before the war was that in the 
 State of New York in 1854, resulting in 
 the election of Myron H. Clark as Gov- 
 ernor on a platform favoring Prohibition. 
 In that campaign Horatio Seymour was 
 the Democratic candidate, and he and his 
 party were firmly opposed to Prohibition. 
 The Democrats were responsible for the 
 repeal of the Maine law in 1856, and for 
 the practical destruction of the Adair law 
 of Ohio in 1859. 
 
 When the Prohibitory agitation was 
 renewed after the issues of the war 
 had been settled, the Democratic party 
 espoused the cause of the opposition. 
 Lacking power in most of the North- 
 ern States, it yet played an influen- 
 tial part in nurturing and directing 
 the organized antagonism. Under the 
 leadership of Tilden in New York, 
 in the early 'seventies, it made a success- 
 ful fight against Local Option and won 
 so strong a support from the saloon ele- 
 ment that the Republicans, in alarm, 
 repudiated their pledges in order to divide 
 with it the liquor vote. In Pennsylvania 
 it became the undisguised representative 
 of the liquor-dealers in their effort to 
 repeal the Local Option law under which 
 more than 40 counties of that State had 
 voted for Prohibition in 1873. In Ohio 
 it led the saloon forces in their assaults 
 upon the Anti-License clause of the State 
 Constitution. In Michigan, Massachu- 
 setts, Rhode Island and other States its 
 aggressions contributed to the annul- 
 ment of the old Prohibitory laws. Du- 
 ring the important decade of 1870-80, 
 while yet the full strength of Prohi- 
 bitionists and anti-Prohibitionists alike 
 was undeveloped, the Democratic 
 party, deliberately and in many cases 
 without apparent provocation or induce- 
 ment, laid the foundations for the sys- 
 tematic operations of the future. 
 
 UTTERANCES OF NATIONAL CONVENTIONS. 
 
 The first distinct declaration against 
 Prohibition by a Democratic National 
 Convention was made in the centennial 
 year of 1876 (June 28), when Samuel J. 
 Tilden was nominated for the Presidency. 
 The platform adopted by that Conven- 
 tion contained the following words : 
 
 ■■ In the absolute acquiescence to the will of 
 
 the majority, the vital principle of republics; 
 in the supremacy of the civil over the military 
 authority ; in the total separation of the church 
 and the State for the sake of civil and religious 
 freedom; in the equality of all citizens before 
 just laws of their own enactment; in the liberty 
 of individual conduct unrexed by sumptuary 
 laios; in the faithful education of the rising 
 generation, that they may preserve, enjoy and 
 transmit these best conditions of human happi- 
 ness and hope, we behold the noblest products 
 of a hundred years of changeful history ; but 
 while upholding the bond of our Union and 
 great charter of these our rights, it behooves a 
 free people to practice also the eternal vigilance 
 which is the price of liberty. . . . We de- 
 nounce the policy which thus discards the lib- 
 erty-loving German and tolerates a revival of 
 the coolie trade in Mongolian women, imported 
 for immoral purposes." 
 
 The use of the word "sumptuary," 
 while not recognized by impartial per- 
 sons as legitimate in characterizing Pro- 
 hibitory laws, is, when appearing in 
 Democratic platforms, well understood 
 by the public to have reference to liquor 
 Prohibition alone. 
 
 The next Democratic National Con- 
 vention (June 24, 1880), which nominat- 
 ed Gen. Winfield S. Hancock for Presi- 
 dent, inserted in its platform the three 
 words, " No sumptuary laws." The Na- 
 tional Convention of 1884 (July 10) nom- 
 inated Grover Cleveland for President 
 and declared : " We oppose sumptuary 
 laws which vex the citizen and interfere 
 with individual liberty." In 1888 the 
 Democratic National Convention (June 
 7), accepting the programme indicated 
 by President Cleveland's policy, adopted 
 a platform devoted almost exclusively to 
 the tariff issue ; and no distinct utterance 
 on the liquor question appeared in it. But 
 the following words were construed as 
 repeating the " anti-sumptuary " utter- 
 ance: "The Democratic party of the 
 United States, in National Convention 
 assembled, renews the pledge of its fidel- 
 ity to Democratic faith and reaffirms the 
 platform adopted by its representatives 
 in the Convention of 1884." This con- 
 struction was afterwards sanctioned by 
 Henry Watterson, Chairman of the Com- 
 mittee on Resolutions, who wrote in a 
 letter to Walter B. Hill of Macon, Ga, : 
 "The platform of 1888 reaffirms all the 
 platform of 1884, making a special inter- 
 pretation of the tariff clause of the for- 
 mer." And John G. Carlisle, Speaker 
 of the House of Representatives, said in 
 an interview in the Voice for June 14, 
 
Democratic Party.] 
 
 150 
 
 [Democratic Party. 
 
 1888 : " The Convention reaffirmed the 
 platform of 1884. That platform con- 
 tained an anti-sumptuary plank. The 
 failure to speak definitely this time makes 
 no change in the party. - ' 1 
 
 The record of the Democratic National 
 Conventions is in harmony with that 
 made by the party in Congress and the 
 other branches of the Federal Govern- 
 ment, both while in the ascendancy and 
 while in the minority. (Ste United 
 States Government and the Liquor 
 Traffic.) 
 
 In examining the course of the Demo- 
 crats in the States it is requisite to view 
 the States of the South and those of the 
 North separately. 
 
 attitude in the south. 
 
 In the South the Democratic party is 
 regarded as more friendly to the demands 
 of the temperance people than the Re- 
 publican party. The former embraces a 
 very large majority of the native-born 
 whites, and undoubtedly contains much 
 the largest proportion of the better 
 classes of the dominant race. With in- 
 creasing ardor and emphasis these classes 
 have insisted upon the enactment of Pro- 
 hibitory measures. Reasons of public 
 policy have also contributed to spread 
 Prohibition feeling in the South; the 
 experience of communities in that sec- 
 tion where the saloon has been success- 
 fully outlawed has invariably shown that 
 Prohibition lessens crime, diminishes 
 poverty and improvidence and prevents 
 race conflicts. Again, the Democratic 
 party's theory of government lays stress 
 upon the right of each locality to admin- 
 ister its own affairs with full freedom ; 
 and a stubborn refusal to permit the peo- 
 ple to exercise Prohibitory powers where 
 strong sentiment exists, is manifestly 
 not in accord with such a theory. In 
 consequence of these and other influ- 
 ences the Democratic party in the South 
 has enacted a great deal of Local Op- 
 tion legislation, many leaders of the party 
 have exhibited pronounced sympathy for 
 the principle of Prohibition, Democratic 
 voters have established (or helped to 
 establish) the policy over extensive areas, 
 and Democratic officials have been com- 
 
 pelled to respect public sentiment and 
 enforce the laws. 2 (For particulars of 
 the Local Option laws of the South and 
 the extent to which Prohibition has been 
 adopted under them, see Legislation 
 and Local Option.) 
 
 But in giving due credit to the Demo- 
 cratic party for these results, its serious 
 shortcomings must not be overlooked. 
 Very little progress has been made in the 
 South towards a homogeneous and com- 
 prehensive Prohibition policy. No South- 
 ern State has ever enacted a complete 
 Prohibitory law with adequate enforce- 
 ment provisions. In no Southern State 
 has the Democratic party permitted its 
 representatives in Conventions or Legisla- 
 tures to champion State Prohibition. In 
 the four States of the South — Texas, 
 Tennessee, West Virginia and North 
 Carolina/ — where Prohibitory Constitu- 
 tional Amendments have been submitted 
 to the people, the more influential man- 
 agers of the Democratic party have en- 
 tered into alliance with the liquor traffic 
 to defeat the propositions. For this hos- 
 tility to radical measures there is, per- 
 haps, still less justification than for Re- 
 publican hostility in the North : the social 
 and political problems in the South are 
 graver by far, and the solution of race 
 and educational questions is confessedly 
 interfered with in a most serious way by 
 the influence of the liquor traffic. Be- 
 sides, taking the South as a whole, the 
 traffic is in no wise so threatening or so 
 powerful there as in the North, and its 
 ability to work mischief to the political 
 party attacking it is not so great. The 
 foreign-born whites in the South consti- 
 tute but a comparatively insignificant 
 element of the population. Conditions 
 justifying aggression are, therefore, em- 
 phatically more encouraging to the Dem- 
 ocratic party in the South than to the Re- 
 publican party in the North ; yet South- 
 ern legislation against the liquor traffic is 
 nowhere to be compared with that pre- 
 vailing in the representative Prohibition 
 States of the North. This difference is 
 undoubtedly due to the tenaciousness 
 with which the more positive Democrats 
 cling to the doctrine of local self-govern- 
 ment, oppose the tendency towards cen- 
 
 1 The Convention of 1888 was earnestly petitioned, by 
 Southern temperance leaders, to repudiate the former op- 
 position of the party to Prohibition legislation. The peti- 
 tioners were shown no favor and little courtesy. 
 
 2 The results in the South, however (especially in re 
 spect of enforcement), are imperfect and unsatisfactory in 
 the same sense .that Local Option results are so in the 
 North. 
 
Democratic Party.] 
 
 151 
 
 [Democratic Party. 
 
 tralization and " paternal governments," 
 maintain that the world is already " gov- 
 erned too much," and advocate the ideas 
 of individual responsibility and so-called 
 " personal liberty." It is also worthy of 
 consideration that the advocates of com- 
 plete Prohibition in the South have not 
 generally favored the Prohibition party 
 method or pressed that method so ag- 
 gressively as to endanger Democratic 
 supremacy and thus wring concessions 
 from the dominant party. It is true the 
 party Prohibitionists have at times shown 
 considerable activity in certain parts of 
 the South, but they have not in many 
 instances been strong enough to inspire 
 the Democrats with alarm. 
 
 The Democratic politicians of the 
 South were not slow to perceive the value 
 of the High License compromise, and 
 High License laws have been established 
 in several States of that section, the object 
 being, as in the North, to satisfy moder- 
 ate temperance people without extin- 
 guishing the liquor traffic. 
 
 ATTITUDE IN~ THE NORTH. 
 
 Turning now to the Northern States, 
 we find that in them the record of the 
 Democratic party is a record of open and 
 unremitted advocacy of the easiest terms 
 for the saloon. This is true as a general 
 statement, and more is to be said : since 
 the Civil War the Democratic party in 
 every State of the North has stood each 
 year for the mildest form of liquor legis- 
 lation desired by the traffic at large. We 
 have already alluded to the deeds of the 
 party in the decade 1870-80. In the ten 
 years from 1880 to 1890, while polit- 
 ical interest in the Prohibition movement 
 steadily grew, the Democratic organiza- 
 tions in every part of this section became 
 more and more identified with the liquor 
 traffic. 
 
 In all the more important States that 
 voted on Prohibitory Amendments in this 
 period, the Democrats first opposed the 
 right of the people to pass verdict upon 
 the liquor traffic at the ballot-box, then 
 openly and offensively opposed the 
 Amendments in the electoral campaigns. 
 It is true that in Oregon the Democratic 
 party assented to submission and the 
 Democratic counties of that State showed 
 a larger proportionate vote for the 
 Amendment than the Republican coun- 
 ties; but Oregon forms the only excep- 
 
 tion. In each State adopting Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition — Kansas, Iowa, Maine, 
 Rhode Island, South Dakota and North 
 Dakota — the Democratic party refused to 
 accept the will of the people and advo- 
 cated a return to license and Local Op- 
 tion. It is especially deserving of 
 remark, however, that formal opposition 
 by platform declaration was discontinued 
 in Maine and Kansas after it became 
 apparent to the Democratic leaders that 
 the interests of the party would suffer by 
 making ridiculous demands for license 
 legislation in the teeth of overwhelming 
 Prohibition sentiment. 
 
 Of the States that obtained Prohibitory 
 laws before the war, Vermont and New 
 Hampshire are the only ones (excepting 
 Maine) that have steadily maintained 
 those laws on the statute-books. In both 
 Vermont and New Hampshire the Dem- 
 ocrats have perseveringly declared for the 
 destruction of the Prohibitory acts. 
 
 The Northern States in which the 
 Democratic party is strongest and has 
 been able more frequently than in the 
 others to outvote the Republicans and 
 control legislation — New York, New Jer- 
 sey, Connecticut, Ohio, Indiana and Cal- 
 ifornia — are the States where the loosest 
 liquor systems prevail and where the 
 wishes of the trade at large have been 
 most respected. (Of course in making 
 this comment we do not intimate that the 
 pretended restrictive and High License 
 legislation in other Northern States has 
 by results proved more advantageous to 
 real temperance interests than the milder 
 systems of New York, New Jersey, etc. 
 But this [so-called] stricter legislation 
 represents concessions to a certain portion 
 of the temperance element, and for that 
 reason is possibly to be considered pro- 
 gressive. In the Democratic or semi- 
 Democratic States, on the other hand, 
 even the spirit of concession has made 
 but little headway, and public feeling 
 has been shaped almost exclusively by the 
 expressed desires of the majority of the 
 rumsellers.) In New York the Demo- 
 crats have championed the most infamous 
 license measures, especially the one pro- 
 posing the repeal of the Sunday law ; and 
 bills advocated by representatives of very 
 conservative temperance sentiment — bills 
 having little or no real temperance value, 
 but objectionable to the small retail liquor- 
 dealers because higher license rates were 
 
Democratic Party.] 
 
 152 
 
 [Democratic Party. 
 
 provided for in them, — have been repeat- 
 edly vetoed by Governor Hill for the sole 
 purpose of solidifying the rum vote for 
 the Democratic party. The Democratic 
 majorities in the State of New York are 
 distinctively saloon majorities, procured 
 by the great power of the Tammany 
 Hall organization in the slums of New 
 York City. In New Jersey Democratic 
 party conditions are practically the same 
 as in New York: Democratic Legisla- 
 tures and Governors have consistently 
 refused to enact even the mildest temper- 
 ance bills, and the County Local Option 
 law of 1888, obtained after years of labo- 
 rious effort, was promptly rescinded by 
 the next Democratic Legislature. In 
 Connecticut, although the peculiar laws 
 of the State (requiring candidates to 
 receive majorities of all the votes cast, 
 instead of mere pluralities) have pre- 
 vented the Democrats from securing con- 
 trol, their influence, in connection with 
 that of the liquor Kepublicans, has been 
 sufficient to check temperance progress. 
 In Ohio the Democrats have since 1880 
 twice elected their State ticket and a ma- 
 jority of the legislators (1883 and 1889), 
 and each time their success was due in 
 great measure to their exceedingly offen- 
 sive bids for saloon support, and the lead- 
 ership of especially active pro-liquor 
 statesmen — Hoadly in 1888 (who was a 
 liquor-dealers' attorney), and Campbell 
 in 1889 (who was an attorney for the 
 brewers and who, as Chairman of the 
 Alcoholic Liquor Traffic Committee in 
 the National House of Representatives, 
 had killed every temperance bill that 
 came before the Committee). In Indiana 
 and California the Democrats, while not 
 wholly responsible for the State Govern- 
 .ment save at rare intervals, have always 
 been very powerful and, acting with the 
 controlling element of the Republican 
 party, have made those States notorious 
 for their practically unrestricted liquor 
 traffic and their almost unrivalled stub- 
 bornness in refusing Local Option priv- 
 ileges. It is true that the Indiana Dem- 
 ocrats have voluntarily taken a stand in 
 recent years for higher license, and read- 
 ily assisted to pass a higher license bill 
 in the Legislature of 1889 ; and if they 
 are entitled to credit for this action the 
 preceding statement may be qualified 
 accordingly. 
 In the other States of the North the 
 
 Democratic party has uniformly fought 
 every effort for progressive (or supposedly 
 progressive) temperance legislation since 
 the lines as now existing were drawn. 
 
 A thorough statement of the atti- 
 tude of the Democrats in the various 
 Northern States can be made in no way 
 so satisfactorily as by summarizing the 
 declarations of Democratic State plat- 
 forms for several years. We find that in 
 1886 the Democratic Conventions in 11 
 Northern States (California, Connecti- 
 cut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, 
 Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Ver- 
 mont and Wisconsin) opposed Prohibi- 
 tion ; in nine Northern States (Colorado, 
 Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, 
 New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylva- 
 nia and Rhode Island) they made no utter- 
 ance on the temperance question ; in two 
 Northern States (Indiana and Iowa) they 
 advocated Local Option or High License; 
 in one Northern State (Oregon) the sub- 
 mission of a Prohibitory Amendment to 
 the people was favored, and in one North- 
 ern State (New York) there was no Dem- 
 ocratic Convention held. The Northern 
 Democratic State platforms for 1887 
 give the following showing: Silent, 
 Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania 
 and Rhode Island — 4 ; opposing Prohibi- 
 tion, Iowa, Nebraska, New York and 
 Ohio — 4; favoring High License or Lo- 
 cal Option, Iowa and Nebraska — 2; in the 
 other Northern States there were no Dem- 
 ocratic Conventions. The record for 
 1888 is as follows: Silent, California, 
 Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michi- 
 gan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, 
 Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania — 11; 
 opposing Prohibition, Indiana, Iowa, 
 Kansas, New Hampshire, New York, 
 Rhode Island (1S89), Vermont and Wis- 
 consin — 8 ; favoring High License or Lo- 
 cal Option, Nebraska, New Hampshire, 
 Rhode Island (1889) x and Vermont— 4; 
 berating the Republican party for its ; 
 behavior in dealing with the liquor issue 
 without making any distinct expression 
 as to matters of principle, Connecticut 
 and Maine — 2. 2 
 
 In this analysis it will be seen that the 
 Democrats have favored Local Option or 
 High License in the States of New Hamp- 
 
 1 The Rhode Island utterance of 1889 is included because 
 it, rather than silence, represents the true attitude of the 
 party in that State in 1888. 
 
 a Political Prohibitionist for 188", 1888 and 1889. 
 
Denmark.] 
 
 153 
 
 [Denmark. 
 
 shire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Iowa, Ne- 
 braska and Indiana. In the first four 
 named States Prohibition was the law, 
 and the Democrats, as a rum party, pro- 
 posed the only alternative policy that 
 public sentiment in those States was 
 likely to tolerate; in Nebraska High 
 License was indorsed because that policy 
 was favored there by the unanimous con- 
 sent of the men engaged in the traffic; in 
 Indiana alone the declaration for High 
 License was made under circumstances 
 possibly entitling the party to credit for 
 a progressive disposition, but the High 
 License plank of 1886 in Indiana was a 
 very tame one, simply advocating "a 
 reasonable increase of the license tax," 
 and making no reference to Local Option. 
 The application of the foregoing review 
 is exclusively to the Democratic party as 
 an organization. Space does not permit a 
 presentation in detail of the records and 
 utterances of representative national 
 and State leaders of the party. Inciden- 
 tal allusions have been made, in this 
 article and others (see especially Consti- 
 tutional Prohibition and United 
 States Government and the Liquor 
 Traffic), to individual Democrats whose 
 connection with events has been of much 
 importance. No discussion of this sub- 
 ject, however, should fail to give due 
 recognition to the many courageous Dem- 
 ocrats who have braved the prevailing 
 sentiment of their party and supported 
 the principle of Prohibition. Few names 
 of Prohibition advocates are more famil- 
 iar or respected than those of Senator A. 
 H. Colquitt of Georgia, the late Henry 
 W. Grady of the same State, Gen. Samuel 
 F. Cary of Ohio and ex-Senator S. B. 
 Maxey of Texas — all Democratic leaders 
 of prominence. Other Democrats in and 
 out of public life, representing every 
 State of the TJrJon, have contributed and 
 are contributing jealously and effectively 
 to the promotion of the cause. The Pro- 
 hibition party, the most radical wing of 
 the Prohibition movement, has drawn 
 many of its ablest leaders from the Dem- 
 ocratic party, including the man remem- 
 bered as the foremost of party Prohibi- 
 tionists, John B. Finch. 
 
 Denmark. 1 — This Kingdom, embrac- 
 ing the small northern European penin- 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to M. J. Cramer of East Orange, 
 N.J. 
 
 sula of Jutland and a group of islands in 
 the Baltic Sea, with an aggregate popu- 
 lation of about 2,000,000, has been 
 regarded as the most drunken of civilized 
 nations. This view, as respects distilled 
 liquors at least, seems to be confirmed by 
 all reliable statistical estimates. (See 
 Consumption of Liquors.) There is no 
 doubt, however, that temperance senti- 
 ment is increasing materially. The reports 
 made at the annual meeting of the Den- 
 mark Temperance Society in 1889 showed 
 that there were then 19,814 members of 
 that organization — 12,658 males and 7,156 
 females. It is claimed that the Good 
 Templars have a membership of between 
 6,000 and 7,000 in Denmark; and Rev. 
 Carl P. Eltzholtz, in a recent letter in the 
 Union Signal, estimated the number of 
 total abstainers in the Kingdom at 35,000. 
 The Government makes appropriations 
 of money to encourage the temperance 
 organizations. A movement against spir- 
 its began before 1840, being started by 
 Dr. Robert Baird of Massachusetts. The 
 Good Templar organization was founded 
 in 1881. Besides the National Total 
 Abstinence League there is an Association 
 for Promoting Sobriety that has the co- 
 operation of eminent men; and Sunday- 
 closing and coffee-house movements are 
 on foot, although most of the Danish 
 coffee-houses sell beer. 
 
 The richer classes of Denmark use 
 wine freely. Beer is consumed by per- 
 sons of all classes save the abstainers, and 
 strong spirits are also popular. 
 
 The quantities of distilled spirits pro- 
 duced, imported and consumed in Den- 
 mark for a series of years are given in 
 our article on Consumption of Liquors. 
 It is estimated that the annual production 
 of beer is from 25,000,000 gallons up- 
 wards. No Prohibitory or really re- 
 strictive legislation has been enacted,- 
 although the city of Copenhagen requires 
 dramshops to close at midnight, prohibits 
 the employment of barmaids and directs 
 that liquor-sellers shall see that their ine- 
 briated customers have free rides home 
 or are carried to police stations in covered 
 vehicles. No special license is required 
 for the sale of liquors, but a small annual 
 tax must be paid by each proprietor as a 
 shop-keeper. Danish statistics credit 
 about one-tenth of the accidents, an 
 eighth of the lunacy, over a third of the 
 pauperism and 76 per cent, of the arrests 
 
Dipsomania.] 
 
 154 
 
 [Distillation. 
 
 to drink. Recently the Danish Medical 
 Society has declared the injurious ten- 
 dency of brandy and beer upon the human 
 system. 1 
 
 A humane policy is pursued by the 
 Danish Government in regulating the 
 affairs of its dependencies in the Arctic 
 waters. The commerce of Greenland is 
 a Danish monopoly, made so, in part, to 
 prevent the introduction of spirits. Ice- 
 land, famous for the ruggedness and 
 intelligence of her people, has no brew- 
 eries or distilleries, but small quantities 
 of wine, beer and whiskey are imported. 
 Comparatively few of the people have the 
 means to buy intoxicants, there is little 
 drunkenness, crime is rare and the moral 
 character of the inhabitants is good. In 
 the Faroe Islands conditions are practi- 
 cally the same as in Iceland. Santa 
 Croix, the well-known Danish island of 
 the West Indies, and other colonies of 
 Denmark in that group, produce large 
 quantities of sugar and molasses, from 
 which the celebrated Santa Croix rum is 
 distilled. The inhabitants consume but 
 little of this liquor, most of it being ex- 
 ported. There is no restriction on its 
 production or sale, the Government en- 
 couraging the industry for revenue rea- 
 sons. 
 
 Dipsomania, or the thirst mania; a 
 term applied to the diseased condition of 
 body and mind attendant upon an irre- 
 sistible and insatiable thirst for alcoholic 
 liquors. When the drinker is so inca- 
 pable of controlling his appetite as to be 
 habitually intemperate (whether period- 
 ically or continuously so), he is described 
 scientifically as a dipsomaniac, and it is 
 for the drinker of this class that the ine- 
 briate asylum exists. 
 
 Direct Veto. — See Great Britain. 
 
 Disciple Church. — The General 
 Christian Missionary Convention, com- 
 posed of delegates representing the " Dis- 
 ciples " of all the States and Territories, 
 was held in Louisville, Ky., October, 1889. 
 The following resolution was unanimously 
 adopted : 
 
 " Resolved, That it is the mature conviction 
 of the Christian workers of this Convention 
 that the liquor traffic is one of the greatest hin- 
 drances to the spread of the gospel, the purity 
 of the churches and the material and moral 
 
 1 On the authority of' Joseph Malins of Manchester, 
 Eng. 
 
 welfare of the people: and as such it is our most 
 sacred duty to oppose its deadly influence and 
 to seek its entire suppression by such means as, 
 in our judgment, may prove most effectual. " 
 
 Distillation. — The process by which 
 a liquid, after being confined in a closed 
 vessel, heated and vaporized, and subse- 
 quently reconverted to the fluid state in 
 a colder connecting vessel or tube, is ob- 
 tained in a purified form. If contami- 
 nated water be placed in a retort and a 
 degree of heat slightly above the boiling 
 point of water be applied, the various 
 impure elements, not being convertible 
 into vapor at that comparatively low 
 temperature, will remain as solids at the 
 bottom of the retort ; while the escaping 
 steam, passing to the mouth of the re- 
 tort, will be condensed upon contact with 
 the colder temperature and the resulting 
 liquid will be a perfectly pure water. 
 Water from which impurities are thus 
 eliminated is called distilled water. 
 
 Distillation as a commercial process is 
 employed chiefly for obtaining alcoholic 
 spirits. Any vegetable or animal sub- 
 stance in passing through the stages of 
 decomposition undergoes fermentation. 
 When the so-called stage of vinous fer- 
 mentation is reached, alcohol is generated. 
 If the substance is grain (as barley) or 
 fruit (as grapes), the liquid at this stage 
 becomes beer or wine, in which the in- 
 toxicating element of alcohol remains in 
 a diluted form, the chief constituent of 
 the solution being water. To concentrate 
 the alcohol the mixture must be subjected 
 to distillation. Alcohol boils at 173° F., 
 and water at 212°; therefore under a 
 heat between these points the alcohol is 
 separated from the water and other in- 
 gredients and passes off as vapor. The 
 mixture is heated in a large copper boiler 
 or still, to which is attached a long spiral 
 tube or ''worm" surrounded by cold 
 water. The cold condenses the alcohol 
 vapor, which falls into a vessel placed to 
 receive it. This first distillation is not a 
 perfect success, for the affinity between 
 alcohol and water is so strong that the 
 two liquids are carried over in about equal 
 parts, the compound being technically 
 called " proof spirits." To obtain stronger 
 alcohol distillation must be repeated 
 three or four time"*, and even then from 
 10 to 20 per cent, of water commonly re- 
 mains. The distilling process, when 
 thus repeated, is called " rectification." 
 
Distillation.] 
 
 155 
 
 [Divorce. 
 
 There seems to be but little doubt that 
 the ancient Chinese understood and prac- 
 ticed distillation many centuries before 
 the Christian era. (See China.) The 
 Chinese records relate that the discoverer 
 (Iti) was disgraced, and that his name 
 was held in loathing by subsequent gene- 
 rations. To the rest of the civilized 
 world distillation was unknown until the 
 art was gradually introduced from Arabia, 
 where it was discovered in the 11th Cen- 
 tury A. D. by Albucasis, a chemist. 
 
 Theoretically the more popular strong 
 liquors of commerce are obtained by dis- 
 tillation direct — brandy by distilling 
 wine, whiskey and rum by distilling 
 macerated grain, molasses, potatoes, etc. 
 But in practice liquor is not always so de- 
 rived. Eaw alcohol, highly concentrated, 
 is used for its manufacture, the crude 
 article being specially treated in order to 
 produce special beverages — i. e., treated 
 by adulteration or processes akin to that, 
 the sole object being not to prepare an 
 honest liquor but a marketable imitation. 
 And in the eager desire to procure the 
 maximum quantity of spirits from the 
 minimum quantity of grain or other ma- 
 terial used, the conditions governing the 
 production of honest alcohol are overrid- 
 den. The common beverage alcohol of 
 commerce, known as ethylic alcohol, is 
 only one of a family of alcohols, each 
 member of which (with the one exception 
 of methylic alcohol) is far more injurious 
 to the health of man than the ethylic al- 
 cohol. To separate these more dangerous 
 alcohols from the material distilled higher 
 temperatures are required : while ethylic 
 alcohol is obtained at 173° P., the pro- 
 duction of propylic alcohol requires 205 p , 
 that of butylic alcohol 228°, and that of 
 amylic alcohol (fusel oil) 270°. Propylic 
 alcohol, the first of the three last-named, 
 having a comparatively low boiling-point 
 (below that of water) is separated in con- 
 siderable quantities during the process of 
 distillation. Though more deleterious 
 than the ethylic, it is not so poisonous as 
 the butylic or amylic, which having higher 
 boiling-points need not be generated in 
 very large amounts if the temperature is 
 kept down and the distillation discon- 
 tinued after the ethylic product has been 
 evaporated. But in practice these butyl- 
 ic and amylic corruptions are introduced 
 into the distilled spirits by raising the 
 temperature and continuing the heat; 
 
 and instead of eliminating them by re- 
 distillation, unscrupulous distillers simply 
 neutralize their taste by chemical means. 
 The effects of liquor in which these heav- 
 ier alcohols are present are frightful. 
 Their presence can be readily detected by 
 a simple experiment. Let a quantity of 
 the suspected spirits be placed in a vessel 
 and ignited ; if a plate or glass, held over 
 the flame, becomes discolored with a black 
 deposit, it is to be concluded that the 
 heavier alcohols exist in the liquor, for 
 ethylic alcohol yields no such deposit 
 when burned. 
 
 Distilled Liquors.- 
 
 LlQTJOES. 
 
 -See Spirituous 
 
 District of Columbia.— See In- 
 dex. 
 
 Divorce.— An exceedingly valuable 
 statistical work on "Marriage and Di- 
 vorce " was issued by the United States 
 Department of Labor (Carroll D. Wright, 
 Commissioner), in 1889. It is the result 
 of special investigations inaugurated by 
 the Divorce Eeform League, presents a 
 digest of laws governing marriage and 
 divorce, and gives statistics covering 20 
 years. These statistics show the number 
 of divorces granted in that period in the 
 various States of the Union, together 
 with the causes. Taken as a whole, how- 
 ever, unless considered in connection 
 with various circumstances, the statistics 
 of causes for divorce are of comparatively 
 little value. That 20 per cent, of the di- 
 vorces were granted for adultery, 38 for 
 desertion, 16 for cruelty and only 4.2 for 
 drunkenness proves little, since the con- 
 dition of the statutes, facility of proof, 
 and personal considerations have great 
 influence in the determination of the al- 
 leged causes. 
 
 The connection of intemperance with 
 divorce was made a special point in the 
 study of 29,070 cases. The 4.2 per cent, 
 given above is manifestly unreliable ; for 
 in no less than nine States, including some 
 of the most populous, intemperance is 
 not a legal cause of divorce. But from 
 45 selected counties in 12 representative 
 States, in all of which it is a cause, a far 
 different result was obtained. Here out 
 of 29,665 cases, "intemperance was a di- 
 rect or indirect cause" in 5,966 or 20.1 
 per cent, of all examined, or 24.3 per 
 cent, of the 24,586 in which a specific 
 
Divorce.] 
 
 156 
 
 [Dodge, William Earl. 
 
 answer was given to the question con- 
 cerning its presence. In one-sixth of the 
 cases the facts were reported as unknown. 
 But some remarks should be made here. 
 
 1. Th.e allegations of the libels often 
 assert the existence of several causes, using 
 any in which proof is thought possible. 
 Sometimes, but more rarely, a real cause 
 is omitted. Perhaps adultery most fre- 
 quently comes under this latter class, and 
 desertion doubtless covers many unnamed 
 causes. But intemperance could hardly 
 be made to appear in double the per cent, 
 of the cases given, for it is doubtless used 
 freely in most allegations. 
 
 2. Barely is a divorce, a crime or any 
 other effect of a social evil, due to a single 
 cause. Probably several causes contribute 
 to a large part of divorces. We can only 
 say, therefore, what the careful language 
 of Mr. Wright implies, that intemperance 
 appeared as a contributing cause in 20 or 
 24 per cent, of the divorces. This in- 
 fluence may range all the way from the 
 least appreciable amount to the dominant 
 or even sole cause. In a word, here as 
 elsewhere in social statistics, both the 
 quantitative and qualitative analysis of 
 the several and often complex causes 
 must be made. As a coin by its mere 
 size may be valued at 5 cents, but be 
 worth 25 cents or $5 if its quality be con- 
 sidered, so it is with statistical estimates 
 of the causes of divorce or crime. Scien- 
 tific statistics have just begun to treat 
 these matters properly. 
 
 Attention should be directed to the 
 statistics of the report regarding intem- 
 perance and divorce in certain States to 
 guard against false conclusions. For ex- 
 ample, divorces for drunkenness in Iowa 
 were only 6.3 per cent, of the whole num- 
 ber in the five years 1867-71, but became 
 8.8 percent, in the five years 1882-6. In 
 Maine, where under the Divorce law of 
 1883 divorces decreased greatly, there 
 were 23 for intemperance in the first five 
 years and also 23 in the single year 1886. 
 In Connecticut there were in the first five 
 years only 65 divorces for intemperance 
 out of a total of 2,314; but in the last 
 five years there were 388 out of only 
 1,933. Now, no hasty conclusions re- 
 garding Prohibition in the former States 
 or Local Option in Connecticut should 
 be drawn from these striking figures. 
 Popular sympathy for the victims of 
 drunken spouses may have led to the ut- 
 
 most use of intemperance as a ground of 
 divorce in Maine and Iowa; while a 
 study of the Connecticut tables will show 
 that since the repeal of the "omnibus" 
 clause in 1878, and it became necessary 
 to prove something more specific than 
 general misconduct, the statutory cause 
 of drunkenness has been made to do full 
 service. 
 
 There is still another side to this sub- 
 ject : the relation of divorce to intemper- 
 ance, suicide, sexual vices and industrial 
 conditions, as well as to its effect on the 
 individual, the family and society. Like 
 every other social evil, divorce is at once 
 both cause and effect. Unhappily, little 
 material for exact knowledge is obtainable 
 M. Kummer of the Swiss Bureau of Sta- 
 tistics found that "the proportion of 
 crime committed by divorced men is 
 from eight to ten times greater than the 
 general average." "The tendency to 
 suicide on the part of men who have been 
 divorced is more pronounced than that of 
 widowers," says Bortellon. Morselli 
 found more than five times as many sui- 
 cides among the divorced of both sexes 
 in Wiirtemburg as among the married, 
 and more than six times as many among 
 divorced men in Saxony. 
 
 Further statistical study on the broad 
 foundations laid by the remarkable re- 
 port of Mr. Wright should be made. 
 The occupation of divorced persons, 
 their religion, vices, crime, local resi- 
 dence, remarriage, repetition of divorces, 
 the lapse of time between the dissolution 
 of one marriage and the contracting of 
 another, the effect on property and chil- 
 dren, are all important sociological points 
 and many of them are probably within 
 the range of practical statistics. Uniform 
 laws would remove many difficulties, 
 though migration to obtain divorce cover 
 a small part of the divorces of the coun- 
 try. Both constitutional amendment and 
 concurrent state legislation have been 
 urged. New York has a commission in 
 the interests of the latter. Should this 
 prove inadequate, we can resort to the 
 former with important gains. 
 
 S. W. Dike. 
 
 Doctors.— See Medicine. 
 
 Dodge, William Earl — Born in 
 Hartford, Conn., Sept. 4, 1805, and died 
 in New York City, Feb. 9, 1883. His 
 
Dodge, William Earl.] 
 
 157 
 
 [Tougal], John. 
 
 father removed to New York City in 
 1805, and William began his mercantile 
 career there at the age of 13, working as 
 a clerk for his father. When he reached 
 manhood he engaged in the dry-goods 
 business with a partner, on his own ac- 
 count, under the firm name of Hunting- 
 ton & Dodge. Three years later he mar- 
 ried a daughter of Anson G-. Phelps, and 
 in 1833 became a partner in the firm of 
 Phelps, Dodge & Co. Mr. Dodge was one 
 of the first directors of the Erie Eailroad, 
 but resigned upon the refusal of the 
 management to discontinue the Sunday 
 traffic. For the same reason he severed 
 his connection with the Jersey Central 
 and with the Elevated Eailroad of New 
 York City. During the 30 years of his 
 connection with the Delaware, Lacka- 
 wanna & Western Railroad no Sunday 
 trains were run. He was one of the 
 founders of the Mutual Life Insurance 
 Company, was for three years Presi- 
 dent of the New York Chamber of 
 Commerce, and was a benefactor of 
 Union Theological Seminary, a Manager 
 of the American Bible Society and one of 
 the originators of the Union League Club. 
 He was among the strongest moneyed 
 supporters of the Government in the 
 Civil War, and was elected in 1866 a 
 member of Congress. Appointed In- 
 dian Commissioner by President Grant, 
 he visited the Western Territories and 
 made himself familiar with every phase of 
 the Indian question. Throughout his life 
 and by his will at his death, he gave most 
 liberally to philanthropic enterprises. He 
 was a friend of the negro and a generous 
 benefactor of Lincoln University for col- 
 ored men. He helped to establish in New 
 York City a Christian Home for Intem- 
 perate Men and a like institution for 
 women. He was a total abstainer and his 
 social eminence did not lead him to sacri- 
 fice his principles. While a member of 
 the House of Representatives he was a 
 member of the Congressional Temperance 
 Society. He was the personal friend of 
 John B. Gough, and expressed his sym- 
 pathy for Neal Dow in the struggle for 
 Prohibition in Maine. At the fifth 
 American Temperance Convention, held 
 at Saratoga, N. Y., Aug. 1, 1865, it was 
 proposed to form two temperance soci- 
 eties, a National Society and a Publica- 
 tion House. But the two were subse- 
 quently merged in one, the National Tem- 
 
 perance Society and Publication House, 
 with headquarters in New York City, 
 and Mr. Dodge was elected President of 
 the organization, a position which he held 
 continuously until his death. Mr. Dodge 
 said in 1880: 
 
 " Having watched the progress of the temper- 
 ance reformation from its beginning, and the 
 several crises which have from time to time se- 
 cured fresh public attention and in each case 
 carried the cause forward, I am now fully con- 
 vinced that the next great battle is for Prohibi- 
 tion. This principle of the suppression of the 
 traffic by popular vote, either through Constitu- 
 tional Amendments, State and national, or by 
 local Prohibition, is the question which the 
 friends of temperance in this country are bound 
 to press until public sentiment shall secure the 
 result. It is not claimed that Prohibition will 
 prevent all intemperance; but it will go far 
 towards it by removing the public temptation. 
 The license system is the chief obstacle in the 
 way. It gives a kind of legal respectability to 
 the business. The time must come when no 
 Christian can maintain his standing in the 
 church who will manufacture, sell or use intoxi- 
 cating drinks, or vote for any party favoring 
 income from license to sell poison." 
 
 Dougall, John. — Born in Paisley, 
 Scotland, July 8, 1808, and died in New 
 York City, Aug. 19, 1886. He received 
 but a meagre school education, but he en- 
 larged it greatly by general reading. In 
 1826, when 18 years old, he emigrated to 
 Montreal, Canada, and entered the com- 
 mission business. In 1832 he became a 
 member of the Montreal Temperance 
 Society. Under the preaching of Dr. 
 Kirk of Boston, in 1838, he embraced 
 religion, and in 1840, soon after his mar- 
 riage, he joined a Congregational church. 
 In addition to managing a large mercan- 
 tile business Mr. Dougall for several years 
 conducted the Canada Temperance Advo- 
 cate, and in 1846 he started the Montreal 
 Witness, which was published for ten 
 years as a weekly, and afterwards was 
 issued semi-weekly and later three times 
 a week. In 1860 a daily edition was printed 
 at a half-penny a copy, and although 
 maintaining the religious character and 
 temperance principles of the weekly, it 
 attained a phenomenal circulation in a 
 short time. Mr. Dougall believed daily 
 papers of similar character could be suc- 
 cessfully conducted in other cities, and he 
 conferred with editors of religious weekly 
 newspapers and talked to large gatherings 
 on this subject. A gentleman of means 
 encouraged him to start such a journal in 
 New York City, and accordingly in 1871 
 
Dow, Neal.] 
 
 158 
 
 [Dow, Neal. 
 
 the New York Daily Witness was begun. 
 But it was never self-sustaining, and in 
 1878, when it had almost acquired a pay- 
 ing circulation, it was discontinued. The 
 New York Weekly Witness, on the con- 
 trary, was a great success almost from its 
 first publication in 1872, although its ad- 
 vocacy of the Prohibition party, in 1884, 
 was made at a heavy sacrifice. In 1876 
 the Sabbath Reading was inaugurated and 
 soon became successful; but Gems of 
 Poetry, started in 1880, was abandoned 
 after a few years. The Pioneer, estab- 
 lished by Mr. Dougall in 1885, and de- 
 voted exclusively to the advocacy of the 
 principles of the Prohibition party, is one 
 of the chief Prohibition papers. 
 
 Dow, Neal, third candidate of the 
 Prohibition party for President of the 
 United States; born in Portland, Me., 
 March 20, 1804. His father and mother 
 were Quakers. He received his education 
 in the Portland public schools, the 
 Academy at Portland and the Friends' 
 Academy at New Bedford, Mass. A total 
 abstainer from his youth, at the age of 21 
 he became a member of the Maine Chari- 
 table Mechanic Association and fought 
 his first battle for temperance by oppos- 
 ing the admission of a rumseller who had 
 applied for membership in the Associa- 
 tion. A protracted discussion ensued, 
 finally resulting in the rejection of the 
 applicant. Mr. Dow's labors have won 
 for him the title of " Father of the Maine 
 Law." He was identified more promi- 
 nently than any other person with the 
 movement that led to the passage of the 
 first State Prohibitory law. Determined 
 to arouse a public sentiment that should 
 outlaw the drink traffic in Maine, he de- 
 voted many years to canvassing the State. 
 He sometimes secured two or three good 
 speakers, and carried them with him on 
 extended tours giving lectures, holding 
 mass-meetings, and scattering temperance 
 documents. Maine's Prohibitory act of 
 1846 was the first fruit of these efforts. 
 This measure was not very effective from 
 the fact that it made no adequate provis- 
 ion for the punishment of law-breakers 
 or for the seizure of liquors illegally held 
 for sale; but under the inspiration of 
 Mr. Dow's example the temperance advo- 
 cates throughout the State continued the 
 agitation to amend it. A Legislature 
 pledged to Prohibition was finally chosen. 
 
 Mr. Dow, at that time Mayor of Portland, 
 drafted a bill that he believed would be 
 effective. By its terms the manufacture, 
 sale and keeping for sale of intoxicating 
 liquors were forbidden; liquors kept for 
 sale were to be seized, confiscated and 
 destroyed ; no action could be maintained 
 for the recovery of liquors thus confis- 
 cated, and there could be no property in 
 such liquors; cases arising under this act 
 were to take precedence in the Courts over 
 all others except cases where the persons 
 on trial were actually in* waiting in con- 
 finement; cases could not be continued 
 for trial, nor could sentence be postponed, 
 and action was to be immediate; the pen- 
 alties of fine or imprisonment named in 
 the act were invariably to be imposed on 
 convicted persons, and were not to be 
 lightened, directly or indirectly, by the 
 Court ; liquors for medicinal purposes, or 
 for use in manufactures or the arts, were 
 to be sold by an agent especially ap- 
 pointed in each town, who should have 
 no pecuniary interest in the sales made; 
 the act was to go into effect as soon as 
 approved by the Governor. Mr. Dow 
 submitted this bill to some of the leading 
 temperance men of Portland, who de- 
 clared it improbable that such a measure 
 would be passed by the Legislature. He 
 arrived in Augusta, the State capital, 
 April 29, 1851 — two days before adjourn- 
 ment. The next morning he requested 
 the Speaker of the House to immediately 
 appoint a committee to consider his bill, 
 and to grant a hearing that afternoon. 
 The request was granted both in the 
 House and in the Senate. In the after- 
 noon the Legislature adjourned to give 
 him a hearing. The hall was crowded. 
 He spoke for an hour and presented the 
 bill. It was rushed to the printer (who, 
 curiously enough, was a rumseller), and 
 passed by a vote of 86 to 40 in the House 
 and 18 to 10 in the Senate. Governor 
 Hubbard, a Democrat, signed the act 
 June 2, 1851, and Mr. Dow's bill became 
 the famous Maine law. The interest in 
 the new measure centered in Portland, 
 the metropolis of the State, where Mr. 
 Dow was Mayor. He quietly announced 
 that the law would be enforced, and issued 
 a proclamation allowing liquor-dealers a 
 reasonable time to transport their goods 
 to other States, but warning them not to 
 sell in Portland. In a short time Port- 
 land's saloons had ceased to exist, some of 
 
Druggists. 
 
 159 
 
 [Drunkenness. 
 
 them being closed up and others converted 
 into reputable places of business. Mr. 
 Dow prepared quarterly reports on the 
 workings of Prohibition, containing 
 unanswerable proofs of the successful en- 
 forcement of the law. In 1861 he re- 
 cruited a regiment, the 13th Maine 
 Volunteers, and entered the army. He 
 was made a Brigadier-General by Presi- 
 dent Lincoln in April, 1862, and was 
 twice wounded in battle. He has visited 
 England three times, delivering about 500 
 addresses under the auspices of the 
 United Kingdom Alliance. As the can- 
 didate of the Prohibition party for Presi- 
 dent in 1880 he received 9,678 votes. 
 
 Druggists. — The relations of the 
 druggist's calling to the practical aspects 
 of the drink question are of much im- 
 portance. The prevailing practice of 
 most physicians, who prescribe alcohol 
 and alcoholic liquors to patients, makes 
 it necessary for pharmacists to keep stocks 
 of alcohol and the various popular bev- 
 erages. Prohibitory laws, even the most 
 stringent, have not discriminated against 
 the privilege of physicians to so pre- 
 scribe or the right of druggists to vend on 
 physicians' prescriptions — indeed, all Pro- 
 hibitory acts specially exempt alco- 
 holic liquors used for "medicinal pur- 
 poses." But- the disposition of unscrupu- 
 lous physicians and druggists to abuse 
 their powers is guarded against in such 
 acts by restrictions and penalties more or 
 less severe: in some cases, as in Kansas 
 and the Dakotas, the 23harmacy features 
 of the Prohibitory laws are ' so rigid that 
 druggists cannot safely attempt frequent 
 evasions in any community where there is 
 a disposition to enforce legal provisions, 
 violations subjecting the offending drug- 
 gist to fine, imprisonment and depriva- 
 tion for a number of years of his certifi- 
 cate as a pharmacist. On the other hand 
 the term " medicinal purposes " is capa- 
 ble of being made to cover illegitimate 
 sales, so long as the physician has full 
 discretion; and a conscienceless druggist 
 co-operating with a conscienceless physi- 
 cian may, under favorable local conditions 
 and for a while, at least, make his phar- 
 macy business a mere cloak for catering 
 to the drink appetite and amassing prof 
 its. Experience under all Prohibitory 
 systems has shown that the " drug-store 
 saloon " is one of the chief obstacles in 
 
 the way of complete success ; but under a 
 rigid law like that of Kansas the difficulty 
 is everywhere greatly lessened, and in 
 communities where the officers of the law 
 are faithful it can be and is entirely 
 removed. Hearty co-operation has at 
 times been given by reputable pharma- 
 cists toward bringing offenders to justice ; 
 but the general attitude of the pharmacy 
 trade is not everywhere so satisfactory as 
 is to be desired — in fact, pharmacists fre- 
 quently complain bitterly against rigid 
 restrictions, and in certain instances have 
 become identified with the anti-Prohibi- 
 tion element. 
 
 The responsibility for drug-store viola- 
 tions rests, in the main, upon the medi- 
 cal profession, and is especially charge- 
 able to the general belief that alcoholic 
 liquors are essentials of the pharmaco- 
 poeia. There is, however, a growing opin- 
 ion among scientists that even if alcohol 
 has a necessary place in medical practice 
 there is no necessity for prescribing any 
 of the alcoholic beverages of commerce. 
 If this opinion were generally recognized 
 and pure alcohol instead of the fascinat- 
 ing beverages were prescribed in all cases 
 where alcoholic prescription is deemed 
 advisable, the temptation to pharmacists 
 that is incidental to Prohibitory laws 
 would practically disappear ; for the de- 
 mand for pure alcohol as a beverage is at 
 present so insignificant as not to be taken 
 into account. 
 
 In the license States the sale of alco- 
 holic liquors by druggists is, generally 
 speaking, practically unrestricted. In 
 addition to the annual fee of 825 
 charged by the United States Govern- 
 ment, druggists pay in some States a 
 nominal local fee (for example, SI per 
 year in Massachusetts) required by State 
 law. Several of the representative Local 
 Option States provide special pharmacy 
 regulations for Prohibitory districts. 
 But sales of liquor by the drink are, as a 
 rule, permitted with but slight restric- 
 tions. Prominent drug-stores in all the 
 great license cities have an extensive pat- 
 ronage from persons who never enter 
 saloons and would consider it compro- 
 mising to take their drams over an ordi- 
 nary bar. 
 
 [For legislative provisions concerning drug- 
 gists in the various States, see Legislation.] 
 
 Drunkenness. — For particulars of 
 the influence exercised by various legis- 
 
Dutch Reformed Church.] 
 
 160 
 
 [Edgar, John. 
 
 lative systems toward increasing or dimin- 
 ishing drunkenness, see High License 
 and Pkohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 Dutch Reformed Church. — No 
 
 action on Prohibition was taken by the 
 General Synod of this church in 1888 or 
 1889. The latest deliverance was made 
 at Catskill, N. Y., June, 1887, the follow- 
 ing resolutions being adopted : 
 
 '* 1. That this Synod reiterates the deliverance 
 of former Synods on the subject of temperance, 
 and urges increased interest and zeal throughout 
 the denomination in gospel temperance work. 
 
 '*2. Th;it we especially and heartily sympa- 
 thize with the work of the W. C. T. U., andbid 
 the Union God-speed in the noble effort to res- 
 cue men from the curse of strong drink." 
 
 Edgar, John. — Born in Ballynahinch, 
 Ireland, in 1798; died in Belfast, Ireland, 
 Aug. 20, 1866. His father was a Presby- 
 terian clergyman in Ballynahinch, and 
 for many years was in charge of the 
 academy from which the son graduated. 
 The young man finished his college 
 course at Glasgow University and studied 
 theology in Belfast, where in 1820 he 
 was ordained pastor of a " mission" church. 
 His energy and power as a preacher rap- 
 idly built up his church, but eventually 
 he resigned its pastorate to fill the chair of 
 Systematic The:logy in the Presbyterian 
 Theological College at Belfast. Upon 
 the union of the two branches of the 
 Presbyterian Church in Ireland in 1840, 
 Dr. Edgar was made Divinity Professor 
 of the united church. In 1842 he 
 became Moderator of the General Assem- 
 bly and succeeded in securing a fund for 
 the establishment of Christian institu- 
 tions in Southern and Western Ireland. 
 During the potato famine of 1846 he 
 labored zealously for the relief of the peo- 
 ple, raising money for the starving, intro- 
 ducing industrial schools for the training 
 of the youth, sending out missionaries 
 and inciting to benevolence among the 
 gentry. In temperance work he was one 
 of the most conspicuous persons of his 
 time in Great Britain, and he was the 
 father of the reform in Ireland, the first 
 temperance organization in that country 
 having had its origin in a letter written 
 by him and published in the Belfast 
 News-Letter, Aug. 14, 1829. Six days 
 later a society was formed at New Eoss 
 in County Wexford. A second letter was 
 
 published in the News-Letter, Sept. 4 and 
 11, and afterwards was issued as a tract. 
 In his second letter, speaking of the first 
 one, he said that "a number of con- 
 temporary journals have cheerfully pub- 
 lished my communication on behalf of 
 temperance, and many men of rank and 
 position of the first eminence are hearty 
 in the matter." On Sept. 24, at Belfast, 
 the Ulster Temperance Society was organ- 
 ized, Dr. Edgar being one of the original 
 six signers of the constitution. In Oc- 
 tober, 1829, he preached the first of a 
 series of temperance sermons in the Meth- 
 odist Chapel, Donegal Square, Belfast, 
 and by the close of the year 25 temper- 
 ance societies had been founded in Ire- 
 land, with a total membership of 800. 
 In 1829 he issued " An Address to the 
 Temperate " (Dublin), while " The In- 
 toxicating Drinks of the Hebrews" 
 (Belfast, 1837), and "Scriptural Tem- 
 perance " (Belfast, 1837), were his contri- 
 butions to the Bible Wines controversy. 
 He also introduced Dr. Lyman Beecher's 
 " Six Sermons on Intemperance " to the 
 British public. His usefulness in the 
 later development of temperance reform 
 in Great Britain was, however, seriously 
 interfered with by his opposition to the 
 total abstinence movement and to Father 
 Mathew's remarkable pledge-signing cru- 
 sade in Ireland. "Scriptural Temper- 
 ance " and his " Limitations of Liberty " 
 were written expressly to combat the agi- 
 tation for total abstinence, and while they 
 could not turn back the popukr tide they 
 served to rob their author of sympathy 
 and active participation in the new phase 
 of the reform almost until his death. 
 He wished to limit temperance efforts 
 to opposition to the spirit traffic, and in 
 1847 made final strenuous efforts to carry 
 back the agitation in Ireland to this basis, 
 but without success. Toward the close of 
 his life he became reconciled to the change 
 in sentiment, if not its pronounced advo- 
 cate, and in 1855, as Moderator, signed 
 an Address on Temperance, from the 
 Committee of the Irish Presbyterian As- 
 sembly, unquestionably prepared by him- 
 self, in which total abstinence from all 
 intoxicating liquors was favored. Again 
 in 1861 he published a paper on the 
 " Kelation between Temperance and the 
 Eeligious Kevival," in which he mani- 
 fested a disposition to tolerate and com- 
 mend the total abstinence movement^ 
 
Educational Laws.] 
 
 161 
 
 [Epilepsy. 
 
 Educational Laws. — See Legisla- 
 tion and Scientific Temperance Ed- 
 ucational Laws. 
 
 Edwards, Justin. — Born in West- 
 hampton, Mass., April 25, 1787, and died 
 in Bath Alum, Va., July 23, 1853. He 
 graduated from Williams College in 1810. 
 He became pastor of the Congregational 
 Church at Andover, Mass., in 1812, and 
 remained in charge for 15 years. In 
 1828 he was appointed pastor of the 
 Salem street church of Boston, but he 
 resigned in 1829 to become General Sec- 
 retary of the American Temperance So- 
 ciety which he served for seven years, 
 delivering addresses, organizing branch 
 societies, and preparing his six reports of 
 the Society from 1831 to 1836, which 
 were afterwards published in a volume 
 entitled " The Permanent American 
 Temperance Documents." Dr. Dawson 
 Burns characterizes Dr. Edwards as 
 " beyond all question the ablest organizer 
 and promoter of the original temperance 
 movement in America." (" Temperance 
 History," vol. 1, p. 368.) The formation 
 of " The American Society for the Pro- 
 motion of Temperance," at Boston on 
 Eeb. 13, 1826, marks the beginning of 
 organized effort against liquor-drinking, 
 and Dr. Edwards was foremost among the 
 founders of this Society. During the 
 previous year he had written a widely- 
 circulated tract on the " Well-Ccnducted 
 Farm," in which he described the suc- 
 cessful experiment of a farmer who pro- 
 hibited the use of spirits on his farm in 
 spite of the well-nigh universal custom. 
 The radical position taken from the first 
 by the doctor and his colleagues in the 
 American Temperance Society is shown 
 by the declaration, made a part of the 
 constitution in 1826, that the principal 
 object of the temperance movement was 
 not the reformation of the intemperate, 
 however desirable that might be, but the 
 prevention of intemperance. During his 
 career as Corresponding Secretary and 
 General Agent of this Society Dr. Ed- 
 wards inaugurated a temperance move- 
 ment in Washington which spread to 
 Congress and resulted in establishing 
 the Congressional Temperance Society; 
 and on Aug. 31, 1830, he delivered the 
 first temperance address in St. John's, 
 New Brunswick, leading to the formation 
 of the St. John's Temperance Society, 
 
 one of the earliest in Canada. After his 
 resignation he was for six years President 
 of Andover Theological Seminary. From 
 1842 until 1849 he labored for Sabbath 
 observance as zealously as he had for 
 temperance. Of four tracts (two, of them 
 on temperance) written by him and pub- 
 lished by the American Tract Society, 
 more than 750,000 copies were printed 
 up to 1857. They are entitled: the 
 "Well-Conducted Farm ;"" On the Traffic 
 in Ardent Spirits;" "Joy in Heaven 
 Over One Sinner that Kepenteth," and 
 " The Way to be Saved." Of his •' Tem- 
 perance Manual" 193,625 copies, and of 
 his "Sabbath Manual" 583,544 copies 
 were distributed. He prepared a com- 
 mentary on the Bible, unfinished at the 
 time of his death, which included all of 
 the New and a part of the Old Testament. 
 
 Effects of Alcohol. — See Alcohol, 
 Effects of. 
 
 Effects of 
 
 High License. 
 
 High License. — See 
 
 Effects of Prohibition. — See Pro- 
 hibition, Benefits of. 
 
 Egypt.— See Africa. 
 
 England. — See Great Britain. 
 
 Epilepsy. — This fearful disease is 
 one of the maladies to which the excessive 
 drinker is subject. It is most frequent 
 among absinthe drinkers. "This [alco- 
 holic] epilepsy," says Dr. B. W. Bichard- 
 son, is " essentially characteristic. . . . 
 The seizure usually occurs at first in the 
 night and during sleep, and may not be 
 distinguished by the sufferer himself from 
 one of the many old attacks of what he prob- 
 ably calls night-mare. In time his friends 
 become acquainted with the fact of the 
 seizure or some evidence is left of it in 
 the form of bruise or bitten tongue. Still 
 later the attack occurs in the daytime, 
 and then the precise nature of the disease 
 is declared. In its early stages alcoholic 
 epilepsy is comparatively easy of cure. 
 It is cured sometimes spontaneously by 
 simple total abstinence from alcohol. In 
 its later stages it is, however, as incurable 
 as any other type of this serious and in- 
 tractable malady." 1 
 
 1 Diseases of Modern Life (New York, 1884), pp. 365-6. 
 
Equal Suffrage.] 
 
 162 
 
 [Equal Suffrage. 
 
 Equal Suffrage. * - Only a few years 
 ago I bitterly opposed Woman Suffrage. 
 A wealthy widow, whose guest I was, said 
 to me one election day : " Sir, do you 
 think justice is done woman when my 
 two gardeners, who have no property, are 
 foreign-born and can scarcely speak 
 English, have gone to the polls to vote 
 for what, if carried, will add $500 to my 
 taxes, and will place saloons along the 
 pathway of my two boys, while I, who pay 
 more taxes than any man in this county 
 and am trying to raise my boys to be 
 good and useful citizens, have no voice 
 concerning what shall tax my property or 
 affect the welfare of my children ? " 
 Prom that moment my views commenced 
 changing and the sentiment of right 
 which lies at the bottom of every con- 
 science set up a leavening process. Old 
 truths had new meanings. " Taxation 
 without representation is tyranny " — wo- 
 men are taxed. " This is a Government 
 of the people, by the people, and for the 
 people "- women are people. " Govern- 
 ments derive their just powers from the 
 consent of the governed " — women are 
 among the governed. " The depths of 
 society are woman's depths — its heights 
 should be her heights." " The wrongs of 
 society are woman's wrongs — its rights 
 should be her rights." 
 
 Is it right that native-born women, 
 with finest gifts of mind and graces of 
 character, who have inherited the purest 
 principles of government, guarded the 
 country's patriotism and helped to raise 
 its revenues, should be disfranchised, 
 while foreign-born men, ignorant of our 
 language and laws and regardless of 
 morals, can express themselves in the 
 strongest sense of citizenship ? In a land 
 where " liberty " is the watchword, is it 
 right that woman should be a slave to 
 laws which tax her, try her, imprison her 
 and hang her, without any voice as to 
 the justice of these laws or the character 
 of the men elected to enforce them ? The 
 perpetuity of the Republic depends upon 
 the virtue and intelligence of its people. 
 Have men all the virtue ? Do women 
 fill the saloons and gambling-houses, and 
 crowd the street corners, polluting the 
 
 1 Since the three contributions embraced under this bead 
 are wholly controversial, the editor disclaims responsibil- 
 ity for all the opinions expressed. The appearance of 
 such articles in this work is justified by the prominence 
 given to certain aspects of the Woman Suffrage discussion 
 * in connection with the Prohibition movement. 
 
 air with oaths, obscenities, and tobacco- 
 smoke ? Do men fill the churches and 
 gather the children about the home 
 altars ? What about intelligence ? Do 
 men possess all of this saving element ? 
 The record of our high schools tell us 
 that two girls graduate for one boy. Then 
 if upon virtue and intelligence depends 
 the perpetuity of the Republic, and 
 women have the preponderance of these 
 saving influences, why withhold from 
 them a share in the political life of the 
 nation ? 
 
 Some say the ballot would soon lower 
 the high standard of woman's excellence. 
 If woman's excellence is the result of her 
 disfranchisement, then the ballot is deg- 
 radation per se, and man should also be 
 disfranchised that he may be elevated. 
 Woman's excellence is not the result of 
 disfranchisement but of the spiritual 
 forces of her nature. The belief that 
 enfranchisement would degrade woman 
 is but another of the apprehensions which 
 always meet radical ch nges. Henry 
 Clay said immediate emancipation would, 
 result in the burning of Southern homes 
 and dire disaster. Abraham Lincoln Siiid 
 in substance the same. " It won't work " 
 has met every scientific invention, every 
 radical reform. Within the past century 
 hundreds of new fields have been opened 
 to woman; let objectors name one where 
 womanhood has been degraded, or one 
 that has not been benefited and blessed 
 by the touch of her influence, whether 
 social, industrial, intellectual or political. 
 
 Many, prompted by a desire for wo- 
 man's welfare, say: " It would be degrad- 
 ing to woman to have her enter the dirty 
 pool of politics." That which has to do 
 with the safety, morality and prosperity 
 of the people ought not 1 to be a " dirty 
 pool." If it is, the sooner the cleansing 
 power of woman's ballot is felt the better 
 for the country. It will not be the first 
 time she has had cleansing work to do. 
 For centuries she has been cleaning dirty 
 pools of tobacco spit, dirty floors, clothes 
 and characters, and going through haunts 
 of vice to reclaim her loved lost ones; 
 and since she must endure the conse- 
 quences of the " dirty pool " of politics, 
 she should be allowed to turn the " dirty 
 pool " into a crystal spring that its pure 
 flow may give her purer associations. 
 That this pool be cleaned is as much a 
 domestic necessity as house-cleaning, and 
 
Equal Suffrage.] 
 
 163 
 
 [Equal Suffrage. 
 
 domestic purity demands the most potent 
 means for the cleansing work. A sensible 
 woman cannot appreciate the encomiums 
 which on the fourth day of July place 
 her but a little lower than the angels, when 
 she knows that on election day she is 
 classed with paupers, idiots and criminals. 
 
 It is also said : " Woman cannot devote 
 sufficient time to a study of political 
 questions to justify her having the bal- 
 lot." The time she consumes in talking 
 to her neighbor about the style of new 
 bonnets would enable her to become as 
 well posted on tariff as the average farmer, 
 while her quickness of perception and 
 moral sense would enable her to reach a 
 knowledge of general questions at least 
 equal to that possessed by the average 
 voter who has about attained perfection, 
 in the opinion of political leaders, when 
 he votes the old party ticket, no matter 
 what the platform or who the candidate. 
 
 The objection made by the politicians 
 of Washington Territory, when women 
 secured the ballot there, was this : " Wo- 
 man is impracticable ; she will not stick 
 to party." But the record of her ballot 
 shows that she did stick to principle. A 
 leading journal of that Territory said: 
 "The result of the late election shows 
 that all parties must put up good men if 
 they expect success." That there are bad 
 women who will join bad men at the 
 ballot-box may be true; but the propor- 
 tion of bad is not so great among women 
 as men, therefore advantage instead of 
 harm will result. 
 
 The probable influence of Woman Suf- 
 frage upon the temperance reform can be 
 no better indicated than by the following 
 words of the Brewers' Congress held in 
 Chicago, October, 1881 : 
 
 " Resolved, That we oppose always and 
 everywhere the ballot in the hands of woman, 
 for woman's vote is the last hope of the Prohi- 
 bitionists." 
 
 Reading between the lines, this means 
 also that woman's ballot is the death-knell 
 of the liquor traffic. When the liquor- 
 dealers and gamblers secured a decision 
 adverse to woman's ballot from Judge 
 Nash of Washington Territory they lit 
 bonfires and rang bells, for it meant a 
 loose rein to such as they. When in Rock- 
 i'ord, 111., a few years ago two boxes were 
 prepared for a test of the sentiment of 
 both sexes on the license question, the 
 one containing the votes of men favored 
 
 license, while the one containing the 
 votes of women showed out of 2,000 
 votes only four for license, and into that 
 box went the votes of Irish, Germans 
 and Scandinavians, as well as of native- 
 born women. Ex-Governor Hoyc of 
 Wyoming, where women have had the 
 ballot for 20 years, says : " Woman Suf- 
 frage gives us better laws, better officers, 
 better institutions, better morals and a 
 
 higher social condition. 
 
 J. W. King- 
 
 man, ex-Judge of Wyoming, said : " Wo- 
 men make themselves felt at the polls as 
 they do everywhere in society by an 
 effectual discountenancing of the bad 
 and a helping hand for the good and the t 
 true." In Kansas, enforcement of Pro- 
 hibition was a failure in many places un- 
 til municipal suffrage was conferred upon 
 women, when at the first discharge of 
 this pent-up moral power the saloon bat- 
 teries of Kansas were silenced and a new 
 emphasis was given to God's truth, " It 
 is not good for man to be alone." 
 
 The principle of equal suffrage has 
 been recognized in the platform of the 
 Prohibition party since the first National 
 Convention, and both principle and 
 policy demand that it shall remain there. 
 That the party should have but one idea 
 is absurd; that it should have but one 
 leading issue is right, and does not affect 
 the Suffrage plank. No party ever goes 
 before the country with only one idea, 
 and yet never but one real issue absorbs 
 the public thought. The Republican 
 party had a number of planks in its plat- 
 form "of 1888, but protection was its 
 rallying cry. The Democratic party had 
 as many planks in its platform, but tariff 
 reform was its shibboleth. The Prohibi- 
 tion party had an equal number of 
 planks, but Prohibition was its watch- 
 word. Of all the hundreds of speeches 
 made by Prohibitionists in the campaign 
 of 1888, in every one Prohibition was the 
 all-absorbing theme. No one proposes 
 to make any other the leading issue. 
 Miss Willard's "tandem team" with 
 Prohibition in the lead, is advocated by 
 every Suffragist in the party. The plat- 
 form adopted at the last National Con- 
 vention in Indianapolis, June, 1888, de- 
 clares Prohibition to be " the dominant 
 issue," and extends full fellowship in the 
 party to all "who on this dominant issue 
 are agreed." 
 
 We are told that a party is not needed 
 
Equal Suffrage.] 
 
 1G4 
 
 [Equal Suffrage. 
 
 to secure equal suffrage — that it must 
 come through education, agitation and 
 petitioning. What is more educating 
 and agitating than a political party on 
 questions to be decided by politicians ? 
 What party should help on the education 
 and agitation? That party which expects 
 the benefit of woman's ballot when it is 
 secured; that party which needs most 
 woman's ballot to enforce its principles. 
 Since the Prohibition party is the only 
 party that can claim woman's ballot as 
 its rightful inheritance, let us be careful 
 not to sell it for a mess of pottage — the 
 immediate control of a few votes.. 
 
 While no other issue can take the place 
 of Prohibition, we will need woman's 
 ballot when the day of enforcement 
 comes, and to keep it within reach is the 
 part of policy as well as principle; for 
 the speed of our progress is not so great 
 a question as our ability to hold the land 
 when it has come into our possession. 
 To enforce Prohibition in our large cities 
 anew saving force must be injected into 
 our politics; and it does not exist out- 
 side of our women. If this comes not by 
 the golden rule, alarming necessity will 
 yet make it a war measure. 
 
 The day will come when the Prohibi- 
 tion party will need woman's ballot to 
 secure enforcement of its purpose. The 
 day will never come when old parties can 
 adopt new great principles anymore than 
 could ,new wine go into old bottles. So 
 what we already possess as a saving grace 
 -let us keep, and what we must finally have, 
 in larger measure, let us cultivate, assured 
 that the evolution in woman's rights will 
 bring to woman the ballot. As out of 
 the idea that a man of brain and heart 
 and conscience is as good as any other 
 man, though that man of brain and heart 
 and conscience be a beggar and that 
 other man a king, came this Eepublic; 
 so out of the idea that a being of brain 
 and heart and conscience is as good as any 
 other being, though that being of brain 
 and heart and conscience be a woman, 
 and that other being a man, will come 
 equal suffrage. The danger that this 
 policy will heap upon the South female 
 colored ignorance is met by the platform 
 of the Prohibition party, which declares 
 that •' mental and moral qualification for 
 the exercise of an intelligent ballot" 
 ought to be the condition for male and 
 female, and that the several States ought 
 
 to decide the educational basis. This 
 policy would place the ballot, North and 
 South, East and West, upon that basis on 
 which experienced men and historians 
 make dependent the perpetuity of a Ee- 
 public — virtue and intelligence. 
 
 George W. Bain. 
 
 Suffrage is the outward expression of 
 the inward sense of self-protection and 
 self-preservation. Suffrage is, therefore, a 
 natural right ; it comes of God and can- 
 not be denied one-half the race by the 
 other half without unwarranted usurpa- 
 tion of power. Suffrage is an expressed 
 opinion upon matters vital to the life, 
 liberty and happiness of the individual; 
 without it no expression can be had upon 
 the laws that affect person or prop- 
 erty, and tbe persons thus denied are 
 subject to the whims, caprices and impo- 
 sitions of those who make and administer 
 the laws, The man or woman has never 
 been born, and doubtless never will be, 
 who is sufficiently just and Christian 
 to be trusted with unlimited power over 
 any other human being. Self -protection 
 is, therefore, the only kind of protection 
 to be trusted in the many emergencies of 
 life. 
 
 All government is a usurpation except 
 that which is based upon the consent of 
 the governed. Suffrage is the instrument 
 through which this consent is secured. 
 Opponents of equal suffrage may urge, 
 upon the broad grounds taken in the 
 foregoing assertions, tnat children, idiots 
 and criminals should be vested with the 
 privilege of suffrage. The parent has a 
 right, inherent with parentage, to repre- 
 sent and protect the child because of 
 its inexperience and undeveloped mind; 
 the idiot is irresponsible; the criminal is 
 dangerous and has, therefore, forfeited 
 his right to suffrage as a penalty for his 
 misdeeds. None of these things — urged 
 against child, idiot or criminal suffrage- 
 can be justly urged against suffrage by the 
 intelligent women. 
 
 Women have a right to suffrage upon 
 the same grounds that men have, and the 
 Declaration of Independence stands as a 
 monument to male usurpation of power 
 which thwarts the existence and ends of 
 a true Eepublic, until women shall vote. 
 To declare " that all men are created 
 equal; that they are endowed by their 
 Creator with certain unalienable rights; 
 
Equal Suffrage.] 
 
 165 
 
 [Equal Suffrage. 
 
 that among these are life, liberty and the 
 pursuit of happiness ; that to secure 
 these rights governments are instituted 
 among men, deriving their just powers 
 from the consent of the governed," and 
 then to deny one-half the people governed 
 the power of consenting, is inconsistent. 
 
 One who believes in a government by 
 the people must grant women suffrage 
 or deny that women are " people." The 
 opponent may urge that the stability of 
 laws rests upon the power of enforcement, 
 that back of the ballot is brute force and 
 the bullet, and that the physical power 
 of women is too limited to enforce their 
 will power. Let it be remembered that 
 if women cannot defend so they cannot 
 attack; also, that it is as great a service 
 to government to go down into the valley 
 and shadow of death to give birth to a son 
 and then rear him to manhood, as it is 
 to go out upon the field of battle and 
 shoot him. 
 
 In short, no objection can be urged 
 against Woman Suffrage which, if carried 
 to its logical conclusion, will not compel 
 the objector to give up every declaration 
 and principle upon which the Republic 
 is founded, and disfranchise men. There- 
 fore I conclude that ours is not a true 
 Kepublic until women are allowed to 
 vote, since natural right and justice de- 
 mand that they exercise the elective 
 franchise as freely and on the same terms 
 as do men. 
 
 It is not my purpose to claim that by 
 nature one sex is superior to the other in 
 brain or moral power; but I am com- 
 pelled to acknowledge that unequal social 
 laws have made the women the superiors 
 of men in intelligence, sobriety, loyalty 
 and virtue. Reliable statistics show that 
 there is a much higher percentage of 
 educated women than of educated men. 
 It is then expedient that women vote, 
 for by this means only can laws reflect 
 the highest degree of intelligence pos- 
 sessed by the people. There is but one 
 drunken woman to every thousand drunk- 
 en men; therefore the sober judgment 
 of our citizens can be best secured by al- 
 lowing clear-brained women at the polls. 
 There is but one criminal woman to 
 twelve criminal men ; therefore the law- 
 abiding, virtuous element of womanhood 
 could so far outweigh and control the 
 vicious and dangerous men who now 
 vote, that every sentiment of patriotism 
 
 demands the intelligence, sobriety and 
 virtue of women at the ballot-box, as a 
 balance of power. 
 
 History teaches that cities control the 
 politics of nations, and through corrup- 
 tion of municipalities governments have 
 been overthrown. American cities are at 
 the present time controlled by the spawn 
 of the saloon. There is but one reserve 
 force upon which the Government can 
 call to rescue the politics of the nation 
 from the clutches of the vicious elements 
 of society, namely, Woman Suffrage. It 
 has all other responsible elements enfran- 
 chised. The three vices of the cities — 
 the brothel, the gambling-den and the 
 saloon — are the great enemies of the 
 child and the home. Against these ene- 
 mies the very nature of women is pitted 
 in all the strength of their love for off- 
 spring and home. Prohibitory legisla- 
 tion will never prohibit, as it should, any 
 or all of these vices, without the enforc- 
 ing ballot of the great undeceased but 
 unrecorded constituency in American 
 politics, women. The lesson taught in 
 Kansas, where women exercise municipal 
 suffrage, is of unspeakable value and con- 
 firms the claim that Woman Suffrage is 
 the great moral force that makes Prohibi- 
 tion prohibit. 
 
 The demoralizing influence of an in- 
 justice is reflex, demoralizing the perpe- 
 trators of such injustice. The slave of 
 the South scarcely suffered more than the 
 slaveholder and his descendants. Denying 
 the mother-instinct of the nation expres- 
 sion, and the development that comes to 
 the elector from the exercise of suffrage, 
 has filled 'our almshouses, jails, asylums 
 and penitentiaries with the waifs of so- 
 ciety. Noble men stand appalled before 
 the great crowd of indigent; and if in 
 their search for remedial agencies they 
 recognize that the tenderness of women, 
 linked with the strength of men in legis- 
 lation, is as necessary as the union of 
 these two agencies in the home and so- 
 ciety, the State will no longer suffer the 
 fearful penalties of half-orphanage. Be- 
 side the breadwinners will stand the home- 
 makers, each clothed with full power to 
 supplement the other and solve the prob- 
 lem of life for the greatest good to the 
 greatest number. The penalties of pov- 
 erty, vice and crime upon us teach that 
 suffrage needs women far more than 
 women need suffrage. 
 
Equal Suffrage.] 
 
 166 
 
 [Equal Suffrage. 
 
 The political party that pledges to 
 legislate in the moral interests of the 
 people must be supported by the moral 
 force of women if it is to meet with suc- 
 cess. 
 
 The Prohibition party is the only one 
 in existence, at the present time, which 
 presents in its platform a single moral 
 principle. The other political parties 
 struggle alone for office, greed and gain. 
 The life and success of the Prohibition 
 party depend upon the enfranchisement 
 of women. The public sentiment which 
 demands this party has grown from the 
 organized and persistent efforts of the 
 Woman's Christian Temperance Union. 
 The issues of the one are the issues of 
 the other. It is, therefore, not only just 
 that the Prohibition party declare and 
 labor for Woman Suffrage, it is also ex- 
 pedient, as it is always expedient to act 
 justly and do right. Time never fails to 
 crown such acts with victory and honor. 
 
 AVoman Suffrage is the logical sequence 
 of the Declaration of Independence and 
 the Bill of Rights. Human liberty v. 
 class rale is in the evolution of govern- 
 ments. Suffrage, the exponent of liberty, 
 has already passed through the several 
 class qualifications of orthodoxy, property 
 and color in this country, and is now 
 preparing to leave behind the last rem- 
 nant of such legislation indicated by sex 
 suffrage. Helen M. Gougae. 
 
 Three leading questions must be con- 
 sidered : 
 
 1. Is Woman Suffrage in itself desir- 
 able ? 
 
 2. If secured, would it assist the cause 
 of Prohibition ? 
 
 3. Assuming that it is desirable in it- 
 self, and that it would assist the cause of 
 Prohibition, should it be advocated by 
 the Prohibition party ? 
 
 To the first question I must reply, 
 Probably not. The question has never 
 been before the public in such a form as 
 to elicit any thorough discussion. The 
 advocates of suffrage have dealt largely 
 in assumptions and ad captandwm, vulgus 
 arguments, and its opponents have relied 
 upon the instinctive judgment of the 
 community rather than upon clearly-de- 
 fined reasons. It is probably better for 
 all concerned that one-half the citizens, 
 and the most esteemed and honored half, 
 should stand aloof from common political 
 
 strife, constituting a moral reserve whose 
 influence, unselfish and unbiased, will be 
 brought in to turn the scale in all im- 
 portant crises. The fact that many 
 changes in woman's position have been 
 effected without bringing the evils which 
 were predicted, does not prove that suf- 
 frage would be a safe experiment. The 
 boy cried "Wolf! wolf!" many times 
 when there was no wolf there, but at last, 
 when people had grown indifferent to the 
 cry of alarm, the wolf actually came. 
 
 To the second question I must answer, 
 Only slightly and temporarily. It is a 
 great confession of weakness to assume 
 that Prohibition cannot be carried as 
 other reforms have been by manhood 
 suffrage, and that the basis of suffrage 
 must be changed in order to force it 
 through. Conservative minds would 
 hesitate to have Prohibition enacted be- 
 fore a majority of men are enlisted in its 
 favor. The impression of female senti- 
 ment on the temperance question which 
 one gathers in a Woman's Christian 
 Temperance Union Convention is scarcely 
 representative of the community at large. 
 Foreign women, negro women, fashion- 
 able women, business women and thought- 
 less women must all be reckoned with. 
 In general, wherever we find a man who 
 sustains the saloon, directly or indirectly, 
 we may be sure there is somewhere a wo- 
 man — the female of his species— to 
 match him. The principal reason which 
 operates in the mind of good men to pre- 
 vent their political action against the 
 liquor traffic, is their attachment to some 
 political party. While women do not 
 vote they are largely free from this in- 
 fluence. When the suffrage was first 
 conferred many women might join a new 
 party in the interests of temperance, but 
 as soon as women became fully enlisted 
 in the race for office and the effort to 
 " beat " their opponents, they would be- 
 come as party-blind as the good deacons 
 of the old parties to-day. There seems 
 to be no reason to doubt that if women 
 were placed in the same position in which 
 men are, they would act as men do. 
 
 To the third question I have a more 
 positive answer. Granting that Woman 
 Suffrage is desirable in itself, and that it 
 would assist the cause of temperance if 
 secured, it is still certain that the Pro- 
 hibition party ought not to advocate it. 
 The linking together of two great meas- 
 
Equal Suffrage.] 
 
 167 
 
 [Ethics of License. 
 
 ures is sure to hinder the passage of 
 both. This is capable of mathematical 
 demonstration. Let there be 3,000 voters 
 in a township. It is proposed to build a 
 new bridge, and it is also proposed to build 
 a new school-house. Naturally some who 
 favor one of these measures will oppose 
 the other. If the two measures are sub- 
 mitted together, so that a man cannot 
 vote for one without also voting for the 
 other, neither of them can be carried un- 
 til there is a majority favorable to both. 
 Yet each could be carried separately 
 long before that time. There will be a 
 time in the progress of discussion when 
 1,000 voters will favor the bridge and 
 oppose the schoolhouse, another 1,000 
 will favor the schoolhouse and oppose 
 the bridge, and the remaining 1,000 will 
 favor both. Submit both propositions 
 together and you are defeated by a two- 
 thirds vote. Submit either of them 
 separately and you win by a two-thirds 
 vote. In such a case we should submit 
 the two questions separately - not as a 
 matter of policy but as a matter of prin- 
 ciple. It is the o^ly way in which the 
 people can be enabled to express their 
 true convictions. If an ardent advocate 
 of the schoolhouse should say, " I will 
 not allow these things to be separated ; if 
 anybody wants the bridge he has got to 
 vote for the schoolhouse too," he would 
 be guilty of a political immorality. This 
 is what is commonly called a " rider " — 
 one measure linked to another so that 
 the person who desires the one must vote 
 for the other against his will. This is 
 the position which the Suffragists take in 
 the Prohibition party to-day. They make 
 suffrage a rider. They say, " The plat- 
 form, the speakers, the machinery of the 
 Prohibition party shall be used for suf- 
 frage also, so that no one can help the 
 party without helping suffrage. If any 
 man wants to help the Prohibition party 
 he has got to help the cause of Woman 
 Suffrage whether he believes in it or 
 not." 
 
 This policy is particularly odious at a 
 time when they are urging their fellow- 
 citizens to drop all subordinate questions 
 and unite upon the one issue of Prohibi- 
 tion. They ask the tariff men and the 
 anti-tariff men to drop that question and 
 attend to temperance. They exhort all 
 other citizens to drop or defer their pet 
 schemes for the sake of crushing the sa- 
 
 loon, and yet insist upon lugging in their 
 own hobby which is the greatest weight 
 of all. They cannot claim to be working 
 for suffrage in the interests of Prohibi- 
 tion because they cannot get suffrage 
 until they already have a majority of 
 men. This is the one sufficient reason 
 for the twenty years' failure of the party. 
 Like the Irishman's pig, " it is little, but 
 it is old." The independent men who 
 are ready to leave the old parties refuse 
 to join a third party which insists upon 
 violating their consciences by such a 
 yoke as this. When the Suffrage plank 
 was dropped in Ohio in 1885 the Prohibi- 
 tion vote rose from 11,000 to 28,000; 
 but after four years of toil, with the suf- 
 frage millstone again upon its neck, the 
 party cannot record a single foot of pro- 
 gress. The suspicion arises that the 
 managers of the party do not expect to 
 win voters and at last carry the country, 
 but simply to carry on a miscellaneous agi- 
 tation — playing at politics. 
 
 In conclusion, it is well to refer to the 
 compromise of the Hon. John M. Olin, 
 which was rejected under such remark- 
 able circumstances at the Indianapolis 
 Convention of 1888. He reminded the 
 Suffragists that the question was purely 
 a constitutional one, and that the only 
 party action which is possible in the case 
 is to submit a Constitutional Amend- 
 ment. This the non-Suffragists, for the 
 sake of peace, were willing to do. _ The 
 compromise was rejected, and yet it re- 
 mains true that if Woman Suffrage is 
 ever secured it must be secured in this 
 way. William G. Frost. 
 
 Ether. — See Chloral. 
 
 Ethics of License. — We are not 
 
 now concerned with the supposed merits 
 of license as a repressive measure, 
 whether or not it is better than "free 
 whiskey" or practically more effective 
 than legal Prohibition. AVe propose to 
 ask whether in the court of pure ethics 
 it can stand the test of moral law. It is, 
 as has been alleged by very high author- 
 ity, "vicious in principle." If so, the 
 moral man will discard all its claims to 
 recognition, no matter by what numbers 
 urged or by what plausible arguments 
 supported. His principle is not " Do 
 evil that good may come." He will not 
 choose to abate the consequences of one 
 
Ethics of License.] 
 
 168 
 
 [Ethics of License. 
 
 sin by committing another. In morals he 
 will not listen to a proposition to choose 
 the lesser of two evils. Between physical 
 evils he may be glad to choose the lesser, 
 but in morals he knows of no liberty to 
 choose whether he shall offend God and 
 his conscience and do evil to his neigh- 
 bor by a greater or less sin. All talk to 
 him about '■ a half loaf " as " better than 
 no bread " sounds like the suggestion of 
 the devil to make bread out of stones. 
 He wants no half loaf tainted with death. 
 His answer to all is, " The wages of sin 
 is death." If he can believe that the 
 liquor traffic " can never be legalized with- 
 out sin," he wants no license, though it 
 fill his coffers with money, though it re- 
 duce the number of saloons from thous- 
 ands to units, and even if it should in any 
 exceptional case show diminished arrests. 
 He meets every proposition to license sin 
 with the one unalterable imperative,. 
 " Thou shalt not." 
 
 But is the licensing of the saloon an 
 evil always and everywhere ? To get 
 at a correct answer it is well to ask and 
 answer several other questions : 
 
 1. What is the saloon ? 
 
 The inquiry is not after some ideal in- 
 stitution possibly conducted in obedience 
 to a very strict and technically exact li- 
 cense law, but the actual saloon as we 
 have it and know it everywhere, that 
 running sore on the body politic, that 
 moral cancer on the conscience of the 
 nation, that remorseless enemy of man- 
 kind which, according to Gladstone, 
 hopelessly ruins more that is dear to 
 humanity than the three curses of war, 
 famine and pestilence. Shall we dignify 
 such a curse as that into a legitimate in- 
 dustry by the solemn sanctions of law ? 
 
 2. What is license ? 
 
 Many who favor it, answer : " It is a 
 tax which implies no endorsement and 
 gives no sanction. It is rather a stigma 
 upon a bad business. Its real object is to 
 burden, cripple and limit a great and, at 
 present, ineradicable evil." The object 
 of moral reformers who advocate license 
 is thus declared to be to impose such 
 burdens on the accursed traffic as to de- 
 stroy its profitableness, and thus to destroy 
 the traffic. They can scarcely excuse the 
 radical Prohibitionists for attempting the 
 impossible and not at once falling in with 
 them in what they claim to be the im- 
 mediately effective and only practical 
 
 method of destroying the drink curse. 
 When met with the accusation of licens- 
 ing sin, they reply that to call the tax on 
 saloons a license is a misnomer. What, 
 then, is a tax ? What is a license ? And 
 wherein d o they differ ? A tax is a sum 
 or levy imposed upon the members' of 
 society to defray its expenses. A govern- 
 ment taxes its subjects when it demands 
 money of them for its support. A license, 
 on the contrary, is the granting of per- 
 mission or authority to do what it would 
 otherwise be unlawful to do. A tax re- 
 quires something to be given — a license 
 allows something to be done. A tax is 
 for the community — a license is for the 
 individual. A tax is a burden to be 
 borne — a license is a privilege to be en- 
 joyed. Moreover, the fee upon the li- 
 censed traffic constitutes a valid contract 
 between the party issuing the license and 
 the licensee, and makes both sharers in 
 the gains and moral character of the 
 business. This point was put with great 
 force and justness by Hon. John Sher- 
 man of Ohio, in his celebrated speech in 
 Columbus in 1882, on this very subject 
 of taxing and licensing the liquor traffic : 
 " I cannot see how you can have a tax 
 law without its operating as a license 
 law," said he ; "a license is a legal grant ; 
 a tax on a trade or occupation implies a 
 permission to follow that trade or occupa- 
 tion. We do not tax a crime. We pro- 
 hibit and punish it. We do not share in 
 the profits of a larceny; but by a tax we 
 do share in the profits of liquor-selling, 
 and therefore allow or license it." 
 
 The Senator's argument furnishes 
 these three propositions : (1) The licens- 
 ing of the traffic proceeds upon the 
 theory that the business is not criminal, 
 or ethically wrong, but legitimate and 
 proper. (2) To tax the traffic is to 
 license, protect and justify it. (3) To 
 license it is to become a party to the 
 business with all its social and moral con- ; 
 sequences. This is done by the State. 
 But what is the State ? In a republic it 
 is the aggregate citizenship. The act of 
 the State licensing the liquor traffic is 
 therefore the act of all who lend their in- 
 fluence and authority in favor of the 
 legislation by which this is accomplished. 
 This, again, is done by voting for and 
 supporting men and parties that avow 
 the principle of license. If the traffic is 
 sinful then the legalizing of it is the 
 
Ethics of License.] 
 
 169 
 
 [Evangelical Church. 
 
 same. Therefore those who frame this 
 iniquity into a law, together with all who 
 vote or petition or otherwise work for or 
 approve it, are sinners in that degree. 
 
 This conclusion is so unwelcome and 
 so contrary to popular thought that it 
 will be contested from various points of 
 view. Some will object to it because it 
 omits the factor of necessity. " We must 
 remember," it is said, " that society does 
 not exist in an ideal state. Evil is here. 
 We must confront and deal with it as a 
 practical reality. We have to do not with 
 a theory but a condition, and we must 
 make the best of it. The tares are al- 
 ready among the wheat. We cannot root 
 them out. Both must grow together till 
 the harvest. All we can do is to watch 
 that no more be sown, and by all proper 
 devices seek to repress and limit the pro- 
 ductiveness of those now here and thus 
 suffer as few of the consequences as pos- 
 sible." This is plausible, but it is un- 
 sound and utterly vicious. Not only is 
 the drink evil here, but all those other 
 sins which are met by uncompromising 
 Prohibition. The arguments made for 
 licensing the liquor traffic have just as 
 much fitness and force for the licensing 
 of any other violation of God's law. In- 
 deed, it has often been suggested that 
 since the social evil is well-nigh universal 
 and is fraught with untold consequences 
 of evil, often to the innocent and un- 
 offending, society ought to be protected 
 as far as possible by some system of 
 license and regulation. And if the saloon, 
 • why not the brothel ? 
 
 Others object to our conclusion be- 
 cause it is said to leave out the fact that 
 it is as much our duty to limit the evils 
 which we cannot remove as to destroy 
 those which we can. Otherwise we dare 
 not do anything until we can do every- 
 thing. Of 40 saloons it is better to de- 
 stroy 20 than to leave the 40. That de- 
 pends on what is done with the other 20. 
 If the one-half are sacrificed only in such 
 a way as to secure legal protection for the 
 rest, then it is better to have the 40 un- 
 shielded than the 20 legalized. Forty 
 mad-dogs on the streets are worse than 
 20. But it is better to let 40 take 
 the chances of their necks, unpro- 
 tected, than to have bands on the necks 
 of 20, which say to the public, " Hands 
 off ! These mad-dogs are licensed." Will 
 it be said that these are taxed to pay part 
 
 of the damage done to the community 
 for the privilege of spreading hydro- 
 phobia ? Good men, neither drunk nor 
 having hydrophobia, have been actually 
 heard urging this plea for the saloon tax. 
 The inevitable dilemma into which the 
 advocates of license are brought is this : 
 They must either defend the saloon 
 against the charge that it is immoral, or 
 confess that they are willing to license 
 immorality. But most men who make 
 any pretensions to morality — not to say 
 decency — draw back from the first and 
 blush to confess the second. And yet a 
 very large number of those who have 
 gone on record in conferences, synods, 
 assemblies and otherwise, against the 
 saloon as utterly vicious, and have loaded 
 it down with their unsparing condemna- 
 tion, are among the stanchest advocates 
 of license. How is this ? Consistency 
 demands a change. They ought either to 
 show that the saloon is not necessarily an 
 evil, or refuse to license it. 
 
 Joel Swartz. 
 
 Evangelical Adventist Church. 
 
 — This denomination is represented na- 
 tionally by the annual meeting of the 
 American Millennial Association. J. E. 
 Ballou, the Recording Secretary, writes : 
 '■'The American Millennial Association 
 has taken no action of late on the tem- 
 perance or liquor question." 
 
 Evangelical Charch. — For more 
 
 than 60 years the Evangelical Associa- 
 tion has had in its Discipline total ab- 
 stinence and Prohibitory clauses. The 
 last General Conference, held in Buffalo, 
 N. Y., September, 1887, declared it to be 
 the duty of Christians '"' To faithfully 
 co-operate with all proper movements in 
 the use of agencies and methods as their 
 judgment and conscience may direct, 
 having for their end the enlightenment 
 of the nublic on the evils of intemper- 
 ance, the instruction of the children and 
 youth, the reformation of the inebriate 
 and the restriction and Prohibition of 
 the liquor traffic." The following declara- 
 tion was added : 
 
 " Inasmuch as the use of tobacco and various 
 preparations of opium has t>2Come lamentably- 
 prevalent, so that 1hese. besides being in them- 
 selves iniurious to health and a waste of money 
 almost equal to that of the liquor traffic, are, by 
 competent authority, declared to have the effect 
 to awaken and foster desire for stimulants, 
 
Excise.] 
 
 170 
 
 [Farmers. 
 
 and thereby to work in the interest of intem- 
 perance ; we urge upon all, by all the considera- 
 tions which witness against intemperance, to 
 discountenance the habitual use of such, both 
 by precept and example." 
 
 Excise- — A name originally applied 
 to laws levying taxes on any species of 
 home-made goods. In England Excise 
 laws date from the 17th Century, when, 
 under the Commonwealth, revenues were 
 drawn from domestic products to defray 
 the heavy expenses of the Government. 
 The alcoholic liquor traffic was the chief 
 source of the Excise revenue from the 
 beginning, and gradually the Excise sys- 
 tem became peculiarly and almost exclu- 
 sively a system of liquor taxation. The 
 term Excise duties in England is identical 
 with the term Internal Revenue taxes 
 in the United States, meaning duties laid 
 and collected by the National Govern- 
 ment; and in the same sense it is used 
 in the British colonies. Very little of 
 the liquor legislation in the United States 
 is distinctively called Excise legislation; 
 the terms license and tax take the place 
 of the old English term Excise. Some 
 State laws — notably the New York laws — 
 are, however, popularly called Excise 
 measures. 
 
 Exports. — See Imports and Ex- 
 ports. 
 
 Farmer s. — The anti-liquor move- 
 ment has always been strongest in the 
 rural sections. The farmers, compelled 
 by circumstances to practice frugality and 
 self-restraint in a sense unknown or 
 known but imperfectly to laborers in the 
 cities, readily grasp the strong points of 
 the economic arguments against the 
 saloon and manifest comparatively little 
 favor for the plausible pro-saloon argu- 
 ments that have so much weight with a 
 very large element of the urban popula- 
 tion. Living in isolated spots, often re- 
 moved by miles from towns and hamlets, 
 the farmers are not subject to the tempta- 
 tions that daily and nightly beset the. 
 occupants of city tenements; they do not 
 regard the saloon as a club-house but as 
 an institution which can be pationized 
 by them, their sons or their laborers only 
 at a great expense of time and money, 
 and that works demoralization without 
 yielding even the apparent advantage of 
 social satisfaction. 
 
 REPRESENTATIVE UTTERANCES. 
 
 The organizations and newspapers 1 of 
 the farmers oppose the liquor tralfic with 
 practical unanimity and great earnest- 
 ness. Indeed, the farmers' organizations 
 rank with the churches and the special 
 temperance societies as supporters of 
 the Prohibition cause. The representa- 
 tive associations of farmers in the United 
 States are the National Farmers' Alliance 
 and Laborers' Union, and the National 
 Grange. The first-named, in convention 
 at St. Louis, December, 1889, adopted a 
 platform in which was the following 
 plank : 
 
 '■ Resolved. That we are opposed to the 
 liquor traffic in all its forms " 
 
 Previously to the St. Louis Convention, 
 the National Farmers' Alliance and the 
 Farmers' and Laborers' Union were two 
 distinct organizations, the former having 
 its chief strength in the North and the 
 latter representing the agricultural 
 classes of the South. The National 
 Farmers' Alliance has been steadfast in 
 opposition to the saloon. At a conven- 
 tion held at Des Moines, la., Jan. 11, 
 1889, it declared : 
 
 " Resolved, That we recommend the pass- 
 age of such laws by the National Government 
 as will prohibit the manufacture and sale of all 
 intoxicating beverages within the borders of the 
 United States under severe penalty." 
 
 And the convention of the National 
 Farmers' Alliance for 1888 made the fol- 
 lowing utterance : 
 
 " Resolved, That we demand such legisla- 
 tion in regard to the liquor traffic as will pre- 
 vent that business from increasing our taxes, 
 endangering the morals of our children and 
 destroying the usefulness of our citizens." 
 
 The National Grange exhibits equal 
 antagonism to the liquor traffic. At its 
 annual Convention for 1889, held at 
 Sacramento, Cal. (Nov. 13), Master J. H. 
 Brigham (head of the organization) said 
 in his address : 
 
 "Every influence of our Order, financial and 
 intellectual, fraternal and moral, is opposed to 
 the traffic in intoxicating liquor Unsuccessful 
 efforts have been made during the year to adopt 
 Amendments prohibiting its manufacture and 
 sale in several States. The failures of the year 
 should teach us the great impor anoe of con- 
 centrating the influence of those who are op- 
 posed to the traffic." 
 
 1 Characteristic opinions from representative farmers 1 
 organs may be found in the Voice for May 1 and July 10, 
 1S90. 
 
Farmers.] 
 
 171 
 
 [Farmers. 
 
 The following are specimen declara- 
 tions of State organizations of farmers : 
 
 Ohio State Farmers' Alliance. February, 1890: 
 " Whereas. The traffic in intoxicating drink is 
 now as it ever has been the eternal memy of 
 good government, the home and mankind ; acd 
 
 " Whereas. The farmers are largely the suf- 
 ferers from th ■ traffic on account of having the 
 heavy burden cf taxes to pay in prosecuting 
 crime, and in maintaining jails, penitentiaries 
 and poor houses; and 
 
 " Whereas, No evil has ever been abolished by 
 selling it ihe right to exist, and the saloon is a 
 place that every e'ecent citizen is ashamed to 
 defend ; therefore be it 
 
 "Resolved By the Farmers' Alliance of 
 the State of Ohio, that the liquor traffic is an 
 enemy to the home, to society, to church and 
 to State, and that the time has come when 
 Christian people and all lovers of good govern- 
 ment should cease to be indifferent and unite 
 tiieir efforts for the suppression of the evil." 
 
 Nebraska State Horticultural Society, at 
 Lincoln, Jan. 16, 1890: 'Resolved. That 
 inasmuch as the State Legislature has submitted 
 the question of license or Prohibition of the 
 liquor traffic, to be settled at the next State 
 election, and that arguments will be made 
 claiming that Prohibition will be detrimental 
 to the horticulturists, we therefore at this meet- 
 ing of the Nebraska State Horticultural Society 
 heartily endorse the principle of Prohibition 
 and favor its adoption in the State Constitution 
 as against license, wi.hout regard to party 
 affiliation 3." [Unanimously adopted.] 
 
 Iowa State Grange, at Dcs Moines, Dec. 12, 
 1889: "Resolved, By this State Grange, that 
 we are unalterably opposed to the traffic in al- 
 coholic and intoxicating drinks as a beverage, 
 and demand of the coming session of the State 
 Legislature no receding from our present Pro- 
 hibitory laws, but make them stronger for en- 
 forcing them in all parts of our noble Stale." 
 
 Colorado State Grange at Denver, Jan. 16, 
 1890: " Whereas Over $1000,000 000 is an- 
 nually squandered in the drink traffic of our 
 nation ; and 
 
 " Whereas, It is the cause of seven-tenths of 
 the crime and pauperism of our land ; therefore, 
 be it 
 
 " Resolved, That the Colorado State Grange, 
 now assembled, declare in favor of the Prohibi- 
 tion of the liquor traffic, both in the State and 
 nation." 
 
 RELATION TO PROHIBITION SUCCESSES. 
 
 With this strong sentiment prevailing 
 among the farmers, it has naturally been 
 easier to secure majorities for Prohibition 
 in the rural districts than in the cities. 
 A study of returns of Constitutional 
 Prohibition and Local Option elections 
 shows, with but few exceptions, an over- 
 whelming preponderance of favorable 
 sentiment in agricultural counties. For 
 example, the memorable campaign for 
 Constitutional Prohibition in Pennsyl- 
 
 vania in 1889, though made under condi- 
 tions remarkably disadvantageous to the 
 Prohibitionists and resulting in an ag- 
 gregate majority of 188,027 against Pro- 
 hibition, would have been won by the 
 Prohibitionists if the votes of eight 
 counties containing large cities had been 
 eliminated; the other 59 counties of the 
 State (in which the agricultural element 
 predominated) showed a Prohibition 
 tendency strong enough to have given 
 Prohibitory law to the whole of Pennsyl- 
 vania if the vote of the eight leading 
 urban counties had been equally divided 
 for and against Prohibition. This rural 
 sentiment has made Prohibition States of 
 Maine, Kansas, Iowa, Vermont, New 
 Hampshire, South Dakota and North 
 Dakota, and has secured local Prohibition 
 in more than 100 of the 137 counties of 
 Georgia, in four-fifths of the country 
 towns of Massachusetts, in nearly the 
 whole of Tennessee, in a great number of 
 the counties of whiskey-making Ken- 
 tucky, etc. In rare instances the farmers 
 have treated the Prohibition question 
 with iudifference or even with apparent 
 hostility — notably in Texas, where the 
 Prohibitory Amendment had a propor- 
 tionately larger following in the cities 
 than in the country, and in Oregon and 
 Washington, where the balance of opinion 
 among the farmers- seemed to be against 
 Constitutional Prohibition. But these 
 results were due to special causes, and 
 there is every reason to believe that a 
 proper presentation of Prohibition argu- 
 ments to the farmers under tolerably 
 favorable conditions will invariably be 
 followed by large Prohibition majorities. 
 
 THE FARMERS AND THE LIQUOR MANU- 
 FACTURERS. 
 
 Emphatic as is the general feeling of 
 the agricultural masses against the saloon, 
 their attitude would be much more ag- 
 gressive were it not for the direct pecuni- 
 ary interest that many of them have, or 
 are persuaded they have, in the continu- 
 ance of the manufacturing branches of 
 the -liquor traffic. The distillers, brewers 
 and vintners must obtain their vegetable 
 materials — their barley, rye, corn, hops, 
 grapes, etc — from the farms. Several 
 agricultural industries, especially the 
 hop-growing, barley-growing and wine- 
 grape-producing industries, are dependent 
 almost entirely upon the manufacturers 
 
Farmers.! 
 
 172 
 
 [Farmers. 
 
 of alcoholic liquors. These manufacturers 
 take pains to make it known to individu- 
 al farmers that their patronage will be 
 given only to persons opposed to Prohibi- 
 tion. Many farmers are thus made to 
 believe that their prosperity is promoted 
 by the liquor-makers' demand for their 
 products. 
 
 But this is a fallacious belief. The 
 articles of agricultural production that 
 are essential to the liquor traffic are, 
 generally speaking, no more profitable to 
 the farmer than are crops raised for other 
 purposes exclusively. Indeed, counted in 
 the aggregate, the sums paid to the 
 farmers by brewers, distillers, etc., con- 
 stitute but an insignificant proportion of 
 the value of farm produce. The follow- 
 ing is a statistical demonstration : * 
 
 MATERIALS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF 
 DISTILLED LIQOORS. 
 
 
 (D rtl« Li. . ^ ^ 
 
 bos" ^STs-o 
 
 p O <~t S 
 h-. & ° ? O 
 r+° = ,er 
 
 a o "cr 1 ^ 
 
 fc, 3 O QffQ 
 
 §*afe| 
 
 H»ie ^ p CD 
 
 P H,P CO 
 
 •s ° =° r 
 
 p < 3 S-.2 
 rt- p*~ ^ JS 
 ffo B 3 2. 
 
 « o » ='< 
 
 2 2 ass, 
 a p p » 
 
 o>3 %"•' 
 B » -3 ° 
 
 esos 
 
 is 
 
 ; ,cr jo £j- ' 
 
 
 H lj=t 
 
 
 5-S 
 
 
 •^ -' 
 -f Co 
 
 33 
 
 ■i&&t 
 
 cc "j: co - » ■-"-' as 
 
 l~i O tO tO *- -3 t* 
 
 •?'°5- 
 
 00 >-+ CO COCO 
 
 osqoctod 41 
 
 *l en 
 
 109 
 
 < 
 
 b » s £ 
 3 3.§> 
 
 O P rj 
 
 £2g 
 
 88 
 
 2 » 
 El £W 
 
 ^ Q> 3 
 
 ^^ 
 
 0)00 
 COCD-t 
 
 388 
 
 P-E 
 p p 
 
 1 For tlie largest part of this demonstration we are in- 
 debted to the Voice for May 29, 1890, although we have 
 eliminated or changed certain features of the Voice's esti- 
 mates. 
 
 In the above table the quantities of materials 
 used in the manufacture of liquors are taken 
 from the report of the Internal Revenue De- 
 partment for the year ending June 30, 1889. 
 Comparison is made with the total quantities, 
 average prices and total values for the wh6le 
 country of the same materials — except molasses, 
 — as furnished to Hon. Roger Q. Mills by the 
 statistician of the Agricultural Department, and 
 quoted by Mr. Mills on page 4,552 of the Con- 
 gressional Record [1890]. 
 
 MATERIALS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF 
 MALT LIQUORS. 
 
 The Internal Revenue Department is careful 
 not to give the quantities of materials used in 
 ,the manufacture of malt liquors, as it does of 
 those used in the production of distilled liquors. 
 It is necessary therefore to make independent 
 estimates. 
 
 The chief ingredients of honest beer are malt 
 and hops. It is agreed by all authorities that 
 not more than two bushels of malt goes to a bar- 
 rel of ordinary beer. The average weight of a 
 brewer's bushel of malt is not in excess of 
 38 lbs. On the basis of these figures the malt 
 consumed in producing the 25,119 853 barrels of 
 beer manufactured in the United States in 1889, 
 and the total sum paid by the brewers for the 
 malt, would be: 
 
 Malt 50,23'j,706 bushels at 36.8c. per bushel (see tabic 
 above)=$18,487,214.81. 
 
 It is not so easy to estimate the quantity of 
 hops Practical brewers, when confidentially 
 consulted, will generally admit that not less 
 than 2 lbs. of hops should go to a barrel. Dr.. 
 Francis Wyatt, , Director of the National 
 Brewers' Academy in New York in a statement 
 to a reporter for the Voice, said that 2 lbs. is the 
 average quantity required to produce a barrel 
 of good beer. 2 This is a very moderate estimate 
 compared with the ones made in authoritative 
 essays on brewing. For example, the author 
 of the "Encyclopaedia Brittanica" article, 
 " Brewing " (S. A. Wyllie, himself a prominent 
 and experienced brewer), says: 
 
 " For strong store ales from 10 lbs. to 13 lbs. of good 
 hops to every quarter of malt is not too much; whilst for 
 ordinary beers, to be drunk within two months, from 6 lbs. 
 to 9 lbs. per quarter should suffice. India pale ale and 
 bitter beer require from 18 lbs. to 25 lbs. per quarter." 
 
 And in the article on " Brewing " in the " Globe 
 Encyclopaedia," the following statement is 
 made: 
 
 " For each quarter of malt A\^ lbs. of hopB are required 
 in ordinary beer; for superior ales 8 lbs. aie employed, and 
 as high as from 14 lbs. to 20 lbs. for export beer." 
 
 Since four " quarters " of malt go to a barrel, 
 the reader will readily sev that the estimate of 
 2 lbs. of hops per barrel is very much beneath 
 the quantity specified by writers on ideal en- 
 cyclopaedia beer. The great difference illus- 
 trates the extensive character of . the adultera- 
 tions practised in the brewing " industry " 
 
 But even assuming that 2 lbs. per barrel is 
 the requisite proportion, the total quantity of 
 hops available in the United States falls far 
 short of supplying an average of 2 lbs. for each 
 barrel of beer manufactured. In 1880 there 
 were 13,347,110 barrels of beer produced, re- 
 
 2 The Voice, May 9, 1889, and Aug. 14, 1890. 
 
Farmers.] 
 
 173 
 
 [Farmers. 
 
 quiring (on the above basis) 26,694,220 lbs. of 
 hops. The entire hop crop of that year was 26,- 
 546,3781bs , towhich add 497.243 lbs. imported, 
 giving a total of 26,953,621 lbs. , from which 
 subtract 9,001 128 lbs. exported, leaving a total 
 of 17 952,493 lbs. of hops available in that year 
 as against 26,694,220 lbs. needed to produce 
 13,317,110 barrels of beer on the basis of 2 lbs. 
 of hops to the barrel. 
 
 Therefore the quantity actually used is far 
 below the amount legitimately needed; and the 
 proof of this truth deserves the attention of 
 those farmers who are accustomed to regard 
 liquor manufacturers as among their liberal 
 patrons. 
 
 Coming now to determine the amount of hops 
 of American production at present bought an- 
 nually by the brewers, we find that there are no 
 official statistics of the hop crop of 1889 ; but 
 it is estimated on reputable authority at 36,000,- 
 000 lbs.' On the same authority the average 
 price per pound in 1889 is put at 18 to 18f cents. 
 Reckoning the average price at 18^ cents, the 
 total cost would be 
 
 Hops, 30,000,000 lb6. at 18>s;c.=$6,36O,0O0. 
 This is certainly a very liberal valuation ; the 
 report of the Commissioner of Agriculture for 
 1887 gives only S3 500,000 as the total value of 
 hops grown in 1886. 
 
 MATERIALS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF 
 VINOUS LIQUORS. 
 
 There are no offi< ial figures from which the 
 total sum paid to farmers by wine-makers can 
 be accurately computed. The annual wine 
 product of the United States is about 30,OC0,OCO 
 gallons, valued (to the consumer) at about $2 
 per gallon; but the value of domestic wines at 
 first hand is put by the Commissioner of Agri- 
 culture in his report for 1887 at cnly $10,000,000. 
 By far the largest proportion of the wine-grape 
 product is raised under the immediate auspices 
 of the wine-makers ; and besides, the 30,000,000 
 gallons stands for extensive adulterations. If 
 $2,500,C00 is indicated as the sum paid annually 
 by wine-manufacturers to persons who may 
 legitimately be classed with the farming ele- 
 ment, the estimate will probably be so much in 
 excess of the actual amount as to include not 
 merely the value of grapes but the values of 
 apples, pears, berries and all other agricultural 
 products used in the manufacture of liquors 
 not accounted for above. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 The table printed below, summarizing quan- 
 tities and values, shows that the liquor manu- 
 facturers pay to the farmers less than 3 per cent, 
 of the total value of the materials named. But 
 grain, molasses, hops, grapes, etc., constitute 
 only a portion of the agricultural produce. The 
 aggregate value of the entire output of the 
 agricultural interests of the United States is 
 now about £4.500,000 000 annually; 2 so that the 
 aggregate amount paid by liquor manufacturers 
 for farm products in 1889 (#35 000,000 in round 
 
 i " Tariff Eeform " documents (New York), vol. 3, 
 No. 7. 
 2 Computed from the reports of the Department of 
 
 Agriculture. 
 
 numbers) was less than seven and eight-tenths 
 one-thousandths (.0078) of the whole value of the 
 goods that the farmers had to dispose of in that 
 year. In other words, if the annual income of 
 the average farmer be si500, only $3.90 of this in- 
 come is derived from the liquor manufacturers, 
 making the most generous possible allowances ; 
 and this $3.90 represents total receipts, not 
 profits. 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 ft 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e 
 
 CO 
 
 5" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 Tl 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 § 
 
 
 k s 
 
 
 e. 
 
 PROFIT AND LOSS. 
 
 The immediate and complete destruc- 
 tion of every manufacturing branch of 
 the liquor traffic would in the aggregate, 
 therefore, not perceptibly diminish the 
 value of farm products, even temporarily. 
 No permanent injury worth consid- 
 ering could be effected, for land de- 
 voted to the cultivation of barley, hops, 
 wine-grapes, etc., can at any time be ad- 
 vantageously put to other uses. 
 
 On the other hand, the farmer bears 
 his full share of the losses to society oc- 
 casioned by the liquor traffic. The direct 
 cost represented by the actual cash ex- 
 penditures for alcoholic drink is esti- 
 mated by no one to be less now than 
 •,000,000 per annum 3 in the United 
 
 3 See footnote, p. 138. 
 
Farmers.] 
 
 174 
 
 [Fermentation. 
 
 States: and probably it is nearer $1,000,- 
 000,000 per annum than this figure. (See 
 Cost of the Drink Traffic.) The in- 
 direct cost, occasioned by expenditures on 
 account of taxes, crime, pauperism, etc., 
 due to the drink traffic, and by loss of 
 time, health, wages, etc., is believed by 
 every careful student of tl e subject to 
 be fully as great as the direct cost. 
 Therefore the entire direct and indirect 
 cost to the people of the United States 
 because of the existence of this traffic 
 ranges from $1,600,000,000 to $2,000,- 
 000,000 or more per annum. In 1880 
 (according to the Census) more than 40 
 per cent, of all persons engaged in gain- 
 ful occupations were connected with ag- 
 ricultural pursuits. It cannot be safely 
 assumed that 40 per cent, of the cost of 
 the drink traffic is therefore borne by 
 the farmers, for the farmers are certainly 
 more temperate than most other classes. 
 But most people will admit that if it is 
 estimated that not less than 20 per cent, 
 of this cost falls directly or indirectly 
 upon the farmers, the estimate will be 
 low. Twenty per cent, of $1,600,000,000 
 (the lowest possible estimate of the ag- 
 gregate direct and indirect cost of the 
 liquor traffic per annum) is $320,000,000 
 — the farmers' share (on the basis of an 
 extremely conservative calculation) of the 
 annual expenditure in the United States 
 for supporting a traffic, which, at the 
 utmost, pays the farmers but $35,000,- 
 000 for the grain, hops, molasses, grapes, 
 etc., consumed in its manufacturing 
 branches. On the basis of this ex- 
 ceedingly conservative estimate the 
 farmer pays more than $9 to support the 
 drink traffic for every dollar that he 
 receives from it ; and when it is consid- 
 ered that the $9 paid out is clear loss for 
 which absolutely nothing of value comes 
 back, while the dollar received is not clear 
 gain but represents simply the sum paid 
 by the liquor manufacturers in exchange 
 for the farmers' commodities and labor — 
 when also fair allowance is made for the 
 too conservative methods of calculation 
 that we have employed, it will readily be 
 granted that the farmer's profit and 
 loss in his account with the liquor traf- 
 fic may more reasonably be supposed to 
 stand in the ratio of $1 to $20 than $1 
 to $9. 
 
 But this is not all. The extinction of 
 the whole liquor business would indis- 
 
 putably benefit every legitimate produc- 
 ing interest. The $800,000,000 or $1,000,- 
 000,000 now expended directly each year in 
 the United States for intoxicating drink 
 would then be applied to other purposes. 
 Of course a very large proportion of it 
 would behoarded by individuals, deposited 
 in savings-banks, etc. ; but a great propor- 
 tion would be used for buying necessaries 
 of life for the poverty-stricken families of 
 drinkers. However large this proportion 
 would be — whether one-balf, two-thirds 
 or a larger or smaller percentage of the 
 entire $800,000,000 or $1,000,000,000 
 now wasted for liquor, — immense sums 
 would necessarily be added to those now 
 expended for the' farmer's products. 
 Besides enabling the farmer to save what 
 he is now forced to spend for the support 
 of the liquor traffic and its criminals, 
 paupers, Courts, jails, etc., Prohibition 
 would increase the market for his goods 
 and swell his receipts. 
 
 Fermentation. — The chemical phe- 
 nomenon presented by the so-called spon- 
 taneous decomposition of organic mat- 
 ter. Any organic substance, acted on by 
 water, air and warmth — especially when 
 macerated so as to facilitate the decay of 
 its particles — soon begins to bubble or 
 effervesce; its chemical composition 
 changes, gas escapes and new substances 
 are formed. There are several stages 
 and varieties of fermentation : the sach- 
 arine, by which starch is converted into 
 sugar; the vinous, changing sugar into 
 alcohol; the acetic, transforming alcohol 
 into acetic acid or vinegar, and the pu- 
 trefactive, converting nitrogenous or- 
 ganic matter into putrid substances. A 
 strictly scientific discussion of fermenta- 
 tion, its complex chemical aspects and 
 the various theories advanced by differ- 
 ent investigators, does not fall within the 
 scope of this work. 
 
 Vinous fermentation is the representa- 
 tive stage. Any newly-extracted fruit 
 juice — as of grapes, apples, pears, etc. — 
 will, if left exposed to the air, gradually , 
 begin to ferment. Bubbles appear on the 
 surface, caused by the generation of car- 
 bonic acid gas. The escape of this gas is 
 accompanied by the accumulation of a 
 scum or yeast, which increases while the 
 ebullition in the liquid becomes more 
 active. When finally the ebullition ceases 
 the work of vinous fermentation is com- 
 
Fermentation.] 
 
 [Finch., John Bird. 
 
 pleted, the yeast is deposited at the bot- 
 tom and the liquid has lost its sweetish 
 taste and innocuous qualities and becomes 
 an alcoholic and intoxicating liquor. 
 The change is due to the conversion of 
 the grape-sugar of the fresh juice, by 
 chemical action, into carbonic acid gas 
 and alcohol. This change is indicated 
 with substantial correctness by the fol- 
 lowing formula : 
 
 6 H l2 O 6 = 2CO, + 2C,H 6 0. 
 
 Grape-sugar, Carbonic Acid. Alcohol. 
 The decomposition of the grape-sugar into 
 these elements is brought about by the 
 chemical action of the yeast slowly gene- 
 rated in the natural process of fermenta- 
 tion; hence if a quantity of yeast be 
 thrown into the fermenting liquor the 
 fermentation will be greatly accelerated. 
 To produce the vinous fermentation and 
 obtain an alcoholic decoction, it is neces- 
 sary that the substance to be fermented 
 shalL (1) contain a sufficient percentage 
 of grape-sugar; (2) shall contain water to 
 dissolve the grape-sugar; (3) shall be 
 under a temperature not too low or too 
 high to arrest fermentation — preferably 
 a tem'perature of from 68° to 75° F. ; 
 (4) shall be capable of generating a suffi- 
 cient quantity of yeast, and (5) shall be 
 exposed to the air. Substances weak in 
 sugar or in constituents capable of con- 
 version into sugar yield but little alcohol. 
 Cereals containing large percentages of 
 starch, by special treatment become rich 
 in sugar, the starch being transformed 
 into grape-sugar by a species of fermen- 
 tation; and thus cereals are equally avail- 
 able with fruits for the production of in- 
 toxicating liquors -in fact are used to a 
 much greater extent, because their culti- 
 vation on a large scale is comparatively 
 easier and because the beverages made 
 from th^m are relatively cheaper. 
 
 Since the oxygen of the air is an indis- 
 pensable element of successful vinous fer- 
 mentation, freshly-expressed juices can 
 be preserved in the unfermented form by 
 placing them in carefully sealed vessels. 
 The sealing process is essential to the pres- 
 ervation of "unfermented wine." The 
 successful preservation of canned fruits 
 is due to the same circumstance — the ex- 
 clusion of the air. 
 
 After the completion of the vinous fer- 
 mentation the alcoholic product is guard- 
 ed against further chemical change by 
 storing it in closed barrels, bottles, etc., 
 
 to which the air does not have access. Con- 
 tin ued exposure of wine, cider, etc., to the 
 air would gradually cause its conversion, 
 under the influence of another fermenta- 
 tion, into vinegar. This is true, however^ 
 of fermented liquors only: being com- 
 paratively weak in alcohol they are readily 
 oxidized. A wine, no matter how fine, or 
 a beer, however carefully prepared, will 
 become sour, flat and wholly unpalatable 
 if left unsealed for any considerable length 
 of time. Distilled spirits, however, being 
 strong in alcohol are not easily changed by 
 oxygen, although under certain processes 
 (with suitable conditions of temperature) 
 pure alcohol can be oxidized into vinegar, 
 and in practice much of the vinegar of 
 commerce is made from alcohol direct. 
 
 Fermented Liquors, — See Malt 
 Liquors and Vinous Liquors. 
 
 Finch, John Bird —Born in Linck- 
 laen, N. Y., March 17, 1852, and died 
 in Boston, Mass., Oct. 3, 1887. Owing 
 to poor health he did not attend school 
 until ten years of age. He taught for 
 several years and was at one time princi- 
 pal of Union School at Smyrna, N. Y. 
 In 1871, at the age of 19, he was married 
 to Ketta Coy, who died four years later, 
 Feb. 20, 1875. In May, 1876, he married 
 Frances E. Manchester. He studied law 
 and was admitted to practice at the bar 
 at the age of 24. When 15 years old he 
 joined the Good Templars, and early in 
 life he was made Grand Lodge Lecturer 
 for the State of New York. In 1877 he 
 removed to Lincoln, Neb., and lectured 
 in the interests of the Bed Kibbon move- 
 ment, securing 100,000 signers of the 
 pledge in 12 months. In the fall of 1878 
 he gave 62 successive lectures in Omaha, 
 14,000 persons signing the pledge and six 
 Good Templar Lodges, three Bed Bibbon 
 Clubs and one Tempje of Honor being 
 formed. He also addressed the Nebraska 
 Legislature in compliance with a joint 
 resolution passed by both Houses. In 
 1878 he was elected Grand Worthy Coun- 
 selor of the Nebraska Grand Lodge by 
 the Good Templars, and the next year 
 was made Grand Worthy Chief Templar 
 of that State. In 1884 he was elected 
 Bight Worthy Grand Templar of the 
 Order in the United States, and he set to 
 work to reunite the two factions into 
 which it had split in 1876. In May, 
 
Finch, John Bird.] 
 
 176 
 
 [Fisk, Clinton Bowen. 
 
 1887, after three years of ceaseless labor, 
 he saw this union accomplished at a con- 
 vention at Saratoga, N. Y. Originally a 
 Democrat, Mr. Finch, in 1880, united 
 with the Prohibition party; and he be- 
 came one of its most active champions 
 and beyond comparison its ablest and 
 most judicious leader. In 1884 he was 
 elected Chairman of the National Prohibi- 
 tion Committee; and despite his fre- 
 quently-expressed desire to retire he re- 
 tained that position until his death. On 
 the night of Oct. 3, 1887, he made a 
 speech at Lynn, Mass., and afterward 
 took the train to Boston, 11 miles dis- 
 tant. As he stepped from the car to 
 the platform in the Boston depot, he 
 dropped dead from heart disease. 
 
 Mr. Finch's addresses were remarkable 
 for eloquence and force. His debate 
 with Dio Lewis on "Prohibition," and 
 his masterly reply to D. Bethune Dufneld 
 at Detroit, are among the best. His 
 book, " The People v. the Liquor Traf- 
 fic " (New York, 1887), embraces several 
 of these addresses, and is numbered 
 among the standard works on the ques- 
 tion of Prohibition. As a platform 
 speaker he possessed superb powers, and 
 the undivided judgment of competent 
 observers pronounced him by far the 
 greatest of all political Prohibition ora- 
 tors, in the same sense that Gough was 
 the greatest of moral suasion advocates. 
 He had a remarkably handsome face, 
 strong but kind ; a noble bearing, a very 
 generous and magnanimous disposition 
 and an unflinching will. His executive 
 capacity was of a high order, and his 
 plans for promoting the interests that 
 he had in charge seldom or never failed 
 — at all events were never seriously op- 
 posed by his associates. Yet he carriel 
 his projects by tact and not by force. 
 Though an unbending champion of the 
 most radical Prohibition policy, he recog- 
 nized the importance of educational 
 work, and through all the exciting Pro- 
 hibition campaigns he consistently per- 
 formed his duty as the head of the Good 
 Templar Order. Like many extreme 
 Prohibitionists he did not at first foresee 
 the dangers that would result from en- 
 couraging High License and other com- 
 promise legislation. He was one of the 
 framers of the Nebraska High License 
 law and did as much as any man to place 
 it on the statute-books. Yet he was 
 
 quick to admit its utter failure as a tem- 
 perance act, and he repudiated the High 
 License idea entirely. He steadily re- 
 fused to become a candidate for office. 
 There is no doubt that his untimely 
 death was due to excessive labor in the 
 Prohibition movement: though he had 
 been warned repeatedly by his physicians 
 and had suffered from alarming attacks 
 of heart disease, he could not be persuaded 
 to abate his energies. The news of his 
 death stunned the temperance public, 
 and the greatest grief was manifested 
 throughout the country. His widow, 
 with the co-operation of his co-laborer, 
 Frank J. Sibley, has published an interest- 
 ing and valuable history of his career. 
 ("John B. Finch," New York, 1888.) 
 
 Fisk, Clinton Bowen, fifth candk 
 date of the Prohibition party for Presi- 
 dent of the United States ; born in 
 Griggsville, Livingston County, N. Y., 
 Dec. 8, 1828, and died in New York, 
 July 9, 1890. His father, a blacksmith, 
 removed to Michigan in 1830, believing 
 that his five sons, of whom Clinton was 
 the youngest, would have a better 'chance 
 in life in the newer country. But two 
 years after the removal he died, and each 
 son as he became old enough was put out 
 to earn his own living. At the age of 
 nine, Clinton was bound to a farmer to 
 serve until 21, his recompense to be a 
 horse, a saddle, a bridle, two suits of 
 clothes, $200 and three months' schooling 
 each year. After a few years of service 
 his release was procured and the next ten 
 years were spent in hard work and study. 
 He mastered considerable Latin unaided. 
 When he was 13 his mother married 
 again, but just as preparations had been 
 made to send him to Wesleyan Seminary, 
 at Albion, Mich., his step-father Hied. 
 He removed with his mother to Albion 
 and studied and taught until his eye-sight 
 failed him, and he was obliged to give up 
 further thoughts of education. He be- 
 gan business life with L. D. Crippen, the 
 leading merchant and banker of Cold- 
 water, Mich., and in 1850 Was married to 
 Mr. Crippen's daughter. In the financial 
 crises of 1857 Mr. Fisk lost most of his 
 property because of his determination 
 that his bank should pay dollar for dollar 
 instead of suspending. In 1858 he re- 
 moved to St. Louis, Mo., and became 
 Western Financial Agent of the Etna In- 
 
Fisk, Clinton Bowen.] 
 
 [Fisk, Wilbur. 
 
 surance Company. At the outbreak of 
 the Civil War he enlisted as a private 
 soldier for three months. When the St. 
 Louis Merchants' Exchange seemed 
 likely to exert its influence for the Con- 
 federacy he organized a rival Exchange, 
 the Union Merchants' Exchange, which 
 soon swallowed up the old organization. 
 In July, 1862, he set about recruiting a 
 regiment, which was soon at the front. 
 iMer, he organized a brigade, and on Nov. 
 24, 1862, he was commissioned Brigadier- 
 General. He was for some months in 
 command of South-east Missouri and 
 afterward of the district of St. Louis. 
 With a small force he repelled the attack 
 made upon Jefferson City by Marmaduke 
 and Shelby, and made them prisoners. 
 In February, 1865, he was commissioned 
 Major-General of the Missouri militia, 
 and a month later was made Major- 
 General by brevet, "for faithful and 
 meritorious services during the war." 
 From May, 1865, until September, 1866, 
 he was Assistant-Commissioner of the 
 Freedmen's Bureau, and was in charge of 
 Kentucky, Tennessee and parts of Ala- 
 bama, Arkansas and Mississippi. The 
 Fisk University for colored youth was 
 founded at Nashville, Tenn., largely 
 through his instrumentality. Since his 
 resignation from the army in the fall of 
 1866 he was engaged until his death in 
 railroad management and the banking 
 business. He was for eight years Treasurer 
 of the Missouri and Pacific Bailroad Com- 
 pany. A Bepublican in politics up to 
 1884, Gen. Fisk that year gave his sup- 
 port to ex-Governor St. John, the Presi- 
 dential candidate of the Prohibition 
 party. In 1886 he was the candidate of 
 the Prohibition party for Governor of 
 New Jersey. During the campaign he 
 made 125 speeches, traveling 5,000 miles, 
 and never missed an engagement. He 
 received 19,808 votes, three times as 
 many as had been polled by St. John in 
 New Jersey in 1884. On May 30, 1888, 
 he was nominated for President of the 
 United States by the Prohibition Conven- 
 tion at Indianapolis. His personal popu- 
 larit} 7 , high character and recognized 
 ability contributed materially to the 
 strength of the party. His feeble health 
 prevented him from taking a very active 
 part in the canvass, but he made a few 
 speeches. His aggregate vote in the na- 
 tion reached 249,945. After the election 
 
 he exhibited undiminished interest in the 
 Prohibition cause. He was one of the 
 most generous contributors to the move- 
 ment, made numerous speeches in Con- 
 stitutional Prohibition and Local Option 
 campaigns, and heartily supported Gospel 
 temperance and similar work. He was 
 active and prominent in other good 
 causes. As a youth and young man he 
 was a devoted Abolitionist, and played a 
 part in " Underground Railroad " enter- 
 prises. He was appointed by President 
 Grant a member of the Board of Indian 
 Commissioners and was immediately 
 elected President of the Board ; and he 
 held the position until his death. He 
 was the most prominent lay member of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
 United States. In 1874 he was chosen 
 delegate to the General Conference at 
 Louisville, Ky., where, for the first time 
 since the Civil War, the Northern and 
 Southern branches of the church ex- 
 changed greetings. He became a member 
 of the Methodist Book Committee in 
 1876 and in 1881 was appointed delegate 
 to the Ecumenical Council in London. 
 He delivered the address on missions be- 
 fore the Centennial Methodist Assemblage 
 in Baltimore in 1884. He was also a 
 member of the Board of Managers of the 
 American Missionary Association, and 
 was identified with a large number of lo- 
 cal religious, educational and charitable 
 interests. 
 
 Fisk, Wilbur. — Born in Brattleboro, 
 Vt., Aug. 31, 1792, and died in Middle- 
 town, Conn., Feb. 22, 1839. Graduating 
 from Brown University in 1815 he 
 studied law, but afterwards abandoned it 
 for the Christian ministry. In 1825 ho 
 was chosen the first principal of Wilbra- 
 ham Academy, at Wilbraham, Mass , and 
 in 1830 was elected the first President of 
 Wesley an University. In the agitation 
 for freeing the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church from all complicity with the 
 liquor traffic and from all fellowship with 
 liquor-traffickers, he took a very radical 
 stand, and in consequence encountered 
 strong opposition and even misrepresen- 
 tation and persecution. The Christian 
 Advocate at first antagonized him, but 
 afterwards changed its , attitude. The 
 fear of the over-cautious was that if un- 
 compromising hostility to the liquor 
 trade were made a test of church mem- 
 
Florida.! 
 
 178 
 
 [Flournoy, Josiah. 
 
 bersliip, there would be a split in the de- 
 nomination, but Dr. Fisk did not permit 
 such a possibility to restrain him. To a 
 member of the church who sought to 
 dissuade him from making a radical tem- 
 perance address, he replied : " Sir, if the 
 church stands on rum, let it go." 
 
 The following is an extract from a 
 speech made by him in 1S32 : 
 
 " Mv Christian brother, if you saw this trade 
 as I believe God sees it, you would sooner beg 
 your bread from door to door than gain money 
 by such a traffic. The Christian's dramshop ! 
 Sound it to yourself. How does it strike your 
 ear? It is doubtless a choice gem in the phrase- 
 book of Satan! But how paradoxical! How 
 shocking to the ear of the Christian ! How of- 
 fensive to the ear of deity! Why. the dram- 
 shop is the recruiting rendezvous of hell! And 
 shall a Christian consent to be the recruiting 
 officer ? . . . Say cot, if you do not sell, 
 others will. Must you be an ally of Satan and 
 a destroyer of your race because others are? 
 Say not, if you do not soil, it will injure your 
 business and prevent your supporting your 
 family. It was said by one that ' such a state- 
 ment is a libel upon the diviDe government.' 
 Must you, indeed, deal out ruin to your fellow- 
 men, or starve? Then starve ! It would be a 
 glorious martyrdom contrasted with the other 
 alternative. " . . The church must free 
 herself from this whole business. It is all a sin- 
 ful work, with which Christians should have 
 nothing to do, only to drive it from the sacred 
 enclosures of the church, and, if possible, from 
 the earth." 
 
 Florida. — See Index. 
 
 Flournoy, Josiah. — Born in Vir- 
 ginia in 1790, and died in 1842. He 
 removed to Georgia when young, and was 
 so successful in business pursuits that he 
 became the owner of a large plantation 
 near Eatontown. As a temperance leader 
 he is remembered for his connection with 
 the Georgia agitation of 1839 known as 
 the Flournoy Movement, whose object 
 was to secure the abolition by the State 
 Legislature of the liquor license laws. In 
 the spring of 1839 a meeting of citizens 
 of Putnam County, Ga., through a com- 
 mittee of which Mr. Flournoy was a 
 member, issued an address to the people 
 of Georgia, jDublished in the Atlanta 
 Christian Index for March 21, 1839, ask- 
 ing whether the evil of the legalized 
 liquor traffic "'ought not to be extermi- 
 nated." A petition to the State Legisla- 
 ture was published in the Index in March 
 of the same year, signed by about 300 
 citizens of the county. It contained the 
 following words : 
 
 '■ The undersigned, citizens of this Slate, b3 
 Moving that the retail of spirituous liquors is 
 an evil of great magnitude among us, come to 
 th i Legislature by petition and ask you, in your 
 wisdom, to pass such a law as will effectually 
 put a stop to it. . . . Your petitioners come 
 with tho more confidence because several States 
 in this Union have already passed such a law as 
 to make penal the retailing of intoxicating 
 drinks." 
 
 Mr. Flournoy canvassed the State for 
 signatures to the petition, visiting nearly 
 every part of the commonwealth. His 
 example aroused the people and public 
 meetings were called everywhere. When 
 it became apparent from the indifference 
 of the politicians that the Legislature 
 would probably disregard the petition, 
 some of the petitioners began to nomi- 
 nate independent legislative candidates. 
 The political aspect which the movement 
 now took on commanded the attention 
 of partisan leaders and newspapers, and 
 in the contest for Governor, which was 
 decided by a majority of only a few hun- 
 dreds, party spirit ran high. Shortly be- 
 fore the election the success of the peti- 
 tioners seemed certain, but the politicians 
 appealed to prejudice by declaring 
 that party interests were endangered, and 
 the popular movement was checked. The 
 Legislature refused to act. Mr. Flour- 
 noy's death, which occurred soon after, 
 was attributed to disappointment at the 
 defeat of the cause. This was one of the 
 first agitations conducted on political 
 lines. The encouraging and discouraging 
 conditions were thus alluded to by Mr. 
 Flournoy : 
 
 '' I have addressed thousands in public meet- 
 ings, and spoken to hundreds in private. 1 find 
 the number of those who favor the plan of a 
 law to banish the tippling-shops from the land 
 to be as eight or nine in ten. No proposition 
 can be offered to the citizens of Georgia that 
 will meet with the same unanimity, nor any ten 
 combined can produce the same good. I have 
 just returned from a trip of ten days to the 
 South. In one of the lower counties I believe 
 every man would sign our petition, and no- 
 where, even among the worst drunkards, do I 
 meet with opposition. I find more difficulty 
 with men who call themselves politicians than 
 any others ; as a class they are least to be ex- 
 pected to do anything to promote the morality 
 of the country. With a few exceptions, they 
 seem desirous to keep back all that would ele- 
 vate the great mass of society, I suppose, for 
 fear they will lose their own importance I 
 freely warn them that the man who opposes 
 this law, and knows what he is doing at (he 
 same time, will deserve and receive th3 anath- 
 emas of the country. He is one who for his 
 own honor's exaltation could drink the tears of 
 
Food.] 
 
 179 
 
 [Food. 
 
 female suffering and eat the bread of starving 
 children." 
 
 Food. — Is alcohol a food ? The ques- 
 tion is touched upon by Dr. B. W. Rich- 
 ardson in his able article in this work. 
 (See Alcohol, Effects of.) The subject 
 is very thoroughly discussed in his cele- 
 brated "Ten Lectures on Alcohol" (New 
 York, 1883, pp. 94-12:2). The funda- 
 mental considerations which must precede 
 any inquiry are thus admirably outlined 
 by him (pp. 95-7) : 
 
 " The earth yields spontaneously to man, 
 either from herself directly or from the vege- 
 table kingdom which lies between her and man, 
 all the requirements for his existence. What- 
 ever, therefore, mm invents, though it may 
 seem to be a great necessity, is not a necessity 
 except to those who, being trained to its use, 
 have been led artificially to believe it essential. 
 Thus nature has produced water and milk for 
 man to drink, and they are, in truth, all the flu- 
 ids that are essential. This lesson, which na- 
 ture treats by her rule of provision for the ne 
 cessitiss of animal life, is supplemented by 
 many other facts, each e-raally authoritative. 
 There is ever before us ihe great experiment 
 that all classes of living beings beneath man 
 require as drink none other fluids except those 
 I have named. We see the most useful ot these 
 animals performing laborious tasks, undergoing 
 extremes of fatigue, bearing vicissitudes of heat 
 and of cold, and enduring work, fatigue and 
 vicissitudes for long series of years, sustained 
 by tneir solid food with no other fluid than 
 simple water. We see again whole nations and 
 race? of men who labor hard, endure fatigue 
 and exposure, and who live to the end of a long 
 and healthy life, taking with their solid suste- 
 nance water only as a beverage 
 
 " When we turn to the physiological construc- 
 tion of man or of a lower animal, we discover 
 nothing that can lead us to conceive the neces 
 sity for any other fluid than that which nature 
 has supplied. The mass of the blood is com- 
 posed of water, the mass of the nervous system 
 is composed of water, the mass of all the active 
 vital organs is made up of the same fluid . the 
 secretions are watery fluids, and if in any of 
 these parts any other agent than water should 
 replace it the result is an instant disturbance of 
 function that is injurious in proportion to the 
 displacement. 
 
 " When we turn therefore to the use of such 
 a fluid as alcohol under any of its disguises — as 
 spirit, as wine, as beer, as cider as perry, as 
 liqueur — we are driven a priori to look upon it 
 as something superadded to the necessities of 
 life, to look upon it, in a word, as a luxury. In 
 such sense it has always been received amongst 
 those nations which have most indulged in it. 
 It is something added to the ordinary life, 
 something unnecessary but agreeable. Wine, 
 added to the meal, transforms the meal into a 
 feast; it is supposed to make glad the heart, but 
 it is never supposed that if the wine were not 
 possessed the life would be shortened. When 
 now we offer wine it is, by the effect of habit 
 
 and education, an offering of a thing that is 
 super-necessitous and in such wise a compli- 
 ment, an indication of a<!e-ire or of willingness 
 to be exceedingly hospitable. 
 
 ' All the evidence of a general kind which 
 can be gathered from these observations points 
 to the uselessness. for man, of such an artificial 
 agent as alcohol." 
 
 The main conclusion drawn from these 
 general truths is no longer very seriously 
 questioned among scientists. The claim 
 is still championed that alcohol has some 
 food value, but always cautiously and 
 with material qualifications. Dr. William 
 A. Hammond, as the result of experiments 
 performed upon himself, says : " There 
 are two facts which cannot be laid aside, 
 and these are that the body gained in 
 weight and that the excretions were 
 diminished when alcoholic fluids were 
 taken. These phenomena were doubt- 
 less due to the following causes: (l)the 
 restoration of the decay of the tissues; 
 (2) the diminution in the consump- 
 tion of fat in the body, and (3) the 
 increase of the assimilative powers of the 
 system, by which the food was more 
 completely appropriated and applied to 
 the formation .of tissues. After such 
 results' are we not justified in regarding 
 alcohol as food ? If it is not food, what 
 is it ?" 1 Dr. Hammond's testimony that 
 alcohol in a single case under certain 
 conditions increased the weight of the 
 body, of course has no decisive bearing; 
 and even if it did have, it might be ques- 
 tioned whether the increased weight were 
 not due to deleterious rather than benefi- 
 cial action of the alcohol in arresting the 
 legitimate decomposition of tissue. It is 
 generally recognized by physicians that 
 the apparently florid health of beer- 
 drinkers is misleading. " The beer-drink- 
 er," says Dr. T. Lauder Brunton ('' Book 
 of Health," London, 1883), " has a ten- 
 dency to become fat and bloated at one 
 time, although he may afterwards become 
 thin and emaciated, from his digestion 
 also suffering like that, of the spirit- 
 drinker. Notwithstanding the apparent 
 stoutness and strength of beer-drinkers, 
 they are by no means healthy. Injuries 
 which to other people would be but 
 slight, are apt to prove serious in them ; 
 and when it is necessary to perform sur- 
 gical operations upon them the risk of 
 death is very much greater than in others." 
 
 1 Address before the New York Neurological Society, 
 1874. 
 
Food.] 
 
 180 
 
 [Foreigners. 
 
 Among the most emphatic opinions 
 concerning the nutritive properties of 
 alcohol, that of the great German chem- 
 ist Liebig is justly celebrated. " If a 
 man drinks daily eight or ten quarts of 
 the best Bavarian beer," said he, " in the 
 course of 12 months he will have taken 
 into his system the nutritive constit- 
 uents contained in a five-pound loaf of 
 bread." And again Liebig said : '' Wine 
 is quite superfluous to man. ... It 
 is constantly followed by expenditure of 
 power." Yet Liebig was the originator 
 of the theory that alcohol yields heat and 
 force, and is therefore a respiratory food 
 — a theory that has been the ground for 
 much contention, out of which have been 
 developed various other theories support- 
 ing the general claim that alcohol, in 
 some way and to some extent (however 
 limited), performs the part of a food, if 
 only accessorily. 
 
 These battles of the scientists, how- 
 ever, relate to theory far more than to 
 practice. Even those who cling most 
 tenaciously to earlier doctrines declare 
 that the virtues which they still claim for 
 alcohol are virtues only under certain 
 carefully-guarded conditions. No repu- 
 table scientific writer ventures at this day 
 to commend alcohol as a food with the 
 confidence and positiveness exhibited 
 when the belief in its powers was univer- 
 sal. The commendation is now defen- 
 sive and not aggressive. The practical 
 experience of mankind demonstrates with 
 constantly increasing impressiveness the 
 negative of the food proposition. When- 
 ever great feats of endurance, skill, resist- 
 ance to cold or heat, etc., are to be per- 
 formed — as in pedestrian matches, bil- 
 liard contests, Arctic voyages, labor in 
 the tropics, etc., — total abstinence from 
 alcohol is found to promote success. 
 Could this be the case if alcohol were a 
 legitimate contributor to the better capa- 
 bilities of the human body ? With the 
 verdict wholly made up against alcohol as 
 a necessary agent for improving the 
 welfare of the physical nature, the cau- 
 tious defensive pleas against utter and 
 indiscriminate condemnation of alcohol 
 on physiological grounds are more and 
 more regarded as belonging peculiarly to 
 the domain of hypothetical discussion. 
 
 Understanding, then, that the testi- 
 mony of science sanctions (if it does not 
 yet with undivided voice command) the 
 
 entire abandonment of alcohol as an 
 articjeof diet, the moral and other pow- 
 erful reasons against indulgence in alcohol 
 certainly urge with great strength the 
 view that its toleration as a supposed food 
 or food-adjunct has become altogether in- 
 admissible. The acceptance of this view 
 involves the responsibility of discounte- 
 nancing by every means the use of alcohol 
 for all the numerous pseudo-food purposes 
 to which it is still applied by the creduli- 
 ty of the masses — especially of combating 
 the fallacy (so widespread among the 
 poor) that it gives strength to nursing 
 mothers, of discouraging resort to it as a 
 protection against cold, and of entirely 
 banishing it from the domestic economy 
 as a culinary agent. 
 
 Foreigners. — The foreign-born pop- 
 ulation of the United States has been 
 regarded as the bulwark of the opposi- 
 tion to temperance reform and Prohibi- 
 tion. Well-nigh all the adopted citizens 
 of this country come from nations where 
 drink and the drink traffic are in no im- 
 portant respects discriminated against by 
 public ■ sentiment, by widespread organi- 
 zations or by legislation. The masses of 
 these people have acquired but little educa- 
 tion, have no adequate perception of the 
 unmitigated evil of drink, and are exceed- 
 ingly jealous of their personal rights, real 
 and supposed. Becoming residents and 
 naturalized citizens of a country where 
 the temperance reform is carried on with 
 zeal and radicalism, they are not willing 
 converts to a movement whose rationale 
 is unfamiliar to them. It is natural for 
 the large majority of them to support the 
 liquor traffic when its right to exist is 
 questioned ; and this natural disposition 
 is strengthened by the counsels and in- 
 fluence of the newspapers printed in their 
 native tongues and of such of their com- 
 patriots as have mastered the practical 
 methods of American politics. 
 
 There are no official records of the 
 numbers of immigrants arriving in the 
 United States previously to 1820. The 
 following table shows the yearly immigra- 
 tion from 1820 to 1889 : 
 
 Tear ending Immi- 
 sept. 30, grants. 
 
 1820 8,385 
 
 1881 9,127 
 
 1822 6,911 
 
 1823 6,354 
 
 1824 7,912 
 
 1825 10,199 
 
 Year ending Immi- 
 
 sept. 30. grants. 
 
 1826 10,837 
 
 1827 18,875 
 
 1828 27,382 
 
 1829 22,520 
 
 1830 28,322 
 
 1831 22,633 
 
Foreigners.] 
 
 181 
 
 [Foreigners. 
 
 Tear endin» Immi- 
 sept. 30. grants. 
 
 )832i 60,488 
 
 1833 58,640 
 
 1834 65,365 
 
 1835 45,374 
 
 1836 76,242 
 
 1837 79,340 
 
 1838 88,914 
 
 1839 68,069 
 
 1840 84,060 
 
 1811 80,289 
 
 1842 104,565 
 
 1843= 52,496 
 
 1844 78,615 
 
 1845 114,371 
 
 1846 , 154,416 
 
 1847 234,968 
 
 1848 226,527 
 
 1849 297,024 
 
 1850S 369,980 
 
 1851 879,406 
 
 1852 371,603 
 
 1853 368,645 
 
 1864 427,833 
 
 1855« 200,877 
 
 1856 195,857 
 
 1857 246,945 
 
 1858 119,501 
 
 1859 118,616 
 
 Year ending Ijimi- 
 sept. 30, grants. 
 
 1861 89,724 
 
 1862 89,007 
 
 1863 174,524 
 
 1864 193,195 
 
 1865 247,453 
 
 1866° 163,594 
 
 1867 298,967 
 
 1868 282,189 
 
 1869 352,569 
 
 1870 387,203 
 
 1871 321,350 
 
 1872 404,806 
 
 1873 459,803 
 
 1874 313,339 
 
 1875 227,498 
 
 1876 169,986 
 
 1877 141,857 
 
 1878 138,469 
 
 1879 177,826 
 
 1880 457,257 
 
 1881 669,431 
 
 1882 788,992 
 
 1883 603,322 
 
 1884 518,592 
 
 1885 395,346 
 
 1886 334,203 
 
 1887 490,109 
 
 1888 546,889 
 
 1889 444,427 
 
 I860 150,237 
 
 1 For 15 month6 ending Dec. 31, 1832. 
 
 2 For 9 months ending Sept. 30, 1843. 
 
 3 For 15 months ending Dec. 31, 1850. 
 
 4 Figures from 1820 to 1855 inclusive, are for all foreign 
 passengers (including visitors, etc.) arrived in the United 
 States ; figures from 1856 to 1889 are for immigrants 
 only. 
 
 6 For six months ending June 30, 1866. 
 
 The Census tables for 1880 show that 
 the foreign-born inhabitants of the 
 United States in that year were contribu- 
 ted by different countries in the numbers 
 indicated below : 
 
 Germany 1 
 
 Ireland 1 
 
 British America 
 
 England 
 
 Sweden 
 
 Norway 
 
 Scotland 
 
 France 
 
 China 
 
 Switzerland 
 
 Bohemia 
 
 Wales 
 
 Mexico 
 
 Denmark 
 
 Holland.... 
 
 Poland 
 
 Italy 
 
 Austria 
 
 ,966,742 
 ,854,571 
 717,084 
 662,676 
 194,337 
 181,729 
 170,136 
 106,971 
 104,467 
 88,621 
 85,361 
 83,302 
 68,399 
 64,196 
 58,090 
 48,557 
 44,230 
 39,663 
 
 Russia 
 
 Belgium 
 
 Luxemborg 
 
 Hungary 
 
 West India 
 
 Portugal 
 
 Cuba 
 
 Spain 
 
 Australia 
 
 South America 
 
 India 
 
 Turkey 
 
 Sandwich Islands. 
 
 Greece 
 
 Central America. . . 
 
 Japan 
 
 Malta 
 
 Greenland 
 
 35,722 
 
 15,585 
 
 12,836 
 
 11,520 
 
 9,484 
 
 8,138 
 
 6,917 
 
 5,121 
 
 4,906 
 
 4,566 
 
 1,707 
 
 1,205 
 
 1,147 
 
 776 
 
 77 
 
 401 
 
 305 
 
 129 
 
 The aliens have shown decided pref- 
 erence for the States of New York, 
 Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecti- 
 cut, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Illinois, 
 Wisconsin, Minnesota and California; 
 and 85 per cent, of them have settled in 
 the Northern States. 
 
 An idea of the strong preponderance 
 of anti-Prohibition feeling among nearly 
 all classes of the foreign-born element may 
 be obtained from a study of the county 
 returns of elections on the question of 
 Constitutional Prohibition. In the first 
 Amendment contest, in the State of Kan- 
 sas, the largest anti-Prohibition votes 
 came from the counties bordering on the 
 
 Missouri Eiver, where the foreign element 
 was strongest ; and similarly in Iowa, two 
 years later, the river counties gave decis- 
 ive majorities for the dramshop. On the 
 other hand, Maine (containing a com- 
 paratively small percentage of foreign- 
 born people) showed but an insignificant 
 anti-Prohibition sentiment. In Michigan 
 the majority for the Prohibitory Amend- 
 ment in 82 of the 83 counties was 16,6G4; 
 but the eighty-third county (Wayne), em- 
 bracing the city of Detroit with its im- 
 mense alien vote, showed a balance against 
 the measure large enough to neutralize 
 this 16,664 and leave a majority of 5,645 
 for the saloon in the entire State. Khode 
 Island, which adopted a Prohibitory 
 Amendment while the law restricting the 
 right of suffrage among foreign-born 
 citizens was yet on the statute-books, re- 
 pealed the Amendment after that re- 
 striction had been removed. Equally 
 striking instances might be cited in- 
 definitely. 
 
 Nevertheless much progress has been 
 made by the Prohibitionists toward culti- 
 vating the favor of foreigners. The Pro- 
 hibition tendency of the Swedes and 
 Norwegians is markedly strong. Some of 
 their representative newspaper organs 
 earnestly advocate Prohibitory law; and 
 in the Northwestern States — Minnesota, 
 Wisconsin, the Dakotas, etc., — where the 
 Scandinavians are most numerous, they 
 give exceedingly valuable support to the 
 cause. In fact, it is commonly admitted 
 that without the Scandinavian vote 
 Constitutional Prohibition could not have 
 carried in North Dakota. The English, 
 Welsh and Scotch-Americans, coming 
 from countries where the work of tem- 
 perance education has long been carried 
 on, exhibit considerable sympathy for the 
 radical movement in this country. 
 Among the Irish at large, Prohibition 
 sentiment makes but slow progress ; yet 
 the aggressive fight against the liquor 
 traffic waged by many eloquent and in- 
 fluential Irishmen, like Bishops Ireland 
 and Spalding, T. V. Powderly, Eev. J. 
 M. Cleary and Father Mahoney, and the 
 educational work done by the Catholic 
 Total Abstinence Society, are winning 
 converts. The Hungarians, Poles, Ital- 
 ians, Bohemians, French and Jews seem 
 to oppose the movement with vigor and 
 practical solidity, although encouraging 
 exceptions are to be noted. The Hoi- 
 
Foreigners.] 
 
 182 
 
 [Fraizer, Samuel. 
 
 landers appear to take a friendlier atti- 
 tude. 
 
 Among the foreign-born citizens of the 
 United States none have sturdier char- 
 acteristics than the Germans. While 
 giving credit without stint and most 
 cheerfully and admiringly to the Ger- 
 man people for all the many excellent 
 traits that distinguish them, the Pro- 
 hibitionists recognize that the German- 
 Americans as a class constitute probably 
 the most formidable anti-Prohibition 
 factor that is to be contended against, save 
 only the factor represented by the or- 
 ganized liquor traffic. The "personal 
 liberty" argument is peculiarly a Ger- 
 man's argument. The men who have 
 established powerful German newspapers, 
 like the New York Staats-Zeitung, Chi- 
 cago Staats-Zeitmig, Cincinnati Volks- 
 blatt, St. Louis Tribune, etc., seem to 
 consider it an essential and important 
 part of their political duty and responsi- 
 bility to share in the leadership of the 
 anti-Prohibition element, if not to form- 
 ally and persistently represent the dram- 
 shop interests. The brewers of the 
 United States are Germans with but very 
 few exceptions, and the proceedings of 
 the brewers' conventions, as well as of 
 many retail liquor-dealers' conventions, 
 are conducted in the German language. 
 The German vote being largely Repub- 
 lican under normal conditions, and being 
 always ready to resent party concessions 
 to the temperance people, it exercises a 
 most important restraining influence 
 upon Republican policy, especially in the 
 States (like Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin and 
 Missouri) where the Germans are very 
 strong. But there is a constantly in- 
 creasing sympathy for Prohibition among 
 those thoroughly Americanized Germans 
 who give impartial attention to the merits 
 of the question ; and when Germans are 
 converted to Prohibition ideas they be- 
 come earnest and valuable workers. The 
 English-speaking branches of the Luther- 
 an Church rank with the most aggressive 
 denominations. Several German news- 
 papers, notably the Deutsch-Amerikaner 
 of Chicago and the ChristUche Apologete 
 of Cincinnati, have espoused the anti- 
 saloon cause. The German-American 
 Prohibition Association (Henry Rieke of 
 Chicago, President) is one of the most 
 active allies of the Prohibition party. 
 
 It is an undeniable and very significant 
 
 fact that the liquor traffic of the United 
 States is almost exclusively in the hands 
 of foreigners. Inspection of any repre- 
 sentative list of brewers or liquor-dealers 
 reveals a strong majority of foreign 
 names. 
 
 The Woman's Christian Temperance 
 Union is entitled to warm praise for the 
 excellent work that it is doing in behalf 
 of total abstinence and Prohibition 
 through its Foreigners' Department, 
 under the management of Mrs. Sophie 
 F. Grubb. This and similar work must 
 be relied on for winning the co-operation 
 of our adopted citizens. Though stricter 
 immigration and naturalization laws may 
 be and should be advocated by every one 
 who looks with concern upon the baleful 
 influence exerted by the great mass of 
 ignorant and objectionable foreigners, the 
 genius of our institutions as well as the 
 practical attitude of general public senti- 
 ment will not permit our Government to 
 apply the radical remedy that is favored 
 by some extremists. Incidental discrim- 
 inations and not arbitrary and sweeping 
 prohibitions against alien immigration 
 and suffrage are the most that may be 
 reasonably hoped for. 
 
 Johx Sobieski. 
 
 Fraizer, Samuel. — Born in North 
 Carolina, April 19, 1808, emigrated on 
 foot to Indiana in 1822 and settled on a 
 farm in Marion County, eight miles north- 
 west of Indianapolis. He was one of the 
 earliest pioneers of temperance and total 
 abstinence in the West. In 1830, he 
 married Martha, a daughter of Enoch 
 Evens, and in 1834 he and five of his 
 neighbors organized a total abstinence 
 society, thereby pledging themselves not 
 to have any intoxicating drinks at their 
 house-raisings, log-rollings and other 
 gatherings. Out of this organization grew 
 a strong temperance society, which ex- 
 erted a great influence for good through- 
 out that region. Soon after the forma- 
 tion of that society Samuel Fraizer began 
 to preach and lpcture, and devoted nearly 
 40 years of his life to the cause of tem- 
 perance. He was an eloquent speaker, a 
 man of fine presence and goodly counten- 
 ance, a bold and energetic worker, and 
 wherever he went he shed the light of the 
 gospel of temperance. He was for years 
 what might be called a temperance circuit- 
 rider, going everywhere in spite of bad 
 
France.] 
 
 183 
 
 [France. 
 
 weather and bad roads, to lecture and 
 circulate total abstinence pledges in the 
 worst neighborhoods he could find. He 
 had a fine voice for singing, and an im- 
 portant feature of his work was to teach 
 children to sing temperance songs from 
 books which he always carried with him. 
 He was also a very good composer, and 
 composed both the words and music of 
 several of the best temperance songs pub- 
 lished at that time. Of these, his favorite 
 and one which he always sang with great 
 effect, began with the words, 
 " Touch not the cup I It is death to thy sou! ! " 
 In 1859 he removed from Indiana to 
 Jasper County, la., where he began anew 
 his pioneer work in the cause of temper- 
 ance. From this time his field of labor 
 really extended from Iowa through Illi- 
 nois to his old home in Indiana; and there 
 are now living thousands of young and 
 middle-aged men who signed the pledge 
 for the first time in response to 
 his teachings. In 1875, advancing age 
 compelled him to rest from active labor, 
 and he died at Monroe, Jasper County, 
 la., on Jan. 15, 1887. His funeral was 
 attended by an immense concourse of 
 people, and the text of the funeral dis- 
 course, " I have fought a good fight," 
 might well have been chosen by the 
 patriarch himself. W. T. Hornady. 
 
 France. — The history of the progress 
 of intemperance in France during the lat- 
 ter half of the 19th Century strikingly il- 
 lustrates the fallacy of the High License 
 project, as well as of the idea that the al- 
 cohol vice can be eradicated by the pro- 
 motion of education alone. With a 
 thorough system of free parochial schools 
 and the enormous circulation of popular 
 newspapers, the population of the larger 
 French cities is, on the whole, better in- 
 structed and certainly less illiterate, in 
 the book-reader's sense of the word, than 
 that of any other portion of the civilized 
 world. Yet, as an American reformer 
 well observes : " Education is the cure of 
 ignorance, but ignorance is not the cause 
 of intemperance. Men who drink gen- 
 erally know better than others that the 
 practice is foolish and hurtful. They 
 drink because appetite, when stimulated 
 by temptation, is stronger than reason." 
 In the absence of Prohibitory laws, the 
 mere restlessness of discontent (incident 
 to personal misfortune or public calami- 
 
 ties) may fatally strengthen the seductive- 
 ness of the poison vice, and it is a sug- 
 gestive fact that in France the epidemic 
 increase of intemperance dates from the 
 decadence of national prestige. During 
 the golden age of French literature, up 
 to the. death of Louis XIV, the French 
 nobles were less addicted to alcoholic ex- 
 cesses than those of any other part of con- 
 temporary Europe. The gross intemper- 
 ance of their eastern neighbors was a 
 topic of constant raillery to the upper 
 classes of a nation which, partly by fftvor 
 of climate and partly by the instinct of 
 refinement, had learned to dispense with 
 the revels of the taproom. During the 
 prime of the 1st Empire Frenchmen were 
 intoxicated with military glory, but like 
 their idolized leader they detested drunk- 
 enness; and the phenomenal increase of 
 alcoholism dates only from the middle of 
 the present century, when despotism and 
 the enormous increase of taxation began 
 to foster a spirit of dissipation which has 
 exploded in numerous more or less suc- 
 cessful attempts at political revolt, but in 
 the meanwhile has begotten disposition 
 to drown its disappointments in the Lethe 
 of the poison vice. 
 
 The humiliating results of the Franco- 
 Prussian War have done much to increase 
 that tendency. The crushing burden of 
 the national debt, the rapid increase in 
 the price of all necessaries of lifb, the 
 failure of colonial enterprise have all 
 co-operated to stimulate the fierceness of 
 industrial competition to an unparalleled 
 degree and have driven millions to seek 
 refuge in the delusive enjoyments of the 
 rumshop, through want of leisure for bet- 
 ter recreations. If evils of that kind 
 could be checked by High License the 
 experiment ought to have triumphantly 
 succeeded in Paris, where liquor-vendors 
 have to pay an exorbitant tax, or rather a 
 variety of taxes, under all possible names 
 — tax for the liquor itself, for the right 
 of selling it to customers who drink their 
 drams at the bar, for the privilege of 
 selling spirits with other refreshments, 
 for the permission to attract guests by 
 musical entertainment, etc., etc. Yet the 
 number of those poison-dens steadily in- 
 creases, as well as their power for mischief, 
 for it is a curious fact (conclusively re- 
 futing the sophistry of the advocates of 
 the milder alcoholics) that in the land of 
 cheap and abundant wine, strong beer 
 
France.] 
 
 184 
 
 [France. 
 
 and absinthe (wormwood and fnsel 
 brandy) have almost eclipsed the popu- 
 larity of all other intoxicants. "The 
 drinking of absinthe," says a correspond- 
 ent of the London Telegraph, "threatens 
 to rank with the chief curses of France. 
 Although she holds the first place among 
 the wine-growing countries, it is not wine 
 but absinthe which, next to coffee, is be- 
 coming the favo-ite drink of the number- 
 less caf' s. To unaccustomed palates the 
 taste of the liquid is absolutely revolting 
 — at once bitter, sickly, nauseous, like 
 some foul decoction of the sick-room. 
 But with constant use the bitterness and 
 the sickly odor become ambrosial ele- 
 ments. . . . France, indeed, has 
 more reason to dread absinthe than she 
 has to fear Prince Bismarck." 
 
 Thus far, restrictive laws are applied to 
 the suppression of the symptoms, rather 
 than to the removal of the cause ; heavy 
 fines are exacted for drunkenness and 
 disorderly conduct, while the panderers of 
 the drink vice are permitted to multiply 
 unhindered. A party, strong in moral 
 power if not in numbers, is, however, be- 
 ginning to advocate the adoption of the 
 " Gothenburg system " (Local Option and 
 restrictive by-laws), and their influence 
 is strengthened by the primitive habits 
 of the country population, especially in 
 the south and srutheast of France, where 
 industry and economy go hand in hand 
 with a degree of abstemiousness un- 
 equalled in any other Christian country, 
 northern Spain perhaps alone excepted. 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Additional Particulars. — In the article 
 on Consumption of Liquors are given 
 statistical tables, compiled from "Annu- 
 aire Statistique de la France," showing 
 the annual production, importation, ex- 
 portation, and the average consumption 
 per capita of population in France, dur- 
 ing each year from 1870 to 1885 inclusive, 
 of distilled spirits and wine, respectively. 
 These tables show a startling increase in 
 the consumption of distilled spirits, the 
 annual per capita consumption having 
 advanced from 0.58 gallon in 1870 to 
 1.24 gallon in 1885 ; whereas the average 
 annual consumption of wine per capita 
 decreased from 37.90 gallons in 1870 to 
 26.74 gallons in 1886. But even these 
 figures do not fully exhibit the frightful 
 development of the appetite for fiery 
 
 liquors in the greatest wine-producing 
 nation of the earth. In 1850, according 
 to " Annuaire Statistique " for 1888, the 
 consumption per capita of die tilled spirits 
 in France was only 0.39 gallon. There- 
 fore the per capita consumption of the 
 stronger liquors increased in 25 years 
 from less than two-fifths of a gallon to a 
 gallon and one-quarter — the amount per 
 inhabitant in 1885 being more thanihree 
 times that in 1850. 
 
 Indeed, statistical authorities are agreed 
 in ranking contemporary France with the 
 most drunken of nations. Mulhall (edi- 
 tion of 1886) actually places Ver at the 
 head, estimating that the average annual 
 consumption of alcohol per inhabitant in 
 France is 2.65 gallons, as against 2.60 
 gallons per capita in Denmark, which 
 stands second on Mulhall's list. 
 
 This extraordinary situation in France 
 is potent if not conclusive evidence 
 against the claim that temperance will be 
 promoted by popularizing wines. As a 
 matter of fact, there is abundant proof 
 that the wine habit is the root of the 
 evil among the French. Dr. F. B. Lees, 
 in his " Text-Book of Temperance " (pp. 
 151-2), presents the following striking 
 information : 
 
 "It is true that in large districts, and chiefly 
 the most ignorant, there is little drunkenness 
 and erime (a fact to which Quetelet refers), but 
 that is owing to the fact of the extreme rarity 
 of wine-shops, and to the extreme poverty of 
 the people. In the rich and manufacturing parts 
 intemperance and its resulting evils abound. 
 Dr. Morel of the St. Yon Asylum says in his 
 work ' On tbe Degeneracy of the Human Race,' 
 that 'there is always a hopeless number of 
 paralytic and other insane persons in our hos- 
 pitals whose disease is due to no other cause 
 than the abuse of alcoholic liquors. In 1,000 
 patients of whom I have made special note, at 
 least 200 of them owed their mental disorder to 
 no other cause' (p 109). Many more, therefore, 
 would be indirectly affected or aggravated by 
 drink. M. Beh'c, in his ' Repcrt on Insanity,' 
 says : ' Of 8 797 male and 7 069 female lunatics. 
 34 per cent, of the men and 6 of the women were 
 made insane by intemperance. This is the 
 most potent and frequent cause.' 
 
 " French journals note that years of plenty 
 in the wine dis'ricts are years of disorder and 
 crime for the country at large. Tlie ' Annals of 
 Hygiene ' for 186'i observes that in wine-grow- 
 ing countries delir.'um tremens and alcohol'sm 
 are most frequent. The plain fact is. that 
 though partly owing to the temperament of the 
 people, and partly to the better arrangements 
 of the police, outrageous and besotted drunken- 
 ness may be less freauent or less apparent, yet 
 the serious and essential evils are as great there 
 as in any country. Sensuality pervades their 
 
France.] 
 
 185 
 
 [France. 
 
 life, crime is very prevalent, suicides are in ex- 
 cess, population is arrested and extreme longev- 
 ity is rarer than in almost any other land. 
 
 "In France everybody drinks, young and 
 old, male and female, and we find one centen- 
 arian amongst 360,000 persons ; in the United 
 States of America, one in every 9,000. Sixteen 
 years ago Dr. Bell estimated the whole of the 
 alcohol drank in France, in the shape of spirit, 
 wine and cider, as equal to four gallons of 
 proof spirit per head annually, for all ages, 
 men, women, and infants. It is certainly not 
 less now. ... In France, in 1856, there 
 were 360 000 drink-shops besides inns, cafes, 
 etc.; over all France, one drinkery to 100 per- 
 sons of all ages. De "Watteville, the economist, 
 puts drinking third in order among 15 direct 
 causes of pauperism. . . . "With such habits 
 and temptations and examples, can we wonder 
 that every third birth in Paris is illegitimate, 
 and that there are 60,000 criminals permanently 
 residing in the prisons of the Seine? Mr. 
 Dickens's ' Household Words,' while defending 
 the beer-shop at home [England], thus dis- 
 courses of its counterpart abroad: 'The wine- 
 shops are the colleges and chapels of the poor 
 in France. History, morals, politics, jurisprud- 
 ence and literature, in iniquitous forms, are all 
 taught in these colleges and chapels, where 
 professors of evil continually deliver these 
 lessons, and where hymns are sung nightly to 
 the demon of demoralization. In these haunts 
 of the poor theft is taught as the morality of 
 property, falsehood as the morality of speech, 
 and assassination as the justice of the people. 
 It is in the wine-shop the cabman is taught to 
 think it heroic to shoot the middle-class man 
 who disputes his fare. It is in the wine-shop 
 that the workman is tauglit to admire the man 
 who stabs his faithless mistress. It is in 'the 
 wine-shop the doom is pronounced of the em- 
 ployer who lowers the pay of the employed. 
 The wine-shops breed — in a physical atmos- 
 phere of malaria and a moral pestilence of envy 
 and vengeance — the men of crime and revolu- 
 tion. Hunger is proverbially a bad counsellor, 
 but drink is a worse.' " 
 
 In France the taxes on liquor licenses 
 constitute the largest single item in that 
 part of the Government income derived 
 from special internal taxes on occupa- 
 tions, etc. In 1885, according to " Annu- 
 aire Statistique" for 1888 (p. 440), the 
 Government revenue from liquor-dealers', 
 brewers' and distillers' licenses was 12,- 
 636,792.95 francs, or about $2,500,000; 
 this did not include the revenue from 
 duties levied on alcoholic liquors them- 
 selves. In the same year the revenues of 
 the Government from import and inland 
 duties on wines, ciders, perries and meads 
 aggregated 149,282,522.14 francs (about 
 $29,400,000). 
 
 The municipal governments of France, 
 besides obtaining large revenues from the 
 drink-sellers licensed by them, impose 
 
 special duties, called octroi duties, on all 
 liquors brought into \,heir respective 
 communities. The principle of octroi 
 duties is the same as that of customs du- 
 ties, save that octrois are levied by the 
 local instead of the national authorities, 
 and are assessed upon all taxable mer- 
 chandise, whether foreign or domestic. 
 The octroi returns of the city of Paris for 
 1385 show that there were brought into 
 Paris in that year 4,409,779 hectoliters 
 (about 116,400,000 gallons) of wine, yield- 
 ing a total octroi duty of 46,836,125 
 francs (about $9,225,000) ; 260,600 hecto- 
 liters (about 6,880,000 gallons) of cider, 
 perry and mead, yielding an octroi duty 
 of 1,042,401 francs (about $205,400), and 
 143,269 hectoliters (about 3,800,000 gal- 
 lons) of spirits, yielding an octroi of 11,- 
 433,041 franca (about $2,250,000). There- 
 fore from the octroi on liquors alone the 
 city of Paris realized nearly $11,700,000 
 in 1885 ; meanwhile in the same year the 
 total octroi duty of Paris from all sources 
 was 134,509,900 francs (tfbout $26,500,- 
 000), so that more than 44 per cent, of 
 the revenue from this species of taxation 
 was due to liquors. In the whole of 
 France outside of Paris the total octrois of 
 all the communities from liquors were as 
 follows in 1885: wines, 24,480,823 francs; 
 cider, perry and mead, 3,262,644 francs; 
 spirits, 9,322,859 francs — total from all 
 liquors, 37,066,326 francs (about $7,300,- 
 000) ; total octrois from all sources in the 
 same communities, 141,523,244 francs 
 (about $27,900,000) ; so that in the whole 
 of France outside of Paris the octrois 
 from liquors constituted more than 26 
 per cent, of those from all sources. 1 These 
 figures, when it is remembered that they 
 represent the revenue from only one 
 branch of purely local liquor taxation, 
 give an idea of the enormous property 
 interests involved in the liquor traffic in 
 France ; and, when considered in connec- 
 tion with the ratio between the octrois 
 from liquors and those from all sources, 
 they show to how great an extent the ex- 
 penses of the French municipal govern- 
 ments are defrayed from the products of 
 liquor taxation. 
 
 No important remedial work against 
 intemperance has been attempted, al- 
 though the Government has prohibited 
 the use of absinthe in the army and navy 
 
 1 Annuaire Statistique for 1888, pp. 462-5. 
 
Free Baptists.] 
 
 186 
 
 [Gambrell, Roderick Dhu. 
 
 and has conducted inquiries concerning 
 the evils produced by the liquor traffic. 
 The alcohol question has excited the in- 
 terest of scientists more than of philan- 
 thropists in France. The Societe Fran- 
 caise de Temperance does not enforce 
 abstinence even from spirits, but enjoins 
 moderation. 
 
 Free Baptists. — Their General Con- 
 ference, at Harper's Ferry, W. Va., Oc- 
 tober, 1889, declared, in part: 
 
 " We believe that the traffic in intoxicating 
 liquors as a beverage, is of such a character 
 that its license by government, under any con- 
 ditions or restrictions whatsoever, is wrong in 
 principle, and, therefore, to be refused by Chris- 
 tian people; that the conscience of the liquor 
 dealer is so debauched that he cannot be trusted 
 to abide by the conditions of his license, pro- 
 vided it is granted him ; that the Prohibitory 
 features of a license law are more difficult 1o 
 enforce than a strictly Prohibitory law; that 
 the palace saloon with its sanction of law, is a 
 greater peril to the young, especially, than the 
 outlawed low groggery, which High License 
 claims to suppress. We demand, nevertheless, 
 of the officers of the law the enforcement of the 
 Prohibilory features of existing license laws, 
 and most heartily commend the work of Law 
 and Order Leagues. As it is only through the 
 ballot that the church can directly introduce its 
 principles into State life, it becomes our duty 
 in national. State and local elections to use this 
 great power for the advancement of Prohibition, 
 and for the election to office of men committed 
 to this principle and practice." 
 
 Free Methodists — The last Gen- 
 eral Conference of this denomination de- 
 clared, in part : 
 
 " This is our motto : Total abstinence for the 
 individual moral suasion for the drunkard and 
 Prohibition from shore to shore. Our Discipline 
 commits us to Prohibition. We believe we 
 should not only support the principle of Pro- 
 hibition but the party that is the chief exponent 
 of that principle. To advocate the principle of 
 Prohibition without a party to carry it into 
 force, is like having a soul without a body in 
 which it can dwell. Foremost on every other 
 work of reform, we cannot afford to be behind 
 here. The same reasons which are brought 
 against party action argue strongly against our 
 existence as a church. In the onward march of 
 truth, God has ever had to thrust out men who 
 would take up the new idea and push it on to 
 victory. To reform dead churches and corrupt 
 political organizations is impossible. Reforms 
 never go backward ; Onward is the watchword. 
 . While we recognize the fact that there 
 are good men in the old political organizations, 
 we are not blind to the fact that the parties as 
 such, are under the iron heel of the rum power 
 We cannot gain Prohibition through either of 
 them." 
 
 Friends. — The Friends, or Quakers, 
 while not represented by national gather- 
 ings, hold Yearly Meetings throughout 
 the country. These Yearly Meetings 
 when touching upon the liquor question 
 invariably take radical ground. The 
 Friends are among the most earnest ad- 
 vocates of Prohibition and opponents of 
 compromise measures. 
 
 Gambrell. Roderick Ehu. — Born 
 in Nansemond County, Va., Dec. 21, 1865, 
 and was assassinated in Jackson, Miss., 
 May 5, 1887. His parents soon after his 
 birth removed to Mississippi, where his 
 father, J. B. Gambrell, became prominent 
 as a Baptist clergyman, editor and Pro- 
 hibitionist. Roderick studied at the State 
 University at Oxford, and afterwards at 
 Mississippi College at Clinton. Both his 
 parents were enthusiastic temperance 
 workers. When Eoderick was 19 years 
 old his father and uncle bought the State 
 organ of the Prohibitionists, the Argus, 
 and continued it under the name of the 
 Sword and Shield, with Eoderick as its 
 editor. His vigorous paragraphs soon at- 
 tracted attention. He removed the paper 
 to Jackson, the State capital. Soon after- 
 wards a saloon-keeper near his office, to 
 whose violations of law he had called 
 notice, visited the editor and undertook 
 to terrorize him. The attempt was not a 
 success, but this affair culminated in the 
 destruction of the office and outfit by fire. 
 In two weeks' time the publication of the 
 Sword and Shield was resumed. Eoder- 
 ick read the legislative journals, covering 
 12 years, and familiarized himself with 
 the political history of that period and 
 the record of every public man. His 
 fearless exposures of political rascals and 
 law-breaking saloon-keepers led to numer- 
 ous threats against his life; but he paid 
 no attention to them. He received but 
 meagre financial support, and he fre- 
 quently worked night and day to get out 
 his paper, performing both the literary 
 and the mechanical work. 
 
 In the Hinds County Local Option con- 
 test of 1886 the whiskey element was 
 led by Col. J. S. Hamilton of Jackson, 
 whose policy was to mass the negroes on 
 the side of the saloon. During the cam- 
 paign, which was the most exciting one 
 ever conducted in the State, Eoderick 
 Gambrell and John Martin edited a daily 
 Prohibition paper, and Hamilton issued 
 
Gambrinus.] 
 
 187 
 
 [Germany. 
 
 an anti-Prohibition journal. The fight 
 resulted in a victory for temperance and 
 weakened Hamilton's influence in Missis- 
 sippi. In April, 1887, Col. Hamilton was 
 named for renomination to the State Sen- 
 ate. The Sivord and Shield opposed his 
 candidacy on the ground that he was the 
 leader of the worst element of society, 
 that he was a defaulter to the State in the 
 sum of $80,000, and that he had peisonal 
 interests depending upon legislation. It 
 was Gambrell's purpose to force him to 
 face his record, but when told that Ham- 
 ilton would not be a candidate he said : 
 " That ends it ; I have no disposition to 
 say a word about him except as the public 
 welfare demands it." Between 9 and 10 on 
 the evening of May 5, 1887, as Gambrell 
 was on the way to his home, he was shot 
 down. A number of pistol shots, a cry 
 of "Murder!" and the sound of heavy 
 blows were heard by wayfarers, and run- 
 ning up they found the young man dying, 
 while standing about him were Hamilton, 
 with his coat-sleeve on fire and two pistol 
 wounds in his body; Albrecht, a saloon- 
 keeper and gambler, holding in his hand 
 a large pistol dripping with blood; Eu- 
 banks, a man employed by Hamilton; 
 Figures, a gambler, and Carraway, City 
 Marshal of Jackson, and Hamilton's 
 special friend. Gambrell's face was mu- 
 tilated by blows from the butt of the 
 pistol. The evidence before the coroner 
 pointed clearly to assassination. There 
 were threats made of lynching, but Rev. 
 J. B. Gambrell, the boy's father, published 
 an appeal for a lawful trial. The first 
 trial resulted in the sentence of Hamilton 
 and Eubanks to jail, the release of Al- 
 brecht on bond and the unconditional 
 release of Figures. The final trial of 
 Hamilton was held in the adjoining 
 county of Rankin, before a jury sum- 
 moned by a Deputy Sheriff, himself under 
 indictment for felony, who boasted that 
 he was Hamilton's friend and that he had 
 " fixed " four of the jurors. The acquittal 
 of the prisoner was a foregone conclusion. 
 Upon his release his partisans escorted 
 him to Jackson with noisy demonstra- 
 tions. 
 
 Gambrinus.— A fabled king of Bra- 
 bant, a duchy in the Netherlands. He is 
 reputed to have discovered the secret of 
 brewing beer; iand for this discovery he 
 is honored in Germany and Holland as 
 
 the patron saint of the brewers. He is 
 commonly pictured as a Flemish cavalier 
 of the Middle Ages, with the insignia of 
 his rank as king and duke, and- holding 
 in his hand a glass of foaming beer. 
 
 Georgia. — See Index. 
 
 German Baptists (Dunkards). — 
 
 For more than a hundred years the 
 manufacture, sale and use of into'xicants 
 as beverages have been unsparingly con- 
 demned by this denomination. It claims 
 to have been the first — after the Quakers 
 — to make Prohibition a test of fellow- 
 ship. The Dunkards take no part in 
 politics beyond quietly depositing their 
 ballots. Hence their caution against 
 " public agitation," by which they mean 
 political demonstrations. Their last Na- 
 tional Conference, which met at Harrison- 
 burgh, Va., June 12, 1889, passed the 
 following resolution : 
 
 '■Resolved, That this Annual Conference 
 recommend that all our brethren carefully main- 
 tain our position against the use or toleration of 
 intoxicant ', whether to manufacture, to sell or 
 use as a beverage, and to the extent of our influ- 
 ence contribute our part to secure practical 
 Prohibition ; but that we be advised against 
 taking part in the public agitation of the sub- 
 ject." 
 
 German Reformed Church. — The 
 
 General Synod, convened at Akron, O., 
 June, 1887, incorporated in its declara- 
 tions the following : 
 
 " Resolved. That we view with profound 
 regret and sorrow the great evil of intemperance, 
 and especially its sad and deadly fruits —crime, 
 poverty, and temporal and eternal death, — and 
 that we here and now, before God and the 
 nation, record our protest against it and earnestly 
 call upon our Synods, classes and thurches to 
 unite with us in zealous and persistent Christian 
 efforts looking towards its speedy extermina- 
 tion." 
 
 Germany, the perfect type of a beer- 
 drinking country, has had a liquor ques- 
 tion to deal with from the dawn of her 
 history. Csesar makes no mention of the 
 German national drink, but Tacitus and 
 Diodorus, who wrote but little later, give 
 us some idea of the extent and results of 
 beer-drinking. 
 
 The consumption of liquor has been 
 growing from bad to worse until there 
 are to-day in Germany about 90,000 1 dis- 
 
 ' All figures herein cited, if nothing is said to the con- 
 trary, are taken froii the " Statistisches Jahrbuch fur 
 das Deutche R-nch," and the " Monatshefte zur Statistik 
 ues Deutsche!! Iteiches " (1889). 
 
Germany.] 
 
 188 
 
 [Germany. 
 
 tilleries, large and small, producing be- 
 tween 60,000,000 and 80,000,000 gallons 
 of alcohol, of which about one-fourth is 
 used for scientific and mechanical pur- 
 poses, and the remaining three-fourths is 
 drunk by the people or exported. This 
 pure alcohol when put in drinkable form 
 would show many times larger figures if 
 the statistics could be had. In addition 
 to the distilleries there are between 9,000 
 and 10,000 breweries, which annually 
 furnish the German Empire with up- 
 wards of 1,100,000,000 gallons of beer, 
 entailing an annual waste of over 600,- 
 000 tons of grain. And the manufacture 
 is ever on the increase in order to keep up 
 with the increase in demand. Besides 
 distilled and malt liquors there are native 
 and imported wines. The yearly produc- 
 tion of native wines amounts, approxi- 
 mately, to 76,000,000 gallons, ' of which 
 only 1,150,000 gallons are exported, and 
 there are foreign wines imported to the 
 amount of 18,000,000 gallons yearly. 2 
 
 These liquors are sold to the German 
 public in more than 259,600 public houses, 
 a proportion of one drinking-place to less 
 than 175 of the whole population. The fig- 
 ures do not take into account the numer- 
 ous places where wine and beer are sold in 
 bottles and not consumed on the premises. 
 In the larger cities the number of inhabit- 
 ants to one dramshop is much smaller : 
 for instance, Pforten has one to every 55 
 of population, Hamburg one to every 70, 
 and Berlin one to every 90. 3 And the 
 number of drinking-places is increasing 
 in a much greater ratio than the popula- 
 tion; in some of the States the number 
 has been ,known to more than double it- 
 self in five years. These " saloons " - for 
 by this name they may be called, whether 
 with or without screens — have as many 
 peculiarities as those in America, and they 
 may be divided into exactly the same 
 classes. The keepers, too, closely resem- 
 ble their brethren in trade in the United 
 States, the majority being systematic law- 
 breakers. They see men being ruined by 
 their traffic, but shut their eyes and do 
 not hesitate to fill again and again the 
 drunkard's glass. If cash is not given 
 they are not unwilling to take anything 
 that may be offered as security; for he 
 
 1 The average yearly production is over 116,600,000 gal- 
 lons, according to Meyer's "Konversations Lexikon 11 
 (article on u Wein"). 
 
 2 For detailed statistics, see Consumption of Liquors. 
 8 A. Lammers, in "Deutsche Zeit und Streitfragen." 
 
 who is once in their debt must come 
 again. And when money and credit 
 both are gone they get satisfaction with 
 fist and boot. 
 
 The power of granting licenses is 
 vested in the city governments ; and in most 
 cities licenses are issued almost without 
 discrimination. In some places ordi- 
 nances are in force which make the grant- 
 ing depend upon the " need." Practically, 
 however, a new saloon is " needed " when 
 there is no other upon the same premises. 
 The wish of the residents or the distance 
 from another dramshop does not enter 
 into the question of need. The license 
 fee is nowhere more than $12, and this 
 fee, when paid at the opening of the 
 drinking establishment, entitles the pro : 
 prietor to do business without paying 
 subsequent annual fees. This license 
 holds good as long as the licensed saloon 
 continues in the same place and under 
 the management of the same licensee 
 or his heirs. 
 
 Who drinks all this liquor ? Practically 
 all the people, high and low, old and 
 young, men and women, educated and un- 
 educated, participate in the drinking. 
 The university professor, at the close of 
 the hour's session, often invites the stu- 
 dents to go and take beer with him. The 
 students' societies invariably hold their 
 meetings in saloons ; the duels are fought 
 in saloons ; it is a common saying among 
 students that beer is more important to a 
 university than either students or pro- 
 fessors. All the student's pleasures and 
 recreations center around his foaming 
 glass. In student life it is beer first, last 
 and all the time, and it is said with truth 
 that students drink more beer than any 
 other class in the Empire. Many a 
 Munich student has boasted of swallow- 
 ing his 30 glasses — i. e., quarts — of beer 
 in one night, and yet not found it neces- 
 sary to be carried home. Even the boys 
 in school by classes set apart one evening 
 in the week for beer-drinking However, 
 no such ruinous custom as treating is 
 known, and thus much drunkenness, 
 which otherwise would certainly follow, 
 is prevented. 
 
 The working classes drink more whis- 
 key than beer, for the simple reason that 
 it is much cheaper. 4 Almost every work- 
 
 4 The liter (quart) of beer costs from 714 cents to 12X 
 cents, while the liter of whiskey costs 20 cents; but a glass 
 of whiskey costs only one cent, while a glass of beer costs 
 from four to six cents. 
 
Germany.] 
 
 189 
 
 [Germany. 
 
 man carries his penny flask, of poison 
 with him, and has recourse to it many 
 times during the day. Most of those who 
 have no houses of their own content them- 
 selves with a dinner of weak, innntritious 
 food, costing less than ten cents, and in- 
 dulge in the luxury of a glass of beer 
 costing four or five. The entire sum 
 would buy a good, wholesome dinner, but 
 the mere suggestion that men would do 
 better to live by food without intoxicating 
 drink would be resented as a proposition 
 to starve the laborer. 
 
 Worse than this is the drinking in 
 the home. Liquor in bottles and casks 
 is brought into the houses of rich and 
 poor alike, and a species of drunkenness 
 a hundred times worse than that of the 
 street too often destroys domestic happi- 
 ness. l Especially on Sundays do people 
 in the country get together and drink 
 liquor by the cask; and no ceremony, be 
 it a birthday celebration, a baptism, a 
 marriage or even a funeral, is com- 
 plete without free alcoholic indulgence. 
 Drunken pall-bearers, drunken mourners, 
 drunken wedding-guests, drunken bride 
 and groom even, and drunken sponsors 
 desecrate the holy services. And even 
 babes in their cradles are given whiskey 
 to keep them still. 2 Among profes- 
 sional men there is less indiscriminate 
 " swilling " of intoxicants. Some of the 
 best doctors drink beer only in the even- 
 ing, after their professional duties are 
 done, so that they may have an opportu- 
 nity to sleep off the dulling, stupefying 
 effects of it. The same is true of literary 
 men. But they all set wine before their 
 guests, and drink more or less of it when 
 alone. 
 
 What are the immediate results of so 
 much drink ? 
 
 1. Drunkenness. — Not only German 
 whiskey but also German beer makes peo- 
 ple drunk. It is undoubtedly incompara- 
 bly better and less injurious than Ameri- 
 can beer, but it is also unquestionably in- 
 toxicating, and many a man, accustomed 
 to it from his childhood, can not drink so 
 much as three glasses of " good beer " 
 and pretend to be sober. It is often said 
 that among beer-drinking people there is 
 but little intoxication. This statement 
 may be accounted for by the elasticity of 
 
 1 Lammers, " Deutsche Zeit und Streitfragen/ 1 x., p. 
 182. 
 
 2 See also Dr. Baer, "Der Alcoholismus," etc. 
 
 the term. Many will not admit that a 
 man is drunk until he falls down and 
 " reaches up for the ground," or that a 
 man can be a drunkard until he reaches 
 the stage of delirium tremens. Even the 
 President of the only active " temper- 
 ance " society in Germany declares that 
 "a man may get drunk a good many 
 times without being in the least addicted 
 to drink or in danger of, becoming so." 3 
 The most serious obstacle in the way of 
 proof on this point is that there are abso- 
 lutely no statistics about drunkenness. 
 There are no arrests made for "drunken- 
 ness," or for " drunkenness and disor- 
 derly conduct." The public conscience 
 is so indifferent to such offences that a 
 law against them is not warranted. The 
 only official statistics to be mentioned are 
 the reports of insane asylums for Prus- 
 sia. Of 28,300 patients treated, 2,558, 
 or nearly 10 per cent., had delirium tre- 
 mens, and a majority of the rest, the phy- 
 sicians declare, came there through the 
 immediate use of alcoholic drink. Who- 
 ever says that drunkenness is not wide- 
 spread in Germany either wilfully mis- 
 represents or is densely ignorant of the 
 facts. The streets are crowded with per- 
 sons in all stages of drunkenness. 
 
 2. Insanity. — (See the figures above.) 
 
 3. Crime. — Here, again, accurate statis- 
 tics are wanting. It is safe to say that in 
 a country where drinking is so general 
 very few crimes are committed by men 
 free from the influence of liquor. Those 
 who are in position to know declare that 
 liquor is directly responsible for a large 
 part if not a majority of all violations of 
 law. 4 The classification of crimes as 
 given in the criminal statistics for 1889 
 seems fully to bear out this statement. 
 
 4. Domestic Misery. — Homes are de- 
 stroyed and happiness is changed to woe, 
 here as everywhere else where intoxicat- 
 ing liquors are tolerated. The work- 
 worn, care-worn wives often tell the story, 
 not by their faces only but in sad words 
 as well. 
 
 5. Poverty. — The wretched condition 
 of the poor in Great Britain can be du- 
 plicated in but few parts of the German 
 Empire. But poverty and want are vis- 
 
 3 Lammers "Deutsche Zeit und Streitfragen," x., p. 
 383. 
 
 4 See "Deutsche Zeit und Streitfragen," x., p. 179; 
 and also the report of the " Jabresversammlung des 
 Deutschen Vereins gegen Misbrauch geistiger Getranke" 
 (1887). 
 
Germany.] 
 
 190 
 
 [Germany. 
 
 ible on every hand. He who looks for 
 the causes of poverty here will find 
 at least nine cases in every ten due to 
 immoderate whiskey-drinking.' If that is 
 true, probably 9 per cent, more are 
 chargeable to immoderate beer-drinking. 
 Inside the almshouses are 32,424 people 
 brought there by their own drinking, be- 
 sides the hundreds of thousands l eft 
 helpless by the drunkenness of those who 
 should have been their supporters. 
 
 6. Immorality. — Prostitution is recog- 
 nized and licensed by the Government. 
 It goes hand in hand with the saloon. 
 In Berlin more than 10,000 fallen women 
 are immediately connected with the rum- 
 shops. Drink rouses the passions, and 
 herein we And at least one reason why 
 a considerable proportion of all the chil- 
 dren born in Germany are illegitimate. 
 
 7. The most patent result of all is 
 stupefaction. In no country are the com- 
 mon people, on the average, so stupid and 
 dull as in Germany. The common 
 laborer is the embodiment of stupidity. 
 The German public schools are said to 
 stand first in the world ; primary educa- 
 tion is compulsory for all ; but the effects 
 of so much beer consumed by the fathers 
 and the children for so many generations 
 cannot fail to neutralize these advantages. 
 
 With so many evidences of the evils 
 resulting from drink in Germany, the 
 continued apathy of the people seems 
 remarkable. The women, who in Amer- 
 ica exercise so powerful an influence for 
 reform, are indifferent or hostile in Ger- 
 many. Very few of the German women 
 are tota 1 abstainers or favor total absti- 
 nence. They are at the best a negative 
 factor. The clergy, as a rule, are inert. 
 At the universities the theological 
 students frequently rank with the 
 freest drinkers, and they manifest lit- 
 tle sympathy for radical temperance 
 principles when they come to the pulpit. 
 The vast majority of the people regard the 
 saloon as a necessary contributor to their 
 comfort and convenience, and are opposed 
 to any interference with it by legislation 
 or by moral suasion. There is, however, 
 a so-called " Society Against the Abuse 
 of Sp : rituous Liquors," which claims to 
 be the only national temperance organi- 
 zation. It has'between 11,000 and 12,000 
 members, who are not, however, total 
 
 1 See " Volkswirthschaf tliche Zeitfragen," iv., essay 
 4, p. 4. 
 
 abstainers. , Meetings are too frequently 
 held in drinkshops, and beer is indulged 
 in. The Society's fight is chiefly against 
 whiskey, and moderation is the only 
 thing preached. The President, in an 
 essay in "Deutsche Zeit und Streitfra- 
 gen" x., p. 179), laments over the 
 "thousands or rather millions of drunk- 
 ards in the nation," and arraigns drink 
 as the parent of "the majority of all 
 crimes and offenses, of all pauperism and 
 wrong;" yet on the same page declares 
 for " the old national German drink, beer." 
 "It is not necessary," he says (Ibid, p. 
 185), " that the jolly, harmless carousal, 
 accompanied by song, shall be eliminated 
 from our national life, to which it lends 
 one of the peculiar and inexpressible 
 charms;" and "total abstinence, un- 
 less recommended by a physician, is not 
 a moral precept." A temperance society 
 founded on such beliefs has of course 
 accomplished nothing of real advantage. 
 
 At one time there were progressive 
 temperance organizations in Germany. 
 They were introduced from America by 
 Robert Baird in 1837, but their roots 
 never went deep, the soil not being con- 
 genial; and when the troubles of 1848 
 came the total abstinence movement died 
 a natural death. It is seldom heard of 
 now, although some individual efforts are 
 being made. It seems well-nigh hope- 
 less to preach abstinence in a nation of 
 drinkers, where in almost every block, in 
 every railway station, on every road, at 
 every point of interest the open saloon is 
 not only tolerated but not combated. 
 
 The only serious undertaking of any 
 breadth was that inaugurated in 1884 by 
 the Society Against the Abuse of Spirit- 
 uous Liquors, which appointed a commit- 
 tee to inquire into the results of reform 
 movements in foreign countries and to 
 recommend a policy for Germany. This 
 committee found its ideal not in Kansas 
 or Maine (for such an ideal would ex- 
 clude the beloved beer and wine) but in 
 the Swedish and Norwegian method of 
 dealing with the whiskey curse — the so- 
 called Gothenburg system. It proposed 
 by education and legislation to take the 
 whiskey-selling business out of the hands 
 of the lower classes and give it over to 
 the cultivated, well-to-do, and generally 
 best-meaning classes, who will control it 
 for the "common good." Then the 
 " tempters " are to be removed by placing 
 
Gin.J 
 
 191 
 
 [Goodell, William. 
 
 disinterested persons in charge of the sale, 
 so that no one already drunk and no minor 
 may obtain drink ; and suitable penalties 
 are to be provided. The committee 
 argued that with the whole business un- 
 der the supervision of one authority the 
 number of whiskey-shops would be ma- 
 terially reduced. Further restrictions 
 would be imposed by compelling these 
 establishments to open late in the morn- 
 ing and close early at night, and by 
 requiring that no sales be made on Sun- 
 day save a single glass per individual at 
 dinner time, that the rest and sanctity of 
 the Sabbath might be protected. The 
 profits (the committee intimated) should 
 be devoted to the common welfare and to 
 reducing taxation. 
 
 The Society has founded some coffee- 
 houses, but beer is offered for sale in 
 nearly all of them. Even the Y. M. C. 
 A. rooms in many cities have drinking- 
 bars. It is suggested that " the begin- 
 ning of the reform must be made by the 
 Government, which, as it owns the rail- 
 ways, can make an end of the evils of 
 drink by offering in the railway lunch- 
 rooms only good fermented liquors, cof- 
 fee, tea and chocolate." Another plan is 
 to restrict the number of saloons on the 
 basis of population, as is done in Holland. 
 The advocates of Governmental action 
 have no real hope, however, of securing 
 even these slight and illusive benefits. 
 The German Government derives a yearly 
 income of nearly $30,000,000 from spirits 
 alone, and fully 'as much from beer, and 
 its whole policy is to encourage the drink 
 trade. As things stand at present it is 
 safe to say that not one member of the 
 Keichstag would vote for any measures 
 aimed at beer and wine. Even the Courts 
 appear to encourage drunkenness; for 
 the tendency of German jurisprudence 
 is to recognize that intoxication is a cogent 
 excuse for acquitting a criminal or miti- 
 gating the severity of the sentence. l But 
 the military law punishes acts of insubor- 
 dination or neglect of duty while under 
 the influence of liquor by sentencing the 
 guilty to five years of hard labor. 
 
 Walter Miller. 
 
 (Leipzig.) 
 
 Gin. — See Spirituous Liquors. 
 
 > This tendency of the German CourtB is discussed at 
 length in the report for 1887 (pp. 41-3) of the " Jahresver- 
 satnmlungdes Dentschen Vereins gegen den Misbrauch 
 geistigen Getranke." ' 
 
 Goodell, William.— Born in Coven- 
 try, N. Y., in 1792, and died in Janes- 
 ville, Wis., Feb. 14, 1878. In his youth 
 he worked as a clerk, farm-hand and 
 school-teacher; and while employed as a 
 bookkeeper in New York he assisted in 
 founding the Mercantile Library Asso- 
 ciation of that city. In 1827 he started 
 the Investigator in Providence, E. I., the 
 second paper devoted to the temperance 
 cause in the history of the movement. In 
 1829 he removed to Boston and united 
 the Investigator with the National Philan- 
 thropist, which, started in 1826, was the 
 pioneer temperance journal. In 1830 he 
 removed to New York and with the assist- 
 ance of Phineas Crandall began the pub- 
 lication of the Genius of Temperance. He 
 edited the Youth's Temperance Lecturer 
 also, and published the Female Advocate, 
 sustained by Christian women and de- 
 voted to social and moral purity. The 
 publication of the Emancipator in the in- 
 terest of the Anti-Slavery cause (com- 
 menced in 1834) brought the bitterest 
 persecution upon him. He assisted in 
 forming the American Anti-Slavery So- 
 ciety and the Liberty party. In 1836 he 
 removed to Utica, N. Y., and became 
 editor of the Friend of Man, State organ 
 of the Liberty party. He also labored as 
 a lecturer and a minister of the gospel. 
 He endeavored to induce the churches to 
 take a radical stand against slavery, and 
 he was for nine years pastor of a church at 
 Honeoye Lake, N. Y. While holding 
 this pastorate he published in two volumes 
 his " Democracy of Christianity," and 
 also issued a constitutional argument 
 against slavery. Later on he published 
 " Our National Charter," the " American 
 Slave Code " and a " History of Slavery 
 and Anti-Slavery." While residing at 
 Honeoye Lake he was nominated by the 
 Liberty party for Governor of New York. 
 In 1852 he removed to New York City to 
 become editor of the Radical Abolitionist. 
 He was one of those present with Mr. 
 Lincoln, strengthening and encouraging 
 him, on the night before the famous Proc 
 lamation of Emancipation was issued. 
 After the war Mr. Goodell wrote for vari- 
 ous papers in advocacy of total abstinence 
 and Prohibition. He aided in organizing 
 the Prohibition party at Chicago in 1869. 
 In 1870 he removed with his wife to 
 Janesville, Wis. In June, 1S74, he at- 
 tended the reunicn of Abolitionists at 
 
Good Templars.] 
 
 192 
 
 [Gough, John Bartholomew. 
 
 Chicago, and from that time until his 
 death he continued to write, preach and 
 lecture in behalf of temperance. 
 
 Go^d Templars. — See Independ- 
 ent Oedee of Good Templaes. 
 
 Gospel Temperance. — A name 
 commonly applied to temperance work 
 and workers whose methods are distinc- 
 tively evangelistic or persuasive, relying 
 upon the influence of exhortation, prayer, 
 song, the pledge, the church, etc. Gos- 
 pel temperance effort is but another name 
 for moral suasion effort, the object being 
 to reform inebriates and enlist supporters 
 for the temperance cause by appealing 
 especially to the emotional nature of in- 
 dividuals, their consciences, their religious 
 feelings and, in short, all their better in- 
 stincts. Gospel temperance movements 
 have been crowned with great success in 
 the United States, Canada, Great Britain, 
 Australia and other countries, multitudes 
 having been reclaimed. They have fre- 
 quently awakened the public sentiment 
 necessary for giving success to Prohibi- 
 tory campaigns and laws, and many of 
 the most valuable Prohibition agitators 
 have been developed from such move- 
 ments. Indeed, with very few exceptions 
 the gospel temperance laborers frankly 
 recognize that their work is essentially 
 preliminary and preparatory; that it is 
 impossible to reform drunkards as rapidly 
 as the saloons manufacture them; that 
 of those who do reform, comparatively 
 few are able to permanently resist tempta- 
 tion so long as the legalized saloons ex- 
 ist; that the results of rescue effort, 
 however noble and gratifying, are really 
 insignificant when measured with the 
 conditions ever presented by the fact that 
 multitudes relapse and greater multi- 
 tudes are never rescued ; that the organ- 
 ized drink system, which is the root of 
 the drink evil, can never be exterminated 
 by entreaty however loving or by argu- 
 ment however logical. On the other 
 hand there are very few Prohibitionists 
 who do not look with unqualified ap- 
 proval upon gospel temperance work and 
 encourage it by influence and contribu- 
 tions, understanding that every whole- 
 some educational agency promotes re- 
 form. 
 
 Gothenburg System. — See Swe- 
 den. 
 
 Gough, John Bartholomew. — 
 
 Born in Sandgate in Kent, Eng., Aug. 22, 
 1817; died in Frankford, Pa, Feb. 
 18, 1886. His family was supported 
 by the earnings of his mother as village 
 school-teacher, and a pension of £20 per 
 annum received by his father for services 
 in the Peninsular War. He was kept at 
 school until his twelfth year, when he 
 emigrated to America with a neighbor's 
 family. After working two years with 
 these people on a farm near Utica, N. Y., 
 he went to New York City and obtained 
 employment in the book-binding depart- 
 ment of the Methodist Book Concern, 
 where he learned his trade. In 1833 he 
 had saved sufficient money to send for 
 his mother and sister — his father having 
 died, — but in July, 1834, a little less than 
 a year after her arrival in America, his 
 mother died also. 
 
 Young Gough now fell in with evil 
 associates, and entered on a career of dis- 
 sipation which his marriage in 1839 and 
 the setting up of a small book-bindery on 
 his own account did not check. At the 
 age of 24 he was a hopeless sot. He went 
 to Bristol, E. I., Providence, Boston, 
 ISTewburyport and Worcester, eking out a 
 scant subsistence by doing small jobs at 
 his trade or by comic acting and singing 
 in low theatres and resoi'ts. " I was now," 
 he writes, " the slave of a habit which had 
 become completely my master, and which 
 fastened its remorseless fangs in my very 
 vitals. ... I drank during the whole 
 day. . . . So entirely did I give my- 
 self up to the bottle that those of my 
 companions who fancied they still pos- 
 sessed some claims to respectability grad- 
 ually withdrew from my company. At 
 my house, too, I used to keep a bottle of 
 gin, which was in constant requisition. 
 . . . A burning sense of shame would 
 flush my feyered brow at the conviction 
 that I was scorned by the respectable 
 portion of the community. But these 
 feelings passed away like the morning 
 cloud or the early dew, and I pursued 
 my old course." ' At Newburyport he 
 was induced to attend a temperance 
 meeting addressed by Mr. J. J. Johnson, 
 a reformed drunkard. "My conscience 
 told me that the truth was spoken by the 
 lecturer. As I left the chapel a young 
 man offered me the pledge to sign. I 
 
 * Autobiography (Boston, 1847), pp. 38, 40, 43. 
 
Gough, John Bartholomew.] 
 
 193 
 
 [Gough, John Bartholomew. 
 
 actually turned to sign it, but at that 
 critical moment the appetite for strong 
 drink, as if determined to have the mas- 
 tery over me, came in all its force ; t'.nd 
 remembering too, just then, that I had a 
 pint of brandy at home, I deferred sign- 
 ing." 1 
 
 In Worcester his wife and child died 
 from the consequences of want and ex- 
 posure, but even then he did not reform 
 his habits. " Soon it was whispered from 
 one to another until the whole town be- 
 came aware of it," he confesses, " that my 
 wife and child were lying dead, and that 
 I was drunk ! . . . There in the room 
 where all who had loved me were lying in 
 the unconscious slumber of death, was I 
 gazing, with a maudlin melancholy im- 
 printed on my features, on the dead forms 
 of those who were flesh of my flesh and 
 bone of my hone. During the miserable 
 hours of darkness I would steal from my 
 lonely bed to the place where my dead wife 
 and child lay, and in agony of soul pass 
 my shaking hand over their cold faces, and 
 then return to my bed, after a draught 
 of rum, which I had obtained and hidden 
 under the pillow of my wretched 
 couch." 2 
 
 Not long after this, in October, 1842, 
 when he " had no hope of ever becoming 
 a respectable man again - not the slight- 
 est " — " believing that every chance of 
 restoration to decent society and of ref- 
 ormation was gone forever," and when 
 he often contemplated suicide and even 
 "stood by the rails, with a bottle of lauda- 
 num clattering against " his lips, 3 he was 
 persuaded by Joel Stratton, a Quaker, to 
 go to a temperance gathering and sign 
 the pledge. Encouraged by Mr. Stratton 
 and others he kept his pledge for several 
 months in spite of the most terrible crav- 
 ings for liquor. " Knowing that I had 
 voluntarily renounced drink, I endeavored 
 to support my sufferings and resist the 
 incessant craving of my remorseless ap- 
 petite as well as I could ; but the struggle 
 to overcome it was insupportably pain- 
 ful. When I got up in the morning, 
 my brain seemed as though it would 
 burst with the intensity of its agony, my 
 throat appeared as if it were on fire, and 
 in my stomach I experienced a dreadful 
 burning sensation, as if the fires of the 
 pit had been kindled there. ... I 
 
 i Ibid, pp. 40-1. 
 a Ibid, p. 57. 
 
 2 Ibid, pp. 58-3. 
 
 craved, literally gasped, for my accus- 
 tomed stimulus, and felt that I should 
 die if I did not have it. . . . Still, 
 during all this frightful time, I experi- • 
 enced a feeling somewhat akin to satis- 
 faction at the position I had taken. I 
 had made at least one step towards ref- 
 ormation. I began to think that it was 
 barely possible that I might see better 
 days." 4 After a few months of success- 
 ful resistance to his enemy, he succumbed, 
 but only to confess his weakness in a 
 public meeting and sign the pledge once 
 more. In 1845 he was again under the 
 influence of liquor through a dastardly 
 trick of his enemies, who contrived to 
 have him take a drugged drink in the 
 hope of putting an end to his career as a 
 reformer. 
 
 In 1843 he married Mary AVhitcombe. 
 Determining to devote his life to the work 
 of rescuing drunkards, he set out on 
 foot, with a carpet-bag, through New 
 England, delivering lectures or telling 
 his experiences wherever he went, and 
 thankful at the start for so much as 
 75 cents for a night's labor. But his 
 remarkable gift of oratory rapidly de- 
 veloped until he was the best-known tem- 
 perance speaker in America. In Eng- 
 land, which he visited in 1-853 upon an 
 invitation from the London Temperance 
 League, his success was equally brilliant, 
 and he prolonged his stay through two 
 years. In 1854 a volume of his " Ora- 
 tions " was issued in England, and soon 
 after there was published in London an 
 edition of his " Autibiography," of which, 
 when first printed in Boston (in 1847), 
 20,000 copies had been sold within a year. 
 In August, 1855, Gough returned to 
 America. In 1857 he made his second 
 visit to Great Britain, and remained there 
 for three years. In 1878 he visited Eng- 
 land for the third time. For 17 years, 
 he lectured exclusively on temperance, 
 but in later years he gave many addresses 
 on miscellaneous subjects. In his work 
 he traveled 450,000 miles and delivered 
 8,606 addresses before more than 9,000,- 
 000 people. 
 
 He was the great exponent of moral 
 suasion, but he also believed in, and dur- 
 ing his last years especially emphasized, 
 the necessity of political action to pro- 
 hibit the liquor traffic. " Prevention is 
 better than cure," he wrote. " It is worth 
 
 4 Ibid, pp. 52-3. 
 
Gough, John Bartholomew.] 
 
 194 
 
 [Great Britain. 
 
 a life-effort to save a drunkard, to lift a 
 man from degradation. It is worth some 
 self-sacrifice to free a man from moral 
 slavery and debasement; but to prevent 
 his fall is far better. We may reform a 
 man from drunkenness, but I believe no 
 man can ever fully recover from the 
 effects of dissipation and intemperance." 1 
 Again, he said: " I rejoice in every effort 
 that prohibits, cripples or lessens in any 
 way the sale of intoxicating liquor. . . . 
 While I stand unflinchingly on the plat- 
 form of total abstinence and absolute 
 Prohibition, combining their forces for 
 the entire abandonment of the drinking 
 customs and the annihilation of the 
 manufacture and sale of alcoholic bever- 
 ages, I hold out my hand to every worker 
 as far as he can go with me, if it is but a 
 step." 2 During the last two years of 
 his life he acted with the Prohibition 
 party. The conduct of the politicians in 
 many States in withholding from the 
 people the opportunity to vote on Consti- 
 tutional Prohibition completely disgusted 
 him. "For 43 years," he said in 1884, 
 '• I have been fighting the liquor trade — 
 the trade which robbed me of seven of 
 the best years of my life. I have long 
 voted the Kepublican ticket, hoping al- 
 ways for help in my contest from the 
 Republican party. But we have been ex- 
 pecting something from that party in 
 vain, and now, when they have treated 
 the most respectful appeal, from the 
 most respectful men in this country, with 
 silent contempt, I say it is time for us to 
 leave off trusting and to express our 
 opinion of that party." In a letter pub- 
 lished in the Voice (Oct. 23, 1884), de- 
 claring his intention to support the Pro- 
 hibition Presidential ticket, he said : " I 
 have one vote to be responsible for. That 
 has always been given for the Republican 
 party from its existence to this present 
 year. ... I hoped to find in the 
 Republican party, as a party of high 
 moral ideas, protection against the liquor 
 traffic instead of protection for it, and 
 have been unwilling to aid in making 
 this grand cause a foot-ball to be tossed 
 between political parties. . . . This 
 year, however, has seen strange things. 
 Surprising disintegrations have been go- 
 ing on in the two old parties. Both have 
 either open affiliations with, or a cowardly 
 
 1 Sunshine and Shadow (London, 1881), p. 331. 
 
 2 Ibid, pp. 355-0. 
 
 and shameful servility to the arrogant 
 set of rings and lobbies of this drink 
 trade, which lifts its monstrous front of 
 $750,000,000 of money spent directly in 
 it, with an equal sum in addition taxed 
 upon the people to take care of its miser- 
 able results." In a letter dated Jan. 30, 
 1886 — 19 days before his death, — pub- 
 lished in the Voice for Feb. 11, he denied 
 the charge that he had repudiated the 
 Prohibition party policy in a recent in- 
 terview. '•' I have for two years," he 
 wrote, "voted with the third party; for 
 I do believe in prohibiting and annihilat- 
 ing the liquor traffic." 
 
 White delivering a lecture in Frank- 
 ford, Pa., Feb. 15, 1886, he was pros- 
 trated with a paralytic stroke. Two days, 
 later he became unconscious, and he died 
 on Feb. 18. Among the last words 
 uttered by him in his Frankford address 
 were, "Young man, keep your record 
 clean ! " In addition to his works already 
 alluded to he published " Platform 
 Echoes," and "Autobiography and Per- 
 sonal Recollections " (1871). 
 
 Grain.— Any species of grain may by 
 fermentation under suitable conditions 
 be made to yield an alcoholic beverage, 
 from which by the process of distillation 
 strong spirits may be obtained. The 
 cereals most commonly used by liquor 
 manufacturers in the United States are 
 barley, corn and rye — the ones contain- 
 ing the largest percentages of sugar or 
 starch. 
 
 Great Britain. — Although temper- 
 ance reform has made great progress in 
 the United Kingdom, has won to total 
 abstinence multitudes of converts and to 
 the Prohibition idea many thousands of 
 more or less active sympathizers, has 
 commanded the championship of hosts 
 of able and eminent men in all depart- 
 ments of thought and endeavor, has com- 
 pelled other hosts to bestow encouraging 
 recognition or to utter words of deep 
 significance, and has left some impressions 
 upon public policy, the liquor traffic is 
 still supreme as a national institution 
 and has not even suffered incidental dis- 
 turbances of real magnitude, while the 
 fiscal interests of the Government are 
 linked to it by the strongest license and 
 revenue bands. Conditions as now ex- 
 isting are briefly summarized as follows 
 
Great Britain.l 
 
 195 
 
 [Great Britain. 
 
 for this work by the well-known Dr. 
 4 • Dawson Burns : 
 
 "The liquor traffic of Great Britain and Ire- 
 land consists of the two great departments of 
 manufacture and importation, and wholesale 
 and retail sale. On ardent spirits made or im- 
 ported there is a tax of 10* per gallon ; on beer 
 a tax of 6* 5i per barrel ; and wine imported is 
 taxed according to alcoholic strength. There is 
 also a brewers' license when the beer is brewed 
 for sale. Wholesale dealers and all retailers 
 pay license duty, 1 and the entire revenue from 
 liquor in the United Kingdom is about $145,- 
 000.000 per annum. Wholesale dealers in 
 spirits and wine, beer-house-keepers licensed 
 before 1869, and holders of wine and spirit 
 licenses for consumption off the premises ob-' 
 tain Excise licenses on certain conditions and 
 payments, but all public house if. e., saloon) 
 licenses, all beer-houses licensed since 1869, and 
 all beer off-licenses are subject to magisterial 
 control and cannot be obtained without annual 
 certificates from local licensing benches. The 
 retail licenses in England of all kinds number 
 about 130,0it0, and in Scotland and Ireland 
 about 30 000. Until 1830 all retail licenses were 
 issued subject to magisterial certificates which 
 could be withheld at discretion. All payments 
 have respect only to the Excise Department, 
 and the magisterial certificates are never paid 
 for, but are given or withheld with a supposed 
 regard for the public interest. The Courts of 
 law have recently decided that the magistrates 
 have the power to refuse annual licenses to 
 those who have been previously licensed, so 
 that there is no ' vested interest ' in such licen- 
 
 The quantities of distilled spirits, wine 
 and beer consumed in the United King- 
 dom, annually are presented in the article 
 on Consumption" of Liquors. 
 
 The vast importance of the drink 
 traffic as a source of revenue is shown by 
 a glance at the receipts of the Govern- 
 ment for the year ending March 31, 1889. 
 The entire revenue was £89,883,331, of 
 which the largest single item was the in- 
 come from domestic liquors and licenses, 
 £23,628,858, or considerably more than 
 one-fourth the whole. In addition to 
 this inland revenue from liquors, the 
 customs duties on liquors yielded £5,518,- 
 762, or more than one-fourth the entire 
 customs receipts from all sources. 2 
 
 From calculations made by the late 
 
 1 The saloon or publican's license (L e., license to sell 
 spirits, beer and wine to be consumed on the premises) 
 varies from £4 105 per annum for houses whose annual 
 value is under £10, to £60 per annum for houses whose 
 annual value exceeds £700 Thus the highest annual sa- 
 loon license rate in Great Britain is about the same as the 
 average rate in the United States. The total Government 
 revenue from publicans' and procers' licenses for the year 
 ending March 31, 1889, was £1,487,096. (These particulars 
 are taken from " Whitaker's Almanac " for 1890.) 
 2 Whitaker's Almanac for 1890, p. 172. 
 
 eminent writer on the statistical aspects 
 of drink, William Hoyle, it appears that 
 in 1820 the population of the United 
 Kingdom was 20,807,000, the total esti- 
 mated cost of intoxicating liquors con- 
 sumed was $245,469,448, and the average 
 cost of liquors per capita was $11.80; in 
 1850, according to Mr. Hoyle, these items 
 were, respectively, 27,320,000, $392,814,- 
 551 and $14.31; in 1860, 28,778,000, 
 $414,999,888 and $13.26; in 1870,31,- 
 205,000, $577,830,082 and $18.51; in 
 1880, 34,468,000, $618,407,860 and $17.58. 
 Since 1880 the estimated cost of liquors 
 to the public has been in the neighbor- 
 hood of $600,000,000, a slightly decreas- 
 ing tendency having been observed. Mr. 
 Hoyle's figures show that the heaviest 
 expenditure for drink was in the year 
 1876, when the total cost reached $716,- 
 780,746. 
 
 The total number of convictions in the 
 United Kingdom for crime from all 
 causes is now about 600,000 annually. 
 The annual apprehensions for drunken- 
 ness vary from L75,00()to more than 200,- 
 000. In the metropolitan district (Lon- 
 don and vicinity), there were 23,638 
 arrests for drunkenness and disorderly 
 conduct in 1888, the total population be- 
 ing nearly 5,600,000. 
 
 Although the only systems recognized 
 by Parliamentary law are those of license 
 and revenue, the right of Local Option 
 not having yet been conferred, local Pro- 
 hibition has been established in many 
 places by various means, chiefly by the 
 exercise of legal rights by landowners. 
 On the authority of Dr. Dawson Burns, 
 there are at least 2,000 places in the 
 United Kingdom where the sale of liquors 
 is prohibited. In Liverpool one district, 
 containing 40,000 inhabitants, is under 
 Prohibition ; and in London there is one 
 dwellings company possessing three es- 
 tates on which there are 4,000 houses oc- 
 cupied by 20,000 people, that also pro- 
 hibits the sale absolutely. But the entire 
 removal of dramshops from the com- 
 munity has been accomplished in but few 
 instances, and in such instances only by 
 resorting to extraordinary methods, since 
 the political power to effect removal is 
 not vested in the people. On the other 
 hand the people, when given opportuni- 
 ties to express themselves on the question 
 of local Prohibition, have manifested a 
 strong preference for taking the whole 
 
Great Britain.] 
 
 196 
 
 [Great Britain. 
 
 subject into their own hands. Kecent 
 plebiscites in Scotland, conducted under 
 the auspices of individuals desirous of 
 testing public sentiment, have resulted 
 in emphatic majorities in favor of decid- 
 ing the licensing issue at the ballot-box 
 and in behalf of limiting the number of 
 licenses; while a manifest disposition to 
 altogether prohibit the liquor traffic in 
 localities has been exhibited. 
 
 Nor has the demand for popular con- 
 trol been without effect upon Parliament. 
 " The United Kingdom Alliance for the 
 Total and Immediate Suppression of the 
 Liquor Traffic," founded June 1, 1853, 
 has for many years made the princijule of 
 popular control the cardinal point of its 
 platform. In Great Britain the term 
 " Local Option " has not the definite 
 signification that is attached to it in the 
 United States: it does not necessarily 
 mean a system of legislation whereby the 
 people of separate communities may 
 wholly suppress the license system, but 
 an elastic system, involving limitation of 
 the number of licenses, more or less 
 severe restrictions, etc., the degree of re- 
 striction or Prohibition to be determined 
 by local preference. Therefore the 
 United Kingdom Alliance does not de- 
 mand the indefinite privilege of " Local 
 Option " but the specific privilege of 
 " Direct Veto " — that is, it asks Parlia- 
 ment to pass an act enabling the electors 
 in each community, by periodical major- 
 ity votes, to pass a " direct veto " upon 
 the issuance of liquor licenses for their 
 respective communities. The "Direct 
 Veto " idea in Great Britain is precisely 
 equivalent to the Local Option idea in 
 the United States. This idea, under the 
 steady championship of the United 
 Kingdom Alliance, has commanded able 
 support in Parliament by individual 
 members of the House of Commons, es- 
 pecially by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, the 
 President of the Alliance. The Ministry 
 has uniformly failed to pass Direct Veto 
 bills, but the Liberal party, when in 
 power, found it expedient to make con- 
 cessions to the temperance sentiment. 
 June 18, 1880, the House of Commons, 
 by a majority of 26, passed a resolution 
 declaring that in the opinion of the 
 House a law should be enacted conferring 
 on electors the right to decide for or 
 against the license system; and similar 
 resolutions were passed in 1881 by a ma- 
 
 jority of 42, and in 1883 by a majority 
 of 87. 
 
 Political vicissitudes and the absorbing 
 Irish question have prevented the fulfill- 
 ment of the pledge implied by the adop- 
 tion of these resolutions. But the Liberal 
 party is now thoroughly committed to 
 the Direct Veto programme. At the 
 National Liberal meeting at Manchester 
 in December, 1889, the declaration of 
 principles that was adopted pronounced 
 for "the Direct Popular Veto of the 
 liquor traffic." 
 
 Generally speaking, the Liberal and 
 Conservative parties of Great Britain 
 stand respectively, in reference to liquor 
 legislation, much as the Republican and 
 Democratic parties stand in the United 
 States. The Liberals profess a progressive 
 spirit and purpose; the Conservatives are 
 avowedly hostile. The Liberals, however, 
 are cautious and given to compromises 
 and delays, and their shrewd political 
 managers have no desire to alienate the 
 very considerable liquor vote now under 
 their control by seriously attacking t'~e 
 traffic. For the sake of temporary ad- 
 vantage, however, the Liberals are very 
 willing to use the strong temperance 
 sentiment of the country in party war- 
 fare ; and a highly interesting illustration 
 has been afforded in the present Parlia- 
 ment (1890) by the solid Liberal op posi- 
 tion, under Mr. Gladstone's immediate 
 leadership, to the compensation clauses 
 of the Tory Ministry's Licensing bill. 
 (See Compensation'.) The Conservatives 
 owe much of their strength to the sup- 
 port that they receive from the great 
 brewers and wealthy publicans; and al- 
 though twice signally defeated in trying 
 to force compensation upon the country, 
 it seems certain that they will faithfully 
 represent the wishes of the liquor inter- 
 ests in future struggles. 
 
 There is an element of advanced Pro- 
 hibitionists in Great Britain that urges 
 the political doctrine upon which the 
 Prohibition party of the United States is 
 based. Believing that the existing parties 
 will never satisfactorily champion their 
 cause and that the speediest means of 
 forcing it to the front is by independent 
 partisan action, they favor the adoption 
 of that means. But no very important 
 results of the movement are yet appar- 
 ent. 
 
 Notwithstanding all the unfavorable 
 
Great Britain.] 
 
 197 
 
 [Great Britain. 
 
 aspects and results, the political phases 
 of the drink question are incessantly 
 agitated in Great Britain. With so many 
 able writers and speakers constantly pre- 
 senting testimony and arguments in sup- 
 port of radical views, political leaders 
 cannot avoid touching the issue at many 
 of its vital points. Despite their evasive 
 records and unfriendly performances in 
 dealing with practical measures, nearly 
 all of the foremost statesmen have made 
 memorable and impressive declarations 
 against drink and the drink traffic. 
 
 Among the temperance organizations 
 the United Kingdom Alliance, as already 
 indicated, is the most important one 
 working on political and legislative lines. 
 It publishes the Alliance News, the leading 
 temperance paper of England. In 1889 
 the subscriptions received by the Alliance 
 amounted to almost 856,000. The Na- 
 tional Temperance League labors for the 
 cause " by means of public meetings, lec- 
 tures, sermons, tract distribution, domi- 
 ciliary visitation, conferences with the 
 clergy of all denominations, medical 
 practitioners, schoolmasters, magistrates, 
 poor-law officers and other persons of in- 
 fluence, deputations to teachers and stu- 
 dents in universities and colleges, train- 
 ing institutions and schools, missionary 
 efforts among sailors, soldiers and the 
 militia, the police and other classes;" it 
 publishes the Temperance Record, the 
 Medical Temperance Journal and the Na- 
 tional Temperance Union, and in 1889 
 sold temperance literature of the value of 
 $38,750. The Scottish and Irish Tem- 
 perance Leagues perform similar work, 
 the former publishing the League Jour- 
 nal (Glasgow) and the latter the Irish. 
 Temperance League Journal (Belfast). 
 The British Woman's Temperance Asso- 
 ciation is made up of women exclu- 
 sively. The Good Templars, Rechabites 
 and similar benevolent temperance orders 
 are very strong throughout the British 
 Isles. 
 
 Of the great denominational societies, 
 the Church of England Temperance So- 
 ciety and the Wesleyan Society have the 
 so-called dual basis — i.e , they permit 
 their members to choose between total 
 abstinence and "moderation." The 
 strongest (numerically) of the distinct- 
 ively religious temperance organizations 
 is probably the Salvation Army, every 
 one of whose members is a pledged ab- 
 
 stainer from alcohol and tobacco. All 
 the leading denominations support influ- 
 ential temperance societies. The Blue 
 Ribbon Gospel Temperance movement 
 and the Bands of Hope also co-operate 
 most usefully in the agitation. 
 
 Taking the clergymen altogether, there 
 seems to be no doubt that a large major- 
 ity of them are total abstainers. A much 
 larger proportion of students in the the- 
 ological colleges are pledged abstainers. 
 Thus, of 404 Congregational students 
 340 are pledged to total abstinence, and 
 216 of 235 Baptist students; while in Mr. 
 Spurgeon's "Pastors' College" and the 
 Wesleyan College at Pleadingly and Rich- 
 mond there are no exceptions. 1 Never- 
 theless the churches as organized bodies 
 (with some striking exceptions, of course) 
 are still fairly to be charged with timid- 
 ity. The Lambeth Conference of 1888 
 appointed a committee of Bishops to con- 
 sider the "duty of the church with 
 regard to intemperance," and this Epis- 
 copal body was not prepared to recom- 
 mend so mild a reform as the use of un- 
 f ermented wine at the sacrament. In the 
 great compensation struggle of 1890, 
 when the anti-compensationists had the 
 advantage of the argument and the 
 enthusiastic support of the country, the 
 attitude of the Church of England was 
 represented to be in favor of a compro- 
 mise whereby the liquor-traffickers would 
 have been granted the right of compen- 
 sation for a period of ten years. It is 
 true that individual members of the 
 Church of England Temperance Society 
 protested against this concession ; but the 
 proposals in behalf of the Society were 
 made with so much appearance of author- 
 ity that Mr. Henry Labouchere took occa- 
 sion in the House of Commons to allude 
 to them as evidence of "an incestuous 
 union between the parson and the pot- 
 house-keeper in favor of the party which 
 it was thought would protect their several 
 interests." Upon the conversion of the 
 great brewing concerns into limited lia- 
 bility companies, persons inspecting the 
 lists of stock subscribers found" the 
 names of many clergymen among the 
 shareholders. On the lists of six of these 
 companies the names of 50 clergymen 
 appeared — none of them being of non- 
 conformist denominations, however. i 
 
 1 Stated on the authority of J. P. B. Tinling, London. 
 
Greece.] 
 
 198 
 
 [Greeley, Horace. 
 
 Yet the various manifestations of con- 
 servative feeling by the aristocratic cler- 
 gymen are offset by many noble excep- 
 tions in their own ranks. Such examples 
 as those given by Archdeacon Farrar, 
 Canon Wilberf orce, the Bishop of London 
 and scores of other divines of the greatest 
 eminence and talent, make it impossible 
 to justly reckon even the Church of Eng- 
 land as an undivided opponent of rad- 
 ical action. Few English writers and 
 speakers have done so much as these men 
 to promote total abstinence and justify 
 the growing antagonism to the drink 
 traffic as a factor of national life. And 
 many leaders of the Koman Catholic 
 Church deserve equal praise, especially 
 the recognized head of that church in 
 the United Kingdom, the venerable Car- 
 dinal Manning, whose advocacy of the 
 temperance cause is one of the distin- 
 guishing features of his life-work. 
 
 The restrictive laws for liquor-sellers, 
 notably the partial Sunday-closing laws 
 and the acts forbidding sales to children 
 and drunkards, are violated with impu- 
 nity throughout the United Kingdom. 
 
 Greece. — The writings of the ancient 
 Greeks abound in allusions to drink and 
 drunkenness. Wine was their alcoholic 
 beverage : the art of distillation was then 
 unknown, and the evils of intoxication 
 in the most highly cultivated country of 
 ancient times were wholly due to the drink 
 that is now recommended by certain tem- 
 perance advocates. History records no 
 more significant practice than that pre- 
 vailing in Sparta, where the helots or 
 slaves were on certain occasions compelled 
 to drink to excess, that the Spartan youth 
 might be provided with object lessons of 
 the dire consequences of intemperance 
 and thus be warned against indulgence. 
 Drunkards were severely punished in the 
 various Grecian communities. The Dra- 
 conian laws of Athens pronounced sen- 
 tence of death upon any individual con- 
 victed of drunkenness, and even the 
 milder code of Solon "condemned an 
 Archont (the highest public functionary 
 in Athens after the abolition of royalty, 
 B. C. 1068) to a heavy fine for the first 
 time he was intoxicated, and in case of 
 relapse to death." 1 
 
 1 Foundation of Death, p. 20. 
 
 In contemporary Greece all the branches 
 of the liquor traffic flourish. In 188G 
 250,000 acres of the Greek Kingdom were 
 devoted to wine-grapes. Wine is a princi- 
 pal article of export, the value of wines 
 exported in 1888 having been 4,415,000" 
 drachmas (about $750,000). The Gov- 
 ernment lays a comparatively heavy tax 
 on spirituous liquors, but for revenue 
 objects exclusively. No efforts are made 
 to restrict the use of liquors. Enter- 
 prising Greek tradesmen derive large 
 profits from the liquor business in many 
 ports of the Mediterranean. 
 
 Greeley, Horace. — Born in Am- 
 herst, N. H., Feb. 3, 1811, and died in 
 Pleasantville, N. Y., Nov. 29, 1872. 
 
 His devotion to total abstinence and 
 Prohibition principles was lifelong and 
 uncompromising. On his twelfth birth- 
 day his mother counseled him to abstain 
 from intoxicating beverages. He replied 
 that he had already thought of that sub- 
 ject and had resolved never to taste liquor. 
 In the numerous addresses that he made, 
 he frequently advocated total abstinence. 
 It is related that in one of his Tribune edi- 
 torials he earnestly urged young men to 
 avoid the tempter in whatever form he 
 might appear, " whether as punch or 
 bitters, as sherry or Madeira, as hock or 
 claret, as Heidsieck or champagne." 
 Other members of the editorial corps who 
 were not total abstainers greeted Mr. 
 Greeley on his entrance to the office that 
 morning with uproarious laughter, telling 
 him that heidsieck was not a different 
 wine from champagne, but only a par- 
 ticular brand. As the laugh went around 
 the room Mr. Greeley said : " Well, boys, 
 1 guess I'm the only man in this office 
 that could have made that mistake. It 
 don't matter what you call him — cham- 
 pagne, or heidsieck, or absinthe — he is 
 the same old devil." 
 
 The New York Tribune was founded 
 by Mr. Greeley in 1841. During the 
 early agitation in New York State upon 
 the question of liquor legislation, the 
 Tribune was a radical advocate of Pro- 
 hibition. As early as Feb. 13, 1852 (see 
 the Tribune for that date), Mr. Greeley 
 defined the issue in the following power- 
 ful language: 
 
 •'What the temperance men demand is not 
 the regulation of the liquor traitJc, but its de- 
 struction; not that its evils he circumscribed 
 
Greeley, Horace.] 
 
 199 
 
 [Greeley, Horace. 
 
 (idle fancy!) or veiled, but that they be, to the 
 extent of the State's ability, utterly eradicated. 
 Such a law we are all willing to stand under 
 and (if such be its fate) fall with; but no shilly- 
 shally legislation can endure, and it would be 
 good for nothing if it would. Stave in the heads 
 of the barrels, put out the fire3 of the distillery; 
 confiscate the demijohns, bottles and glasses 
 which have been polluted with the infernal 
 traffic; but no act screening great mischief- 
 makers and bearing down on little ones can 
 possibly be fastened on the advocates of tem- 
 perance. They disown and loathe it. 
 
 " For our own part, we are opposed to legal- 
 izing the manufacture or sale of intoxicating 
 liquors for medical, mechanical or any other 
 purpose. There is no need of it, and great 
 harm in it. That alcohol may be useful in 
 various contingencies we do not dispute; for 
 arsenic, opium and other poisons are so, and it 
 is not probable that this single member of the 
 family should have no good end whatever. 
 Let alcohol— pure, undiluted alcohol— be manu- 
 factured and sold without license, le doctors 
 and others use it as they shall sac fit; but this 
 undisguised poison no one would drink; and 
 we protest against all tampering with, coddling 
 up and disguising it so that the ignorant, the 
 simple, the victims of depraved appetite, shall 
 be tempted to imbibe it where they would re- 
 ject the naked poison. All such weaving of 
 snares for the feet of the unwary is indefensible, 
 is demoniac and ought to be prohibited by law. 
 
 " ' But the people are not ready for such 
 stringent legislation.' Well, sir, if you think 
 they are not, take hold and help us make them 
 ready ! We maintain that they ars, and that 
 the Maine law, in all its primitive rigor, would 
 be sustained by 50,000 majority of the legal 
 voters of our State, and carried into full execu- 
 tion within a year after its passage. Legislators ! 
 will you oblige us by submitting it to the 
 people ! 
 
 ' ' We have just tried five years of ' moral 
 suasion,' and find that rum has gained on us 
 every day. We shall now try five years' legal 
 suasion, if necessary, and see how that will 
 operate. Gentlemen, politicians! choose whether 
 to stand with us or against us, but do not 
 imagine any fence will last long enough to hold 
 you in an equivocal position." 
 
 In an editorial upon " Temperance and 
 Law " in the Tribune for April 26, 1853, 
 Mr. Greeley wrote : 
 
 " We are quite willing — yea, more than willing 
 — to see the upholders of license laws devote their 
 energies to the enforcement of those laws in 
 their less exceptionable aspects by a rigorous and 
 united crusade against their violators by Sun- 
 day dramselling and their defiers by poisoning 
 without license. It is a work manifestly de- 
 volving on them, and to which they are, or 
 should be, especially adapted. To them and 
 their kind this query addresses itself with irre- 
 sistible force: 'Since you uphold the license 
 system, why do you not take care to make it 
 something else than a fraud and a sham? ' But 
 to us, who stand for total abstinence and the 
 
 Maine law, the hunting and hounding of poor 
 wretches into the payment of a beggarly $10 
 per annum each [the license fee in Sew Xork 
 at that time], for the privilege of poisoning 
 their neighbors, is a business possessing few at- 
 tractions For laws which assume to forbid and 
 to punish human acts ought to rest on a basis 
 of morality. For us, who affirm that alco- 
 hol is a poison and its use as a beverage always 
 hurtful, always perilous, always demoralizing, 
 there is obviously but one consistent, defensi- 
 ble position— that of unqualified and uncom- 
 promising hostility to the liquor traffic. If 
 men will poison their neighbors for gain, we 
 greatly prefer that they should do it on their 
 own responsibility, rather than the State's — 
 at all events, we cannot permit them to do it 
 on ours To sell rum for a livelihood seems 
 bad enough ; but for a whole community to 
 share the responsibility and the guilt of such 
 a traffic for a beggarly §10, seems a worse bar- 
 gain than that of Eve or Judas Al- 
 cohol is a poison; the traffic in alcoholic bever- 
 ages is an offense against the well-being of soci- 
 ety, and ought to be a crime against the laws. 
 Th2 essential wrong is not the lack of a license, 
 but inheres in the business for which a license 
 is demanded: if it were a good business no li- 
 cense for its prosecution should be required; be- 
 ing a bad one no such license should be granted. 
 . . . No practicable enforcement of the 
 license system will ever sensibly mitigate the 
 evils of intemperance. So long as there shall 
 be even 2,000 authorized, legalized, licensed 
 liquor shops in our city, all who choose to drink 
 will find abundant opportunity, and our youth 
 will mainly be initiated, as fast as they become 
 old enough to elude their parents' vigilance, 
 into the primary degrees of tippling, whence the 
 road is direct and the grade descending to top- 
 ing and drunkenness. But let the laws inflexi- 
 bly forbid the sale of alcoholic beverages, and 
 every youth is warned from the cradle that 
 those beverages are hurtful and dangerous, and 
 that in drinking them he encourages a violation 
 of the laws of the land Such legislation may 
 not at once abolish rumselling, as our present 
 laws against theft and burglary do not utterly 
 extirpate those crimes ; but being based on a 
 principle and dealing out equal justice to rich 
 and poor, it must command the respect even of 
 its antagonists and gradually win its way to 
 universal respect and obedience." 
 
 An editorial in the Tribune for April 
 29, 1853, on "Temperance and License 
 Laws," contains the following : 
 
 "Rumselling is either right or wrong: alco- 
 hol is either a poison or no poison — there is no 
 half-way position. If liquor is a good thing es- 
 sentially — that is good to drink, — then there 
 ought to be no license required of its sellers. 
 Men hurt themselves by eating too much, or at 
 unseasonable hours; yet we do not require a 
 license to authorize a man to sell meat or bread, 
 or keep a restaurant. Men kill others by the 
 careless use of fire-arms, yet we do not exact 
 security of every man who keeps or handles a 
 gun. We make it unlawful for nine tenths of 
 
Greeley, Horace.] 
 
 200 
 
 [Guthrie, Thomas. 
 
 oar people to sell liquor— as we would have no 
 right to do if liquor were not a bad thing— and 
 thn we license the other portion to sell it as if 
 it were a good thing. The first step toward the 
 enforcement of anti-liquor laws is to make 
 them consistent and logical. We can never stop 
 the unlicensed sale of liquor while we license 
 its sale by some ; for there is no moral principle 
 lehind such restriction. Who can tell what 
 grog-shops are unlicensed ? And who very 
 much cares ? But let the law make all liquor- 
 selling illegal, and then we know just who the 
 offenders are." 
 
 The Civil War caused a suspension of 
 temperance activity, but upon the revival 
 of the Prohibition issue Mr. Greeley 
 showed that his opinions had undergone 
 no change. In an editorial entitled 
 " Mixed Liquors " in the Tribune for 
 Nov. 9,1867, he said: 
 
 " The people of Massachusetts decided, at 
 their late election, that they would discard their 
 present system of liquor Prohibition and try a 
 
 system of license instead We note 
 
 suggestions that the Prohibitionists may, by 
 uniting with a part of the advocates of license, 
 secure the passage of a stringent Excise act. 
 We presume they might; but we trust they 
 will do nothing of the kind. The f.ort of mud- 
 dle termed compromise has a singu'ar fascina- 
 tion for the American mind, and its effects are 
 almost always pernicious. We trust the P. L. 
 L 's will be allowed to frame and pass just such 
 a liquor law as they approve and are willing to 
 live by. Then, if it have the predicted effect of 
 diminishing dissipation, drunkenness pauper 
 ism and crime, let them have the full credit of 
 it, as they deserve. If the opposite results be 
 realized, let that fact clearly appear, and let judg- 
 ment be entered accordiigly. But let us have no 
 part nor lot in the fabrication of a license law, 
 but give our adversaries unlimited rope." 
 
 In an article headed "A question for 
 'H. G./"in the Tribune for Nov. 12, 
 1867, Mr. Greeley quoted as follows from 
 the Boston Transcript : " What would 
 be the verdict of history upon a political 
 party that carried the Republic safely 
 through a civil war, and then lost its in- 
 fluence in the nation by attempts to 
 regulate the sale of cider and lager 
 beer ? " To this Mr. Greeley replied, in 
 part : " Attempts to regulate the sale of 
 alcoholic beverages are exactly what the 
 Transcript and its P. L. L. confederates 
 have all along professed to uphold. But 
 mind that attempts to ' regulate ' the 
 liquor traffic are in your line, not in ours. 
 We believe in cutting that liquor dog's 
 tail off right behind the ears." 
 
 Mr. Greeley foresaw the results that 
 would follow the adoption of the system 
 of liquor taxation inaugurated by the 
 
 Federal Government during the war. 
 Dr. T. S. Lambert, in reminiscences of 
 conversations with Greeley held after the 
 war, 1 quotes him as condemning that 
 system with extreme vigor. According 
 to Dr. Lambert, he charged that the or- 
 ganized liquor power was the direct out- 
 growth of the revenue laws. In his talks 
 with Dr. Lambert Mr. Greeley also said 
 that at the time when the Internal Rev- 
 enue bill was pending in Congress an at- 
 tempt was made by its promotors to win 
 his support by bribery. '• For some (to 
 me) unaccountable reason," he said, " I 
 was considered a proper custodian of a 
 promise that I had the right to call, any 
 time within 90 days, for half the profit 
 on 40,000 gallons of whiskey supposed 
 equal to $20,000, all without tue least 
 trouble or expense or risk to me; but as 
 I could not stand it to be in the necessity 
 of sleeping every remaining night of my 
 life with a man that I did not respect, I 
 declined in my plainest Saxon, so definite 
 that neither the young man nor my old 
 acquaintance, who introduced him, stop- 
 ped one moment to argue, or ever spoke 
 to me again, though we often met." 
 
 Guthrie, Thomas. — Born in Brech- 
 in, Scotland, July 12, 1803, and died in 
 St. Leonard's, Scotland, Feb. 24, 1873. 
 He was educated at Edinburgh Univer- 
 sity, and in 1825 was licensed to preach. 
 He studied medicine in Paris a little 
 later, and upon his return was employed 
 for some time in his father's banking- 
 house. In 1830 he was ordained as pastor 
 at Arbirlot, where he remained seven 
 years. In 1837 he was called to the pas- 
 torate of old Greyfriars' Church in Edin- 
 burgh. He was a popular preacher and 
 it was his ambition to reach the poorer 
 classes. For this purpose he opened the 
 old Magdalen Chapel, and gave the poor 
 the preference of the seats. In the dis- 
 ruption of the Church of Scotland in 
 1843 he united with Dr. Chalmers and 
 others of the Free Church. For some 
 time after the rupture he preached to his 
 congregation in a Methodist chapel. He 
 undertook to open a " ragged school " in 
 the basement of the new church built by 
 his congregation, but the elders opposed 
 the project. He then (1847) published 
 his "Plea for Ragged Schools," and 
 
 1 Published in the Voice for Dec. 5, 1889. 
 
Haddock, George C] 
 
 201 
 
 [Haddock, George C. 
 
 opened a large institution apart from any 
 connection with a denomination or church 
 organization. Other ragged schools were 
 established elsewhere, patternedupon this. 
 Forced to give up public speaking in 
 1864, he became editor of the Sunday 
 Magazine, published at Edinburgh. Dr. 
 Guthrie's active interest in the temper- 
 ance reform dates from 1840, when, trav- 
 eling in Ireland, he saw his car-driver re- 
 fuse to taste whiskey at an inn because 
 he was a teetotaller. " That circum- 
 stance," said Dr. Guthrie, " along with 
 the scenes in which I was called to labor 
 daily for years, made me a teetotaller." 
 He lectured often in support of the total 
 abstinence movement, and in 1850 pub- 
 lished "A Pica on behalf of Drunkards 
 against Drunkenness." He also advo- 
 cated the utter suppression of the drink 
 traffic by law. He said : 
 
 " We have cause to thank God for that act of 
 Parliament by which, in answer to the voice of 
 an all but unanimous people, the drinking- 
 shops of Scotland were closed and all traffic in 
 intoxicating liquors pronounced illegal from 
 Saturday night till Monday morning We are 
 not afraid to express our wish that the law of 
 the Sabbath were extended to every day of the 
 wesk, and all shops opened for the mere pur- 
 poses of drinking shut — shut up, as a curse to 
 the community, as carrying on a trade, not 
 less than the opium shops of China, incurably 
 pernicious." 
 
 Dr. Guthrie published about 20 vol- 
 umes, composed chiefly of sermons and 
 republished extracts from the Sunday 
 Magazine and Good Words. Some of the 
 best-known of his works are: " The Gos- 
 pel in Ezekiel," "The Saint's Inherit- 
 ance," "The Way to Life," "On the 
 Parables," "Out of Harness," "Speaking 
 to the Heart," " Studies of Character," 
 " Man and the Gospel," and " Our 
 Father's Business." His books, includ- 
 ing his " Autibiography and Memoir " by 
 his sons (1874), have been republished in 
 America. 
 
 Haddock, George C. — Born at 
 Watertown, N. Y., Jan. 23, 1832, and 
 was murdered at Sioux City, la., Aug. 3, 
 1886. He was descended, on his mother's 
 side, from Lorenzo Dow, the famous 
 preacher. His father was locally known 
 as "the learned blacksmith," having ac- 
 quired a knowledge of Latin and Greek 
 while working at the forge. George was 
 reared under the best of influences, and 
 he gave his support to the Anti-Slavery 
 
 and temperance reforms as a matter of 
 course. He was educated at Black River 
 Institute under Prof. Boyd, author of a 
 once popular text-book on Rhetoric. In 
 1852 he was married and in 1860 began 
 his career as a Methodist Episcopal 
 minister in the Wisconsin Conference. 
 He was outspoken in his pulpit utterances 
 against the drink traffic. In 1873 he 
 was made Presiding Elder of the Fon du 
 Lac district. In 1874, after delivering a 
 temperance lecture at Sheboygan, Wis., 
 he was brutally assaulted by three armed 
 men. He received some heavy blows, but 
 making a vigorous defense drove his as- 
 sailants into a saloon. He immediately 
 arranged to give another lecture in the 
 same place despite the entreaties of his 
 friends. 
 
 He was long dissatisfied with the hos- 
 tile or indifferent treatment of the tem- 
 perance question by the old political 
 parties, and as early as 1871 he declared: 
 " For the last ten years I have acted 
 mainly with the Republican party, simply 
 because that party has been right upon 
 questions which then assumed great pro- 
 portions and demanded immediate settle- 
 ment. These questions have been settled. 
 I have long since ceased to hope for any- 
 thing from any party as such until tem- 
 perance men take such a decided stand 
 as will command respect from the Re- 
 publican politicians." In 1 884 he allied 
 himself with the Prohibition party. 
 
 In 1885 he was stationed at Sioux City, 
 la., a town with 20,000 inhabitants, 15 
 churches, and about 100 saloons running 
 in defiance of the State Prohibitory law. 
 The saloon-keepers had threatened to 
 burn the churches if their traffic was in- 
 terfered with, and no one had the courage 
 to fight them until Mr. Haddock began 
 to arraign them from his pulpit. He 
 signed petitions for prosecutions, lectured 
 in surrounding towns and raised funds 
 for the work in the face of the combined 
 opposition of the city press, the Courts 
 and the rumsellers. He issued a circular 
 entitled " A City in Rebellion," addressed 
 to the pastors of the churches in Sioux 
 City and other towns, in which he de- 
 scribed the situation with remarkable 
 force and clearness and asked for finan- 
 cial and moral support. The success of 
 his efforts aroused the liquor men. About 
 9 o'clock on the evening of Aug. 3, 1886, 
 he procured a horse and buggy from a pub- 
 
Haddock, George C] 
 
 203 
 
 [Hasheesh. 
 
 lie stable in Sioux City, and in company 
 with Eev.C. C. Turner drove to Greenville, 
 a neighboring town, to secure evidence in 
 the liquor cases then pending. About an 
 hour later he returned to the stable 
 alone, having left his companion at the 
 latter's home. As he was crossing the 
 street from the stable a crowd of brewers, 
 saloon-keepers and roughs gathered about 
 him, and one of them, John Arensdorf 
 (as the evidence subsequently adduced 
 indicated, in the judgment of most intel- 
 ligent people), thrust a pistol into the 
 preacher's face and fired a shot. Haddock 
 fell, and he expired almost instantly. 
 
 This cold-blooded murder made a pro- 
 found stir throughout the country. Ee- 
 ligious and temperance organizations in 
 every part of the nation held meetings 
 and adopted resolutions. The local 
 authorities in Sioux City, however, were 
 inactive. The municipal government 
 was in the hands of the liquor element, 
 and a considerable time elapsed before 
 Arensdorf and his associates were appre- 
 hended. Then the fact was made clear 
 that the murder was the result of a de- 
 liberate conspiracy. At a meeting of the 
 Saloon-Keepers' Association of Sioux City, 
 on Aug. 2, plans for " doing up " Had- 
 dock and D. W. Wood (a lawyer con- 
 nected with him in the liquor prosecu- 
 tions) had been discussed, and Arensdorf 
 had reminded the Association that there 
 was $700 in the treasury, which could be 
 used for rewarding the person doing "the 
 job." The first trial of Arensdorf ex- 
 tended from March 23 to April 17, 1887. 
 The strongest evidence was presented 
 and the Judge before whom the trial was 
 had — C. H. Lewis — was above criticism ; 
 but everybody looked with suspicion 
 upon the jury. A verdict of acquittal 
 was prevented only by the conscientious 
 firmness of one of the jurors, J. D. O'Con- 
 nell, who intimated that the other jurors 
 had been bribed by the defense and that 
 he had been approached by Arensdorf's 
 representatives and requested to name his 
 price. Another trial, held in November and 
 December of 1887, resulted in acquittal. 
 The jury brought in its verdict after a 
 consultation lasting for only 10 minutes ; 
 and then the jurors proceeded in a body 
 with the accused murderer to a photo- 
 grapher's and were photographed with 
 Arensdorf in the center. The prosecu- 
 tion's case was even stronger at this 
 
 second trial than at the first, and in the 
 interval Munchrath, one of the conspira- 
 tors, had been convicted and lodged m 
 jail. Arensdorf's escape was due to his 
 prominence, to the weight of the influ- 
 ences exercised in his behalf and to the 
 contribution of large sums of 'money by 
 liquor men who took an interest in secur- 
 ing his acquittal. The other conspirators 
 were ordinary ruffians — den-keepers and 
 desperadoes for whom few cared to inter- 
 fere. But Arensdorf was identified with 
 the brewing interests ; and the brewers 
 of the country, who backed their law- 
 defying brethren in the Prohibition 
 States, recognized that he had a legiti- 
 mate claim upon them. The United 
 States Brewers' Association, at its annual 
 convention in St. Paul, May 30 and 31, 
 1888, formally declared, through its Board 
 of Trustees : 
 
 " With great pride and gratification we record 
 the fact that the fanaticism of Iowa Prohibi- 
 tionists was frustrated in at least one instance, 
 namely, in the attempt to fasten the crime of 
 murder upon Arensdorf, a member of our trade, 
 twice acquitted of complicity in the murder of 
 Dr. Haddock, of which our charitable and 
 highly moral opponents endeavored to convict 
 him at any cost." 
 
 The events following the murder of 
 Haddock brought about a reaction against 
 the saloons in Sioux City, and it was not 
 long before the Prohibitory law was com- 
 pletely enforced there. (See Prohibi- 
 tion, Benefits of.) 
 
 [For further particulars about Haddock, the 
 assassination and the first trial of Arensdorf, 
 see the volume written by his son, Frank C. 
 Haddock, " Hero and Martyr," New York, 
 1887.] 
 
 Hasheesh — A narcotic preparation 
 made in India, Turkey and other countries 
 of the East from the leaves, flowers, resin 
 and small stalks of the hemp plant. 
 When used an intoxicating effect is pro- 
 duced. Exhilaration, languor, sleep, 
 visions, delirium, hallucinations and 
 catalepsy are among the characteristic 
 results. Enormous quantities of the drug 
 are consumed by the Oriental peoples, 
 and it is estimated that it is in general 
 use among not less than 300,000,000 of 
 the human race. Different varieties of 
 the intoxicating products of hemp are 
 bhang, prepared from the stalks and 
 leaves; ganja, made from the flowers of 
 the plant, and charas, the resinous exud- 
 
Hawkins, John Henry Willis.] 203 
 
 [Hayes, Lucy Webb. 
 
 ation of the plant. (See India.) It 
 was the custom of Eastern despots, when 
 assigning to servants the duty of assassi- 
 nating an enemy, to intoxicate them with 
 hasheesh. "When in this state they 
 were introduced into the splendid gardens 
 of the sheikh and surrounded with every 
 sensual pleasure. Such a foretaste of 
 Paradise, only to be granted by their 
 supreme ruler, made them eager to obey 
 his slightest command; their lives they 
 counted as nothing, and would resign 
 them at a word from him." ' Hence, 
 from " hasheesh," the word " assassin." 
 
 Hawlrins, John Henry Willis. 
 
 —Born in Baltimore, Md., Oct. 23, 1799, 
 and died in Parkersburg, Aug. 26, 1858. 
 A confirmed drunkard, he was reformed 
 in 1840 through the efforts of his little 
 daughter, and became the chief apostle 
 of the Washingtonian movement. The 
 " Washingtonians " originated in the con- 
 version into a temperance society in 
 April, 1840, of a Baltimore drinking- 
 club, consisting of six men, who took a 
 pledge not to drink " any spirits or malt 
 liquors, wine, or cider," and called their 
 organization " The Washington Temper- 
 ance Society." Mr. Hawkins was re- 
 formed two months later. He joined the 
 Washingtonians and soon became their 
 most powerful advocate. By the end of 
 the year 1840 the society contained about 
 TOO members, all reformed drinkers. An 
 account of the work, published in the 
 journal of the American Temperance 
 Union by Rev. John Marsh, led to a re- 
 quest from New York temperance men 
 to Mr. Hawkins and some of his co- 
 reformers to visit their city. They did 
 so, addressing a meeting in New York on 
 March 23. Twenty-one meetings followed 
 and 2,000 drinkers signed the pledge, 
 334 doing so at a single meeting. On 
 April 10 a similar campaign was begun 
 in Boston, resulting in a Washingtonian 
 Society which organized branch societies 
 and carried the movement into 160 towns. 
 Mr. Hawkins and his Baltimore associates 
 travelled through various parts of the 
 country founding societies and securing 
 pledge-signers. By the end of 1841 at 
 least 100,000 pledges had been taken, 
 and more than one-third of them by con- 
 firmed drinkers. A weekly newspaper 
 
 1 Encyclopaedia Brittanica, article on " Assassins." 
 
 was established as the organ of the move- 
 ment, and Martha Washington Societies, 
 composed of women, were inaugurated. 
 The order of Sons of Temperance, insti- 
 tuted by 16 persons in New York City, 
 Sept. 29, 1842, was also an offspring of 
 the Washingtonian crusade, Interest 
 in the reform began to decline after 1842, 
 although Mr. Hawkins until his death 
 continued to lecture on temperance, visi t- 
 ing every State in the Union except 
 California. A quarter of a million would 
 be a low estimate of the number of habit- 
 ual drinkers of intoxicants reclaimed, 
 temporarily at least, through the instru- 
 mentality of the Washingtonian agitation. 
 Besides lecturing diligently, Mr. Hawkins 
 contributed freely to the press. A " Life 
 of J. H. W. Hawkins " has been published 
 by his son, William G. Hawkins (Boston, 
 1859). 
 
 Hayes, Lucy Webb, wife of Presi- 
 dent Hayes ; born in Chillicothe, O., Aug. 
 28, 1831, and died in Fremont, O., June 25, 
 1889. Her father, a practising physician 
 who served in the War of 1812, died dur- 
 ing her infancy. In 1844 her mother 
 removed with her children to Delaware, 
 O., to give them the educational advan- 
 tages offered by the Ohio Wesleyan Uni- 
 versity. Girls were not at that time 
 admitted to the regular course of study, 
 but Lucy received instruction from the 
 professors. In ] 8 47 she entered the 
 Wesleyan Female College at Cincinnati, 
 graduating in 1852. In December, 1852, 
 she was married to Rutherford B. Hayes. 
 She was with her husband in the Union 
 Army during the Civil War, and devoted 
 much of her time to the wounded, sick 
 and furloughed soldiers. After the war, 
 until her death, she was an active 
 member of various organized charities. 
 Throughout Mr. Hayes's official life, as 
 Governor of Ohio for three terms, Mem- 
 ber of Congress and President of the 
 United States, she, as hostess, dispensed 
 with wines and all alcoholic beverages, 
 not even offering them to guests at public 
 receptions. She was the first lady of the 
 White House to banish intoxicants from 
 the Executive Mansion, although Mrs. 
 Grant had taken some commendable 
 steps, especially in the direction of dis- 
 couraging the serving of wines at New 
 Year receptions. The rule established 
 by Mrs. Hayes would have occasioned 
 
Heredity.] 
 
 204 
 
 [Heredity. 
 
 less comment if it had applied exclusively 
 to the private or semi-private life of the 
 President's family ; but when extended 
 to ceremonial dinners to foreign ambas- 
 sadors and other dignitaries it excited 
 wonder, opposition and malignant ridi- 
 cule. The Secretary of State was partic- 
 ularly strenuous in seeking to persuade 
 Mrs. Hayes that it was an insult to the 
 representatives of foreign nations not to 
 offer them the wines they were accus- 
 tomed to drink. But she was not swerved 
 from her resolution. "I have young 
 sons who have never tasted liquor," said 
 she, explaining her course ; "they shall 
 not receive from my hand or with the 
 sanction that its use in our family would 
 give, their first taste of what might prove 
 their ruin. What I wish for my own sons 
 I must do for the sons of other mothers." 
 In recognition of Mrs. Hayes's attitude 
 the National Woman's Christian Tem- 
 perance Union placed in the White 
 House (March 7, 1881) a portrait of her, 
 for which she had sat at the Union's 
 request. 
 
 Heredity. — The heredity of form and 
 features and the heredity of mental traits 
 and character are unquestioned. The 
 heredity of disease and diseased tenden- 
 cies may also be observed in every com- 
 munity. Recently it has been shown 
 that criminality, pauperism, insanity, 
 epilepsy and ' other allied characteristics 
 or tendencies are transmitted, and can 
 be cultivated and grown with as much 
 certainty as plants or animals are bred 
 and changed. Inebriety belongs to the 
 same class, and has been recognized as 
 hereditary for ages. On one of the monu- 
 ments of Egypt there is a drawing of a 
 drunken father and several drunken chil- 
 dren, and the grouping conveys the idea 
 that the inebriety of the parent was the 
 direct cause of the children's disgrace. 
 The references to inebriety and its he- 
 redity in both ancient and modern times, 
 by philosophers, physicians and states- 
 men, would fill a volume ; and the briefest 
 presentation of them would furnish a 
 curious and most suggestive chapter of 
 the growth of a great truth. The limits 
 of this article will permit only a general 
 outline of some of the leading facts that 
 are regarded as established by authorities 
 in this field of research. 
 
 If the histories of 100 inebriates are 
 
 studied and compared, the following gen- 
 eral truths will be deduced : 
 
 Forty per cent, of the 100 will be 
 found to be children of parents who were 
 either excessive or moderate drinkers; 
 many of these parents used wine and 
 beer only at meals, and probably their 
 children shared the beverage with them, 
 while others drank to excess at long in- 
 tervals. 
 
 In 20 per cent, of the cases the in- 
 ebriety may be traced to the grand- 
 parents, more frequently on the mother's 
 than on the father's side, the heredity 
 passing over one generation and appear- 
 ing in the next. Often with this heredi- 
 ty is found associated the form or features 
 or some of the mental characteristics of 
 the grandparent. The time of the de- 
 velopment of the drink impulse may cor- 
 respond to the age at which the grand- 
 parent became a victim. The desire 
 may remain dormant and give no evi- 
 dence of its presence, then break out 
 suddenly without any apparent exciting 
 cause. 
 
 In one case the son of an excellent 
 clergyman whose training and life had 
 been above reproach suddenly began to 
 use spirits at the age of 28, and he died 
 ten years later an inebriate. This was 
 the exact history of his grandfather, 
 whom he resembled closely. In another 
 case a divinity student who had about 
 finished his studies and had been a tem- 
 perate, model man, coming from an ex- 
 cellent family, all at once became intem- 
 perate, ran away to sea as a common 
 sailor, and died a low drunkard some 
 years after. His grandfather, a merchant, 
 had done the same, only at a later period 
 of life. This persistence of hereditary 
 intemperance and its seeming cessation 
 only to appear in the next generation, is 
 apparent in many very curious cases. 
 
 The inebriety of another 20 per cent, 
 will be clearly traceable to consumptive, 
 insane, epileptic and feeble-minded an- 
 cestors - nerve and brain-exhausted per- 
 sons. It will be discovered that a certain 
 number of the inebriates of this class had 
 ancestors in whose ages there was con- 
 siderable disparity. Thus the alcoholic 
 tendency will be stimulated and intensi- 
 fied to a marked degree in the offspring 
 of a young mother whose father was an 
 elderly man and in whose family there 
 was some hereditary disease. Some au- 
 
Heredity.] 
 
 205 
 
 [Heredity. 
 
 thorities assert that the union of persons 
 whose ages vary over 20 years will, if 
 one happens to be an inebriate or alco- 
 holic of any kind, always produce insane 
 and inebriate children - children who, as 
 a rule, will become easy victims to delir- 
 ium and be classed among the criminal 
 inebriates. 
 
 The intemperance of the persons mak- 
 ing up the remaining 20 per cent, of the 
 100 inebriates may be attributed to in- 
 juries, diseases, shocks, bad nutrition, 
 bad surroundings, physical and mental 
 contagions, etc. 
 
 All students agree that fully 80 per 
 cent, of the cases of inebriety are due 
 and traceable, directly or indirectly, to 
 inebriate or diseased ancestors. As al- 
 ready indicated, these cases are divisible 
 into distinct groups. 
 
 The so-called direct heredities are the 
 commonest. We have seen that fully 40 
 per cent, of all inebriates inherit their 
 inebriety directly from their parents. In 
 these cases there seems to be transmitted 
 from parent to child some special ten- 
 dency to use alcohol for relief, or some 
 special taste for alcohol or craving for its 
 effects. The brain and the nervous sys- 
 tem appear to be most agreeably in- 
 fluenced by alcohol, and to demand repe- 
 titions of the pleasurable excitement. 
 An organic condition is thus established, 
 and the consequences are the creation of 
 an organic memory and a lowering of cell 
 and nerve vigor. The seeming relief that 
 is obtained from alcohol is an organic 
 revelation that is so impressive as to con- 
 trol all future activity. In some instances 
 a single glass of spirits may rouse up 
 diseased impulses and tendencies, setting 
 the brain aflame as a match kindles a pile 
 of combustibles. In other cases each 
 glass may promote a gradual degenera- 
 tion of cell and nerve tissue, a degenera- 
 tion that does not reach its consummation 
 until a comparatively long period of time 
 has elapsed. In such cases a special 
 form of degenerative tendency has been 
 transmitted, and alcohol is its peculiar 
 exciting cause. The children of all in- 
 ebriates, and frequently the children of 
 moderate drinkers, transmit to their off- 
 spring certain specific defects of cell and 
 nerve growth, which generally betray 
 themselves in the next generation in the 
 same forms; yet the inherited taint may 
 not be manifested in the first generation 
 
 of descendants but may reappear in the 
 second one in consequence of some pecul- 
 iar cause. The person in whom the 
 hereditary tendency is dormant may have 
 an intimation of its presence. Many de- 
 scendants of inebriate ancestors feel in- 
 tuitively that they cannot or ought not 
 to use liquor, and hence are abstainers; 
 others, similarly descended, exhibit an 
 intense disgust for alcohol, and others 
 are profoundly indifferent to it. Such 
 individuals abstain without effort, yet 
 their children frequently become passion- 
 ate lovers of drink. The direction of 
 the alcoholic tendency is most frequently 
 from mother to son and from father to 
 daughter. The father's weakness finds 
 reproduction in the feeble impulses and 
 hysterical character of the daughter, who 
 may not use alcohol, but will be an in- 
 valid and drug-taker, and commonly be- 
 comes at the end an opium inebriate; 
 while her children (unless she marries a 
 man remarkably free from all hereditary 
 taints) will be inebriates. Her sons wiil 
 receive legacies of alcoholic tendency and 
 probably die early, and her daughters 
 will be sickly and " defective." A drink- 
 ing mother, or one who uses wine at 
 meals or spirits in any form for the sup- 
 posed tonic effects at different periods of 
 life, persistently sows seeds of heredity 
 from which inebriety and its allied, dis- 
 eases will probably grow. A drinking 
 father equally takes the risk of begetting 
 descendants, near or remote, who will be 
 inebriates, criminals and paupers. 1 
 
 If both parents use intoxicants freely, 
 
 i The familiar case of the Jukes family may be again ad- 
 verted to here. (See p. 142.) The ancestry of this family 
 is traced to Max, a man who was a very hard drinker, and 
 who hecame Mind. Many of his descendants for two 
 
 fenerations were also blind, and a multitude of them in- 
 erited his intemperance. One of the most notorious of 
 his offspring was a woman named Margaret, of whose 
 proceny Kichard L. Dugdale writes: "In tracingthe gene- 
 alogies of 540 persona who descended in seven generations 
 from this degraded woman, and 169 who were related by 
 marriage or cohabitation, 280 were adult paupers, and 140 
 were criminals and offenders of the worst sort, guilty of 
 seven murders, theft, highway robbery and nearly every 
 other offense known in the calendar of crime." He esti- 
 mates that the cost to the public of supporting this family 
 of drunkards, criminals and paupers was $1,308,000. 
 
 Eibot, in his work on heredity, gives the genealogy of 
 the Chretien family. John Chretien, its progenitor (with 
 the taint of robbery in his blood), had three sons, Peter, 
 Thomas and John. Peter had a son named John Francis, 
 who was condemned, for robbery and murder, to hard 
 labor for life. Thomas had two sons, Francis and Martin, 
 who were also condemned for murder, while the son of 
 Martin was transported for highway robbery. John, the 
 third brother, had a son named John Francis, whose wife 
 belonged to a family of incendiaries. To this couple 
 seven children were born, of whom the first was found 
 guilty of seven robberies and died in prison, while the 
 other six (including two daughters) all died in prison, ex- 
 cepting the seventh, who was condemned to death for 
 murder. 
 
Heredity.] 
 
 206 
 
 [Heredity. 
 
 the descendants will inevitably be alco- 
 holic consumptives or insane persons, or 
 will have some form of brain and nerve 
 disease. In some cases where alcohol has 
 been prescribed medicinally for a long 
 time as a tonic, especially after exhausting 
 fevers or constitutional diseases, the 
 children begotten will have a very marked 
 alcoholic heredity. There are on record 
 many instances of inebriety in children 
 conceived soon after marriage (when the 
 parents drank wine), although children 
 born to the same parents later in life 
 (when the parents abstained) were tem- 
 perate. If the parent is intoxicated at 
 the time of conception, the child is likely 
 to be a victim to insanity, inebriety and 
 idiocy. Mothers who indulge in intoxi- 
 cants freely before the birth and during 
 the lactation of their children impart to 
 them impulses toward inebriety that in 
 after years will obtain mastery if en- 
 couraged by circumstances. During the 
 critical periods of life — for example, the 
 period of puberty, the period from 30 to 
 35 and the period from 40 to 45, — the 
 tendency of persons descended from in- 
 temperate ancestors to seek relief in 
 drink is very strong. On the other hand, 
 a subsidence of the drink mania in 
 parents and children at certain periods of 
 life is noted in many cases. Very young 
 infants, the children of hard drinkers, 
 frequently manifest a marked craving 
 for spirits, and cease their cries when a 
 few drops of liquor are administered. It 
 has even been observed that little children 
 have exhibited intense desire at the sight 
 of bottles similar to the ones in which 
 liquors are placed, and would not be satis- 
 fied until given alcoholic stimulants. The 
 great variety of very curious developments 
 of the heredity of inebriety is almost be- 
 wildering to the student, and establishes 
 not only the general fact that inebriety 
 is a hereditary condition but that it 
 may be reproduced in the descendant 
 under circumstances minutely resem- 
 bling those witnessed in the case of the 
 progenitor. 
 
 A second group of heredities may be 
 called the indirect, including cases of 
 families in which, during one or two gen- 
 erations, the inebriety of the ancestor 
 bequeaths minor forms of insanity and 
 various brain and nerve defects, but en- 
 tails inebriety upon the second or third 
 generation with or without any special 
 
 exciting cause. In these families, though 
 a particular generation may not be notice- 
 ably cursed by the drink crave, all kinds 
 of eccentricities will be betrayed: the 
 individual members will have abnormal 
 mental and physical characteristics, from 
 which brain and nerve diseases will spring 
 and grow rapidly; they will frequently 
 be drug-takers, gourmands, "neurotics," 
 etc. — always on the verge of serious and 
 fatal disorders. In a case that Lstudied, 
 that of a Hessian soldier, it was necessary 
 to go back for five generations in order 
 to fix the ancestral responsibility for the 
 patient's inebriety. From our present 
 knowledge it is hard to understand why 
 it is that inebriety so often begets only 
 milder allied diseases, which in turn be- 
 get virulent types of inebriety, which 
 again spend their force in a single genera- 
 tion and give way in later generations to 
 minor ailments; but the facts are too 
 abundant to admit of dispute. 
 
 A third group of heredities is made up 
 of complicated or " borderland " cases — 
 cases of persons to whose ancestors in- 
 ebriety cannot be with certainty attribut- 
 ed, but who are found to have been in- 
 sane, epileptic or consumptive,— criminals 
 or paupers, or in other respects degenerate 
 individuals. A large number of all in- 
 ebriates belong to this group, and their 
 inebriety is but one outgrowth of the 
 profound degeneration that overtakes 
 and dooms innumerable families. This 
 degeneration may be apparently arrested 
 at times ; certain members of the family 
 may betray marked individuality, genius, 
 a high order of emotional sensibility, 
 zeal for an idea, etc. But in succeeding 
 generations insanity, feeble-mindedness, 
 inebriety, consumption, criminality, pau- 
 perism, etc., will wreck the heirs of this 
 tainted blood. It is undoubtedly true 
 that even in the most degraded families 
 there is an element of vitality that offers 
 combat to the degenerative principle and 
 achieves temporary triumphs, which are 
 strengthened by intermarriage with fam- 
 ilies of purer blood ; but at best the force 
 of corruption is merely neutralized for a 
 time, and the advantages gained by the 
 degenerate family are more than offset by 
 the injury done to the better one. 
 
 With the truth established that a con- 
 stitutional tendency to inebriety and 
 kindred diseases may be handed down 
 from parent to children and children's 
 
Hewit, Nathaniel.] 
 
 207 
 
 [High License. 
 
 children, it is needless to enlarge upon 
 the terrible consequences to posterity 
 that each drinker is engaged in sowing. 
 Observe the direful results to individuals 
 in typical cases of intemperance - the 
 loss of health, character, position, wealth, 
 integrity, morals, means of support and 
 happiness; understand that these results 
 are, in eight cases in ten, visited upon the 
 wretched sufferers because of the con- 
 scious or unconscious sins of ancestors, 
 and all will be ready to grant that the 
 evils entailed by drink through the laws 
 of heredity may not be described in 
 words too profuse or too vivid. 
 
 T. D. Okotheks. 
 
 Hewit, Nathaniel. — Born in New 
 
 London, Conn., Aug. 28, 1788, and died 
 in Bridgeport, Conn., Feb. 3, 1867. He 
 graduated from Yale College in 1808 and 
 began the study of law, but afterward 
 decided to enter the ministry and attended 
 Andover Theological Seminary. Licensed 
 to preach in 1815, he first served the 
 Presbyterian Church at Plattsburg, N. 
 Y. In 1818 he became pastor of the 
 Congregational Church at Fairfield, 
 Conn., resigning in 1828 to become agent 
 for the American Temperance Society, 
 organized at Boston in 1826. Dr. Hewit 
 had already, in 1827, prepared a " Re- 
 port" of this Society containing 68 pages 
 and giving the resolutions passed by 
 various medical societies regarding the 
 nature and effects of intoxicating drinks 
 and the resolutions of different ecclesias- 
 tical bodies. As agent of the American 
 Temperance Society he visited the New 
 England States and some of the Middle 
 States, resigning the position in Septem- 
 ber, 1830. He has been called the 
 " Luther of the early temperance reform." 
 In 1831 he visited England as the repre- 
 sentative of the American Temperance 
 Society, to attend the first public meeting 
 of the London Temperance Society, held 
 in Exeter Hall, June 29, 1831. He ad- 
 dressed the meeting, and it was largely 
 through his exhortations that the London 
 Society changed its name to that of 
 "The British and Foreign Temperance 
 Society," with a view to enlarging its 
 work." After visiting various cities in 
 England and France Dr. Hewit returned 
 to America and became paster of the 
 2d Congregational Church at Bridgeport, 
 Conn., and afterwards of a Presbyterian 
 
 church organized in the same place by 
 his old parishoners, which he continued 
 to serve until compelled by old age and 
 feebleness to resign in 1862. 
 
 High License. — The name given to 
 that policy of American liquor legislation 
 whose distinctive feature is the require- 
 ment that individual liquor-sellers shall 
 pay relatively large annual fees into the 
 State, municipal or county treasuries. 
 Many of the disinterested advocates of 
 the High License programme insist that 
 the term High License has a wider meaning 
 and also covers accessory restrictions of 
 all kinds — that it is merely a convenient 
 generic name for all " improved " license 
 acts. As a matter of fact, High License 
 provisions are invariably accompanied by 
 certain restrictions or prohibitions gov- 
 erning the manner of sales; but such 
 restrictions and prohibitions are inci- 
 dental to all license laws, and the High 
 License idea derives its special significance 
 not from the restrictive principle proper 
 (i. c, the principle of absolutely prohibit- 
 ing sales to certain persons, during cer- 
 tain hours and in certain places), but 
 from the tax or revenue principle (i. e., 
 the principle of taxing the traffic as a 
 "' necessary evil " — taxing it up to the 
 maximum attainable point, and drawing 
 from it for the public funds the maxi- 
 mum amount of revenue). The practical 
 distinction between High License and 
 restriction proper will be better under- 
 stood from this statement: There is no 
 organized opposition among temperance 
 people to efforts for restrictions proper — • 
 for Sunday-closing legislation, for the 
 prohibition of sales to minors and drunk- 
 ards, and at certain hours of the night, 
 for limiting the number of saloons to one 
 for 500 or 1,000 of the population, etc. 
 — because such restrictions viewed by 
 themselves are unconditional prohibi- 
 tions, which operate (theoretically at 
 least) against all sellers equally and which 
 cannot be lawfully suspended, at any 
 price, for the benefit of particular dealers ; 
 on the other hand the High License 
 principle is bitterly antagonized by nearly 
 all the advanced temperance people, be- 
 cause, however disguised, it is nothing 
 else than a recognition of the liquor- 
 dealer's claim that his traffic is entitled 
 to rank with all other species of legitimate 
 traffic provided he pays an imposing fee 
 
High. License.] 
 
 208 
 
 [High. License. 
 
 to the State. In the case of a restriction 
 proper the prohibitory doctrine is sug- 
 gested, but in the case of a High License 
 provision the idea of sanction for the 
 traffic is dominant. The disposition to 
 look with some favor upon restrictive 
 acts while unsparingly condemning High 
 License is therefore based upon principle 
 first of all. 
 
 CLAIMS FOB HIGH LICENSE. 
 
 But High License is said to be a re- 
 striction in practice — a more effective re- 
 striction even (it is claimed) than is the 
 prohibition of sales to minors or any 
 similar provision. For the absolute pro- 
 hibition of sales to certain persons, at 
 particular hours, etc., when merely in- 
 cidental to a license policy is very difficult 
 of enforcement, since the public sentiment 
 which consents to indiscriminate license 
 is not likely to insist upon diligent 
 police supervision of the details of the 
 traffic ; while, on the other hand, a large in- 
 crease in the license rate will inevitably re- 
 duce the number of saloons and thereby 
 bring the business within narrower limits. 
 That is, incidental prohibitions do not ne- 
 cessarily accomplish their purpose in prac- 
 tice, but a High License provision works 
 automatically, necessarily driving out of 
 the traffic large numbers of dealers who 
 cannot afford to pay the larger fee. 
 
 Again, it is urged that High License is 
 the most valuable of restrictions because 
 by diminishing the number of drinking- 
 places it simplifies the problem of police 
 supervision and promotes the ability of 
 the officials to enforce the various prohi- 
 bitions of the statutes. Therefore it is 
 maintained that High License is the 
 most important instrument for compell- 
 ing liquor-sellers to respect the conces- 
 sions made by law to temperance senti- 
 ment. Other claims made for this policy 
 are that it will operate to exterminate the 
 most objectionable saloons; that it will 
 confine the traffic to men of responsibility 
 and therefore, presumably, to men of 
 better character; that by diminishing the 
 aggregate number of liquor-dealers it will 
 diminish the temptations to the drinker 
 and consequently reduce the consumption 
 of drink; that it will remove from polit- 
 ical warfare the organized power of the 
 more dangerous, demonstrative, ignorant 
 and offensive rum element that is seen in 
 active and constant operation so long as 
 
 the laws bestowupon.it the right to exist; 
 that by entrusting a comparatively few 
 responsible men, under rigid conditions, 
 with the privilege of selling liquor — that 
 privilege to be purchased at a high money 
 price and to be cancelled in case of viola- 
 tions of the law, — the co-operation of these 
 privileged licensees will be commanded 
 by the authorities in their efforts to en- 
 force wholesome restrictions and to sup- 
 press unlicensed establishments ; that the 
 first restriction of the liquor traffic by 
 High License will make it comparatively 
 easy to bring about a second and greater 
 restriction, to be followed in time by more 
 radical restrictions until the whole traffic 
 is " taxed to death " and thus extinguished 
 by progressive action instead of by a 
 sudden (and not necessarily permanent) 
 sentimental decree; that, meanwhile, the 
 liquor traffic will be under the severest 
 stigma attaching to any trade, and be 
 pronounced by law to be so dangerous to 
 the community as to require restriction 
 at all points and the payment of enor- 
 mous sums to the Government; and that 
 the larger revenue will in a more satis- 
 factory degree compensate the public for 
 the evils resulting from the traffic. 
 
 HISTORICAL REVIEW. 
 
 The High License plan was not urged 
 with any activity in the early years of 
 the temperance agitation. This fact 
 seems remarkable when it is remembered 
 that the Prohibitory movement was suc- 
 cessful (nominally at least) in more 
 States during the decade 1850-60 than it 
 has been in the three decades since 18G0. 
 But the ingenuity of conservative people 
 was not then fully developed. The prop- 
 osition that the traffic was either right or 
 wrong, and should be suppressed wholly 
 or permitted to continue under compara- 
 tively normal conditions, was then more 
 willingly accepted. The Prohibitory sys- 
 tem, where adopted, was not regarded as 
 necessarily permanent, but as distinctively 
 experimental, to be abandoned uncondi- 
 tionally if not strong enough to hold its 
 own. The willingness of liquor-dealers 
 to pay heavy license charges rather than 
 cease selling was not then apparent. At 
 the time of the Prohibition agitation in 
 New York, the annual saloon license fee 
 in the chief city of that State was only 
 $10. A law fixing a yearly rate of $300 
 or $1,000 would probably have been con- 
 
High License.] 
 
 209 
 
 [High License. 
 
 sidered a greater innovation than entire 
 Prohibition. The Federal Government 
 had not then set an example to the States. 
 There was no large tax upon the produc- 
 tion of liquors ; a man could engage in 
 the traffic in any of its branches with but 
 little capital ; the organized liquor power 
 as it is known to-day had not been created. 
 The High License movement, as a 
 feature of the temperance agitation, came 
 into existence at about the same time that 
 the Constitutional Prohibition idea at- 
 tained prominence. Preparation for it 
 had been made by a gradual raising of 
 the license rates in many States. Up to 
 1880, however, a rate of $200 per year 
 was considered high. The High License 
 crusade dates from the enactment of the 
 Nebraska " Slocumb " law in February, 
 188 1. It fixed minimum annual fees of 
 1500 for saloons in all towns having less 
 than 10,000 population, and $1,000 in 
 those containing more than 10,000 in- 
 habitants, and established numerous re- 
 strictions of a very rigid nature. The 
 enactment of the Downing law of Mis- 
 souri followed in March, 1883, fixing the 
 yearly license charges at $50 to $200 for 
 State purposes, and $500 to $800 for 
 county purposes— a minimum of $550 
 and a maximum of $1,000. In the same 
 year (in June) the Illinois Legislature 
 passed the Harper law, under which 
 minimum rates of $500 for the sale of all 
 kinds of liquors and $150 for the sale of 
 malt liquors only ware fixed. Since then 
 many of the other license States have re- 
 quired the saloon-keepers to pay relatively 
 large sums — notably Massachusetts,where 
 the minimum license rate for the ordinary 
 saloon selling all kinds of liquors for con- 
 sumption on and off the premises is now 
 $1,300 per year; Minnesota, where the 
 minimum rates are $500 for towns and 
 $1,000 for cities; Pennsylvania, where 
 the uniform rate for each city is $500; 
 the new State of Montana, where $500 is 
 charged in towns having 3,500 inhabitants 
 or more; the Territory of Utah, where 
 the minimum charge is $600 and the 
 maximum $1,200, and several Southern 
 States like Arkansas, Texas and West 
 Virginia, where the aggregate fees ex- 
 acted range from $500 upward. (For the 
 license provisions prevailing in the va- 
 rious States, see Legislation.) 
 
 The first High License legislation un- 
 deniably originated with thoroughly rad- 
 
 ical temperance men, believers in the 
 principlo of Prohibition, who honestly 
 thought they were making a serious at- 
 tack upon the traffic. The framers of 
 the Nebraska act were John B. Finch, 
 H. W. Hardy and other temperance 
 leaders equally earnest. The Missouri 
 law was passed as a compromise measure, 
 to defeat the Prohibitory bill pressed by 
 John A. Brooks and his aggressive 
 followers, but it was looked upon by 
 many as an important step in the direc- 
 tion of Prohibition. In Illinois the 
 Harper law was also welcomed by ad- 
 vanced men. " When our Illinois Legis- 
 lature adopted the High License law," 
 writes Samuel W. Packard of Chicago, 
 " I was greatly rejoiced. I thought it 
 was a long step towards Prohibition. I 
 tried to get up a celebration Over the 
 great victory for temperance, and offered 
 to contribute $10 towards fireworks for 
 the occasion." * Similar gratification and 
 confidence have been expressed by tem- 
 perance leaders upon the enactment of 
 High License in other States. Very 
 moderate measures have called forth en- 
 comiums from some of the foremost 
 friends of Prohibition : for instance, the 
 Scott law of Ohio, fixing the maximum 
 saloon tax at $200 per year for places sell- 
 ing all sorts of liquors, and $100 per year 
 for those selling beer and wine exclusively, 
 was commended in the warmest terms by 
 Dr. Theodore L. Cuyler. (See p.107.) It 
 was several years before the High License 
 programme was regarded with decided 
 suspicion by the Prohibitionists, but by 
 1886 a general distrust was felt, and ever 
 since then active hostility has been mani- 
 fested. Opposition to High License is 
 now as much a part of the Prohibition 
 creed as opposition to the saloon itself. 
 
 PROHIBITION" OPPOSITION' — TEST QUES- 
 TIONS. 
 
 In justification of this antagonism the- 
 Prohibitionists, besides declaring that 
 High License in principle is simply a 
 variation of the license idea with which 
 they are at war, present an indictment 
 against the policy on practical grounds 
 that seems to be conclusive. This indict- 
 ment contradicts every claim made by 
 High License advocates, save only the 
 claims that a reduction in the number of 
 saloons will be effected by an honest trial 
 
 J The Voice, Jan. 19, 1888. 
 
High License.] 
 
 210 
 
 [High License. 
 
 of their programme, and that an increase 
 in the revenue from the traffic will be 
 gained. High License legislation is 
 shown to have no genuine temperance 
 value and to be incapable, even under the 
 most favorable circumstances, of produc- 
 ing encouraging temperance results. 
 And it is not a failure merely in the 
 sense that restrictions proper are failures; 
 it is condemned as an obstructive de- 
 vice, more dangerous than any other 
 compromise yet tried, and the most ef- 
 fective policy that can possibly be resorted 
 to by the forces that seek to defeat or 
 defer Prohibition. 
 
 Any statistical inquiry concerning the 
 fruits of High License experiments from 
 the temperance point of view must be 
 based on certain test questions like these : 
 Has the number of arrests for drunken- 
 ness and disorderly conduct been re- 
 duced, or is that number comparatively 
 smaller in High License communities 
 than in communities where low rates of 
 license prevail ? How do the total num- 
 bers of arrests for all causes compare in 
 
 High License and low license communi- 
 ties ? Is there any evidence that the 
 quantity of liquor consumed has been 
 diminished under High License ? No 
 satisfactory inquiry has been conducted 
 under official auspices, but private in- 
 vestigators have amassed a great deal of 
 testimony that stands unchallenged. The 
 most important evidence is that printed 
 by the Voice, of which we present some 
 of the main features. 
 
 In 1889 the Voice sent letters to the 
 police and other officials of every import- 
 ant city of the United States in which 
 the annual saloon license fee during 1888 
 was (1) in excess of $500 or (2) under 
 $200. Statistics sufficiently complete to 
 justify classification were received from 
 41 of the High License cities and 38 of 
 the low license cities. Every report was 
 treated with perfect impartiality. In the 
 following table the Voice's figures of ar- 
 rests and license fees for 1888 are copied, 
 but the population returns are for the 
 year 1890, specially obtained from the 
 Census Bureau in February, 1891. 
 
 00 . 
 
 "'a 
 
 o a 
 
 fo o 
 
 to 33 
 COS 
 
 a 
 o 
 o 
 
 a 
 O 
 o . 
 
 .2 -a 
 
 J 3 
 
 CQ ■ 
 
 C o 
 
 o o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 313 
 
 CD 
 
 £&t 
 
 %.% 
 
 §<=«; 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 ^1 
 
 "'•Hi 
 
 & 
 
 Ch 
 
 O'S 
 
 Om 
 
 
 (a) 25,133 
 
 8i,ooo 
 
 45 
 
 559 
 
 <a) 27,407 
 
 1,000 
 
 54 
 
 508 
 
 (a) 23,584 
 
 1,000 
 
 26 
 
 907 
 
 (a) 164,738 
 
 1,000 
 
 248 
 
 664 
 
 (a) 133,156 
 
 1,000 
 
 360 
 
 370 
 
 (a) 13,703 
 
 1,000 
 
 13 
 
 1,061 
 
 (a) 55,491 
 
 1,000 
 
 32 
 
 1,734 
 
 (a) 139,526 
 
 1,000 
 
 250 
 
 558 
 
 (b) 48,733 
 
 1,000 
 
 96 
 
 424 
 
 (6) 132,716 
 
 900 
 
 500 
 
 265 
 
 (a) 52,811 
 
 a5o 
 
 130 
 
 406 
 
 (J) 16,074 
 
 800 
 
 20 
 
 804 
 
 (6) 30,801 
 
 750 
 
 34 
 
 906 
 
 <b) 84,655 
 
 750 
 
 81 
 
 ',,045 
 
 (a) 38,081 
 
 050 
 
 150 
 
 258 
 
 (a) 19,634 
 
 625 
 
 38 
 
 517 
 
 (a) 38,140 
 
 600 
 
 100 
 
 3 r l 
 
 (6) 50,395 
 
 600 
 
 210 
 
 238 
 
 (b) 77,096 
 
 600 
 
 217 
 
 358 
 
 (a) 22.242 
 
 600 
 
 52 
 
 428 
 
 (b) 451,770 
 
 550 
 
 1,800 
 
 251 
 
 (a) 11,159 
 
 500 
 
 72 
 
 155 
 
 (a) 18,650 
 
 500 
 
 41 
 
 455 
 
 (6)1,099,850 
 
 500 
 
 4,200 
 
 262 
 
 (a) 15,156 
 
 500 
 
 100 
 
 152 
 
 (a) 31,478 
 
 500 
 
 116 
 
 270 
 
 (a) 13,590 
 
 500 
 
 57 
 
 239 
 
 (a) 24,852 
 
 500 
 
 115 
 
 216 
 
 («) 6,524 
 
 500 
 
 14 
 
 466 
 
 (a) 5.321 
 (a) 27,826 
 
 500 
 
 11 
 
 484 
 
 500 
 
 141 
 
 197 
 
 (a) 205,669 
 
 500 
 
 1,000 
 
 200 
 
 (c) 30,000 
 
 500 
 
 171 
 
 175 
 
 (a) 64,147 
 (a) 20,779 
 
 510 
 
 143 
 
 449 
 
 500 
 
 00 
 
 846 
 
 (a) 22,668 
 (a) 13,519 
 
 500 
 
 62 
 
 366 
 
 500 
 
 48 
 
 282 
 
 (6) 44,179 
 
 500 
 
 36 
 
 1,227 
 
 is 
 
 P CO 
 
 ^t3 
 
 < - a 
 
 So 
 
 3 OJ2 
 
 p- t St 
 
 
 Ch i, ID'S 
 
 las 
 
 High License Cities. 
 
 Little Rock, Ark 
 
 Joliet, 111 
 
 Rockford, 111 
 
 Minneapolis, Minn 
 
 St. Paul, Minn 
 
 Hastings, Neb 
 
 Lincoln, Neb 
 
 Omaha, Neb 
 
 New Bedford, Mass. . . 
 
 Kansas City, Mo 
 
 St. Joseph, Mo 
 
 North Adams, Mass. . . 
 Salem, Mass 
 
 Worcester, MaBS 
 
 San Antonio, Tex . 
 
 Aurora, 111 
 
 Dallas, Tex 
 
 Los Angeles, Cal 
 
 Lowell, Mass 
 
 Bloomington, 111 
 
 St. Louis, Mo 
 
 Leadville, Col ... 
 
 Colnmbus, Ga 
 
 Chicago, 111 
 
 East St. Louis, 111 
 
 l^uincey, 111 
 
 Rock Island, 111 
 
 Springfield, 111 
 
 Faribault, Minn 
 
 Rochester, Minn 
 
 toy City, Mich 
 
 Detroit, Mich 
 
 East Saginaw, Mich. . , 
 Grand Rapids, Mich.. , 
 
 Jackson, Mich 
 
 Muskegon, Mich 
 
 Tort riuron, Mich 
 
 .Springfield, Mass 
 
 2,932 
 1,760 
 
 401 i 
 6,030 
 6,862 
 
 353 2 
 1,876 
 12,543 3 
 1,345 
 6,767 
 3,909 
 
 642 
 1,540 
 4,241 
 2,725 i 
 
 307 
 3,721 1 
 5,579 
 4,150 
 1,116 
 17,987 
 2,058 
 2,062 
 60,432 
 1,573 
 
 808 
 
 417 
 
 3,233 
 
 78 
 
 02 
 
 972 
 9,142 
 1,671 
 1,737 
 
 876 
 
 466 
 
 057 
 2,084 
 
 1,099 
 1,158 
 
 305 » 
 
 3,408 
 
 3,493 
 
 150 
 
 752 
 
 2,955 ' 
 
 1,006 
 
 2,308 
 
 1,540 
 
 419 
 
 1,180 
 
 3,284 
 
 1,227 i 
 
 190 
 
 1,634 i 
 
 1,853 
 
 3,065 
 
 608 
 
 8,467 
 
 1,547 
 
 1,375 
 
 31,164 
 
 648 
 
 510 
 
 207 
 
 1,351 
 
 39 
 
 20 
 
 623 
 
 6,396 
 
 779 
 
 1,046 
 
 478 
 
 3i '.2 
 
 308 
 
 1,478 
 
 24 
 
 77 
 
 48 
 
 SN 
 92 
 74 
 47 
 40 
 58 
 34 
 38 
 20 
 26 
 32 
 103 
 23 
 27 
 25 
 37 
 53 
 7 
 14 
 35 
 23 
 61 
 66 
 18 
 167 
 205 
 53 
 38 
 39 
 01 
 43 
 63 
 44 
 
 37 
 66 
 76 
 56 
 51 
 43 
 40 
 23 
 
 34 
 39 
 65 
 77 
 77 
 45 
 
 74 
 54 
 47 
 75 
 67 
 62 
 41 
 63 
 50 
 42 
 50 
 42 
 54 
 59 
 47 
 60 
 55 
 
High License.] 
 
 211 
 
 [High License. 
 
 ClTT. 
 
 High License Cities. 
 
 Allegheny, Pa 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa 
 
 Parkersburg, W. Va 
 
 Low License Cities. 
 
 Savannah, Ga 
 
 Indianapolis, Ind 
 
 Charleston, S. C 
 
 Fon Du Lac, Wis 
 
 La Crosse, Wis 
 
 Madison, Wis 
 
 Milwaukee, Wis 
 
 Oshkosu, Wis 
 
 Racine, Wis 
 
 Lynchburg, Va 
 
 New York" City 
 
 Virginia, Nev 
 
 Richmond, Va 
 
 Ogdensburg, N. Y 
 
 Oswego, N. Y 
 
 Watertown, N. Y 
 
 Norristown, Pa 
 
 Auburn, N. Y 
 
 Buffalo, N. Y 
 
 Poughkeepsie, N. Y 
 
 Wilmington, Del. . . 
 
 Lexington, Ky 
 
 Brooklyn, N. Y 
 
 San Francisco, Cal 
 
 Binghainton, N. Y 
 
 Schenectady, N. Y 
 
 Baltimore, Md . 
 
 Cumberland, Md 
 
 Long Island City, N. Y. 
 
 Rochester, K. Y 
 
 Rome, N. Y 
 
 Utica,N. Y 
 
 Yonkers, N. Y 
 
 Martinson rg,W. Va. . . . 
 
 Elmira, N. Y 
 
 Cohoes, N. Y 
 
 Troy, N. Y 
 
 Covington, Ky 
 
 Svmmary. 
 41 High License Cities. 
 38 Low License Cities. 
 
 
 &.3 
 o u . 
 
 m 
 
 105,387 
 
 (6)1 
 (a) 
 
 ,046,964 
 
 8,389 
 
 (a) 
 
 41,762 
 
 a) 
 
 107,445 
 
 a) 
 
 54,593 
 
 .'., 
 
 13,034 
 
 UD 
 
 25,090 
 
 W) 
 
 13,426 
 
 <M 
 
 204,468 
 
 W) 
 
 33,836 
 
 (M 
 
 21,014 
 
 (ra) 
 
 19,779 
 
 (6)1,515,301 
 
 (a) 
 
 6,337 
 
 (a) 
 
 80,836 
 
 («> 
 
 11,667 
 
 (a) 
 
 31,836 
 
 in) 
 
 14,733 
 
 (a) 
 
 19,750 
 
 «rt 
 
 25,887 
 
 (a) 
 
 354,457 
 
 (<j> 
 
 22,836 
 
 (a) 
 
 61,437 
 
 In) 
 
 22,355 
 
 (A) 
 
 806,343 
 
 <t» 
 
 298,997 
 
 Hi) 
 
 35,093 
 
 la) 
 
 19,857 
 
 lb) 
 
 434,439 
 
 (a 
 
 10,030 
 
 la) 
 
 30,396 
 
 la) 
 
 1:38,327 
 
 (a) 14. 
 
 («) 44,001 
 
 (a) 31,945 
 
 (a) 7,207 
 
 (a) 28,070 
 
 (a) 22,432 
 
 (a) 60,605 
 
 (a) 37,375 
 
 go . 
 
 4,455,189 
 4,599,957 
 
 $500 
 500 
 500 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 -no 
 
 300 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 200 
 
 2011 
 
 184 
 
 « 180 
 
 150 
 
 150 
 
 150 
 
 150 
 
 135 
 
 125 
 
 125 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 11)0 
 
 84 
 
 5 90 
 
 75 
 
 51) 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 III 
 30 
 25 
 
 78 
 
 1,340 
 
 34 
 
 265 
 
 :;,... 
 
 271 
 54 
 
 144 
 70 
 1,198 
 85 
 85 
 66 
 
 39 
 150 
 
 38 
 
 34 
 111 
 1,850 
 130 
 2110 
 
 85 
 3,164 
 3,000 
 
 99 
 
 120 
 
 2,860 
 
 58 
 21 6 
 926 
 100 
 380 
 101 
 
 19 
 218 
 
 2110 
 720 
 194 
 
 Average 
 License 
 $665. 
 122. 
 
 12,295 
 
 25,783 
 
 O 
 o . 
 
 1,350 
 781 
 247 
 
 158 
 
 201 
 223 
 174 
 192 
 171 
 21)9 
 247 
 300 
 194 
 127 
 257 
 299 
 146 
 3SS 
 581 
 233 
 138 
 176 
 307 
 263 
 255 
 100 
 354 
 165 
 152 
 173 
 141 
 149 
 150 
 116 
 316 
 
 3; 9 
 
 129 
 112 
 
 84 
 193 
 
 362 
 179 
 
 ii 
 
 3,042 
 
 46,899 
 
 768 
 
 8,157 
 3,972 
 3,210 
 
 149 1 
 2,375 
 
 293 
 4,346 
 1,376 
 
 139 
 2,575 
 85,049 
 
 363 
 6,290 
 
 116 
 
 730 
 
 352 
 
 409 
 1,142 
 14,149 
 
 462 
 2,019 « 
 2,322 
 31,134 
 19,466 
 
 735 
 
 708 
 29,789 
 
 770 
 1,256 
 4,304 
 
 165 
 1,520 
 
 5Q9 
 
 97 
 
 1,830 
 
 636 
 2,531 
 1,667 
 
 216,132 
 230,877 
 
 
 2,026 
 
 31,837 
 
 616 
 
 979 
 
 1,198 
 
 1,296 
 
 91 
 
 623 
 
 142 
 
 3,023 
 
 286 
 
 83 
 
 560 
 
 46,174 
 
 180 
 
 2,225 
 
 43 
 
 512 
 
 252 
 
 702 
 
 7,584 
 
 226 
 
 1,105 • 
 
 764 
 
 16,112 
 
 10,508 
 
 621 
 
 366 
 
 18,949 
 
 655 
 
 380 
 
 1,356 
 
 110 
 
 540 
 
 38'.l 
 
 39 
 
 1,087 
 
 312 
 
 1,356 
 
 1,130 
 
 121,877 
 122,179 
 
 a o 'Jn 
 
 <- c c ° 
 
 SOpO 
 
 ss^ 
 
 BBS 
 
 £§£■§ 
 
 52 
 33 
 14 
 
 43 
 
 90 
 42 
 
 132 
 40 
 95 
 liS 
 80 
 
 256 
 35 
 33 
 35 
 31! 
 
 271 
 43 
 66 
 78 
 37 
 34 
 
 100 
 
 :-,0 
 28 
 
 57 
 54 
 23 
 15 
 
 80 
 162 
 130 
 
 81 
 
 82 
 185 
 
 26 
 
 a) C ~ 
 E a 3 
 
 . oj *' in 
 
 m 
 
 45 
 30 
 40 
 61 
 26 
 48 
 69 
 31 
 64 
 22 
 54 
 li!) 
 35 
 37 
 
 61 
 61 
 53 
 49 
 85 
 33 
 51 
 54 
 86 
 51 
 64 
 85 
 30 
 33 
 66 
 
 40 
 
 59 
 50 
 54 
 67 
 
 56 
 52 
 
 i Figures for 1887. 2 Including 105 so-called " arrests " of prostitutes, a Including 2,701 so-called arrests of 
 prostitutes. ■> Does not include 678 vagrants and tramps. « Approximate « Nine months' record 'The fig- 
 ures of arrests for disorderly conduct in Omaha do not include 1,113 for " disturbing the peace by fighting "484 " suspi- 
 cious characters," 63 " using obscene language," 2,608 " vagrants "or other similar arrests usually classified with " dis- 
 ordCTly " In order to be strictly fair to High License Omana, we have not counted these offenses, although they should 
 undoubtedly be counted. 
 
 (<i) First counts, and therefore semi-official. (6) Official, (c) Estimated. 
 
 The following deductions are drawn 
 from the table : 
 
 1. The license fee is five times as great in the 
 41 High License cities as in the 38 low license 
 cities, and the number of saloons is only about 
 one-third as great. 
 
 2. Yet there is but very little difference 
 in the number of arrests in ratio to popula- 
 tion in the High License and the low license 
 cities. 
 
 3. The ratio of arrests for drunkenness and 
 disorder to the total arrests is noticeably greater 
 in the High License than in the low license 
 cities. 
 
 The conclusions thus reached are con- 
 firmatory of those derived from similar 
 investigations, on a narrower scale, for- 
 merly made by the Voice. (See "The 
 Political Prohibitionist for 1887," p. 59, 
 and for 1889, p. 60.) 
 
 Separate comparisons of particular High 
 License cities with particular low license 
 cities might be made, showing very un- 
 favorably for High License. But th e ta ble 
 given above meets all the purposes of 
 such individual comparisons and it is far 
 more satisfactory to the student than 
 
High License.] 
 
 212 
 
 [High License. 
 
 any number of single instances would be, 
 since it has a wide range and justifies 
 general statements. 
 
 But there is another very important 
 branch of investigation. It is desirable 
 not merely to compare conditions in one 
 city with those in another, but to ascer- 
 tain the comparative conditions resulting 
 from the High License and low license 
 policies respectively, operating in differ- 
 ent years in the same city. What have 
 been the practical consequences of changes 
 from low license to High License in typi- 
 cal American communities ? Do not the 
 statistics of arrests for drunkenness and 
 crime show that such changes have been 
 for the better ? These questions must be 
 candidly answered by patiently searching 
 the records of a large number of cities, 
 before the final verdict on the High 
 License system can fairly be made up. 
 
 A GENERAL SUEVEY. 
 
 Prom Nebraska, the oldest of the High 
 License States, the testimony is practi- 
 cally unanimous that there is more 
 drunkenness and crime in proportion to 
 the population now, after nine years' trial 
 of the $1,000 law, than there ever was 
 under low license. Unfortunately it is all 
 but impossible to secure reliable police re- 
 cords of arrests for drunkenness, etc., for 
 any year of the low license period. But 
 conditions must have been frightful 
 indeed if the evils of the liquor traffic in 
 the Nebraska towns were greater then 
 than they are now. For example, in 
 Omaha (see the above table) there was 
 one arrest in 1888 for every 11 of the 
 rjopulation; and even omitting the 2,701 
 so-called " arrests " of prostitutes in 
 Omaha in that year, there was one arrest 
 for every 14 of the population— a ratio 
 more appalling than that found in any 
 other great American city. The com- 
 plete failure of High License in Nebraska 
 will be alluded to more particularly in 
 another part of this article. 
 
 Missouri, which adopted High License 
 in 1883, has had a similar experience. 
 In the city of St. Louis during the last 
 year of low license ($85) there were 1,800 
 saloons, 3,500 arrests for drunkenness 
 and 14,000 arrests for all causes; while 
 in 1887 the license fee was $559, there 
 were about 1,700 saloons, and the number 
 of arrests for drunkenness was 4,112, and 
 for all causes 15,217. In St. Joseph dur- 
 
 ing the last full year of low license the 
 license fee was $150 and there were 1,935 
 arrests, of which 465 were for drunken- 
 ness ; while during the first full year of 
 High License (April, 1884, to April, 1885) 
 the license fee was $750 and there were 
 2,141 arrests, of which 612 were for 
 drunkenness. 
 
 The cities of the State of Illinois pre- 
 sent records that are uniformly discour- 
 aging to the High License advocates. 
 The following are the figures for Chicago : 
 
 
 
 
 Arrests 
 
 
 Year. 
 
 Saloon 
 
 License 
 
 Fee. 
 
 Total 
 Arrests. 
 
 for Drttnk- 
 
 ENNESS 
 
 and Disor- 
 derly 
 Conduct. 
 
 Arrests 
 
 of 
 Minors. 
 
 1880 
 
 ®52 
 
 28,480 
 
 
 6,144 
 
 1881 
 
 52 
 
 31,713 
 
 
 6,753 
 
 1882 
 
 52 
 
 32,800 
 
 
 7,199 
 
 1883 
 
 103 
 
 37,187 
 
 18,045 
 
 6,675 
 
 1884 
 
 150-500' 
 
 39,434 
 
 21,416 
 
 0,718 
 
 1885 
 
 150-500' 
 
 40,998 
 
 23,080 
 
 6,550 
 
 1880 
 
 500 
 
 44,261 
 
 25,407 
 
 6,841 
 
 1887 
 
 500 
 
 46,505 
 
 26,067 
 
 7,539 
 
 1888 
 
 500 
 
 50,432 
 
 31,164 
 
 8,923 
 
 ' $150 for beer and $500 for strong liquors. 
 
 The last year before the $500 license 
 fee went into effect was 1883; comparing 
 the figures for 1888 with the figures for 
 1883, it is seen that the license fee in- 
 creased 400 per cent., the total arrests 
 increased 35.6 per cent., the arrests for 
 drunkenness and disorderly conduct in- 
 creased 72.7 per cent, and the arrests of 
 minors increased 33.7 per cent, (although 
 special efforts were made by the Citizens' 
 League to keep the boys out of the 
 saloons). The other cities of Illinois 
 show results quite as striking. In Joliet 
 and Bockford, where the annual license 
 rate has been $1,000, crime and intem- 
 perance have steadily increased. J 
 
 Passing by many other examples, we 
 dismiss this branch of the statistical in- 
 quiry with a glance at the High License 
 cities of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. 
 In the former State at the beginning of 
 the license year in 1889 (May 1) two 
 extraordinary statutes went into effect : 
 one limited the number of saloons to one 
 for each 500 of the population in Boston 
 and each 1,000 of the population in every 
 other community ; and the other fixed a 
 minimum annual license rate of $1,000 
 for saloons selling all kinds of liquors for 
 consumption on the premises and an 
 
 1 See " The Political Prohibitionist for 1889," pp. 58, 62. 
 
High License.] 
 
 213 
 
 [High License. 
 
 additional $300 for those selling also for 
 consumption off the premises— so that 
 the minimum annual license rate for the 
 ordinary saloon in Massachusetts became 
 $1,300 on the 1st of May, 1889. The 
 average rate prevailing previously to that 
 date was not in excess of $350, although 
 in some cities $400 and larger sums were 
 charged. But in practically all the cities 
 granting licenses in May, 1889, there was a 
 noticeable increase in arrests. In Boston, 
 although there were only 780 licenses 
 granted in 1889 as against 1,545 in 1888, 
 the arrests for drunkenness numbered 
 5,999 during May, June and July of 1889, 
 as against only 5,261 during the same 
 months of 1888. In Lynn the number 
 of saloons decreased from 120 in 1888 to 
 46 in 188'9, yet the arrests for drunken- 
 ness increased from 444 during May, 
 June and July of 1888 to 517 during the 
 same months of 1889. In Lowell the 
 license fee for the ordinary saloon was 
 $500 in 1888 and $1,400 in 1889, while 
 only 62 licenses were issued in 1889 as 
 against 240 in 1888 ; yet the arrests for 
 drunkenness were 1,348 in the four 
 months of May, June, July and August, 
 1889, as against only 1,204 in the same 
 months of 1888. * 
 
 THE CASE OF PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 All this convincing testimony against 
 High License as a temperance measure 
 has been ignored by the advocates of the 
 policy. When asked to present facts in 
 demonstration of its practical benefits, 
 
 1 For statistics for other license cities of Massachusetts, 
 telling with equal force against High License, see the 
 Voice for Sept. 12 and Oct. 31, 1889. 
 
 The Voice made a still more thorough presentation of 
 Massachusetts police statistics in its issue for April 3, 
 1890. But r his presentation is not so valuable as the others, 
 since the figures for 1889 are figures for the police year 
 which terminated (in most cities) on Jan. 31, 1889, and not 
 for the license year which terminated (in all cities) on 
 April 30, 1890; therefore the figures for the year 1889 given 
 by the Voice represent, at the most, only eight months of 
 the first year of High License in Massachusetts. Besides, 
 the figures'under the heads " License Fee " and " Number 
 of Saloons " are not properly computed in all cases-in this 
 table. BmVthe statistics (official in every, case) of arrests 
 for all offenses and arrests for drunkenness, are of great 
 interest; they show that during the police year 1889 (in- 
 cluding eight months under the new High License law), 
 the arrests for drunkenness and crime were in nearly all 
 cases more numerous than during the low license years 
 1886, 1887 and 1888. For instance, the totals for Boston 
 were : Arrests for ail offe?ises—188S (low license), 38,510; 
 1887 (low license), 30,681; 1888 (low license), 36,009; 1889 
 (eight months High License), 40,066; Arrests for drunk- 
 enness— 1886, 16,179; 1887,19,141; 1888,23,044; 1889,24,991. 
 The totals for Lowell were: Arrests for all offenses— 1886, 
 3,393; 18S7, 3,484; 1888, 4,150; 1889, 4,557; Arrests for 
 drunkenness— 1886, 2,220; 1887, 2,501; 1888, 2,930; 1889, 
 3,307. And the figures for Fall River, Lynn, Lawrence, 
 Springfield and other cities were of the same general 
 character. 
 
 they have merely cited figures showing a 
 decrease in the number of saloons and an 
 increase in the revenue. No attempt 
 has been made to prove that High License 
 has checked intemperance and crime, save 
 only for the city of Philadelphia. The 
 Brooks law went into operation in that 
 city June 1, 1888. The number of liquor 
 licenses was immediately reduced from 
 5,773 in 18S8 to 1,347; and during the 
 five months of June, July, August, Sep- 
 tember and October, 1888, the number of 
 commitments to the County Prison was 
 only 8,455, as against 13,554 in the same 
 months of 1887; while the number of 
 commitments to the House of Correction 
 in the same months showed a decrease 
 from 2,663 in 1887 to 1,823 in 1888. It 
 was claimed that this very large reduc- 
 tion was due to the High License feature 
 of the Brooks law. But the license rate 
 fixed by this law was only $500 ; and ex- 
 perience in other cities had provided no 
 justification for attributing Philadelphia's 
 temperance results to the increased li- 
 cense fee. In fact, these results came 
 wholly from other causes: the Brooks 
 law established a new licensing system 
 for Philadelphia, taking the licensing 
 power out of the control of the corrupt 
 political board that had formerly exer- 
 cised it and placing it in the hands of the 
 Court of Quarter Sessions. This Court 
 manifested great severity; and although 
 more than 3,000 applicants stood ready 
 to pay the $500 license fee, only 1,347 
 licenses were granted. The Judges of 
 the Court were exceptionally aggressive 
 and honorable men, and it was well 
 known to the liquor-dealers that their 
 licenses would not be continued if the 
 restrictions of the law were not re- 
 spected. These peculiar circumstances 
 explain the brief improvement in Phila- 
 delphia from the temperance point of 
 view. The record of decreased com- 
 mitments was not maintained, the fig- 
 ures for the year 1889 showing that 
 crime was again on the increase. The 
 brewers of Philadelphia are more pros- 
 perous than they were under the low 
 license law; for the year ending June 30, 
 1890, the sales of beer in that city aggre- 
 gated 1,458,846 barrels, as against 1,409,- 
 478 barrels for the year ending June 30, 
 1888, the last year of low license. 2 The 
 
 2 The Brewers'' Journal for July, 1890. 
 
High License.] 
 
 214 
 
 [High License. 
 
 most prominent temperance leaders, men 
 who had originated the restrictions of the 
 Brooks law, united in declaring that the 
 High License provision had nothing 
 to do with the decrease in the arrests. 1 
 And there was no such decrease in 
 any other city of Pennsylvania. The 
 traffic in the cities of Pittsburgh and 
 Allegheny was revolutionized in pre- 
 cisely the same way as the traffic in 
 Philadelphia had been ; the licensing 
 power was taken from a political board 
 and given to the Courts, and Judge 
 White, who presided at the licensing 
 session, was even more stringent than 
 the Philadelphia Judges. Under his ad- 
 ministration the number of licenses in 
 Allegheny County (embracing Pittsburgh 
 and Allegheny) was reduced from 2,185 
 in 1887 to 5 "-'a in 1888: yet arrests for 
 drunkenness and crime in the two cities 
 in 1888 showed a decided increase. As 
 for the other cities of Pennsylvania, the 
 Brooks law was attended with no benefi- 
 cial results in any of them. 2 
 
 In making statistical comparisons we 
 have purposely contrasted High License 
 systems with low license systems exclu- 
 sively, 3 in order to discover whether 
 High License has any advantages over 
 low license on temperance grounds. Low 
 license is confessed^ an inefficient tem- 
 perance policy ; nobody claims that in a 
 community where licenses are granted 
 without discrimination the evils of the 
 liquor traffic will be comparatively slight; 
 everybody admits that in such a com- 
 munity these evils will be appalling. 
 High License is championed solely upon 
 the theory that it will be a somewhat bet- 
 ter temperance policy than low license. 
 We have seen that this theory is falla- 
 cious if official statistics are to be re- 
 garded as conclusive. High License laws, 
 even the most rigid, have not checked 
 arrests for intemperance, disorder and 
 crime : that proposition admits of no dis- 
 pute. 
 
 But if it is urged that the different 
 claims for High License noticed at the 
 beginning of this article should be sub- 
 jected to other tests, no difficulty will be 
 
 1 See the letter of Joshua L. ISaily in the Voice, for Jan. 
 31, 1889, and the interview with Lewis D. Vail in the Voice 
 for Oct. 31, 1889. 
 
 2 See " The Political Prohibitionist for 1889," p. 64. 
 
 8 For an examination of the comparative results of High 
 License and Prohibitory laws, see Prohibition, Bene- 
 fits of. 
 
 experienced in reviewing them from any 
 standpoint that may be suggested to the 
 practical mind. Testimony of unques- 
 tioned authority is abundant. 
 
 TESTIMONY FROM THE CLERGYMEN AND 
 OTHERS. 
 
 The testimony of the persons most 
 profoundly and most conscientiously in- 
 terested in the advancement -of temper- 
 ance reform should first be consulted — 
 the testimony of the religious element 
 and of the temperance leaders and organ- 
 izations. Exhaustive inquiries as to the 
 effects of the Nebraska law have recently 
 been made among the Nebraska clergy. 
 In 1890 the Voice sent a series of ques- 
 tions to the ministers of that State, in- 
 cluding the following : 
 
 " After an experience of nine years of High 
 License in Nebraska, how. in your opinion, can 
 tbe power of the saloon be most readily broken 
 and its influence for evil destroyed -by con- 
 tinuing the license system and making it man- 
 datory in all parts of the State, or by prohibit- 
 ing the saloon by law ?" 
 
 Eeplies were received from 285 clergy- 
 men, among whom there were 142 
 Methodist Episcopalians, 17 Baptists, 15 
 Presbyterians, 19 Congregationalists, 3 
 United Brethren pastors, 4 Protestant 
 Episcopalians, 12 Lutherans, 2 Eoman 
 Catholics and 4 Christians; while 67 were 
 affiliated with other denominations. Of 
 these 285 clergymen, 276 answered that 
 observation and experience induced them 
 to believe that High License had failed 
 in Nebraska and Prohibition would be a 
 better policy. 4 Similar investigations 
 have produced similar results. In 1888 
 Rev. G-. H. Prentice of Gilbertsville, N. 
 Y., addressed a number of inquiries, 
 covering the whole ground of the claims 
 made by the advocates of High License, 
 to many Nebraska pastors. The replies, 
 with scarcely an exception, "denounced 
 the law with extraordinary vehemence, 
 declaring it to be worse than worthless 
 as a temperance measure and the strong- 
 est possible barrier to the advancement 
 of Prohibition." 5 Representative reli- 
 gious denominations of Nebraska, at their 
 State meetings, frequently condemn the 
 High License law explicitly, or, by de- 
 claring for Prohibition as the only ac- 
 
 * See the VDice for March 13, June 12 and June 19, 1890 
 5 Political Prohibitionist for 1890, p. 60. 
 
High License.] 
 
 215 
 
 [High License. 
 
 ceptable policy, intimate their condemna- 
 tion of it. The Nebraska Baptist Con- 
 vention declared, Nov. 2, 1888 : 
 
 "We condemn the High License system of 
 Nebraska us morally wrong and a compromise 
 with the powers of darkness, under which the 
 liquor traffic has been fostered and developed 
 until it has become a united and mighty power 
 of evil and a controlling influence in the poli- 
 tics and legislation of our State." 
 
 The Nebraska Presbyterian Synod in 
 1888 declared: 
 
 " We have no faith in compromise, no faith 
 in license, high or low. In the name of God 
 and humanity, we demand that the saloon be 
 made an outlaw in the State and in the nation. 
 We want no fellowship with the 'unfruitful 
 works of darkness.' We want no blood money 
 to pay our taxes and to educate our children. 
 We want no legal enactment to protect this na- 
 tional nuisance from the vengeance of an out- 
 raged people." 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Conference 
 of Nebraska in 1888 declared r 
 
 "That we will adhere to and support only 
 that party which U entirely committed to the 
 principle that the ' complete legal Prohibition of 
 the traffic in alcoholic drinks is the duty of civil 
 government.' We cannot be induced to deviate 
 from this position." 
 
 The temperance leaders of Nebraska 
 who took so active a part in framing the 
 High License act unite in pronouncing it 
 an absolute failure in practice. John B. 
 Finch said in 1885 : 
 
 " I now know I was terribly mistaken in my 
 theories. Many of the delusions urged in de- 
 fense of High License have been exploded by 
 the trial of the law." ' 
 
 H. W. Hardy, known as the " father of 
 High License," has said : 
 
 " High License does increas3 the number of 
 unlicensed drinking-places. The last time we 
 had access to the Internal Revenue Colleclor's 
 books (he won't let us see them lately i. there 
 were 91 persons in Omaha and 17 in Lincoln 
 who held a Government permit without the sign 
 of a city or State license. Of course they were 
 selling liquor, or why did they pay for a Gov- 
 ernment permit ? They are not afraid of local 
 authorities, but do not dare to monkey with the 
 Government. We never knew one liquor dealer 
 to complain of another. They all live in glass 
 houses of violated law. and throwing stones 
 would be dangerous. Some parts of the State 
 are even worse than the cities I have mentioned. 
 It does not le-sen the number cf open saloons. 
 If ten are making clear $1,000 each and you tax 
 each of them $1,000. it would leave them no 
 profits at all ; but if four dropped out, or went 
 into partnership with four others, then they 
 
 1 The Voice, Nov. 12, 1885. 
 
 could pay $6,000 and make money again ; for 
 they save the expense of running four saloons 
 and have all the trade the ten did. It does not 
 lessen the drinks or the curse, but heavily in- 
 creases them. After a man pays *1,000 he 
 pushes things the best ho knows how. It pro- 
 crastinates Prohibition ten years. It is a whiskey 
 devil in temperance garb. We were deceived 
 by it, or Nebraska would have Prohibiiion to- 
 day. The money serves as a bribe In Omaha 
 it is $32 for every voter. Praying church mem- 
 bers vote tor it just for the money. They are 
 willing to let their boys slide rather than miss 
 the money. At first the liquor men fought 
 against it. now tJey all fight for it. Put on re- 
 strictions but don't take their money. A virtu- 
 ous woman may be deceived and betrayed, but 
 when she deliberately sells her virtue for money, 
 what is she ? It is selling boys for drunkards, 
 and girls for drunkards' wives. 
 
 "There is now no longer any excuse for being 
 deceived as we were. The fraud has been test- 
 ed and found wanting. I was first elected 
 Mayor [of Lincoln] in 1877, and again re- 
 elected at the close of my first term. I thought 
 at the time I had do-.e a good thing to reduce 
 the number of saloons from 23 to five, but when 
 I found it d;d not lessen the curse I saw my 
 mistake. There are just as many stabbings, 
 shootings and pound' d noses as ever there 
 were, just ai many broken home3, crying wives 
 and ragged children. It is no great consolation 
 to a houseless, hungry, crying wife to tell her 
 that her husband got. drunk on High License 
 whiskey. High License is one of the devil's 
 best devices to deceive good temperance people. 
 Then to think I was his first agent on earth to - 
 start it ! Don't you think I ought to do some- 
 thing to atone for such conduct?" 2 
 
 SEDUCTIVE INFLUENCES OF THE HIGH 
 LICENSE IDEA. 
 
 In the other States that have tried 
 High License, all the advanced temper- 
 ance workers and most of the clergymen 
 denounce it with equal bitterness. They 
 have looked in vain for beneficial effects, 
 and they have found High License to be 
 the most objectionable form of compro- 
 mise legislation, since the plausible argu- 
 ments in its behalf deceive multitudes of 
 men who would otherwise favor more radi- 
 cal measures, while the large revenue that 
 it brings to the public funds seduces other 
 multitudes. Care is taken, by the artful 
 framers of High License acts, to appeal 
 irresistibly to local selfishness by providing 
 that the largest part of the resulting reve- 
 nue shall be retained in the municipality or 
 county where raised. Of all the struggles 
 made for Constitutional Prohibition, the 
 most unsuccessful ones have been thosa 
 conducted in High License States, bo- 
 
 2 Political Prohibitionist for 1880, p. CO. 
 
High License.] 
 
 216 
 
 [High License. 
 
 cause the masses of the people are loth 
 to surrender an immense revenue, and, 
 not paying careful attention to all the 
 arguments and evidence, are unable to 
 attach due weight to the considerations 
 against High License. 
 
 The seductive influence that this doc- 
 trine has with the masses will be better 
 appreciated when its influence with im- 
 portant elements of the clergy and even 
 with some persons identified with the 
 temperance movement is considered. The 
 Protestant Episcopal Church is practical- 
 ly committed to it, and the Temperance 
 Society of this church is one of the most 
 active promoters of it. The most emi- 
 nent leaders of the Eoman Catholic 
 Church prefer High License as a legislative 
 policy, and the most distinguished total ab- 
 stinence advocate among the Catholics, 
 Archbishop Ireland, while favoring Pro- 
 hibition under certain circumstances, and 
 always speaking against the saloon with 
 great boldness, is an avowed High License 
 man. In the other denominations there 
 are highly influential divines who have 
 stood by High License through all the 
 controversy ; the well-known Presbyter- 
 ian, Dr. Howard Crosby, is foremost 
 among these champions ; and many other 
 clergymen, either by outspoken action or 
 by significant silence, lend respectability to 
 the High License policy. Some of the most 
 important religious weeklies treat the poli- 
 cy with manifest tolerance. And outside 
 the church, even among those who are re- 
 garded as temperance specialists, occasion- 
 al supporters of High License are found. 
 Francis Murphy, the prominent gospel 
 temperance orator, and ex-Judge Noah 
 Davis, whose devotion to the anti-saloon 
 cause is undoubted, are leading repre- 
 sentatives of this class of sympathizers. The 
 examples of such men naturally confuse the 
 minds of the public and are responsible 
 for much of the strength of the High Li- 
 cense movement. Yet the testimony of 
 the clergy and temperance leaders to 
 which we have alluded is in no wise 
 weakened by the circumstance of excep- 
 tions. This testimony relates facts that 
 have never been disputed. The men who 
 cling to the High License idea justify 
 themselves by ingenious arguments and 
 various excuses. They maintain that 
 under certain present circumstances Pro- 
 hibition cannot be or will not be enforced, 
 and therefore they propose the alterna- 
 
 tive scheme of High License. But they 
 have no evidence to offer in proof of the 
 practical value of their plan. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF THE PKESS. 
 
 The testimony against High License 
 so aggressively presented by nearly all the 
 active supporters of the temperance agita- 
 tion is discredited by some on the score 
 that it comes from prejudiced sources, 
 from, Prohibition partisans. No such 
 criticism can be urged against the delib- 
 erate comments of representative daily 
 newspapers. No fact is better understood 
 than that the great dailies of the United 
 States are very loth to offer encourage- 
 ment to the Prohibitionists or to assault 
 compromise liquor legislation. "When a 
 formal attack on High License, upon 
 temperance grounds, is made by an im- 
 portant daily journal, it may almost be said 
 to have the weight of a judicial opinion. 
 
 The Chicago Daily ]\vivs (Ind.) print- 
 ed this remarkable declaration in its issue 
 for April 9, 1888 : 
 
 "We have had High License [$500] in Illi- 
 nois for five years, and while it is a success as a 
 revenue measure, it is an undisguised failure 
 as a tjmperance measure. It in no way checks 
 the consumption of intoxicating liquors as a 
 beverage nor does it in the least degree lessen 
 
 the evils or crime from such use 
 
 The dives and dens, the barrel-houses and 
 thieves' resorts, are as bad and as frequent in 
 this city to-day, after five years of High Li- 
 cense, as they ever were. Call High License 
 what it is. an easy way to raise a revenue from 
 vice, but let there be an end of endoising it as a 
 temperance or reform measure." 
 
 The Chicago Daily Times (Dem.), a 
 newspaper that had uniformly opposed , 
 Prohibition and sustained High License 
 and has done so since, published in its 
 editorial columns, July 10, 1889, an' 
 exceedingly candid article, so important 
 that we reproduce it entire : 
 
 " The recent elections in Pennsylvania and 
 Rhode Island have not in the slightest degree 
 affected the principle that lies behind Prohibi- 
 tion. They have served only 1o estnblish the 
 fact more thoroughly in the minds of those who 
 are fighting the liquor traffic 1hat their enemy 
 is a giant in strength. 
 
 " The difference between those who believe in 
 Prohibition and those who believe in license is 
 precisely the difference between right and 
 wrong. The wrong may triumph, but it is none 
 the less wrong The right may fail, but it is 
 none the less right. 
 
 "If the liquor traffic is legitimate it should 
 not be burdened with any more taxation than is 
 borne by any other legitimate business. If it is 
 
High License.] 
 
 217 
 
 [High License. 
 
 illegitimate or wrongful it should be wiped out 
 altogether. 
 
 " vVhatever the great bulk of those who are 
 friendly to High License may think or believe, 
 or however conscientious they may be, it is 
 plain that the leaders in the movement are but 
 instruments in the hands of the brewers and dis- 
 tillers. They know as well as they know any- 
 thing that High License will not lead to the 
 checking of intemperance in this country. They 
 know as well as they know anything that the 
 licensing of saloons legitimizes the traffic that 
 fills the poor-houses, the jails, the penitentiaries 
 and the lunatic asylums, and that furnishes 
 victims for the gallows. They know that license, 
 in effect, authorizes the whiskey seller to make 
 men drunk and authorizes the whiskey-boozer 
 to get drunk. If the traffic is to be legitimized 
 at all then the man who falls a, victim to it 
 should not be held responsible for his offenses 
 or his crimes. He is simply a victim of the sys- 
 tem which permits a fellow-man to sell him 
 liquid damnation for so much per drink, provid- 
 ing a license fee is paid into the public treasury. 
 
 "The open advocacy of the sale of whiskey 
 is not so contemptible as the advocacy of license 
 by those who profess friendship for the cause of 
 temperance and morality. Those who are so ready 
 to furnish proof going to show that Prohibition 
 is a failure in Iowa and Kansas are paid for 
 furnishing it. If Prohibition is a failure in 
 either of the States named, intelligent people, 
 whether friendly or unfriendly to temperance, 
 understand why it is so. The brewers and dis- 
 tillers of the country have spared neither labor 
 nor money to bring Prohibition into ridicule in 
 Iowa and Kansas. They have shipped beer and 
 whiskey into these States free of charge to those 
 who would handle it, and they have had agents 
 employed, and they have them now, who will 
 give whiskey or beer free of charge to those 
 who will drink it. The end they are aiming at 
 is to make Prohibition appear ridiculous in the 
 sight of the public. It is almost impossible in 
 either of these States to bring about a conviction 
 for violation of the Prohibition law. because the 
 money of the brewers and distillers is used 
 freely to corrupt witnesses and jurors and in 
 suborning testimony. 
 
 '• The High License newspaper might just as 
 well show its hand plainly. If it isn't paid for 
 the work it is doing it is doing very dirty work 
 for nothing." 
 
 The St. Louis Daily Republic (Dem.), 
 after an election at which the political 
 power of the High License saloons of 
 that city (each paying an annual license 
 fee of 8559) had been strikingly and of- 
 fensively shown, attacked the existing 
 license policy in scathing language. It 
 said: 
 
 " These dives [the lowest] are so numerous in 
 the city, their organization is so compact, their 
 clientele so extensive, that as long as present 
 conditions remain they will control the city 
 completely. . . . Our present license law was 
 intended to break their power, but as far as it ap- 
 plies to St. Louis it has rather served to increase 
 
 it. It is just high enough to discriminate 
 against the respectable saloon in favor of the 
 low-class resorts which make an enormous 
 profit on cheap beer and vile whiskey." (Nov. 
 9, 1888.) 
 
 " The groggery, the gambling-house and the 
 brothel control the city's affairs and openly 
 boast their power, and woe to the man who by 
 fair deeds and respect for the laws and his oath 
 of office invites their enmity. He is crushed 
 without mercy, and a more pliant figure-head 
 set up in his place." (Nov. 11, 1888.) 
 
 The Omaha Daily Bee (Eep.), one of 
 the most persevering defenders of the 
 High License law of Nebraska and in- 
 tolerant opponents of Prohibition, was 
 frank enough to say, Dec. 10, 1888, 
 speaking of the saloons of that city, each 
 of which paid annually 81,000 for the 
 privilege of license : 
 
 '■ No one can deny that the license system, as 
 now existing in our city, has been a source of 
 corruption and irregularity. It has had a de- 
 moralizing effect upon members of the City 
 Council and the City Clerk. It has exacted 
 political support from the low dives and bum- 
 mers; it has compelled the orderly liquor- 
 dealers to support with money and influence the 
 very worst element of the city, and has used 
 the liquor men to do the dirty work at the 
 primaries and elections." 
 
 According to the undivided testimony 
 of the anti-Prohibition press of Phila- 
 delphia aud Pittsburgh, even the extra- 
 ordinary restrictive conditions prevailing 
 in those cities were wholly neutralized 
 before the Brooks law had been in opera- 
 tion for two years. The Pittsburgh Com- 
 mercial Gazette (Rep.) said, Jan. 27, 1890: 
 
 "As the time for the municipal election ap- 
 proaches the speak-easies * become bolder in 
 conducting their illegal business. Yesterday 
 [Sunday] not a few of the select 700 [unlicensed 
 places] '' were running wide open. They were 
 not ' speak-easies,' but ' yell-louds,' as they dis- 
 turbed their neighborhoods with their boisterous 
 conduct. What inducsments have regularly 
 licensed saloons to observe the law and renew 
 their licenses in the spring if saloons that pay 
 no license are permitted to sell not only through 
 the week but on Sundays, when of all the days 
 they should be kept shut ? The disregard of 
 the Prohibition law in Maine, Iowa and Kan- 
 sas, that is a very weighty argument against 
 Prohibition, is no more flagrant than the dis- 
 regard of the High License law in this city. If 
 Prohibition is a failure there, then is High 
 License a failure here — at least about election 
 times. The speak-easies have, or imagine they 
 have, a 'pull,' on the political parties that they 
 
 1 A Pennsylvania name for unlicensed liquor saloons. 
 
 2 Thus on the authority of one of the most prominent 
 advocates of High License and restriction, there were TOO 
 lawless saloons running in Pittsburgh in January, 1890. 
 Yet at the last previous session of the License Court only 
 93 licenses had been granted! 
 
High License.] 
 
 218 
 
 [High License. 
 
 thus dare to impudently disregard the law, and 
 the party that would command the respectable 
 vote.which is much stronger than the speak-easy 
 following, would do well to prove its independ- 
 ence of speak-easy influence before election 
 time." 
 
 The Philadelphia Press, chief Repub- 
 lican organ of Pennsylvania, after in- 
 forming itself thoroughly about the situ- 
 ation in Pittsburgh, said editorially, Jan. 
 C, 1890: 
 
 " All accounts agree that High License is a 
 failure in Pittsburgh. ' Speakeasies,' or un- 
 licensed groceries have multipled in every sec- 
 tion of the city, until now it is believed that the 
 nnmLer of places where liquor is sold is con- 
 siderably greater than it was two years ago 
 under low license. These ' speak-easies ' are 
 thinly disguised as 'soft-drink' places, cigar- 
 shops and restaurants. They get their supplies 
 of liquor in the dead of night and sell without 
 hindrance or regulation, when they please and 
 to whom they please." 
 
 The Philadelphia Times (Ind.), speak- 
 ing of conditions in Philadelphia, said, 
 Jan. 22, 1890: 
 
 "There is a general complaint of the large 
 number of places where liquor is sold without 
 a license. These surreptitious barrooms do 
 their principal business on Sundays, when the 
 licensed saloons are closed, though many of 
 them are in operation during the week. They 
 are conducted under various disguises or with 
 no disguise at all, and for the most part they 
 are known to the policeman on the beat." 
 
 THE RUM POWER AND HIGH LICENSE. 
 
 No testimony is of greater interest or 
 value than that furnished by the liquor- 
 sellers themselves. The great object of 
 temperance legislation is to reduce the 
 sales of liquor. This cannot be done 
 without crippling the traffic. No per- 
 sons are so well qualified as the drink- 
 dealers to testify concerning the efficacy 
 of any particular system. Do the drink- 
 dealers regard High License as a temper- 
 ance measure, which interferes with or 
 menaces their traffic ? 
 
 It is true that many liquor men doing 
 business under low license laws antagonize 
 High License bills when proposed for en- 
 actment. Such bills imply an increased 
 expense to each man in the traffic. To 
 numerous retailers they imply the neces- 
 sity of quitting the business. The small 
 retailers outnumber by a very large ma- 
 jority the more prosperous dealers. The 
 wealthy men in "the trade" cannot af- 
 ford to incur the enmity of their fellows 
 by encouraging a revolutionary policy. 
 Therefore in nearly every State the liquor 
 
 element has shown more or less antago- 
 nism to High License legislation when 
 first suggested. But the attitude of the 
 traffic previously to the actual trial of 
 High License does not merit serious con- 
 sideration. It is certain, however, that 
 even in the low license States High 
 License is secretly desired by the more 
 intelligent rumsellers. This point was 
 made clear by the New York Tribune, 
 which said, during the High License 
 campaign of 1888 in New York (Sept. 
 27): 
 
 "One of the developments of this campaign 
 which is going to startle everybody will be tne 
 number of saloon-keepers who are now talking 
 and will be found working and voting for 
 Warner Miller and High License. Ask the 
 owner of a first-class saloon in this city if he 
 favors High jLicense, and he will give you good 
 business reasons why hj should do so." 
 
 In seeking the opinions of the repre- 
 sentative liquor-sellers, however, inquiry 
 need not extend beyond those who are en- 
 titled to speak with authority for " the 
 trade " in general and those who have had 
 practical experience under High License 
 laws. 
 
 J. M. Atherton, President of the Na- 
 tional Protective Association, the fore- 
 most organization of distillers and whole- 
 sale liquor-dealers in the United States, 
 wrote as follows in a letter to E. 0. Fox 
 of Eaton Rapids, Mich., dated at Louis- 
 ville, Ky., March 2,1889: 
 
 '■The two most effective weapons with which 
 to fight Prohibition are High License and Locnl 
 Option. . . . The true policy for the trcde 
 to pursue is to advocate as high a license as 
 they can in justice to themeelvis affcrd to pay, 
 because the money thus rais'ed tends 1o r lieve 
 all owners of property from taxation and keeps , 
 the treasuries of the towns and cities pretty 
 well filled. This catches the ordinary tax- 
 payer, who cares less for the sentimental op- 
 position to our business than he does for taxes 
 on his own property. . . . Until Prohibi- 
 tion is destroyed, or its political efforts bro'-- en, 
 I repeat that our best weapons to fight it with 
 are High License and Local Option by town- 
 ships. If Local Option can be def ea f ed without 
 encouraging Prohibition, it should be done. 
 These are my views in a general way. Of 
 course each locality and State has i's peculir ri- 
 ties, and must modify its views to such exi ting 
 conditions, but I ihink the suggestions 1 have 
 herein given you are sound." 
 
 In 1888, while High License bills were 
 pending in the Legislatures of New York 
 and New Jersey, confidential letters, in- 
 tended for the guidance of the traffic in 
 those States, were written by a number 
 
High License.] 
 
 219 
 
 [High License. 
 
 of distillers and brewers doing business 
 under High License in the West. Peter 
 E. Her, the most prominent distiller of 
 Nebraska, wrote from Omaha (Jan. 7) : 
 
 •' 1. High License has not hurt our business, 
 but, on the contrary, has been a great benefit to 
 it as well as to the people generally. 
 
 " 2. _ I believe somewhat as you say the Cin- 
 cinnati Volksblatt says, that High License acts as 
 a bar against Prohibition It is especially so in 
 this State, as the tax from the license goes to- 
 wards supporting the schools, thereby relieving 
 the citizens and farmers of just so much tax 
 that they would otherwise have to pay, and is 
 therefore especially beneficial to the poor and 
 laboring classes. It also gives the business more 
 of a tone and legal standing, and places it in 
 hands of a better class of people. 
 
 '■ 3. I do not think that High License lessens 
 the quantity of liquor used, but places it in 
 fewer and better hands with better regularity. 
 
 "4. As to the trade repealing the High Li- 
 cense law, if the question was left to it, I do not 
 think, so far as my acquaintance is concerned, 
 that it would do so. I have an extensive ac- 
 quaintance throush this State, and I believe if 
 it were put to a vote of the liquor-dealers and 
 saloon men whether it should be High License, 
 no license or low license, that they would al- 
 most unanimously be for High License. Those 
 objecting would b2 a class without responsib'liiy 
 or character, who never pay for anything if they 
 can help it, and simply start in business for a 
 few months with a view of beating every one 
 they can ; and of course, naturally such a class 
 would not want this law. I cannot see how 
 any one who has anything at stake can help but 
 favor High License and enforcing the law 
 strictly. 
 
 " 5. I would be in favor of High License 
 rather than trust to the non-enforcement of the 
 law under Prohibition. If you undertake to do 
 your business without protection you are black- 
 mailed by one-horse attorneys, which in the 
 end amounts to many times the cost of a license 
 every year, even if the license be very high. We 
 have had a great deal of business in the State of 
 Iowa, both before it was Prohibition and since, 
 and we can say positively that there is very little 
 satisfaction in doing business in that State now. 
 Ever so often the goods are seized, and it causes 
 a great deal of delay and trouble to get them 
 released ; and then there is a fear of not getting 
 money for the goods, and all the forms we have 
 to go throug'i make it very annoying busi- 
 ness. It is like running a railroad underground. 
 You don't know where you ar,j going or what is 
 ahead. In all my experience of ten years in 
 Ohio before the temperance movement and 
 twenty years' experience here previous to High 
 License and since, I believe that High License 
 is one of the grandest laws for the liquor traffic, 
 and. for men interested as well as people at 
 large, there is. The onlv objection that wc have 
 here is that the regulations are not more strictly 
 enforced than they are. I do not believe we 
 would have any Prohibition people in the State 
 if our High License law was more rigidly en 
 forced." 
 
 Metz & Bro., the leading brewers of 
 Nebraska, wrote from Omaha (Jan. 20) : 
 
 "High License has been of no injury to our 
 business. In our State we think it bars out 
 Prohibition. We are positively certain that 
 were it not for our present High License law 
 Nebraska, to-day, would have Prohibition. 
 Please understand that our High License law is 
 also a Local Option law. In our opinion High 
 License does not lessen the consumption of 
 liquor. If left to us, we (the liquor-dealers) 
 would never repeal this law. There are a great 
 many difficulties at first for the brewers and 
 liquor-dealers to get a High License law in 
 working order, but after a year or two you will 
 certainly find it to your advantage over Pro- 
 hibition. We at first made a bitter fight against 
 its enforcement, but since it is well enforced we 
 would not do without it." 
 
 Henry H. Shufeldt & Co., the well- 
 known distillery firm of Chicago, wrote 
 (Jan. 6): 
 
 " • Has High License been any hurt to your 
 business '!' We think not. It weeds out the 
 irr .'sponsible retailers, injuring at first those 
 wholesale dealers who have been selling them, 
 bu. eventually placing the retailing in more 
 responsible hands, thus making collections bet- 
 ter among the wholesalers and thus benefiting 
 the distiller. It may carry down some of the 
 weaker wholesalers who need but little adversity 
 to destroy them, but it eventually places the 
 whole line from the retailer to the distiller on a 
 safe footing. We believe that High License is 
 the only remedy for Prohibition, but coupled 
 with High License should be discretionary 
 power in issuing licenses and just regulations 
 regarding the selling to drunkards, minors, etc. 
 Remove the disreputable elements of the busi- 
 ness and the majority of the people will be 
 satisfied. . . . We think the trade in any 
 State should favor High License and just re- 
 strictions, and that it is the only solvent of the 
 question." ' 
 
 Similar confidential letters of advice 
 were written in 1890 by influential mem- 
 bers of the liquor trade for the benefit of 
 the persons conducting the anti-Prohibi- 
 tion campaign in Nebraska. Devereaux 
 & Meserve, wholesale liquor-dealers of 
 Boston, wrote (March 7) : " Advocate 
 High License and reach all the politicians 
 and others of influence. Do not think 
 you can silence the pulpit, but you can 
 induce some of them to advocate High 
 License on moral grounds " Bowler 
 Bros , brewers, of Worcester, Mass., wrote 
 (March 7) : " Your great battle cry must 
 be 'High License vs. Prohibition.'" 
 Emanuel Furth, attorney for the Penn- 
 sylvania State Liquor League, wrote 
 (March 7) : " My experience has taught 
 
 1 Other letters will be found in " The Political Prohibi- 
 tionist for 1888," 28. 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 220 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 me that the public advocacy of High Li- 
 cense together with legislation regulat- 
 ing and restricting the traffic produces 
 the best results." l 
 
 In the article, Constitutional Pro- 
 hibition, especially under the heads 
 "Massachusetts," "Pennsylvania" and 
 " Rhode Island," we have shown that the 
 High License argument has been one of 
 the most potent influences operating to 
 defeat Prohibition in representative and 
 critical contests. 
 
 For several years the tendency has been 
 steadily towards monopolizing the liquor 
 traffic in a few hands. The distilling 
 business is now praonmilly controlled by 
 trade combinations which wield despotic 
 power. The brewing interests are being 
 rapidly consolidated, particularly under 
 the auspices of an English syndicate of 
 capitalists ; and in all the manufacturing 
 branches of the traffic the policy of cen- 
 tralization has been practically accepted. 
 The retail traffic in nearly all the large 
 cities is to a great extent conducted by 
 mere hired agents of the brewers; a very 
 large majority of the saloons in the repre- 
 sentative centers are mere " tied houses " 
 of great brewing concerns. [See Liquor 
 Traffic] The effect of High License 
 is to precipitate the monopolization of 
 the liquor interests for which the shrewd- 
 est men in the traffic are laboring as a 
 consummation eminently desirable for 
 commercial reasons. High License legis- 
 lation therefore promotes the two most 
 important objects now sought by the 
 organized liquor power in the United 
 States: to defeat the Prohibition move- 
 ment by a compromise policy and to 
 effect a thorough consolidation of trade 
 interests. 
 
 Historical and Philosophical 
 Notes on Intemperance. — The 
 
 survey proposed by the title of this 
 article derives its interest from the 
 two well-worn sayings, that " history is 
 philosophy teaching by example," and 
 that " whatever has a history has a law." 
 It is the law as to intemperance, as it 
 exists in nature and has found expression 
 in civil statutes, which lies at the founda- 
 tion of the present inquiry. Yet more, 
 as statute laws are enacted either by the 
 
 1 These letters were all addressed to William E. Johnson 
 of Lincoln, Neb., and were published in the Voice for 
 April 3 and 17, and May 8, 1890. 
 
 voice of the people or by classes who 
 recognize the people's demand, the his- 
 tory of intemperance reveals what classes 
 of society, male or female, young or old, 
 private citizens or public officers, cul- 
 tured or professional, have been most ex- 
 posed, most prominent, and therefore 
 especially to be mentioned in the history 
 of intemperance. 
 
 The meaning of terms is learned by 
 their use in common conversation and by 
 writers who analyze language. The 
 fullest and clearest statement of the 
 nature of intemperance is found in the 
 Greek writers, who fully studied the his- 
 tory of the effects of intoxicating drinks 
 and who had widely observed as well as 
 carefully analyzed the demands of the 
 public interest and duty as to their use. 
 Never, probably, was this discussion so 
 thorough as it was made by the greatest 
 of Grecian teachers, and in the writings 
 of Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle, who 
 discussed all moral questions and compre- 
 hended the wisdom of all ages. 
 
 The first two of the 12 books of Plato's 
 Laws are almost wholly devoted to the 
 discussion of the moral demands upon 
 the civil authorities of any community 
 which justify and compel legislation re- 
 straining from the use of intoxicating 
 wines. A Spartan insists that military 
 hardihood requires entire abstinence; 
 while on the other hand an Athenian ar- 
 gues that though women, children and ser- 
 vants should be prohibited their use, men 
 of mature age may seek their stimulus, 
 except pilots, magistrates and men having 
 like responsible trusts, who must never 
 allow their clearness of mind to be in the 
 least endangered by any stimulant. 
 Meanwhile a Cretan (representing Minos, 
 who was the generally-recognized Moses 
 of the early Grecian legislation) main- 
 tains this balanced judgment, that there 
 is a distinction between mere beverages 
 and nourishing food. As to food, there 
 should be no restrictive law, since tem- 
 perance, or the moderate use, should be 
 learned and followed by each individual 
 without civil statutes to control; while 
 parents and guardians, however (as stew- 
 ards in the army and on shipboard), must 
 apportion food supplies. On the other 
 hand, intoxicating liquors are entirely 
 different from food. Their use should 
 be restricted and prohibited. The Athe- 
 nian had argued that positive "temper- 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 221 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 ance " can only be learned by having once 
 tasted the intoxicating cup, and asks 
 (Plato, Laws, i, 14, 15) : " How will any- 
 one be perfectly temperate who has not 
 fought with and overcome by reason and 
 effort and art, in sport and in earnest, 
 many sensual indulgences and lusts that 
 urge him to act with shamelessness and 
 wrong ? " This led Xenophon, who wrote 
 not only his "Memorabilia of Socrates," 
 but his "Anabasis" or military journey 
 with Cyrus into Asia Minor, and his 
 "Cyropedia" or training of a prince, to 
 give two meanings to the term " temper- 
 ance " — one, moderation in healthful in- 
 dulgence; the other, abstinence from 
 things dangerous, as the use of intoxi- 
 cating wines. (Xenophon, Memor. ii, 
 i, 1.) Aristotle makes the same distinc- 
 tion, urging at length its importance. 
 As to the former he states (Nichom. Eth. 
 ii, 2: G, T, 8): "By abstaining from 
 sensual indulgences we become temperate ; 
 and, when we have become so, we are best 
 able to abstain from them." As to the 
 latter he declares that positive law must 
 restrain and prohibit it, and he says: 
 "Just, then, as the Trojan elders felt re- 
 specting Helen (Iliad, iii, 158), must we 
 feel respecting unlawful pleasure : in all 
 cases we must pronounce sentence as they 
 did ; for thus by sending it away we shall 
 be less likely to fall into fatal error " (ii, 
 9 : 3, 4, 5). As to the vice of " intem- 
 perance," commenting on the Greek word 
 for " temperance " (egkratia, having " in- 
 ward strength"), he compares (vii, 8: 1) 
 licentiousness with " drunkenness," stat- 
 ing that "The former is incurable, the 
 latter curable. The former, as a deprav- 
 ity (or functional disorder), resembles 
 dropsy or loss of flesh ; but licentiousness 
 resembles epilepsy (an organic disease) : 
 the former is permanent, the latter is not 
 permanent." 
 
 This view of intemperance as a bodily 
 disease and a depravity, derived from the 
 very term to express it, as " abstinence " 
 from drinks that derange the action of 
 reason ard self-control, passed down 
 through all subsequent literature, enter- 
 ing into the Greek of the Old and New 
 Testament precepts as to the use of in- 
 toxicants; being especially marked in 
 Paul's use of the term before Felix and 
 in his Epistles ; while it rules in all the 
 early and later Greek Church writers, 
 and has led to the universal use of a wine 
 
 made from fresh raisins where unintoxi- 
 cating wines are not accessible in sacred 
 rites. Without this careful notice of the 
 meaning of temperance, the laws of 
 Judea, Egypt, Greece and Eome, prohi< 
 biting the use of intoxicating liquors, and 
 that because they lead to "intemperance," 
 could not be understood; nor could its 
 history, as recorded by Brahminic, He- 
 brew, Greek or Eoman writers, be com- 
 prehended so as to be a practical guide. 
 
 The history of intemperance, as of 
 other vices, is marked by stages of in- 
 crease and decrease, of indulgence and 
 abstinence — the prevalence of a demand 
 for express statutes against intemperance 
 bringing out its history. It should be 
 carefully noted that ancient records, like 
 modern newspaper reports, may mislead 
 as to the extent of intemperance ; for, as 
 in New York the exceptional cases of 
 drunkenness, as of other immoralities, 
 are all reported, these violations of the 
 law do not represent the mass of the 
 people, whose observance of law is not 
 mentioned. In tracing this history, re- 
 gard to time, especially of leading eras, 
 must first be observed ; next the distinc- 
 tion of races and nations, especially the 
 most cultured; while in each age and 
 nation it should be carefully observed, 
 first, that statutes prohibiting intoxicat- 
 ing liquors, and second, that philan- 
 thropic provision of unintoxicating 
 beverages, are the most palpable links in 
 the chain of the history of intemperance. 
 
 First Era: Patriarchal History {from 
 B. C. 2350 to 1600).— All writers note 
 that intemperance begins with Noah, 
 the second and actual head of the human 
 race. It is worthy of note, as observed 
 by the ablest critics of sacred and secu- 
 lar literature, that the intoxication of 
 Noah, the head of the three human 
 families, was first, the result of ignorance 
 of law, and second, was a lesson instruc- 
 tive in all time. While Eve in tasting 
 the unexpressed juice of the forbidden 
 fruit was forewarned by the divine prohi- 
 bition and yet was beguiled by the tempt- 
 er, Noah " was beginning " (as the Eng- 
 lish, following the Greek rendering of 
 Gen. 9 : 23 intimates) " to be a husband- 
 man," and was, therefore, ignorant of the 
 poison of decay in the expressed juice of 
 the grape, the most healthful and luscious 
 of fruits. The effects of his intemper- 
 ance, on himself and on two of his sons, 
 
Historical, etc.J 
 
 222 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 Shem and Japhet, the heads of the 
 Asiatic and European races, is manifestly 
 an indication of a law leading to temper- 
 ance; while on Ham, the head of the 
 African race, and especially on Canaan, 
 the most abandoned son of Ham, it is an 
 indication of an implanted hereditary 
 appetite leading to intemperance. This 
 appears in the more than beastly licen- 
 tiousness, and in the deranging effects of 
 intoxicating wines, which had corrupted 
 even the daughters of righteous Lot who 
 were betrothed to " Sodomites " (Gen. 19 : 
 5, 8, 31-36); a corruption whose cause is 
 especially kept in mind by the Old Testa- 
 ment writers, as Moses (Deut. 33: 32) 
 and the prophets, in their allusions to 
 Sodom. It is the key to all former and 
 subsequent history as to the evils of in- 
 temperance, which Jesus declares in his 
 statement of the prime cause of all asso- 
 ciated vices and faults, which brought 
 the destruction of the flood in Noah's 
 day and of earthquake and fire on Sodom ; 
 putting this first : " They ate, they drank" 
 (Luke 17: 27,28) ;— intemperance through 
 lust leading on to corruption of every re- 
 lation in life. 
 
 In that same age there was a pure use 
 of wine both by religious leaders in 
 Canaan, as Melchizedek (Gen. 14: 18), 
 who was superior in pious devotion to 
 Abraham (Heb. 7: 4, 7), and in Chaldea, 
 whereeven Job, who lived 140 years after a 
 family of sons and daughters had attained 
 mature age, had reason to fear that a 
 curse might follow their feasts (Job 1: 
 4, 5, 13; 8:4; 42: 16). The most im- 
 portant fact in the patriarchal history is 
 the discovery of a mode of preserving 
 wines from ferment, indicated in the 
 "tirosh" blessed by Isaac (Gen. 27: 28, 
 37). The mode of preparation of these 
 unfermented wines is depicted on tomb- 
 walls of that age. 
 
 Second Era : Early Asiatic and African 
 History {from B. C. 1600 to 1100). -This 
 period, extending back to an earlier his- 
 tory in Babylonia, Egypt and India, the 
 three centres of earliest civilization and 
 culture, the period of written history and 
 of ancient Asiatic literature, embraces 
 the ages of Moses and of the Hebrew 
 commonwealth ruled by Judges. The 
 history of intemperance in this age is to 
 be traced, first,, in the early Vedas of 
 India, to which Moses seems to allude 
 (Deut. 8 : 4), since he uses numerous 
 
 terms borrowed from the Sanscrit lan- 
 guage ; second, in the books of Moses, of 
 Joshua and Judges; and third, in the 
 statements of Herodotus and later Greek 
 historians. In Egypt the details of the 
 vice of intemperance in the use both of 
 luxuries and wines are pictured on the 
 walls of early tombs; while three facts 
 cause this violation to stand out in prom- 
 inence : (1) The very early discovery of 
 the mode of preserving wines free from 
 ferment, which unintoxicating wines 
 were stored in such abundance, as the 
 tomb-walls indicate, that it is doubtful 
 whether the pictures of disgusting spew- 
 ing at feasts do not represent the intem- 
 perance of luxury rather than that of in- 
 toxication ; (2) The fact that abstinent 
 societies, bearing the Hebrew name of 
 "Nazarites," had grown up before Moses's 
 day, for whom he gives laws as an already 
 existing association (Num. 6 : 1-15), and. 
 whose very existence indicates a demand 
 growing out of prevalent intemperance; 
 (3) The prohibition of wines to priests, 
 found written on an Egyptian scroll of 
 papyrus, prior to and confirming later 
 statements of Herodotus, Diodorus and 
 others, in which these words ' occur : 
 " Thou knowest that wine is an abomina- 
 tion. Thou hast taken an oath as to 
 strong drink that thou wouldst not take 
 such into thee. Hast thou forgotton thy 
 vow ? " 
 
 In India the existence of early intem- 
 perance is indicated by these facts: (1) 
 That in early education entire abstinence 
 is required, and that entire abstinence is 
 a permanent law for Brahmins or the 
 priestly class ; (2) That the military class 
 are specially warned against indulgence; 
 (3) That abstinence is urged as a virtue 
 on lower classes, as merchants, and (4) . 
 That intemperance is the prominent vice 
 declared to unfit men for a pure and 
 happy life beyond the grave. Among 
 the statutes of Menu, who gives a di- 
 gest of the laws of the Vedas, is one 
 which forbids youth to have any inter- 
 course with "a drinker of intoxicating 
 liquors" (iii, 159). The life-long ab- 
 stinence of Brahmins is thus enjoined: 
 "Any twice-born man (the designation 
 of the priestly class), who has intention- 
 ally drunk spirits of rice, must drink 
 more of the same spirit on fire," " or he 
 may drink boiling, until he die, the urine 
 of a cow" (xi, 91). If he have drunk 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 intoxicants " unknowingly," penalties 
 lasting an entire year are imposed (xi, 
 93). As to kings, it is declared that if 
 guilty of the "ten vices," among which 
 "drunkenness" is prominent, "a king 
 must lose both his wealth and his virtue 
 . . . and even his life " (vii, 46, 47, 
 50). As to the future life, this penalty 
 is recorded: "A priest who has drunk 
 spirituous liquors shall migrate into the 
 form of a smaller or larger worm or insect, 
 of a moth or of a fly, feeding on ordure, 
 or of some carnivorous animal" (xii, 56). 
 
 This vice in Ohaldea is only indirectly 
 indicated at this era, in records not yet 
 fully deciphered. 
 
 In the history of Israel its records be- 
 long to the subject of Bible Wines. 
 The united vices of Egypt, developed 
 both in the Israelites and with the 
 '* mixed multitude " that went out with 
 them, break out at Sinai in intemperance, 
 as the leading vice, to whose influence the 
 historic Psalmist and Christ's great Apos- 
 tle attribute all their future vices and the 
 penalties following, as embodied in the 
 statement : " The people sat down to eat 
 and drink, and rose up to play " (Ex. 12 : 
 38; 32: 6, 19; Psal. 106: 14; 1 Cor. 10: 
 7). Moses himself in his farewell ad- 
 dress links this, as does Jesus afterwards, 
 with the vice of Sodom ; intemperance 
 being the " root of gall " in all history 
 (Deut. 29: 16-28; Luke 17: 28). This 
 law of intemperance and its ever attend- 
 ing penalty (seen in the infliction of death 
 on a drunkard's son, Deut. 21: 18-21), 
 is one of the facts most clearly revealed 
 (Deut. 29: 29); while cowardice, which 
 violation of the law of temperance en- 
 genders, brought all their national failures 
 and sufferings (Deut. 32 : 28-38). It is 
 a natural connection which appears in 
 ' the facts which follow this outbreak of 
 intemperance while Moses is receiving 
 their law at Sinai : the statute requiring 
 religious teachers to abstain from intoxi- 
 cating wine, so like to that of the Brah- 
 mins of India (Lev. 10 : 9) ; the laws for 
 the Nazarite abstainers (Num. 6 : 1-21); 
 the special direction that the wine of the 
 people's offering shall be "fresh unfer- 
 mented grape-juice" (Num. 18:12); and 
 the cowardice of the military leaders, and 
 their subsequent rashness, leading to de- 
 feat, are just the history repeated in all 
 lands down to that of the French in 1870 
 (Num. 13 : 31; 14 : 40-45). The 400 
 
 years cf the Judges show the alternating 
 history of the reign of intemperance and 
 abstinence; the vow of Samson's mother 
 and of Hannah indicating a spirit of the 
 age that called for it (Judges 13 : 4, 7; 
 comp. 9: 27; 16:25;1 Sam. 1: 13,15, 28; 
 comp. 2 : 12-36). Interwoven is the 
 picture of country delight in the " fruit 
 of the vine," seen in Boaz and his fields 
 (Ruth 2 : 14), whose perpetuation now 
 in the south of France led Dr. Duff to 
 new views of the simple " fruit of the 
 vine" appointed by Christ for laborers 
 in his vineyard. 
 
 Third Era: Ancient Asiatic and Early 
 Grecian Military Government {from about 
 B. C. 1100 to 500).— This era corresponds 
 very nearly to that of the kings of Israel 
 and Judah, and to the long list of Gre- 
 cian and Roman, Babylonian and Persian, 
 Chinese and other writers who have di- 
 rectly or indirectly presented this history. 
 Here, as in the previous history, the sad 
 fulfillments of the warnings of both Moses 
 and Samuel as to temptations of monarch- 
 ical or military government follows 
 (Dent. 17: 14-17; 1 Sam. 8: 5-18) a rec- 
 ord belonging to Bible history. The 
 most instructive pages of the history of 
 intemperance are found in its alternating 
 revival and decline, in rulers like David 
 and Solomon, of Belshazzar and Cyrus, 
 according as the spirit of abstinence from 
 or indulgence in intoxicating wines ruled. 
 In this respect the history of the kings 
 and kingdoms of Israel and Judah is like 
 that of Babylonia and Persia. In David's 
 early life as a shepherd his beverage was 
 the fresh-pressed juice of the grape 
 (Psal. 23 : 6; and 2 Sam. 6 : 19); as all 
 visitors to Palestine, Italy and southern 
 France have recognized in present cus- 
 toms, and as has been elaborated in all 
 ages of the Christian Church by early 
 Greeks, as Origen and Epiphanius in the 
 Greek, by Cyprian, Ambrose and Jerome 
 in the Roman, and by Cocceius in the 
 early Reformed churches. But in early 
 life he met men like Nabal, who in lux- 
 urious ease "drank himself drunk" on 
 intoxicating wine (1 Sam. 25 : 36). When, 
 again, his home was invaded and his 
 family carried away by marauding desert 
 hordes, he was able with a handful of 
 men, ruled by abstinence, to overtake and 
 rout an army "eating and drinking and 
 dancing" (1 Sam. 30 : 16). His Psalms, 
 as well as the history of his degenerate 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 224 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 sons, show the curse on his family and 
 his kingdom which intemperance brought. 
 Amnion, brother of Absalom, is guilty of 
 incest ; he is next carousing, " merry with 
 wine;" in his drunken debauch he is 
 assassinated by his brother's order ; David 
 is overcome with uncontrollable grief; 
 his sons share his humiliation and bitter 
 agony ; the slayer is prompted to rebellion ; 
 he dies a wretched death, and David's cup 
 of woe overflows (2 Sam. 13: 6-14,28, 29, 
 31, 36, 37-39; 14: 24, 28.33; 15:3,4, 
 23, 30; 16 : 5-8; 18 : 13). Such experi- 
 ences, no wonder, drew out the confession 
 of personal indignity : " With hypocritical 
 mockers in feasts, they gnashed upon me 
 with their teeth" (Psal. 35 : 16); and 
 again the lament, afterwards verified in 
 this prophecy of Jesus, " I was the song 
 of the drunkards " (Psal. 69 : 12; compare 
 verse 21 with Mat. 27: 34-44). No won- 
 der that in the only four cases of David's 
 use of the term "yayin" (wine), one 
 pictures the delight of his early pure life 
 (Psal. 104 : 15), on whose nature all stu- 
 dents, Hebrew or Christian, were agreed; 
 while the other three are in the following 
 words : " Thou hast made us to drink the 
 wine of astonishment " (Psal. 60 : 3) ; 
 " In the hand of the Lord is a cup, and 
 the wine is red " (Psal. 75 : 8) ; " The 
 Lord awaked ... as a mighty man 
 that shouteth by reason of wine " (Psal. 
 78: 65). Solomon's youthful experience 
 of the delights of intoxicating beverages 
 and his warnings against the intoxicating 
 wines are central in Asiatic as well as 
 Hebrew history, since they fill the three 
 works of his life as divine teaching. To 
 the maiden of his early, pure attachment, 
 in her country home, to whom he speaks, 
 " Thy love is better than wine " (Cant. 
 1 : 2, 4, and 4 : 10), and she responds, 
 "He brought me to the banqueting 
 house, and his banner over me was love " 
 (2 : 4), — to this maiden, Solomon, in 
 the purity of his youth, indicates the pure 
 fruit of the wine then drunk thus : " I 
 have drunk my wine with my milk" 
 (5 : 1) ; " The best wine for my beloved " 
 (7:9); "I would cause thee to drink of 
 spiced wine " (8 : 2). In the poem of his 
 mature yoars, he traces all vices, entice- 
 ment to licentiousness, neglect of parental 
 remonstrances, demoralizing passion, and 
 finally insensibility to all degradation, to 
 intoxicating wine. He speaks of "the 
 wine of violence" (Prov. 4: 17); of the 
 
 abandoned seducer's " mingled " and in- 
 flaming wine (9 : 2, 5) ; and he declares, 
 " Wine is a mocker, strong drink is rag- 
 ing" (20 : 1). Clustered in connection 
 are these associated warnings: "Be not 
 among wine bibbers; The drunkard and 
 the glutton shall come to poverty ; Hearken 
 unto thy father that begat thee, and to thy 
 mother when she is old; The strange 
 woman lieth in wait, as for a prey, and 
 increaseth the transgressors among men. 
 Who hath woe, who hath sorrow ? Who 
 hath contentions ? Who hath babblings ? 
 Who hath wounds without cause ? Who 
 hath redness of eyes ? They that tarry 
 long at the wine ; they that go to seek 
 mixed wine. Look not on the wine when 
 it is fed, when it giveth its color in the 
 cup, when it moveth itself aright. At 
 last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth 
 like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold 
 strange women, and thine heart shall ut- 
 ter perverse things. Yea, thou shalt be 
 as he that lieth down in the midst of the 
 sea, or as he that lieth upon the top of a 
 mast. They have stricken me, shalt thou 
 say, and I was not sick; they have beaten 
 me, and I felt it not. When shall I 
 awake ? I will seek it yet again" (Prov. 
 23: 20-35). The annals of literature do 
 not contain a more perfect picture - not 
 even Paul's picture in Romans I, and 
 Tacitus's history of Nero's age, as the 
 statements of both writers are now re- 
 vealed in unburied Pompeii— than this 
 by Solomon of the successive stages of 
 drunken debauch, ending with the spew- 
 ing as in seasickness, the stupid insensi- 
 bility to the blows of excited comrades, 
 and the mad return to drink again, like 
 "the dog to his vomit, and the swine 
 to wallowing in the mire," so often alluded 
 to by Solomon (Prov. 23: 8; 25: 16; 26: 
 11), by Isaiah (19 : 14 ; 28 : 8), by Jeremiah 
 48: 26), by Jesus (Matt. 7 : 6) and by 
 Peter (2 Peter 2: 22). So like in all its 
 links is the chain of the fruits of intem- 
 perance, that this last and most disgust- 
 ing degradation of animals had passed in 
 early history into a proverb. The most 
 instructive of all is the fact that Solomon, 
 like all men early and truly taught and 
 wrought of God, confesses his own folly 
 when, having become more than sated 
 with the luxuries of the king, he in his 
 old age turned " preacher "( Eccl. 6 : 1 ; 
 12 : 2, 3); when he sought to reach youth 
 and men of station because, like reformed 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 225 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 drinkers in this and all ages, he " could be 
 touched with the feeling of their infirmi- 
 ties," even as tne stainless Redeemer him- 
 self could not be (Eccl. 1: 16, 17; 2:3, 
 24-26; 11: 9, 10). 
 
 The division of the kingdom of Israel 
 brought the northern Israelites into closer 
 contact with foreign nations, and intro- 
 duced their habits of intemperance, as the 
 prophetic writers of that age indicate. 
 Isaiah's- picture is most touching, of the Di- 
 vin3 Father, who had especially chosen Is- 
 rael for his people, looking down to see the 
 corrupted fruit and the corrupter wine of 
 his vineyard, while of rulers he writes : 
 " They rise early in the morning to fol- 
 low strong drink, that continue until 
 night till wine inflame them," that boast 
 because " mighty to drink wine " — this 
 intemperance sapping their vigor, inflam- 
 ing pussion and proving thus the cause 
 of their captivity (5 : 1-22). Then Egypt 
 comes in, " caused to err in every work as 
 a drunken man staggereth in his vomit " 
 (19 : 14). Then Tyre, the Phoenician 
 mart, sighs because intemperance has 
 brought neglected fields; because "the 
 fresh new wine nourisheth, there is a cry 
 for wine in the streets," and "strong 
 drink is bitter " (24 : 7-11). Then comes 
 the fearful penalty on "the drunkards 
 of Ephraim," the glorious beauty of their 
 fat valleys faded, because, "overcome 
 with wine, they have erred through wine " 
 (28 : 1-14) ; the final result being bloody 
 battles, they becoming " drunken but 
 not with wine, drunken with their own 
 blood" (29: 9; 49: 26; 51: 21). The 
 divine appeal, quoted in every hamlet to 
 this day, "Come, buy wine and milk 
 without money and without price" (55: 
 1), is literally fulfilled where temperance 
 reigns. 
 
 Hosea, writing in the same land and 
 time, touches the root of associated 
 evils when he writes: "Whoredom and 
 wine and new wine take away the heart " 
 (4 : 11); and again, when of debauched 
 Ephraim he says : " The princes have 
 made him sick with wine " (7 : 5). Joel 
 brings out the yet darker picture that 
 drinkers of wine will 'sell their own 
 daughters into lives of infamy for wine 
 (1:5; 3 : 3). Amos, calling to mind an 
 eart'-quake sent as a warning, remon- 
 strates with those who sought to corrupt ab- 
 stainers, giving them wine and themselves 
 drinking it in bowls (1:1; 2:12; 6:0). 
 
 Nahum, picturing intemperance in Nine- 
 veh, and its effect as " drying thorns for 
 burning," says: '■ while they are drunken 
 as drunkards they shall be devoured as 
 stubble fully dry " (1 : 1, 10). Finally, 
 Habakkuk, picturing the craving for 
 licentious indecency, awakened intention- 
 ally now as in all ages in drinking 
 saloons, utters the warning : " Woe unto 
 him that giveth his neighbor drink; that 
 putteth thy bottle to them, that maketh 
 them drunken also, that thou mayest 
 look on their nakedness." 
 
 Turning from Israel to more isolated 
 Judah, even among them intemperance 
 and its penalties appear. While the con- 
 nections of the northern kingdom are 
 more extended -with Syria (where Da- 
 vid's son Absalom was corrupted at the 
 court of his mother's father), with Tyre 
 (among whose merchants Solomon's serv- 
 ants learned luxury), and indirectly with . 
 Nineveh on the Tigris and Babylon on the 
 Euphrates, — Judah's prophets mention 
 unlike and like associations; Jeremiah 
 picturing influences coming from Edom 
 and Egypt, Daniel those of captives 
 in Babylon, and Ezekiel of captives 
 on the Tigris. Jeremiah pictures 
 the tauntings, like those of David, 
 like those now met from "moderate 
 drinkers," defending their indulgence 
 and boasting their power to stop with 
 "moderation;" but Jeremiah declares 
 that even their kings, priests and 
 prophets will drift into " drunkenness " 
 (13 : 13, 14); for the "pastors," unlike 
 the shepherd David, are " overcome with 
 wine " and " scatter the sheep," while, as 
 now, their excited harangues are " false 
 dreams " (23 : 1, 9-12, 21-34). Glanc- 
 ing at the whole circuit of surrounding 
 nations, from Arabia on the southeast 
 to the Medes on the northeast, and from 
 Egypt to Tyre on the west, in bold figure 
 the prophet represents the Lord of Hosts, 
 the God of Israel, because they will not 
 heed the voice of warning, exclaiming: 
 " Drink ye, and be drunken, and spew 
 and fall, and rise no more ! because of 
 the sword which I will send among you " 
 (25 : 15-28). To test Judah's spirit of 
 obedience to their divine lawgiver, the 
 prophet brings into the temple the Eecha- 
 bites, true, because of their father's 
 teachings, to their vow of abstinence 
 (35:1-14). Finally, he pictures Edom, 
 nigh to Jerusalem, and Babylon, where 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 226 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 they were to be tried in captivity, as 
 seducers, speaking of Babylon as "the 
 golden cup in the Lord's hand," of whom 
 it is said: "She made all the earth 
 drunken; the nations have drunken of 
 her wine ; therefore the nations are mad ; 
 Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed " 
 (Jer. 51 : 7, 8) ; while of Edom he writes: 
 " The cup also shall pass through unto 
 thee; thou shalt be drunken, and make 
 thyself naked " (Lam. 4 : 21). 
 
 It is in perfect keeping with these 
 Hebrew records, written at a distance, to 
 find Daniel and Xenophon in accord as 
 eye-witnesses of intemperanee and its 
 curse in the rich valley of the Euphrates 
 and Tigris, the early home of mankind, 
 and of Persia and Media beyond all of 
 whom began with the lesson of Noah's 
 experience, while only true piety saved 
 the rulers and people from fall. Daniel 
 finds the king's wine intoxicating and 
 will not drink of it, proving the virtue of 
 abstinence by using only wine that was 
 the fresh product of the vine, drank by 
 the Pharaoh of Jacob's day (Dan. 1 : 5, 
 8-21 and 10 : 3; compare with Gen. 
 40 : 9-13). The mingling of all the vices 
 that have ruined princes and people has 
 its climax in Belshazzar, feasting with 
 his concubines, sacrilegiously sending for 
 the sacred vessels dedicated to religious 
 rites by Moses and Solomon, and drink- 
 ing wine out of them; while that very 
 night the Persian invaders, taking advan- 
 tage of this insane revelry of Babylonian 
 leaders, and breaking into the city : 
 brought with them a purer sway (Dan. 
 5: 1-4, 30, 3L; 10:1; comp. Ezral:l-31). 
 That better day dawned because of the 
 pure life of that Cyrus pictured by Xeno- 
 phon; and the restoration of God's law, 
 binding in all ages alike on political and 
 religious leaders, was ihus prophesied by 
 Ezekiel: "Neither shall any priest drink 
 wine when they enter into the inner 
 court" (44:21). 
 
 These constant allusions in the Hebrew 
 Scriptures to intemperance in Asiatic 
 nations prepare us for the statements of 
 Greek poets like Homer, of historians 
 like Xenophon, and of philosophers both 
 of Greece and Rome. Even Grecian and 
 Roman moralists censured Homer, who 
 wrote about B. C. 900, for picturing gods 
 as both lustful and given to wine; and 
 there is a species of criticism that in our 
 day perverts the very idea of Homer as of 
 
 the Hebrew inspired poets. By gods 
 and demi-gods, Homer, whose poems are 
 all studded with recognitions of the one 
 living and true God, the maker and ruler 
 of all, means men who claim to be and 
 ought to be his representatives; while, 
 too, in the Asiatic Trojans, in whose city 
 and by his own family the seducer of 
 the Grecian -Helen is for ten years sus- 
 tained both by popular and family sup- 
 port, Homer, as Grecian, Roman and 
 later sages have noted, means to picture 
 just what Daniel describes in the divine 
 claim of Nebuchadnezzar that his image 
 should be worshipped, and the acquiescence 
 of Darius in the command that no prayer 
 should for 30 days be offered to any God 
 but him; though both Nebuchadnezzar 
 and Darius recognized and worshipped 
 the one true god tDan. 2 : 47; 3 : 6, 29; 
 6 : 6-9, 20, 26). In the Iliad the simple 
 fare of Grecians in the camp is presented, 
 Spartan-like in rejection of intoxicating 
 wines; while in the Odyssey the luxurious 
 feasts of indolent courtiers fill the nar- 
 rative. The Greek warriors, compelled 
 to sit at royal banquets, drank only 
 " diluted wine," and this sparingly, pour- 
 ing out most of it as a libation to deity, 
 the idea of which is the sacrifice of luxu- 
 ry and especially the maintaining of 
 abstinence from a sense of responsibility 
 (Iliad, i, 598; ii, 128; iii, 391; iv, 3, 207; 
 vi, 266; vii, 313-324; xix, 38, &o.) — the 
 custom, still preserved, of christening a 
 ship by pouring out wine on its deck im- 
 plying that wine is abjured by seamen to 
 whom sacred trusts of life and property 
 are committed. In the Odyssey the ac- 
 counts of the luxurious banquets spread 
 by Telemachus for suitors who hoped to 
 persuade his mother, Penelope, that her 
 long-absent husband, Ulysses, is dead, 
 fill the first book, Telemachus revealing 
 his indignation at the luxury. The 5th 
 Book brings in the two goat-skin bottles, 
 " soaked in fragrant oil,'' to guard from 
 ferment ; one filled with water, the other 
 with " sable wine " as supplies on the raft 
 by which Ulysses escaped from Calypso's 
 Isle. The 8th Book describes the ban- 
 quet spread by Antinous for his unknown 
 guest, at which Ulysses alone, who is the 
 unknown guest, pours out the wine 
 offered him as a libation to deity. The 
 10th contains his account of the 
 " drugged wine," by which Circe trans- 
 formed some of his men into " swine," 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 227 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 and the 20th describes Ulysses's in- 
 dignation at the luxury which he found 
 reigning at his own court (which he has 
 entered unknown), compelled, as seen in 
 Book i, by the degenerate princes who 
 were seeking his throne. No unadorned 
 history could compare with these earliest 
 Grecian poems in teaching the evils of 
 intemperance; while the irreverent cast 
 some have supposed in them is offset by 
 the fact that at the banquets of pure 
 deities sweet " nectar " is used, styled 
 " aporrox," the drippings of the grape- 
 clusters bursting when fully ripe (Odys. 
 ix, 359). 
 
 Herodotus, writing four and a half 
 centuries after Homer, about B. C. 450, 
 brings out facts as to intemperance and 
 its laws in Egypt, Persia and Greece. 
 At the time of his visit, the Persian sway 
 had brought a new era. Of the Egyptian 
 priests he says : " They are of all men the 
 most scrupulously attentive to the wor- 
 ship of the Gods." Among their rules 
 of diet and sanitary laws, as minute as 
 those of Moses for Levites, is mentioned : 
 " Wine from the grape (oinos ampelinos) 
 is given them " (ii, 37), recalling Joseph's 
 day in Moses's record. Speaking of the 
 people " who inhabit that part of Egypt 
 which is sown with grain " (ii, 77), after 
 describing their respect for ancient cus- 
 toms and regard for health, Herodotus 
 says : " They feed on bread made of spelt 
 (olura), which they call Jcyllestis; and 
 they use wine made of barley (krithe), for 
 they have no vines in that country." 
 This accords with all ancient history 
 and modern observation ; for the 
 vine is not indigenous to the alluvial 
 soil of lower Egypt; it cannot be culti- 
 vated except on the lime-stone cliffs of 
 the upper country; and it is only in the 
 tombs of that upper region that the 
 ancient representations of grape culture 
 and wine-making are found. This record 
 agrees also both with modern fact and 
 ancient monumental records, showing 
 that intemperance was confined to courts 
 and was not the vice of common people. 
 In describing the embalming of the dead 
 (ii, 86), he states that the embalmers, 
 after taking out the entrails from the ab- 
 domen, wash out the cavity with " palm 
 wine;" dead bodies, not living bodies, 
 being preserved by poisonous drugs. 
 This wine is still made as an intoxicant 
 in western Africa from the date-palms 
 
 overshadowing the villages. Of the 
 Persians, Herodotus makes a record 
 almost word for word that of Tacitus on 
 the ancient Germans : " The Persians are 
 much addicted to wine, but they are not 
 allowed to vomit in the presence of 
 another. These customs are observed to 
 this day. They are wont to debate im- 
 portant affairs when intoxicated; but 
 whatever they have determined on in such 
 deliberations is, on the following day 
 when they are sober, proposed to them 
 by the master of the house where they 
 are met to consult ; and if they approve 
 of it when sober also, then they adopt it 
 — if not, they reject it. Moreover, what- 
 ever they first resolved on when sober, 
 they reconsider when intoxicated." The 
 policy that ruled this barbarian practice, 
 as it existed among the early Germans, 
 Tacitus explains by saying that men when 
 intoxicated reveal their real convictions, 
 which when sober they might conceal. 
 
 The vital truths here revealed are 
 these: first, in practice, as all history 
 attests, drinking intoxicants is a social 
 vice, seldom found in private homes, never 
 except in companies, especially in "soci- 
 eties " gathered for excited debate, where 
 leaders study how to rule; second, this 
 vice of drinking is associated with con- 
 vivial mirth, to drown the care that ought 
 to rest on men with families; third, the 
 common place of drinking is the saloon, 
 where social becomes private vice, in the 
 interest of the "master of the house" 
 and not of his guests, and the saloon is 
 frequented in all ages by fosterers of 
 every vice and crime. The reasonings of 
 Plato and Aristotle on the philosophy of 
 intemperance are suggested logically in 
 the mind of the reader who chances upon 
 the following record of early Grecian his- 
 tory in Herodotus (vi, 84) : Cleomenes, a 
 Spartan General, having consulted the 
 oracle at Delphi to learn whether he 
 should conquer the Argives, and being ■ 
 deceived by the frequent device of the 
 use of two Greek accusatives with an in- 
 finitive, in an oracle susceptible of being 
 read either that " Cleomenes shall defeat 
 the Argives " or that " the Argives shall 
 defeat Cleomenes," and being enraged at 
 the deception, demanded that he himself 
 should offer sacrifice on the altar; vhen, 
 being forbidden by the priests, he com- 
 manded his helots to " drag the priest 
 from the altar and scourge him, while he 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 228 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 himself sacrificed." Returning to Sparta 
 he was found to be insane, and Herodotus 
 adds : " Now the Argives say that on this' 
 account Cleomenes became insane and 
 perished miserably. But the Spartans 
 themselves say that Cleomenes became 
 insane from divine influence, but that by 
 associating with the Scythians he became 
 the drinker of unmixed wine, and from 
 that cause became mad." The student 
 of the " philosophy of history," who finds 
 the same truth recognized in all lands 
 and ages, from the Brahmins of India to 
 France in 1870, and studies the fact that 
 not only men 'responsible as expounders 
 of divine oracles, but as leaders of armies, 
 must abstain from intoxicating wines — 
 that student alone reaches the root of the 
 evils of intemperance. 
 
 Xenophon's records prepare the way 
 directly for the next era, since he as the 
 pupil of Socrates brought to his master 
 and fellow-disciples facts confirming their 
 reasonings and his own convictions. 
 
 Fourth Era: Grecian Science and 
 Philosophy Applied to the Social Vice of 
 Intemperance. — Every step in historic 
 survey gathers facts and suggests causes 
 which permit at last inductive science; 
 and yet more, it gives to statesmen a de- 
 ductive philosophy guiding to laws that 
 alone can meet the evil. This last stage 
 covers all the past and comes down with 
 its lessons to the present day. It begins 
 with the school of Socrates at Athens, in 
 which Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle 
 were taught; it takes in the principles 
 that led to the successive laws of the 
 earlier Greek legislators, Minos, Lycur- 
 gus and Solon ; it incorporates the expe- 
 rience of Grecian visitors to Egypt such 
 as Phericides, Pythagoras and Herodotus ; 
 it adds also the profound reasonings of 
 the Vedas of India sent home by Alex- 
 ander to his teacher Aristotle; and it 
 verifies the definition of philosophy given 
 by Aristotle and adopted by Sir AYilliam 
 Hamilton, that " philosophy is the science 
 of sciences and art of arts." 
 
 For, in the very day of the reasonings of 
 Plato and Aristotle as to intoxicants and 
 their law, Rome had tested in statutes as 
 to intemperance the theories of Grecian 
 sages; the rule of Roman statutes had 
 given stability and grandeur to their 
 Republic ; and science, tested by statutes, 
 had fixed the tried and tested model for 
 all future legislation against intemper- 
 
 ance. In his " Anabasis," or expedition 
 with Cyrus, and the retreat with his 
 10,000 Greeks from beyond the Tigris, 
 Xenophon, preparing the way for Alexan- 
 der, showed the value of abstinence from 
 intoxicants in camps, marches and armed 
 conflict. In his " Oikonomikos Logos," 
 or economic treatise, from which Virgil 
 and Cicero as well as Cato and Columella 
 copied, lessons of rural temperance were 
 taught, which were followed for ages 
 throughout Greece and Italy. In his 
 master work, his " Cyropaedia " or " Train- 
 ing of a Prince," Xenophon pictures the 
 heir to the throne of the Medes, on a 
 visit to his grandfather, the aged king of 
 Persia, present at a royal banquet, watch- 
 ing with disgust the intoxication, lewd- 
 ness and scurrility reigning, refusing the 
 wine proffered to him becau.se, as he 
 told his grandfather, he thought there 
 was "poison in the cup," citing as 
 his reason, when asked, the king's 
 own acts under its influence, and 
 finally, when with surprise the king in- 
 quires : " Why, child, have you never 
 seen the same happen to your father ? " 
 replying earnestly, " No, never ! " (Cyro., 
 B. i.) In his two added and most valua- 
 ble works, his " Apomnemoneumata So- 
 kratous," or " Memoirs of Socrates," and 
 his " Symposion Philosophon," or " Ban- 
 quet of Philosophers," Xenophon shows, 
 as does Plato after his master's execution, 
 and as did the disciples of Jesus, the 
 natural law and truth in precept, which 
 ruled the teachings though not in many 
 respects the practice, of Socrates. Again, 
 Hippocrates, the Greek physician, of the 
 same age with Xenophon, about B. C. 
 420, gave the science of the action of in- 
 toxicating wine, his conclusions being 
 accepted for five centuries by Greek suc- 
 cessors, like Dioscorides, Aristasus and 
 Galen, and later by medical teachers in 
 all subsequent ages. French medical en- 
 cyclopedists of the present century 
 devote volumes to the confirmation of 
 the science of Hippocrates and of his 
 followers, and the University of Paris has 
 issued a volume of his aphorisms for 
 medical students. In his " Diate Oxeon," 
 or " Treatment of Acute Diseases," Hip- 
 pocrates describes the symptoms of varied 
 ailments, and prescribes for cases requir- 
 ing sweet, strong or black wines, hy- 
 dromel (honey and water) or oxymel 
 (honey and vinegar) ;■ all of which were to 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 229 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 be prepared, as the French writers note, 
 from "fresh-pressed grape-juice" before 
 alcoholic ferment had begun. Of their 
 action, Hippocrates says: "The sweet 
 affects the head less, attacking the brain 
 more feebly, while it evacuates the bowels 
 more. There is a difference, also, as to 
 their nutritive powers, between undiluted 
 wine and undiluted honey (or syrup). If 
 a man drink double the quantity of pure 
 wine he will find himself no more strength- 
 ened than from half the same quantity of 
 honey-syrup." Hippocrates lays down 
 the precept that no medicinal use of in- 
 toxicating wine, as his French commenta- 
 tors declare, is allowable, except as an 
 anaesthetic in cases of extreme pain; 
 citing in his "Aphorisms" (vii, 48) 
 'strangury," or inflammation of the blad- 
 der, as an illustration. Athenseus, a 
 general literary collector, cites the follow- 
 ing as a prescription by Hippocrates: 
 "Take wine-syrup (ainon gleukon), either 
 mixed with water and heated, especially 
 that called protropos (grape-dripping) of 
 the sweet Lesbian ; for the syrup-sweet 
 wine (glukaz'm oinos) does not oppress 
 the head and affect the mind, but purges 
 [diachoreei) more easily than sweet wine 
 (oinou edeos)." Dioscorides, writing on 
 Materia Medica (Hyles Mr ikes) devoted 
 Book v of his work to the medicinal 
 properties of various preparations made 
 from fresh grape-juice, stating (c. 9) that 
 "sweet wine (oinos edus) is flatulent 
 (pneumatikos) in the stomach and bow- 
 els;" again (c. 11) he says that " jellied 
 wines (oinoi packets) are clogging to the 
 digestive organs," while "the thin 
 wines (oinoi leptoi) are " less flesh-produc- 
 ing; " and yet again (c. 15), that " honied 
 wine (oinos melitetes) is given in chronic 
 fevers (chroniois puretois) to those having 
 weak digestive organs." Aristasus, about 
 A. D. 100, in treating "on the causes, 
 signs and cures " of varied diseases, 
 makes these statements : " The use of 
 wine causes angina pectoris, hemorrhage 
 from the head, inflammation of the liver, 
 insanity, paralysis, apolexy; and is the 
 most frequent cause of ordinary disease." 
 He adds this warning to medical prac- 
 titioners in prescribing it : " Wine is a 
 medicament in cholera and syncope, 
 though its use is attended with danger," — 
 unwise medical . prescriptions, especially 
 of wine, being then as now a chief lure 
 to intemperance. Galen, the most com- 
 
 prehensive and voluminous of all the 
 ancient medical writers, born about A. D. 
 130, and eminent at Rome for two suc- 
 ceeding generations, is full in his state- 
 ments as to the cause and cure of 
 intemperance. In his treatise on " Simple 
 Remedies," alluding, as Aristaeus does, to 
 danger from medical prescriptions, he 
 says (B. ix, c. 215) : "Wine is the second 
 rank (taxis) in the heating prescriptions 
 (thermainonton) ; old wine is of the 
 third, and preserved grape-juice (gleukos) 
 is of the first rank, " — a recommendation 
 in accord with that of the most eminent 
 English and American physicians, that 
 brandies be burned when used medici- 
 nally, the natural ingredients of grape- 
 juice, not the alcohol, being serviceable. 
 Galen's statement is, as the connection 
 shows, that simple grape-syrup is the first 
 and best in common medical prescrip- 
 tions. 
 
 It is a fact too much overlooked that 
 both French and German medical 
 science has called for repeated editi >ns 
 of these ancient Greek medical writers, 
 and that the advance of tested hygienic 
 and therapeutic agents has constrained 
 men of eminence, who could hazard fidel- 
 ity in taking their stand against the 
 social drinking customs, to repeat, and 
 with growing emphasis, the warnings of 
 these men, whose science entered into the 
 philosophy that culminated in the 
 schools of Plato and Aristotle, and that 
 ruled both the Roman kingdom and Re- 
 public, as Pliny traced it, from Numa to 
 the Catoes. Opening the volumes of 
 Plato, the fact is significant that he 
 makes the philosophy of his books on 
 " Laws " turn upon the discussion of the 
 principle that had ruled legislation in 
 repressing habits of intemperance. Three 
 advocates of special systems, the Spartan 
 military rule of forcible punishment, the 
 Athenian freedom ruled by education, and 
 the balanced Cretan system, recognizing 
 the necessity of both combined, all tend 
 to " Prohibition," at once inculcated in 
 childhood and enforced by legal enact- 
 ment, as well as by public sentiment 
 prompting to personal abstinence from 
 intoxicants. This discussion fills the first 
 two of Plato's 12 books, since truth on 
 this question of legislation establishes the 
 piinciple of all legislation against vice 
 and crime, intemperance being the chief 
 source of all vices and crimes. The 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 230 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 Spartan states that Sparta's law banished 
 intoxicating wine from festal banquets, 
 and so guarded public order. But the 
 barbarity of pure military rule is seen 
 in the method of awakening disgust at 
 intemperance by the custom afterwards 
 thus stated by Plutarch: "Sometimes 
 they made the helots drink till they 
 were intoxicated, and in that condition 
 led them into the public halls, to show 
 the young men what drunkenness was." 
 
 The Athenian, after long discussion, at 
 last admits: "Shall we not lay down a 
 law in the first place that boys shall not 
 taste wine at all till they are 18 years of 
 age?" — thus proposing a prohibition 
 against the sale of intoxicating liquors to 
 "minors." Finally, while urging still 
 that moral sentiment should rule mature 
 men, the penalty of loss of office ruling 
 in political appointments, the Athenian 
 allows that enactments to this effect 
 should be made and enforced : " That no 
 one when in camp is to taste of that 
 drink, but to subsist on water during all 
 that period ; that in the city neither a 
 male nor a female servant should ever 
 taste it; nor should magistrates during 
 the year of their office, nor pilots, nor 
 Judges when engaged in their official 
 business, nor any citizen who goes to any 
 council to deliberate upon any matter of 
 moment." Going yet farther, since the 
 idea of personal liberty and of sumptuary 
 laws, always urged by dealers in intoxi- 
 cants, was rife in Athens as it is in 
 American cities, the Athenian adds : 
 " Many other cases one might mention in 
 which wine ought not to be drunk by 
 those who possess mind, and share in 
 framing laws: so that, according to this 
 reasoning, there is to no state any need 
 of many vineyards, but other kinds of 
 agriculture should be required by law, 
 and those providing every article of 
 diet." 
 
 No American can read these illustra- 
 tions and conclusions urged by the ablest 
 minds the world ever produced, whose 
 wisdom all succeeding generations have 
 recognized, and not be struck with the 
 fact that Prohibitory law, a just defence 
 from the illegitimate claim of a few un- 
 scrupulous dealers that they have a right to 
 make money by corrupting youth, seduc- 
 ing husbands, impoverishing fathers, 
 compelling the chief and worst service of 
 police, exacting the main tax on all citi- 
 
 zens for the support of Courts, — that 
 Prohibitory law is demanded by justice, 
 by duty to families and by the safety of 
 the very life of communities. This 
 ancient philosophy took final form in 
 the treatises of Aristotle on Ethics, Pol- 
 itics and Economics, whose sway ruled 
 the Koman Eepublic and guarded for 
 centuries its virtue. Aristotle's definition 
 is given as the clue at the opening of 
 this historic survey. In his " Meter- 
 eorics," from whose treasures of ancient 
 physical science Sir William Hamilton 
 has drawn, Aristotle makes various state- 
 ments as to the properties of wines. 
 After speaking of different liquids, as of 
 water completely evaporated by heat and 
 of milk converted into whey and curd 
 (iv, 3), he says (iv, 7): "There is a cer- 
 tain wine, the unfermented gleukos, 
 which may.be both congealed (pegnutei) 
 by cold and evaporated (epsetai) by heat," 
 statements which settle the doubt whether 
 unfermented wine has existed, and at the 
 same time prove that it was sought by 
 Greek sages and physicians as a safeguard 
 against intemperance. In his " Problems " 
 he asks : " Why are persons much in- 
 toxicated stupefied, while those slightly 
 intoxicated are like madmen ? Why do 
 men stupified by wine fall on their backs, 
 while men crazed by wine fall on their 
 faces ? Why are wine-drinkers made 
 dizzy, and their vision affected ? Why 
 are persons fond of sweet wine {gleukon 
 oinon) not wine-bibbers (oinophlyges), or 
 overcome by wine ? " Among hygienic 
 questions are these: " Why are those who 
 drink wine slightly diluted subject to 
 headaches, while wine much diluted pro- 
 duces vomiting and purging ? Why do 
 those who drink undiluted wine have 
 more headache next day than those who 
 drink diluted wine ? Why does wine 
 greatly diluted produce vomiting, while 
 wine alone does not ? Why does sweet 
 wine counteract the effect of undiluted 
 wine ? Why is oil beneficial in intoxica- 
 tion ? " No wonder men of science see 
 the mastery of facts in the very questions 
 of Aristotle. His replies indicate logical 
 induction from facts, as this suggestion 
 on the last question : " Because oil is 
 diuretic, and prepares the body for the 
 discharge of the liquor." In his " Ethics," 
 Aristotle states this double law of temper- 
 ance as abstinence from intoxicants : " By 
 abstaining from sensual indulgences we 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 231 
 
 [Historical, etc. 
 
 become temperate; and when we have 
 become so, we are best able to abstain 
 from them," — which double law he ap- 
 plies to varied indulgences (B. ii, c. 2, 
 sections 6, 7, 8), insisting that bodily re- 
 straint must be enforced by the physical 
 restraint of law. As to the criminality 
 of inebriates, he writes thus : " He who 
 is under the influence of drunkenness is 
 seen to act not through ignorance, but 
 with ignorance" (iii, 7 : 15). In his 
 " Politics," he states that " public 
 tables" or eating-houses are to be con- 
 trolled by statutes (vii, 12), and he urges 
 that the Spartans erred as to the end 
 sought, making "war and victory the 
 end of government," and that hence in 
 peace the spirit of indulgence went to ex- 
 cess. Hence Aristotle urges that as 
 parents restrain first the bodily acts of 
 children, and then give moral precepts, so 
 Prohibitory statutes should " restrain the 
 appetites for the sake of the mind " 
 (vii, 15). 
 
 " Temperance " was understood by the 
 voluptuous Herod, listening to John, the 
 herald of Jesus. It ruled in Jesus from 
 the hour he made "fresh wine," like 
 " fresh fruit " (kalon designating both), 
 till the night he initiated his supper in 
 the cup filled with " the fruit of the vine; " 
 and though sleepless till morn, and 
 faint when on the cross, " when he 
 tasted the wine " offered him, he " would 
 not drink of it." This "temperance" 
 is the antidote for the sin of drunkenness 
 that is constantly urged in the preaching 
 and the writings of Paul addressed to 
 men of all nations, while the medical 
 knowledge of Luke, his constant compan- 
 ion, as a Greek physician, and the divine 
 inspiration of the great Christian apostle, 
 were reciprocally interchanged. It guided 
 the thought and prompted the duty of 
 faithful Christian leaders in each succeed- 
 ing century; as a careful study of their 
 writings and their direct citations in meet- 
 ing corruption in courts and heathen pop- 
 ular customs abundantly show. Such 
 preachers and teachers were Irenacus in 
 Southern France and Justin and Clement 
 at Alexandria (Egypt) in the 2d Century ; 
 Zeno in Northern Italy, Tertullian at 
 Carthage and Origen at Alexandria in the 
 3d Century ; Hilarius in France, Am- 
 brose in Italy, Lactantius, the teacher of 
 Constantine's sons, and Chrysostom, the 
 court preacher at Constantinople, Basil 
 
 in Asia Minor, Ephiphanius in Cyprus, 
 Eusebius, the church historian, and Cyril 
 in Palestine, Athanasius at Alexandria 
 and Arnobius at Carthage, that galaxy of 
 master-spirits raised up together in the 
 4th Century to meet the worldly spirit 
 that was crowding into the Christian 
 churches under the first Christian Em- 
 porers ; and again, Theodoret on the Eu- 
 phrates, Jerome in Palestine and Augus- 
 tine at Eome and Carthage, needed in 
 the 5th Century to echo and add to the 
 voices of the past. It awoke again in the 
 Middle Ages, when Popes and Bishops, 
 monks and evangelists were called to 
 stem the tide of the " heavy-headed rev- 
 elry " pictured by Shakespeare in his 
 " Hamlet," growing out of demoralizing 
 customs hereditary in Germany from the 
 days of Caasar and Tacitus; customs of 
 Central Europe against which Charle- 
 magne struggled by moral appeal and by 
 Imperial edicts. These reasonings are 
 embodied in the volumes of Thomas 
 Aquinas, master of all learning, Hebrew, 
 Christian and Mohammedan, Grecian, Ro- 
 man and ecclesiastical; who, as the great 
 teacher of the century, goes back to Aris- 
 totle, translating as authoritative entire 
 treatises. 
 
 That same science and philosphy enter 
 into the modern legislation of Europe; 
 Montesquieu in his " Spirit of Laws," and 
 Eollin in his "Ancient History," going 
 back to the same authority in rousing the 
 spirit of political and religious reform 
 which has led the ablest statesmen to be- 
 come abstainers from intoxicants, and to 
 inaugurate restrictive laws tending more 
 and more to the Grecian science and the 
 Roman virtue that ruled for centuries in 
 Prohibitory statutes. The successive 
 steps of English political reform, traced 
 by Whewell, the author of the *' History 
 of the Inductive Sciences," in his " Pla- 
 tonic Dialogues " and his " Morality and 
 Polity," directly back to the Grecian 
 philosophy of Aristotle, so far as they re- 
 late to laws for overcoming intemperance, 
 brought together in a prize essay by James 
 Smith, M. A., of Scotland (published 
 at London in 1875), indicate that 
 Grecian and Roman prohibitive statutes 
 are " natural," and hence " divine law." 
 Under the reign of Henry VII, from 1485 
 to 1509, an act of Parliament (11 Henry 
 VII) was passed, providing : " It shall be 
 lawful to two Justices to reject and put 
 
Historical, etc.] 
 
 232 
 
 [Holland. 
 
 away common ale-selling in towns and 
 places where they think convenient." 
 On this principle of practical philosophy, 
 under Edward VI, in 15.32 (5 and 6 Ed- 
 ward VI), statutes of enforcement were 
 added, whose effective agency is thus 
 cited in the instructions to the Lord 
 Keeper and his aids by the Circuit Judges 
 in 1602, late in the reign of Elizabeth: 
 " That they should ascertain for the 
 Queen's information how many ale-houses 
 the Justices of the Peace had pulled 
 down, so that the good Justices might be 
 rewarded and the evils removed." In 
 1839 Lord Brougham, in the House of 
 Lords, urging the enforcement of these 
 old statutes, used almost the very lan- 
 guage of the Grecian and Roman reason- 
 ing, exclaiming : " To what good was it 
 that the Legislature should pass laws to 
 punish crimes, or that their lordships 
 should occupy themselves in improving 
 the morals of the people by giving them 
 education ! What could be the use of 
 sowing a little seed here and plucking up 
 a weed there, if these beer-shops were to be 
 continued, that they might go on to sow 
 the seed of immorality broadcast over 
 the land ! " 
 
 The thorough student of American 
 polity, founded, as recognized by English, 
 French and early American statesmen, 
 on the very model of Grecian science and 
 Roman jurisprudence, must be self- 
 blinded if he does not see and accept the 
 logic of Prohibitory as well as restrictive 
 laws as to the unmitigated public evil of 
 intemperance. Under Elizabeth and 
 James I, at the very origin of the first 
 American colonies, Lord Coke's spirit, 
 first as Speaker of the House of Commons, 
 then as Chief-Justice of the Court of 
 Common Pleas, and finally as Chief- 
 Justice of the King's Bench, had instilled 
 into the minds of the people of England 
 the ideas of representative 'government, 
 which the leaders in all the colonies 
 carried with them. Under Louis XIV, 
 Montesquieu in his " Esprit des Lois " 
 (issued in 1748) had traced back to Aris- 
 totle's principles the moral power, the 
 popular " virtue," secured under the long- 
 lived Roman Republic, gradually over- 
 shadowed by the military rule of North- 
 ern Europe in the Middle Ages, but re- 
 gained most fully in the British Govern- 
 ment, ruled as it then was under George 
 
 II by the will of the people's representa- 
 tives in the House of Commons. 
 
 That " spirit of laws," as certain to 
 rule as gravity in preserving stable insti- 
 tutions, has ruled and must rule Ameri- 
 cans. To confirm and emphasize this 
 fact, Paley, writing during the American 
 Revolution, had no other resort in oppos- 
 ing the American spirit than directly to 
 deny the principles of Aristotle as to 
 popular representative rule ; while in 
 striking contrast Whewell, the author of 
 the " History of the Inductive Sciences," 
 in his " Morality and Polity," issued 
 about the time of the war for American 
 Union, begins by re-affirming the science 
 of Aristotle; while, also, Gladstone in 
 England and Guizot in France have in 
 their profound studies avowed the con- 
 sistent rule of that science in American 
 polity. In legislation against intemper- 
 ance, Grecian science, Roman virtue and 
 British precedents assure the equity and 
 therefore the triumph of Prohibitory 
 statutes. G. W. Samson. 
 
 Holland. 1 — About 40 years ago a 
 Dutch clergyman, Rev. Dr. Adema von 
 Scheltema, became interested in the tem- 
 perance movement in England. Taking 
 the pledge himself he immediately set to 
 work to spread the cause among his coun- 
 trymen. He has translated into Dutch 
 numerous temperance books and pam- 
 phlets, including Dr. Richardson's " Tem- 
 perance Lesson-Book," a copy of which is 
 now to be found, with the Bible, in every 
 prisoner's cell in Holland. In a recent 
 letter he says that the number of hymns 
 and songs translated by him is in excess 
 of 1,400. These include most of San- 
 key,'s, Philip Phillips's, G27 hymns for the 
 Dutch Sunday-schools in America, and 
 the hymns used in the juvenile branch of 
 the Good Templar Order. Dr. Schel- 
 tema adds that he is beginning to reap 
 some fruits from his long labors. Tem- 
 perance work has been inaugurated 
 among the children of the various local- 
 ities, but the aversion to administering 
 the pledge to them is so strong that it is 
 difficult to effect organization. A lady. 
 Miss Velthuysen, is performing excellent 
 work in this field, gathering the children 
 together and instructing them about the 
 effects of alcohol upon the human system. 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to Miss Charlotte A. Gray of 
 Belgium, and to Joseph Malins of Manchester, Eng. 
 
Home Protection.] 
 
 233 
 
 [Hops. 
 
 She received the first impulse from the 
 Woman's Christian Temperance Union 
 of the United States and has been great- 
 ly encouraged and aided by the Band of 
 Hope Union of England. 
 
 The early movement in the Continental 
 countries against the "abuse" of the 
 stronger liquors, resulting chiefly from 
 the efforts of Robert Baird, had some de- 
 velopment in Holland. In 1842 a 
 " Vereeniging tot Afschaffing van sterken 
 Drank," or Temperance League, was 
 started, but not on a total abstinence 
 basis ; and it still has a nominal existence, 
 .with Baron de Lynden as a leading 
 spirit. In consequence of the efforts of 
 this society and other influences, a law 
 similar in some respects to certain so-called 
 restrictive measures in the United States 
 was enacted. At that time Holland had no 
 less than 40,000 dramshops licensed to 
 sell spirits. The new law provided that 
 many of the licenses should be discontinued, 
 and that upon the death of license-hold- 
 ers their houses should not be re-licensed, 
 and that unmarried women, all persons 
 in the employ of the Government, all 
 brothel-keepers, etc., should not receive 
 licenses to sell liquors. Within two years 
 12,000 drinking-places were closed, and 
 the number of dramshops was reduced 
 from one for every 89 inhabitants in 1880 
 to one for every 125 inhabitants in 1882. 
 In 1887 the aggregate number had been 
 still farther reduced to 28,000 — a decrease 
 of 19,000 in seven years. The reduction 
 is to continue until the year 1901, when 
 it is estimated that only 12,000 will re- 
 main, or one to 250 inhabitants in vil- 
 lages and one to 500 in the larger towns. 
 But while the number of rumshops has 
 been reduced fully 40 per cent., there 
 has been no considerable diminution in 
 the quantity of liquors consumed. From 
 the year 1860 the consumption per capita 
 steadily increased until 1877, when it 
 reached the maximum point. The follow- 
 ing figures of the per capita consumption 
 are official: 
 
 Spirits, Beer, Wine, 
 liters, liters, liters. 
 
 1800 C 12 3 
 
 1877 10 20 2 
 
 1886 9 20 2 
 
 Home Protection. — This term, as 
 applied to the temperance movement, 
 originated in 1876, when Miss Frances E. 
 Willard, then Corresponding Secretary of 
 the National Woman's Christian Tem- 
 
 perance Union, used it as the title of an 
 address before the Woman's Congress in 
 St. George's Hall, Philadelphia, to indicate 
 woman's ballot as the most potent weapon 
 for Prohibitionists. The address was re- 
 peated with amplifications at Henry C. ■ 
 Bowen's 4th of July celebration at AVood- 
 stock in 1877, and was published in the. 
 Independent and also in a " Home Pro- 
 tection Manual," of which Miss Willard 
 gave away 12,000 copies. The Home 
 Protection movement, as it was called, 
 spread through the W. C. T. U. ; and 
 every National Convention of that or- 
 ganization since 1877 has made some 
 expression favorable to woman's ballot, 
 demanding enfranchisement not so much 
 as a matter of abstract right as for the 
 sake of advancing home protection by 
 saloon destruction. In 1882 the old-line 
 Prohibition party held a convention in 
 Farwell Hall, Chicago, in response to a 
 call in which the names of John B. 
 Finch, George W. Bain, A. J. Jutkins 
 and Frances E. Willard were associated 
 with those of Gideon T. Stewart and 
 other pioneers in the party agitation. 
 The demand for woman's ballot, always a 
 feature of the Prohibition platform, was 
 repeated and emphasized, and the name 
 of the party was changed to " Prohibition 
 and Home Protection Party," Miss Wil- 
 lard and Mrs. Sallie F. Chapin being 
 made members-at-large of its National 
 Committee. At Pittsburgh in 1 884, the 
 words " Home Protection " were dropped 
 from the party's name, greatly to the 
 regret of many women. But the princi- 
 ple represented by the movement was 
 not repudiated. 
 
 The term " Home Protection " has a 
 wider significance, however, than that 
 given it by its application to the particu- 
 lar movement above alluded to. It ex- 
 pressively defines one of the main pur- 
 poses of all Prohibitionists, whether 
 supporters or opponents of Woman 
 Suffrage. 
 
 Hops. — The flowers of the female hop 
 plant {Humulus Lupulus). Hops are 
 now considered indispensable in the 
 brewing process — at least in any honestly- 
 managed brewing process, — although they 
 were not systematically cultivated for 
 brewing purposes until near the begin- 
 ning of the 17th Century. They check 
 the acetous fermentation, and impart to 
 
Hops.] 
 
 234 
 
 [Hunt, Thomas Poage. 
 
 the beer the bitter aroma that is relished 
 by drinkers. The stupefying effect of 
 malt liquors is produced chiefly by the 
 hops. The beers richest in hops are the 
 ones most esteemed by connoisseurs: 
 hence larger quantities of hops are used 
 in export beers than in any other kinds. 
 
 Substitutes for hops are employed by 
 dishonest brewers, especially highly 
 poisonous alkaloids like strychnine and 
 picrotoxine. Picric acid is also a com- 
 mon substitute. C. A. Crampton, in a 
 very conservative report on adulterations 
 of liquors made to the United States 
 Department of Agriculture in 1887, says: 
 " Picrotoxine and picric acid have un- 
 doubtedly been found in beers, and 
 probably more cases of such adulteration 
 would occasionally have been discovered 
 were it not for the difficulty of the analy- 
 sis and the small quantity of matter 
 required for imparting a bitter taste." x 
 
 The total domestic beer product of the 
 United States is now about 25,000,000 bar- 
 rels annually; and since 2 lbs. is a moder- 
 ate estimate of the amount of hops needed 
 for making a barrel of beer, it is apparent 
 that the aggregate consumption of hops 
 in this country should be at least 50,000,- 
 000 lbs. annually, if our brewers use 
 honest methods (see Farmers). There 
 are no official returns of the annual hop- 
 crops. In 1880 there were 26,546,378 
 lbs. of hops grown according to the Cen- 
 sus ; the imports in that year amounted 
 to 497,243 lbs., and the exports to 9,001,- 
 128 lbs , leaving 17,952,493 lbs. consumed 
 by United States brewers. 
 
 It is estimated that in 1889 the hop- 
 yield of the United States was about 
 36,000,000 lbs. 2 During the year ending 
 June 30, 1889, we. imported 4,176,158 
 lbs. and exported 12,589,262 lbs. of 
 domestic hops and 284,344 lbs. of foreign 
 hops. 
 
 The principal hop-growing State is 
 New York, which in 1380 yielded 21,628,- 
 931 lbs. of the entire product of 26,546,- 
 378 lbs. The New York counties of 
 Oneida, Otsego, Schoharie and Madison 
 produce more than half of the whole crop 
 of the country. The States of California, 
 Oregon and Washington, which in 1880 
 produced 2,391,725 lbs., now rival New 
 York: in 1889 these three States grew 
 
 1 Report of the Department of Agriculture for 188", 
 p. 193. 
 
 2 " Tariff Reform " Documents, vol. 3, No. 7. 
 
 about 16,000,000 lbs., as against 18,000,- 
 000 in New York. The other States in 
 which hop culture is of some importance 
 are Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont, New 
 Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Maine. 
 
 Official returns show the hop-yields for 
 several European countries in recent 
 years to have been as follows : a 
 
 1885. 1886. 
 
 lbs. lbs. 
 
 Great Britain 57,037,040 86,9*8,128 
 
 Germany 73,195,145 66,584,432 
 
 France 10,891,606 9,071,709 
 
 Austria 12,796,380 10,852,144 
 
 Netherlands 403,442 709,881 
 
 Humphrey, Heman. — Born in West 
 Simsbury, Conn., March 26, 1779, and 
 died in Pittsfield, Mass., April 3, 1861. 
 He graduated from Yale College in 1805. 
 He was pastor of the Congregational 
 Church in Fairfield, Conn., for ten years 
 and held the same position in Pittsfield, 
 Mass., for five years. In 1813 he drew 
 up a report to the Fairfield Association of 
 Ministers which is believed to have been 
 the first temperance tract published in 
 America. He was elected President of 
 Amherst College in 1823, and continued 
 in that office until 1845. In 1810 he 
 preached a series of six sermons on in- 
 temperance, and in 1813 published in the 
 Panoplist six articles on the "Cause,Origin, 
 Effects and Kemedy of Intemperance in 
 the United States." His " Parallel be- 
 tween Intemperance and the Slave-trade " 
 was an able arraignment of both evils. 
 The " Debates of Conscience with a Dis- 
 tiller, Wholesale Dealer and Eetailer " was 
 widely circulated. As early as 1833 he 
 opposed all license laws. " It is as plain to 
 me," he said, " as the sun in a clear sum- 
 mer sky, that the license laws of our 
 country constitute one of the main pil- 
 lars on which tjie stupendous fabric of 
 intemperance now rests." 
 
 Hunt, Thomas Poage. — Born in 
 Charlotte County, Va., in 1794, and died 
 in Wyoming Valley, Pa., Dec. 5, 1876. 
 He studied theology and was licensed to 
 preach in 1824. In 1830, after holding 
 the pastorates of several churches in Vir- 
 ginia and North Carolina, he accepted 
 the position of Agent for the North Car- 
 olina State Temperance Society. He re- 
 moved to Philadelphia in 1836, and to 
 Wyoming Valley, Pa., in 1839. From 
 
 3 Report of the United States Department of Agriculture 
 for 1888, pp. 472-3. 
 
Idaho] 
 
 235 
 
 [Idiocy. 
 
 1840 to 1845 he was agent for Lafay- 
 ette College." He was a pioneer in the 
 temperance lecture field, and during the 
 earlier years of the movement he traveled 
 through Pennsylvania and parts of the 
 other Middle States, preaching and de- 
 livering addresses on intemperance. 
 Through his persuasions Dr. Charles 
 Jewett was induced to become a public 
 advocate of temperance. His exposure 
 of frauds in the liquor traffic, published 
 in 1839, created a stir. He had pro- 
 cured from London a number of brew- 
 ers' guides and receipt-books, and his 
 revelation of some of the secrets of the 
 trade shocked the consumers and disgust- 
 ed the vendors of alcoholic beverages, his 
 exposures of liquor adulterations being 
 probably the first authentic ones made 
 in this country. Originally a slave- 
 holder, Mr. Hunt had emancipated his 
 slaves long before the Civil AVar, and at 
 its outbreak, although advanced in years, 
 he entered the army as chaplain of a 
 Pennsylvania regiment. In this position 
 he was enabled to reform many soldiers 
 from the drink habit. In later years he 
 was familiarly known as " Father Hunt." 
 
 Idaho.— See Index. 
 
 Idiocy. — The detrimental action of 
 alcohol extends to every part of the hu- 
 man organism, and its influence upon 
 the brain betrays itself by the well-known 
 mental symptoms of intoxication. The 
 proximate cause of those symptons is the 
 congestion of the cerebral blood-vessels 
 and their pressure upon the delicate tis- 
 sue of the brain. Confusion of ideas and 
 the stupor following the crisis of the 
 stimulant-fever subside after the partial 
 elimination of the poison, but leave an 
 after-effect which is apt to become cul- 
 minative and hereditary. The mem- 
 branes of the brain, by the frequent repe- 
 tition of alcoholic congestion, become 
 thickened, the blood vessels distorted and 
 often so brittle that they are liable to be 
 ruptured and induce apoplexy or that 
 habitual mental torpor and disinclination 
 to intellectual efforts so characteristic of 
 habitual drunkards. In its hereditary 
 transmission, that deterioration of the 
 cerebral organism often assumes the form 
 of permanent idiocy. " We have a far 
 larger experience," says the physiologist 
 Carpenter, " of the results of habitual al- 
 
 coholic excess than we have in regard to 
 any other nervine stimulant, and all 
 such experience is decidedly in favor of 
 the hereditary transmission of that ac- 
 quired perversion of the normal nutrition 
 of the nervous system which it has in- 
 duced. That this manifests itself some- 
 times in a congenital idiocy, sometimes 
 in a predisposition to insanity which re- 
 quires but a very slight exciting cause to 
 develop it, and sometimes in a strong 
 craving for alcoholic drinks which the 
 unhappy subject of it strives in vain to 
 resist, is the concurrent testimony of all 
 who have directed their attention to the 
 inquiry." 
 
 In a report to the Massachusetts Com- 
 mission on Idiocy, Dr. S. G-. Howe states 
 that " out of 359 idiots the condition of 
 whose progenitors was ascertained, 99 
 were the children of drunkards. But 
 this does not tell the whole story by 
 any means. By drunkard is meant a 
 person who is a notorious and habitual 
 sot. ... By pretty careful inquiry, 
 as to the number of idiots of the low- 
 est class whose parents were known to 
 be temperate persons, it was found that 
 not one-quarter can be so considered." 
 Judge R. C. Pitman, in quoting the in- 
 sanity statistics of eastern North Amer- 
 ica, justly remarks that the suggestive- 
 ness of such reports is even more omi- 
 nous than their direct significance. " If 
 in so many cases idiocy was produced," 
 he says, " in how vastly many more is 
 there reason to believe that degrees of 
 degeneracy falling short of this recog- 
 nized status resulted ! When idiocy is 
 reached, then comes extinction; but 
 through how many generations and with 
 what wide-spread collaterals may imbecil- 
 ity of the physical, mental and moral 
 nature, or of all combined, propagate it- 
 self ! " 
 
 That conjecture is confirmed by the 
 verdict of the best modern authorities 
 on the causes of mental diseases. Dr. H. 
 Morel, in his work on Human Degener- 
 ation ('■' Des Dogencrescences de 1'Espece 
 Humaine"), attributes the marasmus of 
 modern civilization chiefly to "the abuse 
 of alcoholic liquors and of certain nar- 
 cotics, such as opium. Under the influ- 
 ence of these poisonous agents there 
 have been produced perversions so great 
 in the functions of the nervous system 
 that the result, as we have demonstrated, 
 
Illinois.] 
 
 236 
 
 [Illiteracy. 
 
 is the chief factor of degeneration in 
 modern times, whether in its direct in- 
 fluence or by hereditary transmission in 
 the child." In a memorandum upon 
 "Alcohol as a Cause of Vitiation of 
 Human Stock," Dr. Nathan Allen re- 
 marks that " A prolific cause of degener- 
 ation is the common habit of taking 
 alcohol into the system, usually as the 
 basis of spirits, wine or beer. ... If 
 this process is often repeated, the 
 lower propensities are strengthened by 
 exercise until, by and by, they come to 
 act automatically, while the restraining 
 powers, or the will, weakened by disuse, 
 are practically nullified. The man is no 
 longer under the control of his volun- 
 tary powers, but has come under the 
 sway of automatic agencies which oper- 
 ate almost as independently of his voli- 
 tion as the beating of his heart. . . . 
 Moreover the children of parents whose 
 systems were tainted by alcoholic poison 
 do start in life under great disadvantage. 
 While they inherit strong animal propen- 
 sities and morbid appetites and tenden- 
 cies, constantly craving indulgence, they 
 have weak restraining faculties." Before 
 the Parliamentary Committee on Habitual 
 Intemperance, Dr. E. E. MitcheU re- 
 corded this condition, that the " children 
 of habitual drunkards are in a larger pro- 
 portion idiotic than other children, and 
 in a larger degree liable to the ordinary 
 forms of acquired insanity, — ('. e., the 
 insanity coming on in later life." 
 
 It is a suggestive fact that in at least 
 70 of 100 cases, hereditary insanity is 
 transmitted from male ancestors, i. <?., 
 from the alcoholized sex. Adding the 
 cases of idiocy inherited from intem- 
 perate mothers (as the gin-drinking 
 viragos of the British manufacturing 
 towns), it would be hardly an over-esti- 
 mate to assume that 75 per cent, of all 
 victims of mental disease owe their afflic- 
 tion to the direct or indirect influence of 
 the alcohol habit. 
 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Illinois. — See Index. 
 
 Illiteracy.— In 1880, according to 
 the United States Census, in a total 
 population of 50,155,783 (31,046,421 of 
 this number being 15 years old or over), 
 there were 5,107,993 white and colored 
 persons aged 15 years and upward who 
 
 were unable to write. Of these 5,107,- 
 993 illiterates, 1,088,503 were white males, 
 1,351,383 were white females, 1,269,619 
 were colored males, and 1,398,488 were 
 colored females. The States of Alabama, 
 Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 
 Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, 
 South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and 
 Virginia, and the Territory of New Mex- 
 ico, each returned 25 per cent, or more 
 of the male inhabitants aged 15 years and 
 upward as unable to write. The great 
 prevalence of illiteracy in these and other 
 Southern States is a legacy from the pe- 
 culiar social system of former years. The 
 close relationship existing between illiter- 
 acy on the one hand and extreme poverty, 
 improvidence, intemperance, etc., on the 
 other, is established by ordinary observa- 
 tion as well as by industrial and other 
 statistics for all the States above named. 
 However striking and gratifying may be 
 the improvement enjoyed by "the educated 
 members of the emancipated race, and 
 whatever may be said as to the responsi- 
 bility for the illiteracy of the majority, it 
 cannot be denied that the condition of 
 the colored illiterates is lamentable and 
 threatening from every point of view, 
 and especially from the temperance stand- 
 point. These illiterates have contributed 
 by far the greater part of the formidable 
 anti-Prohibition majorities in typical 
 Southern States and cities where contests 
 have been held. The opposition to negro 
 suffrage that has been manifested by cer- 
 tain classes of whites in the South is not 
 shared by the saloon element when Pro- 
 hibitory Amendment or Local Option 
 issues are to be decided. It has always 
 been seen that the presence of a large 
 element of ignorant voters enhances the 
 chances of perpetuating the liquor traffic. 
 In the contest in Atlanta in 1887, the Pro- 
 hibition cause was supported with practi- 
 cal unanimity by the religious and moral 
 interests, and by a majority of the intelli- 
 gent and thrifty citizens, both colored 
 and white; but the ignorant vote was 
 cast solidly for the saloon, chiefly through 
 the instrumentality of a vulgar mounte- 
 bank, " Yellowstone Kit," who had ob- 
 tained great influence over the illiterate 
 and superstitious negroes ; and the repeal 
 of the Prohibition policy of Atlanta was 
 the work of this man and his ignorant 
 followers. Illiteracy and credulity are 
 interchangeable words, and in every com- 
 
Illiteracy.] 
 
 237 
 
 [Imports and Exports. 
 
 munity the ignorant rote is under the 
 control of unscrupulous demagogues, who 
 are ready to resort to any pretences or 
 deceptions that will be effective. In. 
 the South the pretences and deceptions 
 with which the ignorant negroes are 
 plied are of the most scandalous nature; 
 these people are systematically taught 
 that Prohibition laws will deprive them 
 of their liberty, and that the ultimate 
 aim of the Prohibitionists is to restore 
 slavery; they are told that Abraham 
 Lincoln was a staunch opponent of Pro- 
 hibition. The majorities against Prohi- 
 bition in typical black counties 1 are 
 almost wholly due to representations such 
 as these. 
 
 The colored illiterates, however, are far 
 more susceptible to religious and similar 
 influences than the ignorant whites, and 
 the appeals of negro clergymen and edu- 
 cators in behalf of temperance and Pro- 
 hibition have frequently been productive 
 of very encouraging results. On the other 
 hand, in localities where illiteracy pre- 
 vails among the whites, the situation is 
 desperate indeed. The mountain coun- 
 ties of Kentucky are believed to be 
 among the most benighted regions of the 
 United States. The county of Perry is 
 a specimen one. It is populated almost 
 exclusively by whites, and in 1890 there 
 was not a school or a church within its 
 borders. In 20 years 500 murders were 
 committed in this county, yet only one 
 murderer was executed within that period. 
 The whiskey traffic was a fruitful cause 
 of this illiteracy and these crimes, many 
 illicit stills being in operation. 2 In every 
 community the freest and most danger- 
 ous drinkers are, as a rule, the illiterate 
 and semi-illiterate citizens, who also con- 
 stitute, a very large proportion of the 
 anti-Prohibition element — a proportion 
 so large, in fact, as to be distinctively 
 responsible for the anti-Prohibition idea 
 and following as a whole, in the same 
 sense that the religious and enlightened 
 classes are distinctively responsible for 
 Prohibition sentiment and triumphs. 
 
 In the States where the Prohibition 
 movement has been most successful, the 
 
 1 Those desiring details may compare the county votes 
 on the Prohibitory Amendments in Texas and Tennessee 
 
 -with the county population returns by races for those 
 States, as given in the " Compendium of the 10th Cen- 
 sus," vol. a, pp. 870-4. 
 
 2 See the New York Sun for Aug. 8, 1890, and the New 
 York Evening Post for Aug. 9, 1890. 
 
 percentages of illiteracy are comparatively 
 insignificant. These States are Iowa, 
 Kansas, Maine, North Dakota, South 
 Dakota and Vermont. In Iowa, accord- 
 ing to the Census returns for 1880, only 4 
 per cent, of the male citizens 15 years 
 and over were unable to write; in 
 Kansas, 5 per cent.; in Maine, 5 per 
 cent.; in the Dakotas, 4 per cent., 
 and in Vermont, 7 per cent.; while in 
 the whole country the percentage was 
 15. A small percentage of illiteracy 
 does not as yet, however, necessarily 
 imply a Prohibition preponderance, since 
 the plausible arguments against Prohibi- 
 tion and for the various compromise 
 schemes divide public sentiment among 
 the educated. Thus, in the State of 
 Nebraska, where only 3 per cent, of the 
 males 15 years of age and upwards were un- 
 able to write in 1880, Prohibition has en- 
 countered bitter opposition, and the High 
 License idea has prevailed. It is also 
 true that Prohibition has sometimes 
 carried in communities where the per- 
 centage of illiteracy is large, as in many 
 counties of Georgia and other Southern 
 States. These apparently anomalous 
 successes are attributed in nearly all 
 instances to the determined work and 
 superior power of the educated citizens, 
 whose understanding of the necessity of 
 Prohibition laws has been stimulated by 
 practical object lessons, and whose will 
 the illiterate masses, without leadership 
 or organization, have been unable to 
 overcome. But it has invariably been 
 found that conditions are most promising 
 for the saloon where there is a formidable 
 ignorant vote, and that the ability of the 
 saloon leaders to secure the unitei sup- 
 port of this vote is dependent only upon 
 shrewdness, unscrupulousness and organ- 
 ization. 
 
 Immigration. — See Foreigners. 
 
 Imports and Exports.— The im- 
 port and export trade in alcoholic liquors 
 seriously complicates the Prohibition 
 problem in the United States. Large 
 amounts of capital are invested in it 
 by Americans and foreigners. The total . 
 value of imported liquor exceeds 810,000,- 
 000 annually, to which must be added 
 customs duties aggregating nearly 88,- 
 000,000. These imports include nearly 
 all the more expensive brands of wines, 
 
Imports and Exports.] 
 
 238 
 
 [Imports and Exports. 
 
 beer and spirits used by Americans, and 
 to cut off the import trade means to de- 
 prive the rich of the means of gratifying 
 their particular tastes. The right to reg- 
 ulate foreign commerce rests exclusively 
 with Congress, and no State can prohibit 
 the importation of liquors without the 
 consent of Congress. By an act of Con- 
 gress passed in August, 1890, Prohibition 
 States are permitted to exclude foreign 
 as well as domestic liquors, and the right 
 to attack the import trade is therefore 
 temporarily conceded. At present, how- 
 ever, there is only one seaboard State 
 (Maine) that chooses to exercise this 
 privilege. 
 
 IMPORTS. 
 
 The chief centers of the import traffic 
 in liquors are the ports of New York, 
 Boston and San Francisco. For the year 
 ending June 30, 1889, the total value of 
 malt, vinous and spirituous liquors im- 
 ported at New York was $8,198,588; at 
 Boston, $654,829, and at San Francisco, 
 $640,207 ; while the aggregate value for 
 the entire country was $10,996,849 — so 
 that these three ports did nearly nine- 
 tenths of the import business. 
 
 The following table shows in detail the 
 imports and their values, and the duties 
 collected, for the year ending June 30, 
 1889: 
 
 
 Quan- 
 tities. 
 
 Values. 
 
 DUTT. 
 
 Matt Ligvcrs; 
 In bottles or jugs. .. 
 Not in bots. or jugs. 
 
 Spirits, Distilled, and 
 Spirituous com- 
 pounds : 
 
 Galls. 
 1,151,065 
 1,373,616 
 
 $956,243 
 405,747 
 
 $391,853.48 
 271,483.60 
 
 2,524,681 
 
 Proof 
 
 Galls. 
 
 400,089 
 
 1,127,458 
 
 $1,361,990 
 
 $1,076,265 
 851,822 
 
 $663,337.08 
 
 $806,512.87 
 2,136,735.21 
 
 
 
 1,527,547 
 
 I 315,870 
 
 3,078,554 
 260,026 
 
 $1,928,087 
 
 $4,254,413 
 
 2,126,548 
 1,325,811 
 
 $2,943,248.08 
 
 $2,181,693.65 
 J- 1,998,121.06 
 
 Wines : 
 
 Champagne and 
 
 other sparkling 
 
 doz. 
 
 Still Wines: 
 
 In casks — galls. 
 
 In bottles doz. 
 
 Totals 
 
 $7,706,772 
 10,99b,849 
 
 $4,179,814.71 
 7,786,399.87' 
 
 Grand totals 
 
 1 Duties are collected at the time of the withdrawal of 
 merchandise from the warehouse. The duties given 
 in this table are the duties assessed on the values of liquors 
 so withdrawn from the warehouse during the year ($10,- 
 938,789.88), not on the total values of all liquors imported 
 ($10,996,849). Consequently there remains an aggregate 
 value of $58,059 on which duty was not collected during 
 the year. 
 
 It is of interest to note that the value 
 of brandy and champagne was nearly 
 half as much as the combined value of 
 all imported liquors. 
 
 In the following table are given, for 
 a series of years, the values of and 
 duties levied on malt, spirituous and 
 vinous liquors loithdrawn for consump- 
 tion : 1 
 
 83 
 
 QO 
 
 33 
 
 83 
 
 -1 
 
 33 
 
 OS 
 
 
 88 
 
 © 
 
 sfSgi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o5 a 
 
 Sd 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *p 
 
 
 
 „ 
 
 
 
 
 €ft 
 
 -4 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 
 
 K 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 t= 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iii 
 
 «t 
 
 CJi 
 
 
 £ 
 
 o 
 
 to 
 
 -i 
 
 
 -j 
 
 
 t-t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 C» 
 
 oa 
 
 OS 
 
 Sg 
 
 s 
 
 * 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -1 
 
 
 -I 
 
 is 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 €0 
 
 <! 
 
 b 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 Ti 
 
 CO 
 
 2 
 
 © 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 "to 
 
 QO 
 
 J* 
 
 C5 
 
 CD 
 
 g 
 
 s 
 
 "a 
 
 
 2 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 li 
 
 a 
 
 CI 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -1 
 
 -7 
 
 -7 
 
 OS 
 
 Cs 
 
 OI 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IZ> 
 
 © 
 
 -i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e» 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,_, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 © 
 
 
 to 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 $ 
 
 CO 
 
 -_ 
 
 ft 
 
 K 
 
 05 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 e* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 -1 
 
 — . 
 
 •& 
 
 Ss 
 
 s 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -7 
 
 -1 
 
 -7 
 
 -7 
 
 -1 
 
 OS 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The only countries from which we re- 
 ceive considerable quantities of malt li- 
 quors are England, Ireland, Germany, 
 Scotland, Austria-Hungary and Canada, 
 the values of malt liquors imported from 
 these countries in 1889 having been: 
 England, $772,311 ; Ireland, $384,083; 
 Germany, $125,022; Scotland, $40,125; 
 Austria-Hungary, $26,517; Canada, $12,- 
 129. The other countries shipping beer 
 to us were: Mexico, $819; Sweden and 
 
 ' See note to preceding table. 
 
Imports and Exports.] 
 
 239 
 
 [Imports and Exports. 
 
 Norway, $472 ; France, $211 ; Nether- 
 lands, $162; Denmark, $108; Belgium, 
 $10; Cuba, $8; Hawaiian Islands, $7, 
 and Newfoundland $6. 
 
 In the import trade in spirits and spir- 
 ituous compounds, nearly every country 
 with which we have commercial relations 
 is represented. In 1889 the total imports 
 of brandy were valued at $1,076,265 ; and 
 from France alone the brandy imported 
 had a value of $977,318. The imports 
 of brandy from England were valued at 
 $40,372, from Belgium at $17,873, from 
 Canada at $14,276, from Germany at 
 $10,734 and from the Danish West In- 
 dies at $4,513. The following table gives 
 the values >of distilled liquors (including 
 brandy) for the countries from which the 
 importations in 1889 exceeded $5,000: 
 
 France $1,101,050 
 
 England 190,052 
 
 Netherlands 153,850 
 
 British West Indies 108,434 
 
 Germany 76,812 
 
 Scotland 58,947 
 
 Belgium 40,595 
 
 Canada 39,702 
 
 Ireland 38,805 
 
 China 32,743 
 
 Cuba 15,045 
 
 Danish West Indies 14,332 
 
 Italy 12,317 
 
 Hong-Kong 8,955 
 
 Austria- Hungary 7,577 
 
 Switzerland 6,474 
 
 All other countries 13,797 
 
 France also leads in the import trade 
 in wines. The champagne imported from 
 France in 1889 was valued at $3,991,358; 
 while the champagne imported from all 
 other countries had a value of only 
 $263,055, of which that imported from 
 Belgium was valued at $167,045, that 
 from Germany at $45,698 and that from 
 England at $41,725. Even in still wines 
 France takes the lead, having sent us 
 $1,074,520 worth in 1889, although Ger- 
 many was a close competitor, ship- 
 ping still wines valued at $1,070,203. 
 The following table includes all the coun- 
 tries from which wines valued in excess 
 of $5,000 were imported in 1889 : 
 
 France $5,065,878 
 
 Germany 1,115,901 
 
 Spain 682,427 
 
 Belgium 196,887 
 
 England 191,756 
 
 ItaTy 136,737 
 
 Austria-Hungary 105,205 
 
 Portugal 89,545 
 
 Netherlands 31,466 
 
 Cuba 30,127 
 
 Azore, Madeira and Cape Verde Islands 12,436 
 
 Canada 11,908 
 
 Switzerland 6,401 
 
 All other countries 30,098 
 
 No foreign liquors of any kind, intended 
 
 for general beverage use, 1 are allowed to 
 enter the United States free of 
 duty, although no duty is charged on 
 spirits manufactured by United States 
 distillers, shipped to foreign ports to 
 delay payment of the Internal Revenue 
 taxes and then brought back. In 1888 
 there were 2,636,756 gallons of such 
 spirits brought back, valued at $2,686,- 
 414; and in 1889 there were 1,933,712 
 gallons, valued at $2,027,844. The duty 
 on ale, beer and porter is 40 cents per 
 gallon when the liquor is in bottles or 
 jugs, and 35 cents per gallon when in 
 casks. A duty of $2.50 per proof gallon 
 is charged on alcohol, on brandy, cordials, 
 liqueurs, arrack, absinthe, kirschwasser, 
 ratafia, whiskey, gin, rum, etc. On 
 champagne and all other sparkling wines 
 in bottles the rate of duty is $2 per 
 dozen half-pint bottles, $4 per dozen pint 
 bottles and $8 per dozen quart bottles. 
 Still wines (including ginger wine or 
 ginger cordials or vermuth) pay 50 cents 
 per gallon when in casks and $1.60 per 
 dozen quart bottles when in bottles. 
 
 Besides liquors, the United States 
 levies customs duties on various materials 
 required by liquor manufacturers. Bar- 
 ley pays 30 cents per bushel; barley malt, 
 45 cents per bushel; chemicals, different 
 rates, separately fixed for different ar- 
 ticles; casks, 30 per cent.; bottles con- 
 taining sparkling wines, brandy or other 
 spirituous liquors, from 1 to \\ cent per 
 lb.; glucose, f cent per lb.; hops, 15 
 cents per lb. ; rice (flour, meal and broken), 
 i cent per lb.; prune wine and other 
 fruit juice not specially enumerated, 
 60 cents per gallon if containing not 
 more than 18 per cent, of alcohol, and 
 $2.50 per gallon if containing a larger 
 percentage. Cider pays 5 cents per 
 gallon. '' 
 
 EXPORTS. 
 
 The liquor export trade is of smaller 
 dimensions than the import business. 
 The following table shows the quantities 
 
 1 Liquors imported by foreign ministers to the United 
 States for their own use are, however, admitted duty free, 
 as are liquors " for the use of the United States." 
 
 2 All the rates of customs duty given above are those 
 charged under the new tariff in force Oct. 6, 1890. Under 
 the former tariff ale, beer and porter paid 35 cents per gal- 
 lon when in bottles, and 20 cents when in casks; distilled 
 liquors, $2 per gallon; sparkling wines at the rate of $7, 
 and still wines $1 60 per dozen quart bottles; barley, 10 
 c:nts per bushel ; barley malt, 20 rents per bushel; casks, 
 ^5 per cent., glucose, 20 per cent.; hops, 8 cents per lb.; 
 prune wine, etc., 20 per cent, ; cider, 20 per cent. 
 
Imports and Exports.] 
 
 240 
 
 [Imports and Exports. 
 
 and values of domestic liquors exported 
 during the year ending June 30, 1889 : 
 
 
 Quantities. 
 
 Values. 
 
 Malt Liquors: 
 
 375,059 
 170,059 
 
 $575,089 
 50,307 
 
 
 625,396 
 
 $78,615 
 
 115 
 524,509 
 
 1,081,347 
 362,688 
 170,827 
 
 Spirits : 
 
 Pure, neutral or cologne, 
 proof galls 
 
 276,726 
 
 141 
 445,589 
 
 1,292,329 
 383,805 
 294,840 
 
 Bourbon Whiskey, proof 
 
 Eye Whiskey, proof galls . . 
 All other, 
 
 Wines : 
 Not in bottles, galls 
 
 2,693,430 
 
 7,311 
 372,350 
 
 $2,218,101 
 
 $33,000 
 236,488 
 
 
 $269,488 
 3,112,985 
 
 
 Besides domestic liquors, there were 
 exported in 1889 foreign liquors of these 
 values: .Malt liquors, $3,995; spirits, 
 149,755; wines, $68,020. 
 
 In the following table, the quantities 
 and values of domestic liquors exported 
 are given for a series of years : 
 
 i-j. CO JO CO 
 
 8 § 
 
 Cuiq GjCtq ci, era & <W 
 
 >-l. ca CO 
 
 CO w ^ 
 
 C7I <X -i >- L 
 
 00 Ol w oo 
 
 •£> to a> 
 
 I 
 
 §> 
 3 5 
 
 All the malt and vinous liquors ex- 
 
 ported are shipped to foreign countries for 
 sale. These exports are increasing mate- 
 rially.- The largest part of the American 
 beer and wine product goes to the countries 
 of the North and South American con- 
 tinents, Central America and the neigh- 
 boring islands. Of the exports of beer in 
 1889, valued at $625,496, all but about 
 $30,000 worth was taken by these countries 
 and islands. There is a considerable de- 
 mand for our beer in the black Eepublics 
 of Hayti and San Domingo, and for our 
 wine in the Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 The exports of distilled spirits are not 
 bona fide exports, considered as a whole. 
 They include large quantities of whiskey 
 shipped temporarily to foreign ports, 
 with the purpose of leaving them there 
 for a time, and then bringing them back, 
 the object being to postpone payment of 
 the United States Internal Ee venue taxes. 
 The seemingly large decline in the ex- 
 ports of spirits since 1880 is due partly to 
 a decrease in the quantity of whiskey so 
 shipped and partly to an almost complete 
 disappearance of the European demand 
 for American alcohol and raw spirits, 
 this disappearance being occasioned by 
 the cheapness of the German product. 
 The ports to which most of the American 
 whiskey is sent for temporary storage are 
 Hamburg, Bremen, Liverpool, West In- 
 dian ports and Honolulu. In 1889 the 
 total exports of bourbon and rye whiskey 
 amounted to 1,676,134 proof gallons, of 
 which 1,366,393 proof gallons were sent 
 to Germany, 174,841 to the British West 
 Indies, 40,955 to England, 32,960 to the 
 Danish West Indies and 18,416 to the 
 Hawaiian Islands — making a total of 
 1,633,565 proof gallons, or 97 per cent, 
 of the entire exports of bourbon and rye 
 whiskey, and more than 60 per cent, of 
 the exports of spirits of all kinds. 
 
 Of the bona fide exports of American 
 spirits, a very large percentage goes to 
 heathen lands to be used in trade with 
 the savages. The item " Eum," in the 
 statistical tables of exports, stands almost 
 exclusively for spirits of the most fiery 
 and vilest nature. Below are given the 
 quantities and values of rum shipped 
 from the United States in 1889 to all 
 countries : 1 
 
 1 Even the export trade in this wretched rum shows a 
 marked decline on account of German competition. The 
 following figures show the total exports of rum to British 
 Africa for the years named: 1885, 794,311 gallons; 1S86, 
 737,650 gallons; 1 887, 632,986 gallons ; 1888, 690,237 gallons; 
 1889, 202,619 gallons. 
 
I. O. of Good Templars ] 
 
 241 
 
 [I. 0. of Good Templars. 
 
 Destination. 
 
 Proof 
 Galls. 
 
 Values. 
 
 French Possessions in Africa and ad- 
 
 94,389 
 
 401 
 
 135,749 
 
 5,150 
 
 1,609 
 
 202,619 
 50 
 
 5,580 
 42 
 
 $113,261 
 
 371 
 
 157,999 
 
 1,545 
 
 820 
 
 244,405 
 50 
 
 6,000 
 58 
 
 
 British West Indies 
 
 British Possessions in Africa and 
 Spanish Possessions in Africa and 
 
 All other islands and ports 
 
 445,589 
 
 $524,50!) 
 
 Of these 445,589 gallons of rum, 302,- 
 588 gallons went to African ports. 
 This entire export trade in rum had for 
 its sole object the corruption of aborigines, 
 for not a gallon of the quantity sent to 
 Africa has been returned. 
 
 J. C. Fernald. 
 
 Independent Order of Good 
 
 Templars.— This is the most wide- 
 spread international organization based 
 on total abstinence and Prohibition prin- 
 ciples. It was founded in central New 
 York in the summer of 1851, and soon 
 spread into other States and Canada. In 
 May, 1855, representatives of the Grand 
 Lodges of New York, Pennsylvania, Can- 
 ada, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, 
 Missouri, Illinois and Ohio, in session at 
 Cleveland, 0., organized the Eight 
 Worthy Grand Lodge as the supreme 
 governing body of the Order. There are 
 now branches throughout the civilized 
 world — in every State and Territory of 
 the United States, in every Province of 
 Canada, in England, Wales, Ireland, 
 Norway, Sweden, Denmark and other 
 countries of Europe, in India, China, 
 Japan, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, 
 Tasmania, the Sandwich Islands and in 
 numerous islands of the ocean. 
 
 The Right Worthy Grand Lodge has 
 jurisdiction over the whole Order. But 
 during the period from 1876 to 1887 the 
 Order was divided. At the annual con- 
 vention at Louisville in 1876, there were 
 differences of opinion on the negro ques- 
 tion, the representatives from Great Brit- 
 ain and Ireland and those from the 
 United States taking opposing views. 
 Two distinct Right Worthy Grand 
 Lodges were accordingly set up, and the 
 separation continued until each branch 
 exercised authority over about 300,000 
 members. John B. Finch, as the head 
 of the American branch, set for himself 
 the task of reuniting the Order, and at 
 
 Saratoga, in 1887, his labors were crowned 
 with success. Since then perfect har- 
 mony has prevailed, and the influence' 
 and prosperity of the Order have steadily 
 increased. 
 
 There are at present about 90 Grand 
 Lodges and 12,000 subordinate Lodges, 
 having a membership (male and female, 
 including juveniles) of more than 600.000. 
 Not less than 400,000 drinking men have 
 taken the pledge under the auspices of 
 the Good Templars. The obligation sub- 
 scribed to by each member is for life, and 
 is as follows : 
 
 " No member shall make, buy, sell, use, fur- 
 nish, or cause to be furnished to others, as a 
 beverage, any spirituous or malt liquors, wine 
 or cider ; and every member shall discounte- 
 nance the manufacture, saje and use thereof, 
 in all proper ways." 
 
 The following is the '■ platform of 
 principles," adopted in 1859 : 
 
 "1. Total abstinence from all intoxicating 
 liquor as a beverage. 
 
 " 2. No license in any form, or under any 
 circumstances, for the sale of such liquors as a 
 beverage. 
 
 " 3. The absolute Prohibition of the manufac- 
 ture, importation and the sale of intoxicating 
 liquors for such purposes, — prohibited by the 
 will of the people, expressed in due form of 
 law. with the penalties deserved for a crime of 
 such enormity. 
 
 " 4. The creation of a healthy public opinion 
 upon the subject by the active dissemination of 
 truth in all the modes known to an enlightened 
 philanthropy. 
 
 " 5. The election of good, honest men to 
 administer the laws. 
 
 "6 Persistence in efforts to save individuals 
 and communities from so direful a scourco, 
 against all forms of opposition and difficulty, 
 until our success is complete and universal." 
 
 The present chief officers (1890) are: 
 Right Worthy Grand Templar, William 
 W. Turnbull, Glasgow, Scotland; Right 
 Worthy Grand Counselor, Dr. Oron- 
 hyatekha, Toronto, Can. ; Right Worthy- 
 Grand Vice-Templar, Mrs. P. E. Finch,. 
 Evanston, 111.; Right Worthy Grand 
 Superintendent of Juvenile Temples,. 
 Mrs. A. A. Brookbank, Jeffersonville,. 
 Ind. ; Right Worthy Grand Secretary,. 
 B. F. Parker, Milwaukee, Wis.; Right 
 Worthy Grand Treasurer, W. Martin 
 Jones, Rochester, N. Y. 
 
 The following are the names of those 
 who have held the position of Right 
 Worthy Grand Templar since the begin- 
 ning of the Order: James M. Moore of 
 Kentucky, 1855-6; S. M. Smith of 
 
India.] 
 
 242 
 
 [India. 
 
 Pennsylvania, 1856-7 ; 0. W. Strong of 
 Illinois, 1857-8; Simeon B. Chase of 
 Pennsylvania, 185S-63; Samuel D. Hast- 
 ings of Wisconsin, 1863-8, 1873-4; Jon- 
 athan H. Orne of Massachusetts, 1868-71 ; 
 John Eussell of Michigan, 1871-3; John 
 J. Hickman of Kentucky, 1874-7, 1879- 
 81 ; Theodore D. Kanouse of Wisconsin, 
 1877-9; George B. Katzenstein of Cali- 
 fornia, 1881-4; John B. Finch of Illinois, 
 1884-7; W. W. Turnbull of Glasgow, 
 Scotland, 1887. B. P. Parker, 
 
 E. W. G. Secretary, I. 0. G. T. 
 
 India. 1 — The history — or modern his- 
 tory — of the drink curse in India dates 
 from the introduction of the British Ex- 
 cise system near the close of the 18th 
 Century. Previously to the era of British 
 dominion, the inhabitants of India were 
 among the most abstemious of peoples. 
 Though the ancient use of intoxicants 
 in connection with religious worship 
 and as a social custom is mentioned 
 in the Vedas, Puranas, Tantras and other 
 sacred books, and though intemperance 
 is attributed even to some of the gods of 
 the Hindus, the moralists and lawgivers 
 sternly and steadfastly condemned indul- 
 gence in alcoholic liquors. In the Bud- 
 dhist scriptures and also in the Mohamme- 
 dan Koran strong drink is prohibited. 
 The earliest Europeans visiting India 
 testified to the freedom of the people 
 from the vice of intemperance. The 
 fermenting process was undoubtedly 
 known in very distant ages, fermented 
 liquors b3ing made from the juices of the 
 soma and sura; but it was reserved for 
 the Christain English to sanction and 
 foster a traffic and a vice that had been 
 discountenanced and repressed by Hindu 
 and Mohammedan rulers alike. 
 
 THE BRITISH EXCISE POLICY. 
 
 The British Government in India in- 
 augurated its Excise policy in 1790, but 
 for 30 or 40 years comparatively little 
 liqusr was sold. Until Sept. 19, 187S, 
 all the distilleries were owned and 
 operated by the Government, under what 
 was known as the Sudder (or District) 
 Still system. The sole object was to pro- 
 duce revenues, and it was thought the 
 distilling business would be most profit- 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to Wallace J. Gladwin, Miles, 
 la.; Mrs. Emma Brainerd Ryder, Bombay, India, and 
 Mrs. Mary Clement Leavitt. 
 
 able if operated by the Government 
 itself. Under this system the revenue 
 finally reached considerable proportions 
 — in excess of $10,000,000 annually; but 
 the authorities were not satisfied, and a 
 new scheme was devised. 
 
 On Sept. 19, 1878, the new measure, or 
 Abkari act as it was called, was published 
 by the Government of Bombay. At first 
 it applied only to the Bombay Presidency, 
 but it is now in force over all India, ex- 
 cepting a few small districts under native 
 rule. Its distinctive feature is the " Out 
 Still " system. The right to operate dis- 
 tilleries in competition with the Govern- 
 ment is sold at public auctions to the 
 highest bidders. The successful bidder 
 in each locality may distill as much 
 liquor as he chooses, and of any kind and 
 quality, free from Government super- 
 vision. But the revenue from private 
 distillers, though the chief element of 
 the Excises, is only one element. All the 
 sap-bearing palm trees of India — trees 
 yielding juice from which fermented 
 liquor is made and spirits are distilled, — 
 are taxed by the Government; the right 
 to draw the sap is farmed out to the 
 highest bidder, and nobody — not even 
 the owner of the trees — can extract sap 
 without a Government license. Licenses 
 to sell liquor at retail are also sold to the 
 highest bidder. Thus the Excise policy 
 of India is based on the High License 
 principle exclusively. And like the High 
 License legislation of the United States it 
 is an entire success as a revenue measure. 
 
 In the year 1873-4 (before the Afckari 
 act went into effectl, the drink revenue 
 in the whole of India was £2,300,000 ; in 
 1878-9 it was £2,600,000; in 1883, 
 £3,609,000; in 1884, £3,836,000; in 
 1885, £4,012,000; in 1886, £4,152,000, 
 and in 1887, £4,266,000. 2 Details of the 
 increase in revenue in particular parts of 
 India are even more appalling. Statistics 
 given by W. S. Caine and Samuel Smith 
 in the British House of Commous, March 
 13, 1888, show that in eight years the in- 
 crease was 135 per cent, in Bengal; in 
 the Central Provinces it was 100 per 
 cent, in 10 years, etc. In Ceylon the 
 revenue from drink is almost 14 per cent, 
 of the total revenue. " The Government 
 are driving this liquor trade as hard as 
 they can," said Mr. Caine. " Collectors' 
 
 2 Intemperance in India, by Bishop J. F. Hurst, Cen- 
 tury Magazine for July, 1889. 
 
India.] 
 
 243 
 
 [India. 
 
 find it the easiest way to increase their 
 contribution to the revenue, and for 
 years they have been stimulating the 
 consumption of liquor to the utmost. 
 If the Government continue their present 
 policy of doubling the revenue every 10 
 years, in 30 years India will be one of the 
 most drunken and degraded countries on 
 the face of the earth/' In the same debate 
 Sir G. Campbell said the Excise revenue 
 was " the only progressive revenue of 
 India, and had been going up by leaps 
 and bounds." 
 
 The Government of India, however, 
 merits commendation for making none 
 of the virtuous pretensions that are ad- 
 vanced by the High License politicians of 
 the United States. The officials frankly 
 declare that they are interested in the 
 revenue solely, and not in the promotion 
 of temperance. In 1888 the Finance 
 Minister for India used the following 
 language in the Legislative Council: "I 
 look hopefully to a considerable increase 
 in the Excise revenues, and believe that 
 a great deal might be done in Northern 
 India by the introduction of the methods 
 which in Bombay and Madras have so 
 powerfully contributed to the increase of 
 revenue under this head." 
 
 In Bengal the Government applauded 
 16 collectors who had largely increased 
 the liquor sales in their districts. In the 
 vicinity of Bombay a movement was 
 started among the country people against 
 the use and sale of liquor, whereupon the 
 magistrate had eight of the leaders im- 
 prisoned. In reporting this tyrannical act 
 to the Secretary of State in London, the 
 Government of Bombay said: "The 
 question for decision is, shall we sit quiet 
 and allow the temperance movement in 
 the Colaba District to continue and to 
 spread, and thereby forfeit a large 
 amount of revenue, or are measures to be 
 adopted which will bring the people to 
 their senses ? " Such facts as these 
 moved Mr. Caine to say in Parliament, 
 April 30, 1889: "All moral considera- 
 tions are swamped in the effort to obtain 
 revenue," and " the worst and rottenest 
 Excise system in the civilized world is 
 that of India." 
 
 SHOCKING RESULTS. 
 
 This conclusion was voiced by Parlia- 
 ment itself, in more cautious but highly 
 significant language. The following 
 
 resolution, though warmly opposed by 
 Salisbury's Tory Ministry, was passed by 
 the House of Commons on the same day 
 (April 30, 1889) : 
 
 " That, in the opinion of this House, the fiscal 
 system of the Government of India leads to the 
 establishment of spirit distilleries, liquor and 
 opium shops in large numbers of places where 
 till recent'y they never existed, in defiance of 
 native opinion and the protests of the inhab- 
 itants, and that such increased facilities for 
 drinking produc3 a, steadily increasing con- 
 sumption, and spread misery and ruin among 
 the industrial classes of India, calling for imme- 
 diate action on the part of the Government of 
 India with a view to theft abatement." 
 
 With so striking an expression of 
 opinion delivered by a legislative body 
 under the control of a powerful Conserva- 
 tive majority, it goes without saying that 
 the results of the High License policy 
 from a temperance point of view have 
 been shocking in the ext:eme. All 
 authorities are agreed in tesifying that 
 intemperance has made great strides in 
 India under the Abkari act. Sap-gather- 
 ers, distillers and retail liquor-dealers 
 alike have every incentive to corrupt the 
 populace and sell as much liquor as 
 possible: each licensee pays the maxi- 
 mum price for the privilege of doing 
 business, with the express understanding 
 that his license is subject to revocation 
 if, at its expiration, some more anxious 
 competitor outbids him ; therefore he has 
 the strongest reasons for stimulating the 
 consumption of liquor to the utmost 
 limit. 
 
 The holy city of Benares (with its out- 
 lying district), according to the Abkari, 
 monthly organ of the Anglo-Indian 
 Temperance Association, consumed 158,- 
 356 gallons of spirits in 1887. The pop- 
 ulation of Benares city and districts was 
 892,684; yet the district of Gorukpore, 
 with a population of 2,617,120, consumed 
 only 57,571 gallons in the same year. 
 Tuese figures illustrate how the people of , 
 India, even in the regions where native " 
 customs and religion are apparently 
 strongest, are being corrupted by the 
 English drink traffic. 
 
 Under vigorous pressure from the 
 public, the Government appointed a com- 
 mission to inquire into the effects of the 
 Excise system. Although many of the 
 officials attempted to minify the evil con- 
 sequences, the reports were filled with 
 painful details. " The habit of drinking 
 
India.] 
 
 244 
 
 [India. 
 
 has extended to all classes," said the 
 Commissioners of Patna. "Enormous 
 increase of drunkenness," stated an in- 
 spector. " The quantity of liquor drunk 
 on holidays is immense," replied another, 
 and similar testimony might be adduced 
 almost without limit. 
 
 The missionaries freely make such 
 statements as the following: Archbishop 
 Jeffries, 31 years in India: "For one 
 really converted Christain as the proof 
 of missionary labor, the drinking prac- 
 tices of England have made a thousand 
 drunkards;" Eev.. Dr. Phillips: "Our 
 schools for the poor are frequently 
 broken up by the rising flood of intem- 
 perance. Our bazaar congregations are 
 often disturbed by drunken fellows, and 
 the work of preaching the gospel is much 
 hindered. Our teachers, pupils, preach- 
 ers and others are by no means proof to 
 the dire temptations of strong drink ; " 
 Dr. Reichel : " A cry of horror rises from 
 all mission fields at the ruin wrought by 
 intoxicating liquor." 
 
 The Government-licensed rum is of 
 exceedingly vile quality. Nearly all the 
 liquor manufactured is called "country 
 Spirits," " a drink so cheap and poison- 
 ous," says the Banner of Asia, " that ovei 
 every licensed house for the sale of it a 
 Government notice is placed, 'No Euro- 
 pean soldier allowed here.'" 1 In the 
 fiscal year 1887-8, the total Excise 
 revenue of Bengal was 6,456,144 rupees, 
 of which 5,205,122 rupees, or more than 
 80 per cent., came from the- tax on this 
 terrible " country spirits." (A rupee is 
 worth about 50 cents.) 
 
 REFORM EFFORTS. 
 
 Despite all discouragements there are 
 many earnest temperance laborers in 
 India, and their efforts are bearing fruit. 
 Missionaries, merchants, native gentle- 
 men, manufacturers and a few Govern- 
 ment officials have contributed to the 
 cause. A recognized leader is Rev. J. G. 
 Gregson, whose services in promoting 
 total abstinence in the British army in 
 India for 25 years were aided and eom- 
 
 1 The liquor sold is a fiery, stifling, poisonous spirit, 
 and a heavy penalty is awarded to any keeper found sell- 
 ing it to an English soldier. To the debauched intellects 
 of the persons in the Indian Government responsible for 
 these iniquities, the life of the English soldier is valuable 
 because of his costliness to the State, whilst that of the 
 native coolie is valueless, and tnere are no scruples to ob- 
 taining revenue from his death through these licensed 
 poisons — Banner of Asia, September, 1889. 
 
 mended by the highest officers. No per- 
 son has had larger opportunities to study 
 the question ; and he declares that British 
 licensed liquor "will be a curse to the 
 Empire more destructive in its conse- 
 quences than the heathen customs of their 
 [the natives'] forefathers," and that the 
 Excise regulations and drinking habits 
 are "crimes of equal magnitude with 
 those caused by sutteeism [burning alive 
 of widows], infanticide and fanaticism." 
 An aggressive and well-edited temperance 
 and Prohibition monthly, called the Ban- 
 ner of Asia, is published at Tardeo, Bom- 
 bay. The " United Committee for the 
 Prevention of the Demoralization of 
 Native Races by the Liquor Traffic," is 
 an influential English organization that 
 devotes much attention to India, head- 
 quarters being at 127 Palace Chambers, 
 London (Rev. J. Grant Mills, Secretary). 
 The Anglo-Indian Temperance Associa- 
 tion works exclusively for temperance 
 reform in India; the President is Samuel 
 Smith, M. P., and the Secretary W. S. 
 Caine, M. P., and the offices are at 
 No. 2 Storey's Gate, S. W., London. 
 
 Dr. Emma Brainerd Ryder of Bombay, 
 representing the World's Woman's Chris- 
 tian Temperance Union, is now (1890) 
 circulating petitions to the British Gov- 
 ernment asking that the Excise system be 
 abolished and that all persons be prohib- 
 ited from taking sap from the palm 
 trees. Pundita Pamabai, the distinguish- 
 ed Hindu woman, has engaged actively 
 in the temperance work since her return 
 from America. 
 
 OPIUM AND HASHEESH. 
 
 It was India that produced the opium 
 which England forced upon China at the 
 cannon's mouth. (See China.) But the 
 British authorities have not until recently 
 encouraged the consumption of opium 
 among their own subjects. Now opium for 
 native use is grown, manufactured and 
 retailed under Government sanction; 
 and the same is true of the equally 
 noxious preparations familiarly known 
 by the general name of hasheesh, made 
 from the Indian hemp. The consump- 
 tion of these drugs is increasing at a 
 frightful rate, and the revenue from them 
 is already large. During the fiscal year 
 1887-8, the revenue of the Bengal 
 Government from opium was 2,107,638 
 
India.] 
 
 245 
 
 [Indians (North American). 
 
 rupees, and from preparations of the 
 Indian hemp, 2,292,012 rupees. 
 
 "All opium in India," says a highly intelli- 
 gent Indian writer. " is derived from two sources, 
 thnt grown in the Native States, and that 
 grown by the license of the Indian Government, 
 manufactured in the Government factories and 
 sold by Government officials. With regard to 
 the opium grown in the Native States, all, or 
 nearly all, of this is produced for the China 
 market, and the Indian Government levies a 
 very heavy transit duty. The Native States are 
 unner British control and completely sur- 
 rounded by British territory. At every railway 
 station on the borders of these States, an In- 
 dian Government official is kept with a pair of 
 axles, and all opium coming from these States 
 on the way to Bombay, etc.. for shipment to 
 China is weighed and the duty paid to him 
 before it is allowed to proceed farther. Any 
 one even possessing this native opium in India 
 with. >ut having paid the duty is liable to 1,000 
 rupees fine and one year's imprisonment, under 
 Section 9 of the Opium act of 1878. 
 
 ' With regard to the opium produced directly 
 by the Indian Government, the plan pursued is 
 that the Indian Goverment licenses certain men 
 to grow the poppy. It then advances money to 
 these men in order to enable them to do this, 
 and to keep them entirely in its power. When 
 the poppy is ripe the cultivator makes slits in the 
 head of the plant from which a white juice ex- 
 udes. This turns to a black hard substance by 
 exposure to the air and is scraped off the plant, 
 and carefully collected, and sold to the Indian 
 Government at a fixed rate (about 3 rupees a 
 pound). If the cultivator sells a drop of the 
 juice to any one else but the Government, he is 
 liable to 1.000 rupees fine and one year's im- 
 prisonment, under Section 9 of Act No. 1 of 
 1878 (the Opium act >. The Indian Government 
 having bought the hardened juice, transports it 
 to great factories at Patna ami elsewhere, man- 
 aged by Government officials and guarded by 
 Government soldiers, where it is made ready 
 for use. Large quantities are sent to China, 
 into which country it was at first smuggled by 
 great East Indiamen (vessels bristling with can- 
 non like men-of-war), but is now imported 
 under treaties wrung from the Chinese by several 
 bloody wars. But these Government factories 
 are also now sending out large and increasing 
 quantities for use in India. In that case it is 
 sent to the ' Collectors' of the various diftricts, 
 who are also magistrates. These Collectors are 
 the wholesale dealers in the drug, and sell it to 
 the contractors. The contractors are forced 
 under a heavy fin? to sell a certain quantity in 
 their district. If the contractor does not sell as 
 much as he promised to do when he took the 
 contract, he forfeits a heavy sum, and if another 
 man comes and says, ' I will sell more than this 
 contractor,' the contract is given to him. Thus 
 the trade is encouraged and pushed by the 
 Government, and the damnation of the people 
 speeds apace. . . . 
 
 " On the 2d of July last (1889), I went to the 
 Null Bazar, Bombay, a great native market, 
 where food, grain, vegetables and meat are 
 sold. I saw a stall licensed by Government, 
 
 with three divisions, a man seated in each, all 
 three men weighing out the opium in its raw 
 state as fast as they could, to a continuous stream 
 of cusiomers — men, women and children. . . . 
 There are eleven such shops in Bombay. . . . 
 We were informed that the opium contractor 
 in Bombay is bound down to forfeit 3,000 ru- 
 pees if he fails to sell the quantity contracted 
 for. . . . 
 
 '• In licensing ganja, bhang, charas and majum, 
 the four noxious preparatious of the Indian 
 hemp, the Christian Government of India places 
 itself on a much lower moral plane than the 
 Mahommedan Turkish and Egyptian Govern- 
 ments, which most stringently prohibit them. 
 The use of these drugs centers in the worship of 
 Mahadeva or Shiva, the vilest and most licen- 
 tious idol of the Hindu Pantheon. In precisely 
 the same way as the Christian asks the blessing 
 of his Heavenly Father on his wholesome food, 
 so does the licentious slave of the products of 
 the Indian hemp invoke his filthy god, before 
 partaking of the above four poisons, licensed by 
 the Indian Government. As with opium, so 
 with the preparations of the Indian hemp, there 
 are houses specially licensed by the Government 
 for the sale of the drug. There is a stall in the 
 largest food-market of Bombay, the Crawford 
 Market, at which there is sold bhang, charas and 
 ganja, the three principal products of the Indian 
 hemp, and nothing else," l 
 
 Indiana. — See Index. 
 
 Indians (North American). — The 
 
 Government of the United States pro- 
 hibits absolutely the sale to Indians on 
 reservations of any intoxicating bever- 
 ages. No trader is allowed to traffic in 
 them, and any person who surreptitiously 
 sells or gives liquor of any description to 
 Indians, whether it is done on or off a 
 reservation, is liable to a fine of $300 and 
 two years' imprisonment. The Indian 
 Bureau uses all diligence to enforce these 
 laws, but in spite of every effort the evils 
 of intemperance among the Indians are 
 very great. Nothing, perhaps, stands 
 more in the way of their progress in 
 civilization, or is more hurtful to them 
 in all respects, than the use of strong 
 drink. The records of the Indian Office 
 abound in facts to illustrate this general 
 statement. 
 
 Not all Indians, by any means, are 
 addicted to the habit of drinking. Many 
 of them are total abstainers, some from 
 principle, others from necessity; but the 
 evils of drinking are greatly intensified 
 among them by the vile character of 
 much of the stuff that is furnished to 
 them. They are still further aggravated 
 
 1 Banner of Asia, September, 1889. 
 
Indians (North American).] 
 
 246 
 
 [Indians (North American). 
 
 by the improvident character of this 
 people, and their readiness while under 
 the influence of intoxicants to fling 
 reason and self-control to the winds, and 
 give loose rein to all their vile passions. 
 It is a distressing fact that while great 
 efforts are being put forth to induce the 
 Indians to lay aside their savage customs, 
 become civilized and adopt the " white 
 man's ways," so many white men are 
 ready to supply them with that which 
 sinks them even lower in the scale of 
 being than savagery. It is sadder still 
 that army officers, Indian agents, physi- 
 cians and even teachers, sometimes set 
 the Indians examples of drunkenness. » 
 
 There are many practical difficulties in 
 the way of the effectual enforcement of 
 the Government Prohibitory laws on 
 Indian reservations. The 250,000 In- 
 dians are scattered over a great territory 
 of nearly 190,000 square miles, making it 
 well-nigh impossible to police such a 
 region with any force. The police force 
 at the disposal of the Indian Office is in- 
 adequate and inefficient. The opportuni- 
 ties for evasion are many, and the facili- 
 ties for detection are few. It should be 
 said, however, that a large number of the 
 agents and other employees of the Indian 
 service are not only men of sobriety, but 
 are zealous in co-operating with the cen- 
 tral office in preventing just as far as 
 possible the liquor traffic. 
 
 As the Indians are fast becoming citi- 
 zens, the importance of the proper in- 
 struction of the rising generation in tem- 
 perance principles is urgent and cannot 
 be over-estimated. Every Indian school 
 should have a temperance organization 
 and should be equipped with an abun- 
 dance of appropriate temperance litera- 
 ture. Every teacher and every other em- 
 ployee on a reservation should be an out- 
 and-out temperance man or woman, whose 
 daily life will be an object lesson of the 
 principles inculcated. Thus, and thus 
 only, can the Government laws be of any 
 avail, or the fearful evils of intemperance 
 ^mong these people be lessened. 
 
 T. J. Morgan". 
 
 (United States Commissioner of Indian 
 Affairs.) 
 
 Historical Note? — Unlike the natives 
 of Mexico and South America, the North 
 
 American Indians never made alcoholic 
 liquor of any kind. " It is very certain," 
 says Heckewelder, " that the processes of 
 distillation and fermentation are entirely 
 unknown to the Indians, and that they 
 have among them no intoxicating liquors 
 but such as they receive from us. The 
 Mexicans have their pulque and other in- 
 digenous beverages of an inebriating 
 nature, but the North American Indians, 
 before their intercourse with us com- 
 menced, had absolutely nothing of the 
 kind." 2 Distilled spirits were given to 
 the Indians by nearly all the European 
 pioneers. The unknown drink was at 
 first taken with hesitation and fear, and 
 then was eagerly craved and constantly 
 demanded. One of the best-supported 
 of Indian traditions, says Heckewelder, 
 relates that the name of Manhattan 
 Island (New York) is corrupted from 
 Manaliachtanienk, meaning in the Dela- 
 ware language, " The island where we all 
 became intoxicated." 3 The fondness of 
 the Indians for spirits encouraged unscru- 
 pulous traders to use rum as the chief 
 medium of exchange in their dealings 
 with savages having furs and other val- 
 uable articles to dispose of. 
 
 In some instances the shocking results 
 appealed to philanthropic feelings and 
 caused persons in authority to prohibit 
 the giving of liquor to Indians. The 
 refusal of William Penn and ihe Friends 
 to take advantage of the appetites of the 
 natives is one of the most memorable of 
 these instances. As early as 1685, the 
 Yearly Meeting of Friends for Pennsyl- 
 vania and New Jersey adopted the follow- 
 ing minute : 
 
 "This meeting doth unanimously agree and 
 give as their judgment that it is not consistent 
 with the honor of truth, for any that make pro- 
 fession thereof, to sell rum or any strong 
 liquors to the Indians, because they use them 
 not to moderation but to excess and drunken- 
 ness." 
 
 In New England also it was made un- 
 lawful to provide the Indians with strong 
 drink. The Massachusetts Colony in 
 London in 1629, in a letter of instruc- 
 tions to Governor Endicott, said : 
 
 " We pra}- you endeavor, though there be 
 much strong water for sale, yet so to order it 
 as that the savages may not, for our lucre sake, 
 
 1 The information here given is derived chiefly from 
 ' Alcohol in History," by Richard Eddy, D. D. (New 
 York, 188T), pp. 75, 177-86. 
 
 2 History, Manners and Customs of the Indian Nations, 
 etc., by Rev. John Heckewelder, chap. 36. 
 » Ibid., pp. 71-4, 262. 
 
Indians (North. American).] 
 
 247 
 
 [Inebriate Asylums. 
 
 be induced to the excessive use, or rather abuse 
 of it; and at any time take care our people give 
 no ill example ; and if any shall exceed in the 
 inordinate kind of drinking as to become drunk, 
 we hope you will take care his punishment be 
 made exemplary for all others." 
 
 One of the earliest laws of the colony, 
 passed in 1633, directed that " No man 
 shall sell or (being in the course of trade) 
 give any strong water to any Indians." 1 
 But in 1644 this prohibition was modified, 
 the following curious order being pro- 
 mulgated : 
 
 " The Court, apprehending that it is not fit to 
 deprive the Indians of any lawful comforts 
 which God alloweth to all men by the use of 
 wine, orders that it shall be lawful for all who 
 are licensed to retail wines to sell also to In- 
 dians." 11 
 
 This discrimination in favor of wines 
 did not work, and in 1648 it was ordered 
 that " only one person in Boston be 
 allowed to sell wine to the Indians." 3 
 In 1657 a return was made to the origi- 
 nal law, it being decreed that " All per- 
 sons are wholly prohibited to sell, truck, 
 barter or give any strong liquors to any 
 Indian, directly or indirectly, whether 
 known by the name of rum, strong 
 waters, wine, strong beer, brandy, cider 
 or perry, or any other strong liquors go- 
 ing under any other name whatsoever." 4 
 
 The Prohibitory regulations of Ogle- 
 thorpe in Georgia (1733) against the im- 
 portation and sale of distilled spirits 
 were of great benefit to the Indians and 
 promoted friendly relations between them 
 and the whites. But the neighboring 
 colony of South Carolina sanctioned the 
 rum traffic, and " the enforcement of the 
 law among the Indians in Georgia," says 
 Prof. Scomp, " was scarcely thought of." 6 
 " Of all other causes,''' said a contempo- 
 rary writer, "the introduction of spirit- 
 uous liquors among them [the Indians], 
 for which they discovered an amazing 
 appetite, has proved the most destruc- 
 tive." 6 
 
 In every stage of the sad history of the 
 Indians, whiskey has been probably the 
 chief agent in the work of corruption 
 and extermination. There is no other 
 
 1 Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. 1, p. 16. 
 
 2 Ibid, vol. 2, p. 85. 
 
 3 Ibid, vol. 2, p. 358. 
 
 4 Ibid, vol. 3, p. 435. 
 
 5 King Alcohol in the Realm of King Cotton, by H. A. 
 Scomp, Ph. D., p. 118. 
 
 • A Historical Account of South Carolina and Georgia 
 (London, 1779), vol. 3, p. 279. 
 
 truth better established than this in the 
 annals of the North American continent. 
 
 Indian Territory. — See Index. 
 
 Inebriate Asylums. — The theory 
 that inebriety is a disease has been sup- 
 ported for centuries by physicians, phil- 
 osophers and statesmen, but the world 
 has lot been ready to accept it until very 
 recently. Near the beginning of the 
 present century Dr. Rush of Philadel- 
 phia advocated the building of special 
 asylums for inebriates; and Dr. Wood- 
 ward of Worcester afterwards seconded 
 this suggestion. The Connecticut State 
 Medical Society in 1830 petitioned the 
 Legislature to erect an inebriate asylum, 
 and the English Lunacy Commission in 
 1844 recommended that inebriates be de- 
 clared insane and that separate institu- 
 tions be constructed for them. Eminent 
 men in Europe and America approved 
 this proposition, but nothing was done 
 until 1846, when Dr. J. E. Turner of 
 Bath, Me., made efforts in New York to 
 bring about the formation of a company 
 to build an asylum for inebriates. Six 
 years later application was made to the 
 New York Legislature for a charter for 
 such an asylum. Strong and bitter 
 opposition was encountered, and it was 
 not until 1854 that the charter was 
 granted. Ten years later an inebriate 
 asylum was opened in the city of Bing- 
 hamton, N. Y. — the first in history. It 
 was erected with money raised by private 
 subscription. There was much contro- 
 versy concerning it, and finally it fell 
 into the hands of politicians and was con- 
 verted into an insane asylum in 1880. 
 During the 16 years of its existence over 
 4,000 inebriates were treated, and from 
 studies made in 2,000 cases it was ascer- 
 tained that 61 per cent, of the patients 
 had been restored to health and sobriety. 
 
 Other institutions were founded in the 
 United States and various foreign coun- 
 tries. Interest in the study of inebriety 
 has steadily increased and the literature 
 of the subject has received numerous 
 contributions of great value. The United 
 States, which took the lead, has shown 
 greater activity in the founding of in- 
 ebriate asylums than any other country. 
 
 Of asylums for the treatment of the in- 
 temperate, there are three distinct classes : 
 (1) Asylums or hospitals established by 
 
Inebriate Asylums.] 
 
 248 
 
 [Injunction Law. 
 
 State aid, corporations or private enter- 
 prise (with the prestige of legislation), 
 where the inebriate is regarded as dis- 
 eased and treated on broad scientific 
 principles. The Inebriates' Home at 
 Fort Hamilton, N. Y., the Washingtonian 
 Home at Boston the Inebriates' Home at 
 San Francisco and Walnut Lodge at 
 Hartford are among the principal asy- 
 lums of this class. (2) Hospitals and 
 retreats where inebriates are admitted 
 with persons suffering from other forms 
 of mental disease, and all are treated in 
 common. In many of these institutions 
 the inebriate is looked upon as half dis- 
 eased and half vicious, requiring a mixed 
 treatment. In some of them the proportion 
 of inebriates is very large, and inebriety 
 is treated under the name of " nerve ex- 
 haustion " or " debility." Nearly all the 
 private retreats for victims of mental 
 disorders are of this class. (3) Asylums 
 in which all questions of disease are 
 ignored, excepting in cases that result 
 from the direct use of spirits and that 
 are quickly relieved. They rely distinct- 
 ively upon moral and religious agencies, 
 pledges, prayers, etc. The Franklin 
 Home of Philadelphia and the Christian 
 Home of New York are well-known types. 
 
 The inebriate asylums in Europe are 
 small, and nearly all of them are private 
 institutions or under the control of 
 churches or temperance societies. The 
 Dalrymple Home, near London, is one of 
 the largest and best equipped. 
 
 All these institutions, both in America 
 and abroad, are yet in their infancy; not 
 one of them is able to do the work that 
 should be accomplished, because opposi- 
 tion and criticism are still to be over- 
 come. Some impressive truths have 
 been established. It is certain that the 
 treatment given in inebriate asylums en- 
 ables an encouragingly large number of 
 victims to permanently recover, and gives 
 all a better chance for recovery than 
 could be obtained at home. The propor- 
 tion of cases actually cured varies from 
 20 to 50 per cent. Those who have made 
 careful studies from large experience 
 seem to agree that among inebriates un- 
 der treatment for from four to six 
 months, at least 33 per cent, are cured. 
 Dr. Norman Kerr of London, President 
 of the Dalrymple Home, and Dr. Day 
 and Dr. Mason of this country, regard 
 this estimate as approximately correct. 
 
 The future looks promising, and it is be- 
 lieved that the public will support inebri- 
 ate asylums with increasing generosity. 
 The medical profession certainly mani- 
 fest a growing interest in the study of 
 inebriety. Four important medical . 
 societies are discussing the subject from 
 the scientific side alone, and two journals 
 are exclusively devoted to the scientific 
 aspects of inebriety. To all who have wit- 
 nessed the good work wrought, it seems 
 unexplainable that there should be any 
 opposition to so reasonable an idea as that 
 for quarantining the inebriate, removing 
 him from all exciting influences, and ap- 
 plying to his case the remedies most like- 
 ly to effect a cure. 
 
 T. D. Oeothees. 
 
 Injunction Law. — The most valu- 
 able instrument for expeditiously and 
 effectively enforcing Prohibitory meas- 
 ures. Where the statutes provide that 
 the premises of liquor-manufacturers or 
 sellers may be closed by the " injunction " 
 process, it is not necessary to grant the 
 offender a trial by jury; but upon sat- 
 isfactory evidence that liquor is sold or 
 kept in violation of law, his place may 
 be adjudged a nuisance by proceedings 
 in equity, it may be summarily closed 
 and the contraband goods may be seized. 
 
 The unsatisfactoriness of trial by jury 
 in liquor cases, even where the testimony 
 is overwhelming, has always been notori- 
 ous. A single juror may prevent con- 
 viction ; and with the strong prejudices 
 prevailing among a numerous class of 
 citizens against Prohibitory laws and the 
 readiness of multitudes, especially in the 
 cities, to recognize no moral obligation 
 to assist in punishing violators of such 
 laws, it is not strange that jury trials 
 of saloon malefactors are likely to prove 
 farcical. The ordinary proceedings for 
 practically crushing out the liquor-sellers 
 are necessarily brought in the petty 
 Courts, where the machinery of justice 
 is too often under the control of politi- 
 cians. Partisan influences, selfish inter- 
 ests and personal sympathy with the liq- 
 uor element combine to secure the open 
 or secret connivance of prosecuting offi- 
 cers; and where the demand for en- 
 forcement is regarded with official I. ostil- 
 ity or indifference, the system of trial by 
 jury can be made a mere cloak for un- 
 scrupulous manipulation or half-hearted 
 
Injunction Law.] 
 
 249 
 
 [Injunction Law. 
 
 efforts. On the other hand, where offi- 
 cials are well-meaning, incorruptible and 
 even distinctly friendly to enforcement, 
 the repeated refusals of juries to accept 
 indisputable evidence are naturally dis- 
 couraging to honest prosecutors and cause 
 partial or entire suspension of energetic 
 work. There have been some notable ex- 
 ceptions : in the rural communities juries 
 we generally obedient to aggressive public 
 sentiment, and in some large cities liquor 
 cases have been suitably disposed of by 
 jury trials; but as a rule juries have 
 been derelict in proportion to the magni- 
 tude of the evil and the clearness of evi- 
 dence against law violators. 
 
 The denial to defiant liquor-sellers, in 
 certain States, of the right of trial by 
 jury, is a logical outcome of the theory 
 of Prohibitory legislation. Where the 
 people enact such legislation the liquor 
 business becomes a criminal occupation, 
 and in the judgment of a majority of the 
 people every establishment used for car- 
 rying on the unlawful traffic is a common 
 nuisance. Official cognizance of the ex- 
 istence of such an establishment justifies, 
 therefore, immediate and arbitrary action 
 by the executive and judicial departments 
 of government ; and any valid form of 
 law that will facilitate suppression of the 
 objectionable traffic may properly be in- 
 voked. 
 
 The power to enjoin a liquor establish- 
 ment conducted and known as a nuisance, 
 has always been among the ordinary 
 equity powers of Courts of Chancery; and 
 before any real extension of this power 
 was made by the Legislatures, and in 
 very old statutes, unlicensed liquor places 
 were declared nuisances, and this of itself 
 made them subject to abatement under 
 the equity power of injunction. The re- 
 cent Prohibitory statutes, like those of 
 Iowa and Kansas, enacted the details of 
 procedure to procure abatement by injunc- 
 tion, and thus have made this remedy 
 practicable. 
 
 The amendatory Prohibition statute 
 passed in Kansas 'in 1885 contained pro- 
 visions for nuisances and injunction pro- 
 ceedings more radical than those em- 
 braced in any former Prohibitory law. 
 This Kansas Injunction act has been re- 
 viewed by the United States Supreme 
 Court and pronounced not only sound 
 but " salutary;" and it has been accepted 
 as the pattern for all acts of like nature. 
 
 The thirteenth section of it is as follows : 
 
 ' All places where intoxicating liquors are 
 manufacture:!, sold, bartered or given away in 
 violation of any of the provisions of this act, or 
 where intoxicating liquors are kept for sale, 
 barter or delivery in violation of this act, are 
 hereby declared to be common nuisances, and 
 upon the judgment of any Court having juris- 
 diction finding such place to be a nuisance un- 
 der this section, the Sheriff, his Deputy or 
 Under-Sheriff, or any Constable of the proper 
 county, or Marshal of any city where the same 
 is located, shall be directed to shut up and abate 
 such place by taking possession thereof and de- 
 stroying all intoxicating liquors found therein, 
 together with all sign*, screens, bars, bottles, 
 glasses and other property used in keeping and 
 maintaining said nuisance; and the owner or 
 keeper thereof shall, upon conviction, be ad- 
 judged guilty of maintaining a common nui- 
 sance, and shall be punished by a fine of not less 
 than $100, nor more than |500, and by im- 
 prisonment in the county jail not less than 
 30 days nor more than 90 days. The Attor- 
 ney General, County Attorney, or any cit- 
 izen of the county where such nuisance exists 
 or is kept or is maintained, may maintain an 
 action in the name of the State to abate and 
 perpetually enjoin the same. The injunction 
 shall be granted at the commencement of the 
 action, and no bond shall be required. Any 
 person violating the terms of any injunction 
 granted in such proceeding shall be punished as 
 for contempt by a fine of not less than $100 nor 
 more than $500, or by imprisonment in the 
 county jail not less than 30 days nor more 
 than six months, or by both such fine and im- 
 prisonment, in the discretion of the Court." 
 
 One of the most valuable features of this 
 measure is the provision that " the Attor- 
 ney-General, County Attorney, or any citi- 
 zen of the county where such nuisance exists 
 or is kept oris maintained may maintain an 
 action in the name of the State to abate 
 and perpetually enjoin the same." There- 
 fore in a community where the local pros- 
 ecuting officer is for any reason neglect- 
 ful of his duties under the Prohibitory 
 law, the State Attorney-General may in- 
 terfere and compel obedience ; and if 
 both the County Attorney and the Attor- 
 ney-General fail to act, any citizen may 
 move against offenders " in the name of 
 the State." This gives the friends of 
 the law authority to take the prosecuting 
 machinery into their own hands when- 
 ever the officials do not perform their 
 work satisfactorily; but in thus becom- 
 ing responsible for prosecutions they 
 become responsible also for costs in case 
 the Judge decides that the places com- 
 plained against are not in fact nuisances. 
 Under the Kansas Injunction law the 
 Judges have arbitrary authority, and if 
 
Injunction Law.] 
 
 250 
 
 [Injunction Law. 
 
 the liquor element is strong enough to 
 control the Judges even this powerful 
 statute may be made temporarily un- 
 availing. But other clauses of the Kan- 
 sas law prescribe severe penalties, to be 
 visited upon all officials and Judges who 
 are derelict; and although the actual 
 punishment of an unscrupulous Judge 
 cannot be confidently predicted, the pro- 
 visions of the law are so radical that no 
 Judge who values his reputation for char- 
 acter and conscience can afford to stand 
 in the way of enforcement. Again, in in- 
 junction proceedings there is little room 
 for differences of opinion concerning the 
 merits of cases, for dilatory quibbles, per- 
 jured testimony or sophistical representa- 
 tions; the statute declares that any place 
 where liquor is unlawfully sold or kept is 
 a nuisance, and no legal argument or dis- 
 criminating judgment is required to deter- 
 mine whether a certain place falls under 
 the statutory definition ; proof of unlawful 
 sale or possession alone is necessary, and 
 proof satisfactory to a responsible Judge 
 and not to jurors of questionable motives 
 or pro-saloon tendencies. 
 
 It was claimed by the anti-Prohibition 
 advocates that the Kansas Injunction law 
 was repugnant to the provision made in 
 the 14th Amendment to the Federal Con- 
 stitution, that no State shall " deprive 
 any person of life, liberty or property 
 without due process of law;" but their 
 efforts to secure judicial sanction for their 
 view were as unsuccessful as in the case 
 of their demand for compensation. 1 
 When the Kansas Prohibition cases were 
 argued before the United States Supreme 
 Court the counsel for the brewers made 
 a formidable attack upon Section 13 of 
 the Kansas law of 1885. In the famous 
 decision of December, 1887, the Court 
 devoted considerable space to the ques- 
 tion of the validity of that section, and 
 seven of the eight Justices then on the 
 bench voted to sustain it (Justice Field 
 dissenting). The Court presented the 
 arguments against and for the Injunction 
 law so thoroughly that we quote all that 
 part of the decision bearing upon this 
 subject (121! IT. S, 623): 
 
 " It is contended in the case of Kansas v. Zie- 
 bold & Hagelin, that the entire scheme of this 
 section i< an attempt to deprive persons who 
 come within its provisions of their property and 
 of their liberty without clue process of law, es- 
 
 1 See pp. 92-4. 
 
 pecially when taken in connection with that 
 clause of Section 14 (amendatory of Section 21 
 of the act of 1881) which provides that ' in pro- 
 secutions under this act, by indictment or other- 
 wise. ... it shall not be necessary in the first 
 instance for the State to prove that the party 
 charged did not have a permit to sell intoxicat- 
 ing liquors for the excepted purposes.' 
 
 '■ We are unable to perceive anything in these 
 regulations inconsistent with the Constitutional 
 guarantees of liberty and property. The State 
 having authority to prohibit the manufacture 
 and sale of intoxicating liquors for other than 
 medical, scientific and mechanical purposes, we 
 do not doubt her power to declare that any- 
 place kept and maintained for the illegal man- 
 ufacture and sale of such liquors shall be 
 deemed a common nuisance and bs abated and 
 at the same time to provide for the indictment 
 and trial of the offender. One is a proceeding 
 against the property used for forbidden pur- 
 poses, while the other is for the punishment of 
 the offender. 
 
 " It is said that by the 13th Section of the act 
 of 1885, the Legislature, finding a brewery with- 
 in the State in actual operation, without notice, 
 trial, or hearing, by the mere exercise of its ar- 
 bitrary caprice, declares it to be a common nui- 
 sance and then prescribes the consequences 
 which are to follow inevitably by judicial man- 
 date required by the statute, and involving and 
 permitting the exercise of no judicial discretion 
 or judgment ; that the brewery being found in 
 operation the Court is not to determine whether 
 it is a common nuisance, but under the com- 
 mand of the statute is to find it to be one ; that 
 it is not the liquor made, or the making of it, 
 which is thus enacted to be a common nuisance, 
 but the place itself, including all the property 
 used in keeping and maintaining the common 
 nuisance ; that the Judge, having thus signed 
 without inquiry, and it may be against the fact 
 and against his own judgment, the edict of the 
 Legislature, the Court is commanded by its offi- 
 cers to take possession of the place and shut it 
 up ; nor is all this destruction of property, by 
 legislative edict, to be made as a forfeiture con- 
 sequent upon conviction of any offence, but 
 merely because the Legislature so commands ; 
 and it is done by a Court of Equity, without 
 any previous conviction first had, or any trial 
 known to the law. 
 
 ' ' This certainly is a formidable arraignment of 
 the legislation of Kansas, and if it were founded 
 upon a just interpretation of her statutes the 
 Court would have no difficulty in declaring 
 that they could not be enforced without in- 
 fringing the Constitutional rights of the citizen. 
 But these statutes have no such scope and are 
 not attended with any such results ns the de- 
 fendants suppose. The Court is not required to 
 give effect to a legislative ' decree ' or ' edict,' 
 unless every enactment by the law-making 
 power of a State is to be so characterized. 
 
 " It is not declared that every establishment 
 is to be deemed a common nuisance because it 
 may have been maintained prior to the passage 
 of the statute as a place for manufacturing in- 
 toxicating liquors. The statute is prospective 
 in its operation — that is, it does not put the 
 brand of a common nuisance upon any place, 
 
Injunction Law.] 
 
 251 
 
 [Internal Revenue. 
 
 unless after its passage that place is kept and 
 maintained for purposes declared by the Legis- 
 lature to he injurious to the community. Nor 
 is the Court required to adjudge any place to be 
 a common nuisance simply because it is charged 
 by the State to be such. It must first find it to 
 "be of that character— that is. must ascertain in 
 some legal mode whether since the statute was 
 passe 1 the place in question has been or is being 
 J S3 used as woul 1 nijke it a common nuianee. 
 " Eqaaily teuaale is the proposition that pro- 
 ceedings in equity for the purposes indicated in 
 the 13th Section of the statute are inconsistent 
 with due process of law. ' In regard to public 
 nuisances,' iUr Justice Story says, ' the jurisdic- 
 tion of Courts of Equity seems to be of a very an- 
 cient date, and has been distinctly traced back to 
 the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The jurisdiction 
 is npp. icable not only to public nuisances strictly 
 s >calied. but also to purprestures upon public 
 rights and property. In case of public nui- 
 sances properly so called, an indictment lies to 
 abate them and to punish the offenders. But an 
 information also lies in equity to redress the 
 grievance by way of injunction.' (2 Story's 
 Eq., sections 931, 922.) 
 
 • The ground of this jurisdiction in cases of 
 purpresture. as well as of public nuisances, is the 
 ability of Courts of Equity to give a more 
 spe dy, effectual and permanent remedy than 
 can i;e had at law. They can not only prevent 
 nu. antes that are threatened and before irrepar- 
 able mischief ensues, but arrest or abate those 
 in progress, and by rjerp: tual injunction protect 
 tiie public against them in the future ; whereas 
 Courts of law can only reach existing nuisances, 
 having future acts to be the subject of new 
 prosecutions or proceedings. This is a salutary 
 jurisdiction, especially where a nuisance affects 
 the health, morals or safety of the community. 
 Tnough not frequently exercised, the power 
 undoubtedly exists in Courts of Equity thus to 
 protect the public against injury : District At- 
 torney v Lynn & Boston R. R. Co., 16 Gray, 
 245; Att'y-Gen'l v. N. J. Railroad, 3 Green's 
 Ch., 139; Att'y General v. Tudor Ice Co.. 104 
 Mass., 244 ; State v. Mavor, 5 Porter (Ala.), 
 279, 294; Hoole v. Att'y-General, 22 Ala., 194 ; 
 Att'y-General v. Hunter, 1 Dev. Eq. 13; Att'v- 
 Gen'l v. Forbes. 2 Mylne & Craig. 123, 129, 133; 
 Att'y-Gen'l v. Great Northern Railway Co.. 1 
 Dr. & 8m., 161; Eden on Injunctions, 259; 
 Kerr on Injunctions (2d Ed.) 168. 
 
 'As to th 3 objection that the statute makes 
 no provision for a jury trial in cases like this 
 one it is sufficient to say that such a mode of 
 trial is net required in suits in equity brought 
 to enjoin a public nuisance. The statutory di- 
 rection that an injunction issue at the com- 
 mencement of the action is not to be construed 
 as dispensing with such preliminary proof as is 
 necessary to authorize an injunction pending 
 the suit The Court is not to issue an injunc- 
 tion simply because one is asked, or because the 
 charge is made that a common nuisance is main- 
 tained in violation of law. The statute leaves the 
 Court at liberty to give effect to the principle 
 that an injunction will not be granted to restrain 
 a nu'sance, except upon clear and satisfactory 
 evidence that one exists. Here the fact to be 
 aseer'.ained was, not whether a place, kept and 
 
 maintained for the purposes forbidden by the 
 statute, was, per se, a nuisance that fact being 
 conclusively determined by the statute itself, — 
 but whether the place in question was so kept 
 and maintained. If the proof upon that point 
 is not full or sufficient, the Court can refuse an 
 injunction, or postpone action until the State 
 first obtains the verdict of a jury in her favor." 
 
 [For injunction provisions in the statutes of 
 particular States, see Legislation.] 
 
 Internal Revenue, in the fiscal 
 nomenclature of the United States, em- 
 braces all the revenues of the Federal 
 Government from taxes of whatever kind, 
 collected under the Bureau of Internal 
 Revenue created by the law of July 1, 
 1862, and connected with the Treasury 
 Department at Washington. Used in its 
 etymological sense, the term would cover 
 all the inland receipts of the Government, 
 no matter from what source derived ; and 
 thus "Internal Revenue" and "customs 
 duties" would constitute the two great 
 divisions of the Governments income, 
 the one being the complement of the 
 other. Technically, however, the ex- 
 pression is limited in its acceptation as 
 stated above, and does not include the re- 
 ceipts from patent fees or from the sale 
 of postage-stamps or of the public lands. 
 
 The United States has, as a rule, and 
 from the very beginning, preferred to 
 obtain its revenues from duties laid upon 
 imported goods, and has resorted to ex- 
 cises only when forced by over-mastering 
 circumstances to do so, relinquishing them 
 when the means necessary to defray the 
 expenditures of the Government could be 
 obtained from customs receipts. In the 
 early history of the Union, the antipathy 
 of the people to the laying of excises, 
 or inland taxes, was deep-rooted and vio- 
 lent. Nor did they always wait until 
 such taxes were actually proposed or im- 
 posed to express their opposition to them. 
 Thus, it was twice moved in the New 
 York Convention called to consider the 
 question of adopting the Constitution, 
 that the power of laying excises should 
 be prohibited to Congress. The general 
 sentiment of our forefathers on the sub- 
 ject of Excise laws may be inferred from 
 these words of Alexander Hamilton in 
 No. 12 of the Federalist : " The genius 
 of our people will ill brook the inquisi- 
 tive and peremptory spirit of Excise 
 laws. ... It has been already inti- 
 mated that excises, in their true signifi- 
 cation, are too little in unison with the 
 
Internal Eevenue.] 
 
 252 
 
 [Internal Revenue. 
 
 feelings of the people to admit of great 
 use being made of that mode of taxation." 
 But the opposition to excises, in the first 
 decades of our history, was not due en- 
 tirely to the inherited abhorrence of the 
 inquisitorial nature of their collection; it 
 was largely determined by the economic 
 condition of the country. Impoverish- 
 ed by the War of the Eevolution, there 
 was at its close, and for years after it, 
 little in the country on which internal 
 taxes could have been imposed, for 
 neither trade nor manufactures had as 
 yet been developed to any great extent. 
 It is not a matter of surprise, therefore, 
 that the first measure proposed in the 
 United States for the laying of an excise 
 met with defeat. 
 
 A bill providing for the taxation of dis- 
 tilled spirits was introduced in Congress 
 in 1790. The representatives of Pennsyl- 
 vania were utterly opposed to it, and in 
 opposing it they simply executed the will 
 of the people of that State ; for they had 
 been instructed by its Legislature to vote 
 against the passage of an excise, " the 
 horror of all free States." In a petition 
 sent to Congress by the inhabitants of 
 Westmoreland, Pa., it was claimed that to 
 convert grain into spirits was as clearly a 
 natural right as to convert grain into 
 flour. The main cause of the defeat of 
 this first measure was, doubtless, the op- 
 position it met with in the State of Penn- 
 sylvania and in Congress through the ef- 
 forts of the Pennsylvania representatives. 
 It would be a mistake to ascribe the an- 
 tagonism to the taxation of spirits, at 
 that time, to what is called, in our day, 
 the demand for free whiskey. It pro- 
 ceeded from the producers more than 
 from the consumers of spirits, and from 
 the former mainly because it interfered 
 with the utilization of their grain in the 
 only way profitable, in those days, in 
 Western Pennsylvania. The market for 
 that commodity was so remote and the 
 difficulty of transporting it thither so 
 great, because of its bulk, that the far- 
 mers of that region were in the habit 
 of converting it into whiskey, in which 
 shape it could be more easily moved. 
 Hence a still was to be found on almost 
 every farm. 
 
 It was not long, however, before an in- 
 crease of the revenue became imperative, 
 and in 1791 Hamilton advocated both an 
 increase of customs duties and a tax on 
 
 distilled spirits. It was again objected* 
 by the people of Western Pennsylvania? 
 that the tax on spirits would fall very un- 
 equally on the different sections of the 
 country, and most heavily on them- 
 selves; for their region was then very 
 sparsely populated and had scarcely any 
 money ; its trade was by barter, spirits 
 serving as a medium of exchange. The 
 South likewise opposed the bill, "grog" 
 being considered there one of the neces- 
 saries of life. The Eastern and the 
 Middle States, however, favored it, and 
 it became a law, having received 39 
 votes against 19 in the House. It laid a 
 tax of 11 cents per gallon on spirits 
 distilled from foreign materials (molasses 
 and syrups), and 9 cents on those manu- 
 factured from domestic material (grain 
 and flour). According to , the report of 
 the Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander 
 Hamilton, the annual production of dis- 
 tilled spirits in the country, at this time, 
 was about 6,500,000 proof gallons, of 
 which it was estimated 3,500,000 gallons 
 were obtained from foreign materials. 
 The tax was light and the necessities of 
 the Government were great and urgent, 
 yet its imposition met with the greatest 
 resistance, and in 1794 the western coun- 
 ties of Pennsylvania rose in open rebel- 
 lion against its collection. An army 
 composed of the milita of the neigh cor- 
 ing States marched into the disturbed 
 districts, seized the leaders of the insur- 
 gents and restored the authority of the 
 Federal Government. It cost the Gov- 
 ernment $1,500,000 to quell the insurrec- 
 tion, while its total expenses, during the 
 same year, for all ordinary purposes 
 were only $4,362,000. 
 
 After Thomas Jefferson became Presi- 
 dent he recommended the repeal of the 
 whole system of Internal Revenue, and 
 his recommendation was carried into ef- 
 fect by the act of April 6, 1802. From 
 this date until 1813, no inland taxes on 
 articles grown or manufactured in the 
 United States were imposed, the import 
 duties being increased whenever a larger 
 revenue was needed. Although, during 
 this interval, the duties on imported 
 goods were raised, they proved altogether 
 insufficient to meet the expenditures oc- 
 casioned by the War of 1812. To secure 
 funds for that purpose, recourse was first 
 had to loans and the issue of Treasury 
 notes. But even the increased revenue 
 
Internal Revenue.] 
 
 253 
 
 [Internal Revenue. 
 
 from these sources was inadequate, and 
 in the early part of 1813 a system of In- 
 ternal Revenue from direct tax and ex- 
 cise was established. At first considered 
 temporary and intended to cease one year 
 after the war, these taxes, with few ex- 
 ceptions, were afterwards extended and 
 pledged for the payment of the principal 
 of the public debt, and it was provided 
 that they should be continued until 
 other equally productive ones were sub- 
 stituted for them. A license tax to dis- 
 tillers took the place of the tax per 
 gallon. 
 
 The embarassment of the Federal Treas- 
 ury, however, grew so great that in 1814 a 
 special session of Congress had to be called 
 and further loans authorized. The di- 
 rect yearly tax was doubled and extended 
 to the District of Columbia. It became 
 necessary, too, for the first time in the 
 country's history, to tax domestic manu- 
 factures other than spirits, snuff and 
 sugar. Specific taxes were imposed on 
 iron and candles, and ad valorem taxes 
 on hats, caps, umbrellas, leather boots, 
 plate, beer, ale, playing-cards, harness, 
 household furniture and gold and silver 
 watches. 
 
 In 1816 the direct tax was reduced one- 
 half and in the following year all internal 
 taxes were repealed. Prom 1818 to 1861 
 no internal tax of any kind was laid in 
 the United States. In the latter year 
 "an act to provide increased revenue 
 from imports, to pay interest on the 
 public debt, and for other purposes," 
 was framed on the 5th of August ; but 
 besides providing a revenue from im- 
 ports it laid a direct tax, apportioned 
 among the States, of $20,000,000 to be 
 collected annually, and also a tax of 3 
 per cent, on all incomes in excess of 
 $800. The fact that these direct and in- 
 come taxes were imposed by an act in 
 whose title the very mention of them 
 was carefully avoided, shows how un- 
 certain Congress felt as to how public 
 opinion and popular feeling would re- 
 ceive the proposition to lay them, after 
 the people had, for well-nigh half a cen- 
 tury, grown unaccustomed to the annoy- 
 ance and vexation incident to their col- 
 lection. It soon, however, became appar- 
 ent that the gigantic struggle in which 
 the nation was engaged could not be suc- 
 cessfully carried on without resort to in- 
 ternal taxation on a much more extensive 
 
 scale than ever before. Accordingly the 
 law known as the Internal Kevenue law 
 was passed, and approved July 1, 1862. 
 This law created the Bureau of Internal 
 Revenue. Under its operation, scarcely 
 anything tangible or intangible, from 
 which revenue could be obtained, es- 
 caped taxation. Besides distilled spirits, 
 fermented liquors and tobacco, it taxed 
 trades and occupations, gross receipts and 
 sales, dividends and incomes, articles not 
 consumed in the use, manufactures, leg- 
 acies and successions. It required a li- 
 cense' tax from bankers, auctioneers, 
 wholesale and retail dealers in distilled 
 spirits, fermented liquors and wines; 
 from pawnbrokers, rectifiers, distillers 
 and brewers ; from hotel, inn and tavern- 
 keepers; from all steamers and vessels 
 upon waters of the United States ; from 
 commercial, land warrant and other 
 brokers ; from tobacconists, theatres, cir- 
 cuses and jugglers; from carpenters; 
 from horse-dealers, livery stable-keepers 
 and cattle brokers; from tallow-chandlers 
 and soap-makers; from peddlers and 
 apothecaries, manufacturers and photog- 
 raphers, lawyers, physicians, surgeons and 
 dentists ; and also from claim and patent 
 agents. It taxed mineral coals, candles, 
 illuminating gas, coal illuminating oil, 
 ground coffee and spices, refined and 
 brown sugar, confectionery, saleratus, 
 starch, gunpowder, white lead, clock 
 movements, umbrellas and parasols; 
 railroad iron of almost every descrip- 
 tion ; band, hoop and sheet iron ; stoves 
 and hollowware; paper, soap, salt, 
 pickles, glue and gelatine,; patent, sole, 
 harness, band and offal leather; calf, 
 goat, horse and hog-skins; varnish and 
 furs; diamonds and cotton; auction 
 sales; carriages, yachts, billiard-tables 
 and plate; cattle, hogs and sheep, 
 slaughtered or for sale; railroads, steam- 
 boats and ferry-boats; railroad bonds; 
 banks, trust companies, savings institu- 
 tions and insurance companies; the 
 salaries and pay of officers and persons in 
 the service of the United States, whether 
 civil, military, naval or other; passports, 
 advertisements and all incomes in excess 
 of $600. Stamp duties were laid on 
 agreements, bank checks, inland bills of 
 exchange, foreign bills of exchange and 
 letters of credit, bills of lading, express 
 receipts and stamps, surety bonds, certif- 
 icates of stock, charter-parties, contracts, 
 
Internal Revenue.] 
 
 254 
 
 [Internal Revenue. 
 
 conveyances and telegraphic despatches; 
 life, fire and marine insurance policies or 
 leases, mortgages, passage-tickets, powers 
 of attorney, probates of wills, protests, 
 warehouse receipts, writs or other orig- 
 inal legal process in all Courts of record 
 whether law or equity ; on medicines and 
 preparations, perfumery, cosmetics and 
 playing-cards. As if seized with desper- 
 ation, Congress seemed determined to tax 
 everybody and everything. 
 
 The internal taxes imposed by the law 
 of July 1, 1862, have been gradually re- 
 duced as the money needs of the Govern- 
 ment have diminished. The act of May 
 31, 1868, relieved the manufactures of the 
 country except those of distilled spirits, 
 fermented liquors and tobacco, of all tax- 
 ation. The act of July 14, 1870, re- 
 pealed the tax on legacies and successions. 
 The act of June, 1872, made other large 
 reductions. It did away with the tax on 
 incomes after that tax had yielded a total 
 revenue during the 10 years it was in 
 forpe of 8346,911,760.48; abolished all 
 stamp taxes under Schedule B (1864) ex- 
 cept that of 2 cents on bank checks, 
 
 drafts and orders, and reduced the sources 
 of Internal Eevenue to about what thev 
 are at present, with the exception of the 
 tax on oleomargarine which was laid by 
 the act of Aug. 2, 1886. 
 
 The following table shows the receipts 
 of the United States from Internal Rev- 
 enue from March 4, 1792, to the end of 
 the year 1820 : 
 
 1792. 
 1793. 
 1794. 
 1795. 
 1796. 
 1797. 
 1798. 
 1799. 
 1800 
 1801.. 
 
 .$ 
 
 337. 
 274. 
 337. 
 475, 
 575, 
 644,. 
 779, 
 809, 
 l,048,i 
 
 .942.81 
 705.70 
 089.62 
 755.36 
 289.60 
 491.45 
 7.95 
 136.44 
 396.55 
 033.43 
 
 1802 $ 621. 
 
 1808 215. 
 
 1814 1,668. 
 
 1815 
 
 1816 
 
 1817 
 
 1818 
 
 1819... . 
 1820 
 
 4,67 
 
 5,124. 
 
 2,678. 
 955, 
 
 229,593.63 
 100,260.53 
 
 ,179.69 
 .084.82 
 .059.07 
 708.31 
 100.77 
 270.80 
 
 Since the establishment of the Bureau 
 of Internal Eevenue the principal sources 
 of Internal Revenue have been distilled 
 spirits, tobacco and fermented liquors. 
 In the first three columns of the table 
 given below will be found the receipts 
 from taxes on these articles respectively, 
 and in the fourth the Internal Revenue 
 receipts from all sources by fiscal years, 
 that is from Sept. 1, 1862, to June 30, 
 1889 : l 
 
 Fiscal Tears Ended June 30. 
 
 Distilled 
 Spirits. 
 
 Fermented 
 Liquors. 
 
 Tobacco. 
 
 From all Sources. 
 
 Aggregate 
 
 Receipts. 
 
 
 $5,176,530.50 
 30,329,149.53 
 18,731,422.45 
 33,868,171.82 
 33,543,951.72 
 18,655,630.90 
 45,071,230.86 
 55,606,094.15 
 46,281,848.10 
 49,475,516.36 
 52,099,371.78 
 49,444,089.85 
 52,081,991.12 
 56,426,365.13 
 57,469,429.72 
 50,420,815.80 
 52,570,284.69 
 61,ia5,50S.79 
 67,153,974.88 
 69,873,408.18 
 74,368,775.20 
 76,905,385.26 
 67,511,208.63 
 69,092,866.00 
 65,829,321.71 
 69,306,166.41 
 74,312,206.33 
 
 $1,628,933.82 
 
 2,290,009.14 
 
 3,734,928.06 
 
 5,220,552.72 
 
 6,057,500.63 
 
 5,955,868.92 
 
 6,099,879.54 
 
 6,319,126.90 
 
 7,389,501.82 
 
 8.258,498.46 
 
 9,324,937.84 
 
 9,304,679.72 
 
 9,144,004.41 
 
 9,571,280.66 
 
 9,480,789.17 
 
 9,937,051.78 
 
 10,729,320.08 
 
 12,829,802.84 
 
 13,700,841.21 
 
 16,153,920.42 
 
 16,900,615.81 
 
 18,084,954.11 
 
 18,280,782.03 
 
 19,676,731.29 
 
 21,922,187.49 
 
 23,324,218.48 
 
 23,723,835.26 
 
 $3,097,620.47 
 8,592,098.98 
 11,401,373.10 
 16,531,007.83 
 19,765,148.41 
 18,730,095.32 
 28,430,707.57 
 81,350,707.88 
 33,578,907.18 
 83,736,170.52 
 84,386,303.09 
 33,842,875.62 
 37,303,461.88 
 39,795,339.91 
 41,106,546.92 
 40,091,754.67 
 40,135,002.65 
 38,870,140.08 
 42,854,991.31 
 47,391,988.91 
 42,10-4,249.79 
 26,062,399.98 
 26,407,088.48 
 27,907,362.53 
 30,108,067.13 
 30,662,431.52 
 31,866,860.42 
 
 $41,003,192.93 
 116,965,578.20 
 210,855,864.53 
 310,120,448.13 
 265,064,938.43 
 190,374,985 59 
 159,124,126.80 
 184,308,828.34 
 143,198,322.10 
 130,890,096.90 
 113,504,012.80 
 102,191,016.98 
 110,071,515.00 
 116,768,096.32 
 118,549,230.25 
 110,654,163.37 
 113,449,621.38 
 123,981,916.10 
 135,229,912.30 
 140,523,273.72 
 144,553,344.86 
 121,590,039.83 
 112,421 121 07 
 
 1864 
 
 1865 
 
 1866 
 
 1868 
 
 1869 
 
 1870 
 
 1871 
 
 1872 
 
 1873 
 
 1874 
 
 
 1876 
 
 1877 
 
 1878 
 
 1879 
 
 1?80 
 
 ISrfl 
 
 1882 
 
 isas 
 
 H84 
 
 1885 
 
 1887 
 
 116,902,869.44 
 118,837,301.06 
 124,326,4"'5.32 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 130,894,434.20 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 $1,402,189,115.87 
 
 $304,994,152.61 
 
 $810,510,702.15 
 
 $3,812,348,065.97 
 
 
 
 These figures represent a taxation on 
 an aggregate of 1,553,151,463 gallons of 
 distilled spirits, 319,519,854 barrels of 
 beer, 65,871,265,481 cigars and cigarettes 
 and 3,199,549,552 pounds of manufac- 
 tured tobacco and snuff, from Sept. 1, 
 1862, to June 30, 1889. 
 
 There are many points of view from 
 which the production and consumption of 
 spirits may be examined and judged. 
 There are the fiscal, the technic, the 
 
 1 The figures also include receipts from special taxes on 
 rectifiers, Drewers and wholesale and retail liquor-dealers. 
 
Internal Revenus.] 
 
 [Internal Revenue. 
 
 medicinal and the moral points of view. 
 The minister of finance sees in them a rich 
 source of revenue to the state ; the phar- 
 maceutist, a solvent of medical agents ; 
 the manufacturer, a component element 
 in many useful commodities ; the moral- 
 ist, frequently and with good reason, only 
 a deadly poison that ruins the health, 
 dims the intellect and damns the soul. 
 Everything considered, however, he can- 
 nnt be considered a wild fanatic who de- 
 sires the disappearance of alcohol from 
 the face of the earth; for its consump- 
 tion, for the most part, is not reproductive 
 of wealth, and the labor and capital in- 
 corporated in the finished product per- 
 ishes in the use; while bad they been 
 employed in the building of houses or the 
 purchase of farms or the construction 
 of canals or railways, they would have 
 added, since 186:3, over fifteen hun- 
 dred million dolLirs to the aggregate 
 wealth of the people, and afforded the 
 Treasury an enduring instead of an 
 evanescent subject of taxation — a subject 
 which besides would grow in value and in 
 productiveness to the national revenues 
 from year to year. The manufacturer, if 
 alcohol went out of existence, would most 
 likely be supplied with substitutes for it 
 by his own ingenuity or by the bountif ill- 
 ness of nature. Thus when the manufac- 
 ture of "burning fluid" entirely ceased 
 because of the rise of alcohol to $4 per 
 gallon, the public experienced no great 
 inconvenience; for it happened that vast 
 and natural supplies of petroleum were 
 discovered in Pennsylvania, and the em- 
 ployment of its distillates for illuminating 
 purposes is almost coincident in point of 
 time with the compulsory disuse of burn- 
 ing fluid. So, also, varnish-makers, who, 
 when alcohol could be purchased at about 
 50 cents per gallon, used it in great quan- 
 tities, substituted, when the price reached 
 eight times that figure, other and cheaper 
 solvents for their gums. The manufac- 
 turers of quinine likewise, for a like 
 reason, replaced it as a solvent for the 
 alkaloids of the cinchona bark with the 
 distillates of petroleum with such success 
 that it is doubtful whether the old pro- 
 cesses would he again resorted to if 
 alcohol could be purchased at its former 
 prices. In medicines, although some- 
 times useful and of extensive employ- 
 ment, especially as the solvent of the 
 active principles of many substances, it is 
 
 safe to say that the relief it has afforded 
 in disease and the lives it has saved are 
 an insignificant quantity compared with 
 tha misery, the suffering, the pauperism, 
 the mortality and tlje woes unmeasured 
 which it has caused. 
 
 The man who goes even to the extreme 
 of demanding that it shall no longer be 
 produced for any purpose, since its legiti- 
 mate use seems to be the rare exception 
 and its abuse the rule, cannot be called a 
 wild fanatic. It must be remembered 
 that the direful effects of alcoholic in- 
 toxication do not stop at the individual, 
 but extend to his progeny and to the 
 race. Immorality, depravation, alcoholic 
 excesses, brutalization, appear in the first 
 generation ; hereditary drunkenness, ma- 
 niacal attacks and general paralysis in the 
 second ; hypochondriacal melancholia, in- 
 sanity and homicidal tendencies in the 
 third ; in the fourth, degeneration is 
 complete— the child is born either an 
 imbecile or an idiot, or, if not, soon be- 
 comes one. No wonder, therefore, that 
 an ever-increasing number of men of all 
 shades of religions and of no religions 
 belief are convinced that civilization 
 would be the gainer if alcohol had never 
 been known, and if the art of manufac- 
 turing it were forever numbered among 
 the arts irretrievably lost. 
 
 J. J. Lalor. 
 
 [For details of the Internal Revenue laws, 
 see United States Government and the 
 Liquor Traffic. For numbers of liquor-deal- 
 ers, etc., see Liquor Traffic] 
 
 Note by the Editor. — The imposition 
 of heavy Federal taxes on liquors, when 
 first proposed, was bitterly resisted by 
 many representative persons engaged in 
 the traffic. At that time liquor produc- 
 tion and selling were carried on pro- 
 miscuously, and the manufacturers and 
 dealers had no powerful trade organiza- 
 tions. The first effects of the law were 
 to compel capitalization of the distilling 
 and brewing interests, and to promote 
 compact and intelligent organization. It 
 was no longer possible to profitably oper- 
 ate a still or a brewery with insignificant 
 capital and careless business methods. It 
 also became necessary to establish in- 
 timate relations with Federal officials 
 and influential politicians. Accordingly, 
 the national whiskey power and the 
 national beer power were rapidly de- 
 veloped. They acquired absolute control 
 
Internal Revenue.] 
 
 256 
 
 [Internal Revenue. 
 
 over Congress and the Internal Revenue 
 Bureau. There have been many offensive 
 exhibitions of legislative and official sub- 
 serviency ; the great whiskey frauds per- 
 petrated in Grant's administration, the 
 repeated expressions of friendship for the 
 liquor interests made by Commissioners 
 of Internal Eevenue and the practical 
 remission of whiskey taxes by Secretaries 
 of the Treasury, are especially memor- 
 able. (For details, see United States 
 
 GOVERNMENT ASD THE LlQUOR TRAF- 
 FIC.) 
 
 Under the Internal "Revenue law the 
 beverage consumption of liquor has in- 
 creased enormously, both the aggregate 
 consumption and the per capita consump- 
 tion. (See Consumption" of Liquors.) 
 All the facts, indeed, point to the con- 
 clusion that this system of Federal 
 regulation and taxation has been very 
 disastrous to the interests of the temper- 
 ance movement. We briefly present some 
 of the most important testimony : 
 
 1. The distillers and brewers, prac- 
 tically without division, sustain the In- 
 ternal Revenue law as it now exists, and 
 sturdily oppose efforts to modify it. The 
 Republican party, which formulated the 
 law and has retained it on the statute- 
 books, certainly cannot be charged with 
 a disposition to unfairly represent any. of 
 its practical results. In 1888, the Re- 
 publican National Convention incorpo- 
 rated the following significant words in 
 that part of its platform which proposed 
 plans for reducing the surplus revenues 
 of the Federal Government : " If there 
 shall still remain a larger revenue than 
 is requisite for the wants of the Govern- 
 ment, we favor the entire repeal of In- 
 ternal taxes rather than the surrender of 
 any part of our Protective system at the 
 joint behest of the whiskey trusts and 
 the agents of foreign manufacturers." 
 This was an implied admission that the 
 distillers desired the abolition of customs 
 duties rather than of the liquor taxes — 
 in fact, that they were so earnest in fight- 
 ing for the preservation of the Internal 
 Revenue system a,s to join hands with the 
 " agents of foreign manufacturers " in an 
 attack upon the Protective tariff. 
 
 During recent sessions of Congress, the 
 distillers have had powerful lobbies at 
 Washington to oppose any legislation 
 looking to a repeal of the Internal Rev- 
 enue taxes. The very well-informed 
 
 Washington correspondent of the New 
 York Tribune, at the opening of Con- 
 gress in 1887, sent this statement to his 
 paper : 
 
 ' The big whiskey manufacturers who have 
 been striving for seven or eight years to escape 
 the pavment of the taxes on whiskey manufac- 
 tured by them, and yet who are bitterly opposed 
 to the repeal or reduction of that tax, have 
 their representatives already on the ground to 
 prevent any legislation in that direction. They 
 will make a strong fight against even the 
 proposition to relieve from Internal taxation, 
 under proper safeguards, alcohol used in manu- 
 factures and the mechanical arts. They will 
 also fight the proposition to repeal the tax on 
 spirits distilled from fruits, on the ground that 
 those distillers, if relieved from Government 
 inspection and supervision, will proceed to 
 grain distillation." 
 
 Leading representatives of the distilling 
 interests, in interviews in the Voice for 
 Dec. 22 and 29, 1887, admitted that 
 their policy was to prevent abolition of 
 the liquor taxes. John M. Atherton, 
 President of the National Protective As- 
 sociation of distillers and liquor-dealers, 
 in stating the reasons for this attitude, 
 said : 
 
 " Under the Government supervision there 
 are certain marks, stamps, gauges, etc.. put on 
 every barrel of whiskey, which serve to iden- 
 tify it. These form an absolute guaranty from 
 the Government, a disinterested party of the 
 highest authority, to the genuineness of the 
 goods. There is such a tendency to adultera- 
 tion that this guaranty is of great value. 
 Next, if the general Government laid no tax 
 upon whiskey the Slates almost certainly would. 
 As they are under no compact to lay the same 
 tax, the rate would almost certainly be un- 
 equal. For instance, with a tax of 25 cents a 
 gallon on the whiskey produced in Kentucky 
 the State would have an abundant revenue fcr 
 all her needs, without taxing anything else at 
 all. But it might happen that Ohio and In- 
 diana would lay no tax, or a very light one, 
 upon whiskey. In that case Kentucky dis- 
 tillers would be compelled to r. anufacture at a 
 very great disadvantage, and would, in fact, be 
 compelled to close altogether. A tax by ihe 
 National Government bears on all States alike, 
 and affords a fair field for competition." ' 
 
 The United States Brewers' Conven- 
 tion for 1888, held at St. Paul, May 30 
 and 31, made an elaborate plea in favor 
 of retaining the taxes. The following is 
 an extract : 
 
 "The old objection urged against excises 
 could not at present be revived, seeing that 
 those who have to bear the tax and all the in- 
 conveniences that are said to grow out of its 
 alleged obnoxious features, are perfectly satis- 
 
 1 The Voice, Dec. 20, 188". 
 
Internal Revenue.] 
 
 257 
 
 [Ireland. 
 
 flod with their present status, so that, as we 
 have stated on another occasion, whatever 
 commiseration may be felt for them by certain 
 theorists is -just so much sympathy wasted. 
 As far as the brewers of this country are 
 concerned, it is well known that, so far from 
 opposing an excise, they materially aided the 
 Government during the incipient stages of the 
 system in making the tax collectable as cheaply 
 and conveniently as possible. Their action at 
 that time was not only prompted by the inten- 
 tion to prevent injustice being done them, but 
 also in a very large measure, by patriotic 
 motives ; while their present course [of non- 
 interference with the Federal tax] is dictated 
 not only by industrial considerations, but also 
 by the conviction, sustained by the experience 
 of our own people and the people of many other 
 civilized countries, that the present system, 
 while p?r?ectly justifiable when viewed from 
 the stajdpoint of political economy, promotes 
 temperance more efLctually than any other 
 measure yet propo e 1 or executed for that 
 purpose . . To jidge from present in- 
 dications there is no da.ger of a reduction of 
 Internal Reve rue othjr than that derived from 
 artx.es whici do njt cone rn us industrially." 
 
 2. The temperance people condemn 
 the whole system and declare that it 
 hinders successful work Some of their 
 organization? arj not outspoken, but it is 
 well understood that the advanced tem- 
 perance societies are practically unani- 
 mous in desiring unconditional' repeal. 
 " We advocate the abolition of the Inter- 
 nal Eevenno on alcoholic liquors and to- 
 bacco," said the National Woman's 
 Christian Temperance Union in 1887, 
 " for the reason that it operates to render 
 more difficult the securing and enforce- 
 ment of Prohibitory laws, and so post- 
 pones the day of national deliverance." 
 
 '3. The object of the law is "revenue 
 only." It was not enacted as a temper- 
 ance measure, and to promote temper- 
 ance is no part of the duties of its ad- 
 ministrators. So long as it exists, the 
 liquor policy of the United States Gov- 
 ernment, theoretically and practically, is 
 wholly antagonists to Prohibition. By 
 the provisions of this act the Prohibitory 
 policy of various States, counties and 
 towns is ignored by the Federal Govern- 
 ment. Federal officials connected with 
 the Internal Revenue service in the Pro- 
 hibition States and localities possess 
 abundant evidence of violations of State 
 and local Prohibitory regulations ; yet 
 these officials refuse to co-operate with 
 State and local authorities. Moreover, 
 they constantly interfere with the work 
 of enforcement, and become responsible 
 
 for many misleading representations that 
 are eagerly repeated by the enemies of 
 Prohibition. The payment of special 
 liquor taxes to the Federal Collectors by 
 individuals in the Prohibitory States 
 provides statistics that are deemed es- 
 pecially serviceable by unscrupulous anti- 
 Prohibition advocates. It is assumed 
 that all who pay these taxes are liquor- 
 dealers within the ordinary meaning of 
 the term ; and where the Federal records 
 show a large number of such payments it 
 is declared that State Prohibitory laws are 
 ineffective and farcical. These Federal 
 records, however, are absolutely worthless 
 as reaords of the number of persons ac- 
 tually engaged in the liquor traffic in a 
 given State. (See Prohibition, Bene- 
 fits of.) But this fact is not given due 
 weight by the ordinary public ; and the 
 Federal returns for the States where Pro- 
 hibition is the law are therefore used to 
 persuade the people that "Prohibition 
 doesn't prohibit." 
 
 Inter-State Commerce. — Sea 
 
 United States Government and thb 
 Liquor Traffic. 
 
 Intoxicants. — See Malt Liquors, 
 Vinous Liquors and Spirituous Liq- 
 uors. 
 
 Iowa. - See Index. 
 
 Ireland. — The war against drink 
 in Ireland began about 1826 with the 
 formation of a total abstinence society 
 in Skibbereen, County Wexford, by Jef- 
 fery Sedwards, a nailor. In 1829 the 
 Ulster Temperance Society (against dis- 
 tilled liquors only) was founded at Bel- 
 fast by the Rev. Dr. Edgar and other 
 pioneers. From this time until 1838 a 
 large number of similar societies were es- 
 tablished in different parts of the country 
 and numerous adherents were enrolled. 
 In 1838 Father Mathew's memorable 
 temperance crusade began. During its 
 progress more than 5,000,000 people, in a 
 total population of a little more than 
 8,000,000, took the teetotal pledge. By 
 1842 the drink traffic had been terribly 
 crippled : many distilleries and breweries 
 had been forced to close, public-houses 
 were deserted or put to better uses, 
 drunkenness disappeared in many parts 
 of Ireland, and the criminal calendars at 
 assizes were almost blank. The annual 
 
Ireland.] 
 
 258 
 
 [Ireland. 
 
 consumption of spirits dropped from 
 11,595,530 gallons in 1837 to 6,485,443 
 gallons in 1841. But this triumph was 
 short-lived. From want of a Prohibitory 
 law the liquor traffic gradually recovered 
 its strength. Drink is again the great 
 curse of Ireland. 
 
 The " Eeport of the Commissioners of 
 Her Majesty's Inland Eevenue " for the 
 year ending March 31, 1889, shows that 
 the population of Ireland at that time 
 was 4,790,014.1 During the year, 29 dis- 
 tilleries were at work, producing 11,357,- 
 183 gallons of spirits; 146,404 quarters 
 of malt, 178,435 quarters of unmalted 
 grain, 36,795 cwt. of molasses, 13,130 cwt. 
 of rice and 6,694 cwt. of sugar were de- 
 stroyed in distillation; there were 6,812,- 
 048 gallons of spirits on which duty was 
 charged; there were 25,256,788 gallons of 
 spirits remaining in bonded warehouses, 
 and the Excise duties on spirits amount- 
 ed to £3,390,528. In the same year there 
 were 2,346,682 barrels of beer charged 
 with duty; 2,320,217 barrels were re- 
 tained for consumption, and the Excise 
 duties charged on beer amounted to £721,- 
 344. The total number of licenses of all 
 kinds was 24,574, of which 16,924 were 
 to retailers of spirits (publicans) and 
 5,252 were "occasional licenses for sale 
 of spirits;" while 607 were to whole- 
 sale dealers in spirits, 384 to wholesale 
 dealers in beer, 409 to retailers of 
 beer and wine for consumption off the 
 premises, 127 to retailers of beer and 
 cider for consumption on the premises, 28 
 to retailers of beer and wine for con- 
 sumption on the premises, 274 to spirit 
 grocers, and the remainder to various 
 other dealers. Of the 16,924 publi- 
 cans, 13,186 had ordinary seven-day 
 liceuses; 2,653 were licensed to sell on six 
 days only ; 128 were licensed on condition 
 that they would close one hour before the 
 statute time, and 958 had licenses con- 
 ditioned on both Sunday closing and early 
 closing. 
 
 1 The population of Ireland on April 3, 1881, was 5,174,- 
 836. Unlike any other portion of the British dominions, it 
 is on the decrease. . . The highest point was reached 
 in 1845, when the entire population was estimated at 
 8,175,124. The potato crop, upon which all the agricultural 
 and many of the manufacturing poor depended for their 
 subsistence, having failed for two successive years, pro- 
 duced famine and disease, which carried oil large numbers 
 and gave a great impulse to emigration, so that from 1845 
 the population rapidly decreased. In 1851 there were 
 6,552,385 persons in the country; in 1801, 5,798,564; in 1871, 
 5,412,377, and in 1881, 5,174,836. Since 1845 the decrease 
 has been 3,120,225, equal to 37.6 per cent.— Whitaker's 
 Almanac for 1890, p. 317. 
 
 In Belfast, Dublin, Cork, Limerick ar,d 
 Waterf ord, the public houses sell on week- 
 days from 7 a. M. to 11 P. M., on Sundays 
 from 2 p. m. to .7 p. m., and on Christmas 
 day and Good Friday from 2 p. m. to 9 
 p. M. In all other places over 5,000 pop- 
 ulation the hours for sale are the same, 
 excepting that no sales at alFcan be made 
 on Sundays. In places of less than 5,000 
 population the hours on week-days are 7 
 a. m. to 10 p. m., no sales are permitted 
 on Sundays, and on Christmas and Good 
 Friday 2 p. m. to 7 p. m. All licenses are 
 for one year only. Applications for license 
 may be refused on the score of the bad 
 character, misconduct or unfitness of the 
 applicant, of the objectionable nature of 
 the place or of the presence of a sufficient- 
 ly large number of previously licensed 
 houses in the neighborhood. Practically, 
 the people have little or no power to pre- 
 vent the licensing of drink-shops. Besides 
 the ordinary alcoholic beverages, con- 
 siderable quantities of sulphuric ether 
 were sold without liaense and consumed 
 in some parts of Ulster, especially in 
 Counties Tyrone and Londonderry. This 
 ether has very injurious effects. 
 
 The Registrar-General's " Report on 
 the Criminal and Judicial Statistics of 
 Ireland" for 1888 shows that 87,582 
 cases of drunkenness were disposed of 
 summarily in the police and petty 
 sessions Courts — an increase of 10.2 per 
 cent, over 1887. According to these 
 records, there is annually one conviction 
 for every 54 of the population of Ireland. 
 There were 2,855 cases of "habitual 
 drunkenness "—persons convicted three 
 or more times for being drunk, — or 266 
 more than in 1887. 
 
 Even these figures only partially indi- 
 cate the woes brought upon Ireland by 
 whiskey. If drink impairs the prosperity 
 and energies of the richest nations, its 
 effects must be unspeakable in such a 
 country as Ireland, — a country of famines, 
 with a decreasing population, poverty- 
 stricken and wretched. The following is 
 a most instructive statement of conditions, 
 from a very high statistical authority : 
 
 '• Ireland's place in the national economy [of 
 the United Kingdom] is not very high, its 
 contribution to the Imperial exchequer for 
 stamps and taxes being but £1,003 667 against 
 £1.921,640 Scotland, £24,716,323 Englund and 
 "Wales, and £27.673,012 for the United Kirg- 
 dom. The duty on whiskey, however, comes to 
 
Italy.] 
 
 259 
 
 | Jamaica. 
 
 the rescue, and brings no less than £3,364.875 
 into the national exchequer. The deficiency 
 on the other kerns of national revenue is largely- 
 accounted for by the poverty of the great mass 
 of ihe people, of who.a no fewer than 522,000 
 were last year L1883J in a state of actual pauper- 
 ism. There must be something radically wrong 
 in this, for if the country could, as it did in 
 1845, support more than eight millions of people, 
 tnerj should not be any great difficulty in pro- 
 viding for the uve millions remaining in 1889."' 
 
 The Irish Temperance League is the 
 chief anti-liquor organization, with head- 
 quarters in Belfast (John Grubb Richard- 
 son of Bessbrook, President). Its object 
 is "the suppression of drunkenness by 
 moral suasion, legislative Prohibition and 
 all other lawful means." It publishes 
 the national Irish temperance news- 
 paper, the Irtish Temperance League 
 Journal (Belfast, monthly), sends out 
 lecturers, operates 17 street coffee-stands 
 in Belfast, conducts one of the most ele- 
 gant and successful temperance cafes in 
 the United Kingdom, and has charge of 
 the legislative movements for entire Sun- 
 day-closing and the " Direct Veto." 
 The various churches, especially the Epis- 
 copalian, Presbyterian and Methodist, 
 perform important temperance work, and 
 the utterances made by their representa- 
 tive gatherings are becoming more ag- 
 gressive. The Good Templars and Rech- 
 abites are growing in numbers and in- 
 fluence. Encouragement is given to the, 
 cause by some of the leading Roman 
 Catholic dioceses, notably by Archbishop 
 Walsh of Dublin. Definite political pro- 
 gress is interfered with by the com- 
 manding nature of the Home Rule agi- 
 tation. A. H. H. McMuetey. 
 
 Italy. 2 — This country ranks after 
 Prance among wine-producing nations, 
 the annual vintage ranging from 600,- 
 000,000 to 800,000,000 gallons. In all 
 ages since the beginning of civilization, 
 the growing of the grape and making of 
 wine have been among the chief indus- 
 tries. At present the Italian wines, 
 though abundant, are not " pushed " in 
 the market so assiduously as the French 
 and those of some other European coun- 
 tries. Italian usages and tastes are to a 
 greater ' degree domestic and homely. 
 The processes of manufacture are in 
 many places of the most primitive kinds. 
 
 1 Wbitaker's Almanac for 1890, p. 318. 
 
 2 The editor is indebted to Rev. Leroy M. Vernon, D. D., 
 of Syracuse, N. Y., and Axel Gustafson. 
 
 It is not to be assumed, however, that the 
 Italian brands of commerce, though pos- 
 sibly simpler, are necessarily purer. 
 While this may be true of the wines made 
 and consumed by the people in many 
 parts of Italy, the liquor merchants who 
 handle them in the various stages of 
 commercial exchange take full advantage 
 of the resources of adulteration. 
 
 It may be said, in general, that all 
 Italians use wine. The common wine of 
 the locality satisfies nearly all the people. 
 Even the lees or dregs are utilized, though 
 only among the poor; the Italian laborer, 
 if unable to procure wine, will not drink 
 water pure, but prefers to adulterate it 
 with wine-lees. The practice of " treat- 
 ing " does not prevail to any great extent 
 in Italy. 
 
 Among the better classes of the Italians, 
 so-called moderation is probably the rule : 
 to the cultivated people drunkenness is as 
 repugnant as to the enlightened citizens 
 of most countries. But drink is none 
 the less the besetting foe of the poor, and 
 crime, vice and poverty are harvested 
 abundantly. Drunkenness is steadily on 
 the advance, as shown by the constantly 
 increasing quantities of distilled liquors 
 manufactured, imported and consumed. 
 
 The number of places where alcoholic 
 beverages are sold is enormous. All pro- 
 prietors of liquor establishments must ob- 
 tain licenses, which are good for one year 
 only. ' Thus objectionable places can be 
 closed by the authorities in a very short 
 time, by refusing renewals of licenses; 
 and a license can be revoked at any time 
 on the ground of public safety or morality. 
 Every permit involves individual respon- 
 sibility, and any licensee who allows 
 another person to carry on his business 
 becomes liable to prosecution for illicit 
 traffic. Each municipality fixes the hours 
 for closing. In the event of any great dis- 
 turbance or of the use of a drink-shop 
 as a rendezvous for suspected persons, the 
 Chief of Police may close the establish- 
 ment for as long a period as one year. 
 
 The temperance movement as under- 
 stood in English-speaking countries has 
 not yet had birth in Italy. There is a 
 temperance society with headquarters at 
 Milan, but it is not based on teetotal prin- 
 ciples and no results of its work are mani- 
 fest. 
 
 Jamaica. — This important West In- 
 dia island is famed for its rum, distilled 
 
Jamaica] 
 
 260 
 
 [Japan. 
 
 from the juice of the sugar-cane. It is an 
 English colony, and the British Govern- 
 ment has uniformly encouraged rum pro- 
 duction, though raising a considerable 
 revenue under a characteristic English 
 system of excise. The relative magni- 
 tude of the rum "industry" will be 
 seen from the following list of values of 
 chief exports for the year 1888: Dye- 
 woods, £360,750; tropical fruits, £337,- 
 652; coffee, £321,440; sugar, £288,402; 
 rum, £202,420; pimento, £44,728. The 
 following table shows the number of 
 puncheons of rum (of 90 gallons each) 
 exported, and their values, for a period of 
 10 years : 
 
 Yeaks. 
 
 Puncheons. 
 
 Values. 
 
 1879 
 
 18,791 
 
 £197,320 
 
 1880 
 
 18,584 
 
 209,091 
 
 1381 
 
 13,958 
 
 174,406 
 
 1883 
 
 22,742 
 
 295,645 
 
 1883 
 
 20,349 
 
 225,963 
 
 1884 
 
 20,364 
 
 220,613 
 
 1885 
 
 21,991 
 
 234,053 
 
 18813 
 
 14,764 
 
 184,545 
 
 1887 
 
 24,120 
 
 301,574 
 
 1888 
 
 18,684 
 
 202,420 
 
 Although 45 per cent, of Jamaica's 
 trade is with the United States, we re- 
 ceive comparatively little of her rum. 
 Only 238 puncheons, valued at £2,586, 
 were shipped to the United States in 
 1888. Yet so-called Jamaica rum is one 
 of the commonest drinks sold in Ameri- 
 can barrooms. 
 
 An export duty of 2s 6d is levied by 
 the Government on each puncheon. 
 There are but very slight restrictions on 
 the manufacture, the tax on each still 
 being only £5 per annum. A yearly 
 license to sell spirits by wholesale costs 
 £10 in Kingston and £5 in each other 
 parish ; license to retail, £25 in Kingston, 
 £20 in various other towns and £10 in 
 each remaining locality; tavern license, 
 £20 in Kingston and £10 in other 
 parishes; hotel license, £10 in Kingston, 
 £5 elsewhere. Import duties of 10s per 
 gallon are charged on spirits, 6d per 
 gallon on beer and 2s 6d per gallon on 
 wine. The revenue receipts from rum 
 duties average about £80,000 per year; 
 for the first eight months of the fiscal 
 year 1888-9, they amounted to £62,073, 
 while the receipts from licenses in the 
 same months reached £10,472. During 
 the year 1888-9 there were issued 1,382 
 retailers', 32 wholesalers', 42 tavern and 
 4 hotel licenses. 
 
 Japan. — When Commodore M. C. 
 Perry in 1854 made the treaty with 
 Japan by which the long secluded nation 
 re-opened intercourse with Christendom, 
 he was regaled with a banquet at which 
 the native sake, or rice spirit, was freely 
 served. Tasting it and inquiring the 
 price of the various brands, which seemed 
 to him to be remarkably low as com- 
 pared with the cost of food and clothing, 
 he fell into profound thought. The 
 Japanese officers, thinking he might be 
 offended, asked him, through the inter- 
 preter, of what he was thinking. He 
 replied that he considered it a great 
 calamity to a nation to have intoxicating 
 liquor so plentiful and so cheap. This 
 gave his entertainers food for thought, 
 and the words of the American Com 
 modore (who, by the way, had already 
 advocated the abolition of the grog ra- 
 tion in the navy, and whose fleet was the 
 first governed without flogging or the 
 use of the lash) were duly reported in 
 Yedo. 1 
 
 The national drink of the Japanese is 
 brewed or distilled from rice, and the 
 saM thus obtained is of varying strength, 
 ranging from weakest beer to strongest 
 brandy. Other intoxicating liquors are 
 produced from sweet potatoes, molasses, 
 grain, grapes, etc., but these are articles 
 of local manufacture and are not in gen- 
 eral use. The sake varies in alcoholic 
 strength from 4 to 50, averaging about 
 15 per cent. ; though the unexpelled fusel 
 oil, which is abundant in the cheaper 
 grades, has a maddening effect on the 
 drinker and is in itself a specific as well 
 as prolific source of crime. The word 
 sake is probably a corruption of masa-ke 
 or pure spirit, and is pictorially repre- 
 sented by the Chinese characters for 
 " fluid " and " jar." The brewing indus- 
 try was brought from Corea, and the 
 drink has been known and made since 
 the Christian era, but on a large scale 
 only since the 16th Century. The old 
 legends and mythology, as well as the 
 ancient Shinto liturgies, make copious 
 reference to it as the intoxicant of 
 dragons and the offering acceptable to 
 the gods. Itami and Iki da, two places 
 near Osaka, are famed as having the old- 
 est breweries, from which millions of 
 casks of liquor have gone, and to which 
 
 1 Life of Matthew C. Perry, p. 341. 
 
Japan.] 
 
 261 
 
 [Japan. 
 
 thousands of horse-loads of silver have 
 returned to enrich the brewers. " If you 
 see one large, high, well-built house, stand- 
 ing in enclosed grounds, with a look of 
 wealth about it, it is always that of the 
 sake brewer," says Miss Bird. Though 
 the Japanese of both sexes and of all 
 classes drink sake, the universal consump- 
 tion of tea has been a great safeguard to 
 the nation, and the industry of sake brew- 
 ing is relatively of less importance than 
 the manufacture of beer in England. 
 
 Until 1878, the Government tax was 
 but 10 per cent.; but in 1879 this was 
 increased to one yen (73.4 cents) per koku 
 (39.7 gallons). In 1880 this tax was 
 doubled, and in 1883 doubled again, the 
 tax being now about 7^- cents on a gal- 
 lon. The effect of the tax has been to 
 reduce the number of liquor-manufac- 
 tories : in 1883 there were 25,814 brew- 
 eries and distilleries; in 1884, 21,824; in 
 1885, 18,387 ; in 1886, 16,425, and in 
 1887, 15,025. The product in 1883 was: 
 common sake, averaging about 12 per 
 cent, of alcohol, 19,583,592 gallons ; dis- 
 tilled spirits, 308,148 gallons ; other kinds 
 of sake, 361,084 gallons. Formerly the 
 liquor manufactured in private vats or 
 stills for family use, and prohibited from 
 sale but not taxed, was unlimited in quan- 
 tity, and no note of it was taken by Gov- 
 ernment. Since 1884 this private pro- 
 duction has been put under the Excise 
 laws, which limit the production to 39.4 
 gallons to one household, with a tax of 
 58 cents on the same. Taxation does not 
 in this case seem to have diminished, but 
 rather to have increased production. 
 While in 1883, 495,758 koku, or in 
 round numbers, 19,830,320 gallons of 
 sake were made, the figures for the years 
 1884, 1885 and 1886, respectively, were 
 21,330,280, 22,919,800, and 25,291,480 
 gallons. The number of private brewers 
 in 1883 was 670,361, and in 1886, 734,- 
 778. The Government is probably un- 
 willing to impose a heavier tax on the 
 sake industry, lest the country be flooded 
 by the import of the Chinese article. 
 
 The consumption of foreign liquors is 
 increasing, as the figures of the Bureau 
 of Statistics in Tokio conclusively show. 
 In 1883, the value of the various alcoholic 
 liquors imported (chiefly from Europe) 
 was $220,716, and in the following years 
 until 1887, $224,782, $262,018, $358,598 
 and $615,063 respectively. The demand 
 
 for beer is steadily increasing. Several 
 native companies and one foreign com- 
 pany have been organized to manufacture 
 beer, and the development of this new 
 "industry" is likely to be rapid. The 
 growth of beer-consumption is shown by 
 the increase in the number of beer-shops 
 in the city of Osaka from 13 in 1886 to 
 490 in 1888. 1 The British Consuls have 
 advised the English brewers to pay 
 especial attention to the Japan market. 
 Foreign influence has not yet, however, 
 inflicted the opium curse upon Japan. 
 The poppy is grown to a limited extent, 
 and some opium is imported, but the 
 sale is subject to the strictest regulations 
 and the opium habit does not prevail to 
 any marked extent. 
 
 The estimated revenue from home- 
 brewed sake for 1889-'90 is $10,642,019, 
 or 18 per cent, of the total revenue of 
 the Government. It is evident, however, 
 that much more than the amount which 
 comes under Government cognizance is 
 produced, especially in the rural districts. 
 "Taking into consideration," says Pro- 
 fessor Atkinson, in his " Chemistry of 
 Sake Brewing/' "only the amount of 
 ordinary sake used (in 1881), sav 5,000,- 
 000 koku, or 198,000,000 gallons, the 
 consumption corresponds to six gal- 
 lons per head per annum, reckoning the 
 population at 33,000,000. If it were 
 diluted twice so as to be about the same 
 strength as beer, the consumption would 
 be doubled - that is, 12 gallons a head, 
 while the consumption of beer in Eng- 
 land averages 34 gallons per head, nearly 
 three times as much as in Japan." We 
 may add that the population of Japan by 
 census completed Dec. 31, 1887, was 
 39,000,000, which number being divided 
 into 144,887,600, the total present pro- 
 duct of sake (40 gallons per koku), gives 
 not quite four gallons per head. Com- 
 bining the total consumption of foreign 
 and native liquor, the average would be 
 much higher, and probably nearly as high 
 as in the days before the Perry era. 
 
 In addition to the tax on production, 
 the Government requires retail dealers to 
 pay about $5 for a licens3, which is for 
 revenue only, and is not intended to re- 
 strict the sale. While taxation has re- 
 duced the number of breweries and dis- 
 tilleries, we are not to argue that the 
 
 1 On the authority of Rev. H. J. Rhoadee, American 
 missionary in Tokio. 
 
Japan.] 
 
 262 
 
 [Jewett, Charles. 
 
 Japanese have become more temperate, 
 and the situation morally is probably- 
 made worse since the introduction of 
 European drinks, In their drinking 
 habits, the Japanese consume in simple 
 drinking but a trifling amount " on the 
 premises" where bought, most of the 
 tapsters (whose sign, by the way, is a bush 
 of pine) supplying families or inns (" tea- 
 houses") in wooden casks or measures of 
 three different sizes -the go (1.27 gill), 
 cho (1.58 quart) and to (3.97 gallons). 
 The liquid is usually drank hot, having 
 been heated in decanters set in vessels of 
 boiling water. The cups used are of the 
 tiny sort, holding a half or quarter of a 
 gill. Hence the sight of foreigners drink- 
 ing out of tumblers and glasses, when 
 first seen by a Japanese, suggests gluttony 
 and drunkenness, or calls to mind the 
 mythical sho-ji. 1 These red-haired be- 
 ings are represented with long scarlet 
 hair and long-handled dippers carousing 
 around a huge jar of intoxicating liquor 
 set near the sea-shore. 
 
 The major part of home-made liquor is 
 used by the Japanese at meals, in cook- 
 ing, at hotels, feasting, picnics and on 
 social occasions, and the proportions and 
 strength of the various kinds of alcoholic 
 liquids is shown in the figures of produc- 
 tion in 1880 : ordinary sake, 200,603,3(50 
 gallons; turbid sake, 2,519,760 gallons ; 
 white sake, 60,000 gallons ; sweet sake, 
 for cooking, 1,542,760 gallons; liqueur, 
 144,600 gallons ; spirits, 3,348,320 gallons. 
 The average Japanese, then, drinks a 
 compound containing about 10 or 12 per 
 cent, of alcohol, and the toper indulges in 
 distilled sake, or whiskey. Whether the 
 Japanese are a temperate or intemperate 
 people is a question of relativity. A 
 reader of books like those of Alcock, and 
 others who wrote in the days when tipsy 
 ronin and two-sworded swash-bucklers 
 roamed freely around, maddened with 
 drink and ready to slice up dogs and for- 
 eigners alike, will get the idea that half 
 the Japanese are nightly drunk. As a 
 matter of undisputed fact, the curse of 
 Japan, next to licentiousness, is drunken- 
 ness, and the typical rich man is the sake 
 merchant. Seven per cent, of the entire 
 rice crop (which is the principal crop) 
 was, until lately, turned into sake. The 
 drink habit is in Japan the fruitful cause 
 
 1 Japanese Fairy World, p. 102. 
 
 of quarrels, murders, alienation of friends, 
 ruin of families and manifold crimes ; 
 and its associations are those of gluttony, 
 excess, prostitution and waste. The Gov- 
 ernment statistics, it is hoped, will soon 
 be applied to exploiting this whole sub- 
 ject. In the work of reform the outlook 
 is hopeful. The Christian churches are 
 on the side of temperance, and most of 
 them favor total abstinence or Prohibi- 
 tion, and through the labors of earnest 
 men and women, mostly American, tem- 
 perance societies and literature have been 
 introduced. Many high-minded natives 
 give their co-operation in the warfare 
 against drink, and the interests of the 
 cause derive advantage from the precepts 
 laid down in the sacred Buddhist books 
 and the traditions against the use of al- 
 coholic liquors that appeal to those ad- 
 hering to the religion of their fathers. 
 In some Buddhist sects total abstinence 
 is rigidly practiced, but laxity is the rule 
 and the priests are not generally disposed 
 to insist on strict observance. But as 
 compared with the situation in 1854, and 
 despite the added curse of foreign im- 
 portation, the outlook in 1890 — the year 
 of Japan's new Constitution and repre- 
 sentative Government — is one of promise. 
 William Elliot Gbiffis. 2 
 
 Jewett, Charles. — Died April 3, 
 1879. In 1826 he issued for private cir- 
 culation an address in verse. to the town 
 authorities of Lisbon, Conn., his place of 
 residence, setting forth the iniquity of 
 granting liquor licenses. A little later he 
 attended a course of medical lectures at 
 Pittsfield, Mass., and in 1829 began the 
 practice of medicine in East Greenwich, 
 R. I. In 1832 he was married and the 
 same year prepared an address on intem- 
 perance which was printed and widely 
 circulated, and secured for him many ap- 
 pointments to speak. In 1835 he began 
 the practice of his profession in Centre- 
 ville, R. I. In 1837, through the instru- 
 mentality, largely, of Rev. Thomas P. 
 Hunt, he gave up the practice of medicine 
 to become agent for the Rhode Island 
 State Temperance Society. His lectures 
 were especially valuable and forcible at 
 that time, since his medical training en- 
 abled him to treat the drink question in 
 
 2 The editor is also indebted to Rev. George G. Hud. 
 eon, Wakayarna, Japan, and Mary Clement Leavitt. 
 
Jews.] 
 
 263 
 
 [Joy, Benjamin. 
 
 its scientific and physiological aspects, 
 lie was a delegate from Khode Island to 
 a notable temperance convention, held in 
 Boston in 1839. In 1840 he accepted the 
 position of Agent of the Massachusetts 
 Temperance Union. In 1846 his con- 
 tributions to the Temperance Journal, 
 organ of the American Temperance 
 Union, attracted notice. In 1849 friends 
 presented him with a purse of $1,000, 
 which enabled him to purchase a farm 
 near Milbury, Mass., where he lived until 
 1854, when he removed to Faribault, 
 Minn. While he was residing there he 
 was beset with pecuniary embarrassments. 
 These were relieved by his warm friends 
 in the temperance work, John B. Gough 
 and Lucius M. Sargent, each presenting 
 him with a check for $500. Returning 
 in 1855 to Massachusetts, he became 
 Lecturer for the Temperance Alliance of 
 that State. He published a book, " Forty 
 Years' Fight with the Drink Demon," 
 and 'throughout his life was a very pro- 
 lific contributor to popular temperance 
 literature. 
 
 Jrfws. — No action on total abstinence 
 or Prohibition has been taken by any 
 representative body of the Jewish Church 
 in America. Experience has shown that 
 the general attitude of the Hebrews is 
 opposed to radical measures. This state- 
 ment is confirmed by Joseph Davis, ed- 
 itor of the Hebrew Journal, who writes : 
 "Intemperance has not been a crying 
 evil among the Jews, and has thus neces- 
 sitated neither conference nor legislation. 
 Individually the Jews are interested in 
 the question only as American citizens. 
 The general drift of opinion among our 
 people is antagonistic to legislative Pro- 
 hibition, but in favor of such regulation 
 of the traffic as will afford least tempta- 
 tion to drinking outside the house." 
 
 [See also Bible Wines and Passover 
 Wines.] 
 
 Joy, Benjamin. — Born June 23, 
 1800, and died Feb. 18, 1869. He was 
 one of the most active and indomitable 
 pioneers of the temperance reform. He 
 spent the largest portion of his life in 
 Ludlowville, Tompkins County, N. Y. 
 Being a merchant and manufacturer, his 
 business interests caused him to travel 
 extensively through the central and west- 
 ern parts of his State. In 1827, while 
 visiting the neighboring town of Hector, 
 
 he learned from Dr. Jewell that a society 
 had been formed there on the pledge of 
 total abstinence from wine, cider and all 
 intoxicants. He returned home and or- 
 ganized a society on the same basis at 
 Ludlowville, Dec. 31 of the same year. 
 This was one of the earliest teetotal 
 societies in the world. In his frequent 
 trips through all that region, driving from 
 schoolhouse to schoolhouse and church to 
 church, he denounced the drinking 
 usages and formed societies for the pro- 
 motion of abstinence. His labors of love 
 were without any "pay" — except the perse- 
 cutions of the rumsellers, who cut the har- 
 ness from his horse and endeavored to 
 break up his meetings. Once they broke 
 a whiskey-bottle near his head and the 
 old hero shouted with great glee : " Good ! 
 my boys, good ! served him right ! one 
 more devil cast out ! I came here to help 
 smash rum-bottles." Benjamin Joy was 
 a most zealous Christian, and it was at a 
 religious service held at his house, in Feb- 
 ruary, 1843, that the author of this sketch 
 decided to enter the Christian ministry. 
 In 1865 he took a prominent part in the 
 National Temperance Convention at Sar- 
 atoga and stood with Mr. Delavan and 
 Gerrit Smith in the leadership of the 
 cause in the State of New York. 
 The closing years of his noble life of 
 philanthropy were spent in Penn Yan. 
 His last evening on earth was in a meet- 
 ing of Good Templars, where he spoke 
 with great power. Before morning he 
 died. His honored friend, Dr. John 
 Bascom, adds the following testimony : 
 
 " Benjamin Joy was a very "bright man, full 
 of humor and an admirable story teller. He had 
 a pliant, expressive face that gave a running 
 commentary on what he said, and a pictorial en- 
 forcement of it He shared the interest of his 
 topic with his audience, and it was evidently a 
 pleasure for him to speak. He was als:> a 
 very devout man. The strenuous way in which 
 he enforced social truth, both on the question 
 of slavery and of temperance and his personal 
 resources in gathering pleasant and aidf ul ma- 
 terial in support of his theme, constituted one of 
 the strongest and most beneficent impressions of 
 my childhood and youth." 
 
 Rev. Dr. David Magee writes : 
 ' ' No one can forget the addresses of Mr. Joy. 
 How his eye kindled and the tones of his voice 
 deepened as he became more and more engaged, 
 his address overflowing with wit and humor, 
 then melting into pathos, rising at times into the 
 keenest sarcasm and occasionally into terrible 
 invective For 45 years he gave, without re- 
 muneration, his time and strength and talents 
 
Kansas.] 
 
 264 
 
 [Labor and Liquor. 
 
 to this work. In 1853 he was elected to the Legis- 
 lature on the temperance issue, and of him a 
 journalist of that day (T. W. Brown) wrote : 
 ' No man at the capital, as a man, a temperance 
 advocate or a legislator, wields more moral 
 power than he. As a debater he is clear-headed, 
 cool, self-poised and ready, and never surprised 
 in any of the strategy which marks the stirring 
 conflicts of the session. His enemies love him 
 while they fear him. As a speaker, no man 
 holds in more complete subjection the turbulent 
 elements of ths House.' Mr. Joy was especially 
 instrumental in framing the Prohibitory law 
 which was finally passed, only to be vetoed by 
 Governor Horatio Seymour. Only three weeks 
 before his death he delivered his annual address 
 to the people of Tompkins County, in which he 
 said: 'By every throb of affection, by every 
 memory of the kindness of the people of Tomp- 
 kins to myself, I long and pray for their de- 
 liverance and the deliverance of their children 
 from the scourge and curse of strong drink. 
 And now, after a world of experience and ob- 
 servation, chastened by many trials, far along in 
 the autumn of life, with the headlands of 
 another world plainly visible, I solemnly de- 
 clare that the importance of the subject^ of 
 temperance grows in my esteem with advancing 
 years, and I thoroughly justify every endeavor, 
 every labor, every "forced march" and ex- 
 posure, every sacrifice I have ever made for the 
 cause, and have only to regret that I could not 
 have done more.'" 
 
 Theodoke L. Ctjylek. 
 
 Kansas.— See Index. 
 
 Kentucky.— See Index. 
 
 Knights of Temperance. — A juve- 
 nile temperance society, organized in 1885, 
 under the auspices of the Church Tem- 
 perance Society (Protestant Episcopal) 
 and designed for boys and young men 
 from 14 to 21 years of age. There is no 
 element of secrecy, though none but 
 members are expected to attend the 
 regular meetings. Every Company has a 
 Captain and nine other officers. The fol- 
 lowing pledge is taken by each member : 
 
 •' I promise with the help of God to abstain 
 wholly from strong drink as long as I continue 
 a member of this Order. Moreover. I ac- 
 knowledge it always to be my duty to avoid 
 whatever words and deeds are indecent or pro- 
 fane. I distinctly understand that to break this 
 promise which I have just made or to be guilty 
 of any word or act indecent or profane, will 
 make me liable to suspension or dismissal from 
 this Order." 
 
 Koran.— See Mohammedan's. 
 
 Labor and Liquor. 1 — The eco- 
 nomic arguments against the liquor traffic 
 
 i The editor is indebted to Frank J. Sibley of Demorest, 
 Ga., Ralph J. Beaumont of Addison, N. Y., and A. M. 
 Dewey, formerly editor of the turned of United Labor. 
 
 have always found their strongest sup- 
 port in the unhesitating recognition that, 
 whatever may be said of the effort to stop 
 drinking, it is wholly beneficent and 
 righteous when considered from the 
 standpoint of the laboring man's interests. 
 To establish the unmitigated evil and 
 folly of drink indulgence among the poor, 
 it was indeed never necessary that a dis- 
 tinctive temperance movement should be 
 created. Ordinary observation and in- 
 telligence were sufficient. Long before 
 teetotal or even "moderation" societies were 
 founded, Benjamin Franklin wrote this 
 interesting reminiscence of his apprentice- 
 ship in Watt's printing-house in London 
 in 1725 : 
 
 '• I drank only water; the other workmen, 
 nearly fifty in number, were great drinkers of 
 beer. On occasion I carried up and down stairs 
 a large form of types in each hand, when others 
 carried but one in both hands. They wondered 
 to see, from this and several instances, that the 
 "Water- American, as they called me, was stronger 
 than themselves, who drank strong beer. We 
 had an ale-house boy, who attended always in 
 the house to supply the workmen. My com- 
 panion at the press drank every day a pint be- 
 fore breakfast, a pint at breakfast with his bread 
 and cheese, a pint between breakfast and din- 
 ner a pint at dinner, a pint in the afternoon 
 about 6 o'clock, and another when he had done 
 his day's work I thought it a detestable custom, 
 but it was necessary, he supposed, to drink 
 strong beer that he might be strong to labor. I 
 endeavored to convince him that the bodily 
 strength afforded by beer could only be in pro- 
 portion to the grain or flour of the barley dis- 
 solved in the water of which it was made; that 
 there was more flour in a "pennyworth of bread, 
 and therefore if he could eat that with a pint of 
 water it would give him more strangth than a 
 quart of beer. He drank on, however, and had 
 four or five shillings to pay out of his wages 
 every Saturday night for that vile liquor; an 
 expense I was free from. And thus these poor 
 devils keep themselves always under. " ' 2 
 
 When practical organized work for 
 temperance was begun in the United 
 States, one of the first steps taken was 
 the discountenancing of the practice of 
 serving liquor to farm-hands. The espe- 
 cial object of Father Mathew's great 
 crusade was to reform the drinking habits 
 of the poor people. Moral suasion under- 
 takings have always been prosecuted 
 peculiarly for the elevation of the masses. 
 The whole drink problem has its root in 
 the frightful excesses, suffering and pov- 
 erty inflicted on the multitude by alcohol; 
 and the continuance of the temperance 
 
 3 Franklin's Autobiography ( u Works," edited by Jared 
 Sparks, Boston, 1840), vol. 1, p. 59. 
 
Labor and Liquor.] 
 
 265 
 
 [Labor and Liquor. 
 
 reform as a necessarily permanent factor 
 of modern propagandise! is justified and 
 made certain by nothing so much as by 
 the universal conviction that drink is 
 one of the worst obstacles to the moral 
 and material betterment of the working 
 classes, now so earnestly striven for by 
 vast organizations and regarded by most 
 good people as a chief aim of humane en- 
 deavor. 
 
 But not until recently has the formal 
 co-operation of influential Labor forces 
 and representative Labor leaders in the 
 radical temperance agitation been vouch- 
 safed to any important extent. Upon 
 the formation of the widespread Amer- 
 ican Order of Knights of Labor in 1878, 
 a clause was inserted in the constitution 
 providing that no saloon-keeper, bar- 
 tender or any person in any way con- 
 nected with the liquor traffic, should be 
 eligible to membership. The reasons 
 governing this action were thus expressed 
 by John B. Chisholm, a Pennsylvania 
 miner, who was the author of the clause : 
 " I want to save this Order from the evil 
 which has been the curse of every organ- 
 ization of miners in the history of the 
 Labor movement. I want the Knights 
 of Labor to succeed, and this they can 
 never do if in any way contaminated with 
 that which does only harm to the human 
 family. The saloon has no real sympathy 
 for labor, and only robs the worker of 
 the hard-earned money which ought to 
 go for the comforts of wife and little 
 ones at home." The Knights of Labor 
 have adhered to the policy originally 
 adopted, and in 1887 their attitude was 
 emphasized by the addition of the follow- 
 ing amendment to their constitution by 
 the consent of more than two-thirds of 
 the Assemblies: 
 
 " No Local or other Assembly member shall 
 directly or indirectly give, sell or have any 
 ale, beer or intoxicating liquors of any kind at 
 any meeting, party, sociable, ball, picnic or en- 
 tertainment pertaining to the Order. Any 
 mamber found guilty of violating this law shall 
 be suspended not less than six months, or ex- 
 pelled. N o fine shall be imposed for this offense. 
 Any Local or other Assembly so offending shall 
 be suspended during the pleasure of the General 
 Executive Board, or shall have its charter re- 
 voked by said Board." 
 
 Necessarily the position taken by so 
 powerful an organization as the Knights 
 of Labor, with a membership in excess of 
 200,000, was a great advantage to the 
 
 temperance cause. In various practical 
 ways the most radical anti-liquor prin- 
 ciples have been promoted by the Knights. 
 Mr. T. V. Powderly, the head of the 
 Order, and the other general officers, have 
 publicly taken pledges to abstain entirely 
 from the use of intoxicating liquors dur- 
 ing their terms of office. In impassioned 
 addresses and writings that have been 
 conspicuously published, the foremost 
 leaders have repeatedly arraigned drink 
 as the worst enemy of the general inter- 
 ests of organized Labor as well as of in- 
 dividual workingmen. 1 They have also 
 
 I The following is from a letter published by Mr. Pow- 
 derly in the Journal of United Labor for July 2, 1887: 
 
 "I know that in the organization of which I am the 
 head there are many good men who drink, but they would 
 be better men if they did not drink. I know that there 
 are thousands in our Order who will not agree with me on 
 the question of temperance, but that is their misfortune, 
 for they are wrong, radically wrong. Ten years ago I was 
 hissed because I advised men to let 6trong drink alone. 
 They threatened to rotten-egg me. I have continued to 
 advise men to be temperate, and though I have had no ex- 
 perience that would qualify me to render an opinion on 
 the efficacy of a rotten egg as an ally of the rum-drinker, 
 yet I would prefer to have my exterior decorated from 
 summit to base with the rankest kind of rotten eggs rather 
 than allow one drop of liquid villainy to pass my lips or 
 have the end of my nose illuminated by the blossom that 
 follows a planting of the seeds of hatred, envy, malice 
 and damnation, all of which are represented in a solitary 
 glass of gin. ... 
 
 II He [the drunkard] robs parents, wife and children. 
 He robs his aged father and mother through love of drink. 
 He gives for rum what should go for their support. When 
 they murmur he turns them from his door, and points his 
 contaminated drunken finger toward the poorhouse. He 
 next turns toward hie wife and robs her of what should be 
 devoted to the keeping of her home iu comfort and plenty. 
 He robs her of her wedding-ring and pawns it for drink. 
 He turns his daughter from his door in a fit of drunken 
 anger and drives her to the house of prostitution, and then 
 accepts from her hand the proceeds of her shame. To 
 satisfy his love of drink he takes the price of his child's 
 virtue and innocence from her sin-stained, lust-bejewelled 
 fingers, and with it totters to the bar to pay it to the man 
 who ' does not deny the justice of my position.' I do not 
 arraign the man who drinks because ne is poor, but be- 
 cause through being a slave to drink he has made himself 
 and family poor. I do not hate the man who drinks, for I 
 have carried drunken men to their homes on my back 
 rather than allow them to remain exposed to inclement 
 weather. I do not hate the drunkard — he is what drink 
 effected; and while I do not hate the effect, I abhor and 
 loathe the cause. . . 
 
 " In the city of New York alone it is estimated that not 
 less than $250,000 a day are spent for drink, $1,500,000 in 
 one week, $75,000,000 in one year. Who will dispute it 
 when I say that one-half of the policemen of New York 
 City are employed to watch the beings who squander 
 $75,000,000 * Who will dispute it when I Bay that the 
 money spent in paying the salaries and expenses of one- 
 half of the police of New York could be saved to the tax- 
 payers if $75,000,000 were not devoted to making drunk- 
 ards, thieves, prostitutes and other subjects for the 
 policemen's net to gather in ? If $250,000 go over the 
 counters of the rumseller in one day in New York City 
 alone, who will dare to assert that workingmen do not pay 
 one-fifth, or $50,000, of that sum ? If workingmen in 
 New York City spend $50,000 a day for drink, they spend 
 $300,000 a week, leaving Sunday out. In four weeks they 
 spend $1,200,000 — over twice as much money as was paid 
 into the General Assembly of the Knights of Labor in 
 nine years. In six weeks they spend $1,800,000— nearly 
 three times as much money as that army of organized 
 workers, the Knights of Labor, have spent from the day 
 the General Assembly was first called to order up to the 
 present day; and in one year the workingmen of New 
 York City alone will have spent for beer and rum $15,600,- 
 000, or enough to purchase and equip a first-class telegraph 
 line of their own: — $15,600,000, enough money to invest 
 
Labor and Liquor." 1 
 
 266 
 
 [Law and Order Leagues. 
 
 shown their opposition to the license 
 system by advising their followers to sup- 
 port Prohibitory Amendments to State 
 Constitutions. In the Pennsylvania 
 Amendment campaign, the Journal of 
 United Labor, official organ of the Order, 
 emphatically endorsed Prohibition in 
 preference to High License. l 
 
 In the article on Farmers it is shown 
 that the agricultural organizations of the 
 United States, forming a highly import- 
 ant branch of the Labor movement, are 
 outspoken and aggressive foes of the 
 saloon. The Catholic Total Abstinence 
 Societies, whose membership is made up 
 chiefly from the ranks of the laboring 
 people, are constantly spreading the prin- 
 ciples of personal temperance among the 
 wage-workers. The influence of an in- 
 creasing number of very eminent and 
 earnest Catholic divines, like Bishops Ire- 
 land and Spalding, and of humbler 
 though none the less energetic members 
 of the clergy like Father Martin Ma- 
 honey of Minnesota, is no doubt respon- 
 sible for much of the sturdy sentiment 
 that is being developed. In other coun- 
 tries there is a growing recognition by 
 Labor advocates of the necessity of com- 
 
 in such co-operative enterprises as would forever end the 
 strike and lockout as a means of settling disputes in labor 
 circles. 
 
 U A single county in Pennsylvania, so lam informed, 
 spent in one year $17,000,000 for drink. That county con- 
 tains the largest industrial population, comparatively, of 
 any in the State:— $11,000,000 of the $17,000,000 comes 
 from the pockets of workingmen. New York City in one 
 year contributes $15,600,000 to keep men and women in 
 poverty, hunger and cold, while one county in Pennsyl- 
 vania adds $11,000,000, making a total of $20,600,000." 
 
 1 The Journal said, April 11, 1889 : 
 
 "Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Nebraska are just 
 now discussing Prohibitory Amendments to their re- 
 spective Constitutions. Thousands of our members will 
 be called upon to choose between the saloon ? with its at- 
 tendant miseries and vices, and the home with its mani- 
 fold blessings. Let us hope that the choice will be wisely 
 made. Remember that no Assemby was ever conducted 
 better because its officers or members were privileged to 
 visit the saloon, either before or after the meeting. No 
 strike by a labor organization was ever made successful 
 through the use of intoxicating liquors. No man ever be- 
 came a better Knight or any Knight a better man by put- 
 ting into his stomach the stuff which fires the brain and 
 drives the manhood from the man. The reverse of all 
 this has ever been the case, as all history of Labor will go 
 to prove. 
 
 lt This question is not a political one in any sense. It 
 is a question of morality. The present industrial system 
 encourages drunkenness and vice. They are the legitimate 
 outcome of long hours of hard labor and low wages. In 
 their demoralized and well-nigh helpless condition the 
 wage-workers are scarcely able to help themselves, and we 
 would have this one great curse to the industrial masses, 
 this strong temptation to spend their meagre earnings at 
 the expense even of their manhood, removed as far as pos- 
 sible from them. If the appetite can be controlled in no 
 other way we would make it impossible for them to get 
 the Btuff with which to satisfy it. 
 
 " When the time comes for the hosts of Labor to speak 
 on this important question, we trust that all will remember 
 that the work of Labor reform can be accomplished quicker 
 and better with clear bn'ins and pure water than with 
 muddled brains and poor whiskey." 
 
 bating drink. In one of the greatest 
 strikes ever inaugurated and won in Eng- 
 land, that of the London dock-laborers 
 in the winter of 1889-90, the leader, 
 John Burns, was a total abstainer, and 
 his success was attributed to his efforts in 
 behalf of sobriety among the men, as 
 much as to any instrumentality. Michael 
 Davitt, one of the most beloved of the 
 Irish popular leaders, wrote in a letter to 
 the Convention of the League of the 
 Cross at Thurles, Ireland, July 23, 1889 : 
 " The fact that, poor as our country is, 
 we waste over £11,000,000 a year on in- 
 toxicating drinks is a most deplorable 
 one to dwell upon. Half that sum, need- 
 lessly wasted as it is now, would set every 
 woolen mill in Ireland running to-mor- 
 row, and be thereby the means of keep- 
 ing our young people from running out 
 of the country for want of employment." 
 But while temperance radicalism, is no 
 longer exceptional among those best 
 qualified to speak for Labor, it is not to 
 be denied that much work must be done 
 before the hostility or indifference of the 
 masses can be overcome. This is so well 
 attested by the multiplication of dram- 
 shops in the poorer parts of every city 
 that it is unnecessary to call attention to 
 details. 
 
 [For information concerning labor employed 
 by the liquor traffic, etc., see Liquor Traffic. 
 For testimony as to the advantages derived by 
 wage-workers from Prohibitory systems, see 
 Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 Law and Order Leagues. — In a 
 
 very large number of American cities the 
 liquor regulations instituted by State au- 
 thorities are distasteful to a considerable 
 element of citizens, whose thorough or- 
 ganization and political activity enables 
 them to control nominations and elec- 
 tions. Accordingly the officials who have 
 to do with enforcement are frequently 
 mere tools of the liquor-saloons; and in 
 an equally large number of cases well- 
 meaning officials are influenced by party 
 considerations, or find it impossible to 
 command effective co-operation from the 
 persons associated with them in the ex- 
 ecution of law. To counteract such con- 
 ditions, the supporters of Prohibitory or 
 restrictive measures have been led to or- 
 ganize Law and Order Leagues, pledged 
 to prosecute the work of enforcement by 
 the use of all available means. Public 
 meetings are held, moral encouragement 
 
Law and Order Leagues.] 
 
 267 
 
 [Law and Order Leagues. 
 
 is volunteered, money is subscribed by 
 sympathizers, detectives are employed, 
 much evidence of violation is secured, 
 pressure is exercised on the authorities, 
 cases are brought to trial, and results are 
 more or less satisfactory according to the 
 ability, zeal and perseverance of the 
 leaders and the disposition of officials, 
 Courts and juries, the press and the public 
 generally. Law and Order methods were 
 tried, to some extent, in the early days of 
 the Prohibition movement. (See p. 67.) 
 But they did not become widely popular 
 among the temperance people until the 
 Chicago Citizens' League had made its 
 successful attacks on lawless saloon- 
 keepers. This League was founded in 
 1877. Its object was to prevent the sale 
 of liquor to boys, and " Save the Boys " 
 was adopted as its motto. The number 
 of arrests of minors had reached appalling 
 proportions in Chicago. Through the en- 
 ergetic work of the chief officer of the 
 League, Andrew Paxton, there was an im- 
 mediate improvement: the number of 
 minors apprehended was diminished, in five 
 years, by several thousands ; many liquor- 
 dealers were prosecuted and convicted; 
 public sentiment warmly approved the 
 crusade, and more advanced legislation 
 was enacted at the instance of the League. 
 Mr. Paxton devoted the remainder of his 
 life to this cause, continuing his labors in 
 Chicago and helping to, found similar 
 societies in other cities. He was bitterly 
 hated by the rumsellers, and was mur- 
 derously assaulted a number of times. 
 
 Innumerable Law and Order Leagues 
 have sprung into existence since 1877. 
 In nearly every city and' town where the 
 conduct of the officials has been objection- 
 able, there has been some attempt to ap- 
 ply the Chicago remedy. In Philadelphia 
 a very useful Law and Order Society has 
 been at work for several years, under the 
 direction of Lewis D. Vail and other 
 prominent men ; and when the licensing 
 authority was transferred to the Judges 
 under the Brooks law of Pennsylvania, 
 it was the detailed evidence against 
 saloon-keepers, provided by this Society, 
 which caused the Court to make the 
 sweeping reduction in the number of 
 licenses. Especially deserving of mention, 
 also, are the efforts in behalf of enforce- 
 ment made from time to time by organi- 
 zations of private citizens in Brooklyn, 
 Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Bangor (Me.) and 
 
 Sioux City (la.). It was in the last-named 
 city that Dr. Haddock was assassinated 
 for venturing to bring to justice the 
 liquor-dealing criminals whom the police 
 authorities had left undisturbed. (See 
 Haddock, George C.) Indeed, Law and 
 Order undertakings have always involved 
 danger of life and limb to those engaged 
 in them. 
 
 While a few Leagues have operated 
 successfully for years, nearly all have ex- 
 pired, or become inactive, after brief 
 careers. Even the most faithful and 
 vigorous workers are discouraged by the 
 unbroken successes of the saloon element 
 at the polls, and the apparent hopelessness 
 of waging a costly fight for enforcement 
 against hostile officials. They are also 
 disposed to question the value of achieve- 
 ments which, while leading to conviction 
 and punishment in individual cases, are 
 at best only partial and temporary, and 
 do not seem to really cripple the traffic or 
 to compel the liquor-dealers, as a class, to 
 abide by the law. The good that is ac- 
 complished under the impulses of enthu- 
 siasm, and of the suddennessandnovelty of 
 the movement, cannot withstand for any 
 considerable period of time the reaction- 
 ary effects of unfavorable legislation and 
 of antagonistic governmental manage- 
 ment. Even in Chicago, where circum- 
 stances promoted the single aim of the 
 League— to keep the boys out of the 
 saloons, — the arrests of minors increased 
 from 6,550 in 1885 to 8,923 in 1888. 
 Badical persons prefer to devote their 
 best energies to the fight against the 
 drink habit and the license system, and 
 thereby to strike at the root of the evil, 
 rather than to spend them in temporary 
 conflicts for slight advantages. 
 
 Nevertheless, Law and Order Leagues 
 have undoubtedly been of much service 
 locally. They have expelled the defiant 
 rum traffic from numerous Prohibition 
 towns and have been instrumental in 
 stimulating public sentiment and putting 
 an end to the pretense that Prohibition 
 cannot be enforced. The uniform op- 
 position which they encounter from all 
 liquor-sellers testifies to their value. 
 While the limitations under which they 
 operate are clearly recognized, they are 
 regarded as allies by all the Prohibition 
 and other temperance organizations. 
 
 Since the main purpose of Law and 
 Order work is to procure evidence of un- 
 
Lawlessness.] 
 
 268 
 
 Lawlessness. 
 
 doubted violations — evidence that will be 
 acceptable to the Courts, — the employment 
 of detectives is indispensable. The liquor- 
 dealers, who have no scruples against 
 assassinating, maiming, " slugging " and 
 mobbing their opponents, and who are 
 constantly violating every restrictive pro- 
 vision of liquor and other laws, profess a 
 virtuous detestation for the temperance 
 " spies." Henry H. Faxon, who has had 
 wide experience in all departments of 
 temperance effort, and whose labors in 
 Quincy, Mass. (frequently as a volunteer 
 constable) have exterminated the dram- 
 shops in that city, makes the following 
 comment on the moral bearings of detec- 
 tive service : 
 
 "I trust there is not a person here who is so 
 simple as to believe that licensed liquor-sellers 
 will aid in enforcing the law against unlicensed 
 dealers. They well know that such action would 
 jeopardize their own interests, for the reason 
 that they themselves violate the provisions of 
 their licenses times without number. A man 
 who pays $1,000 for a license to sell whiskey in 
 this enlightened age realizes that in order to 
 succeed financially he must evade many strin- 
 gent features of the existing law. 
 
 " I desire to impress upon my hearers the fact 
 that it is impossible to enforce the law without 
 the aid of detectives. They are a terror to law- 
 breakers, whether of the rumselling or any other 
 fraternity. Liquor-dealers are untiring in their 
 efforts to impress upon the Courts and the peo- 
 ple in general the unreliability of ' spotter evi- 
 dence,' as they are pleased to term it. How 
 truly angelic these men have appeared when 
 they were condemning me for employing parties 
 to purchase liquors, even by the bottle, for the 
 purpose of obtaining evidence whereby I might 
 convict them! No doubt there are dishonest 
 detectives; but, so far as my own experience 
 goes, the greatest rascal among them is more 
 truthful than any rumseller. Criminal lawyers 
 who defend liquor-dealers for a business, will 
 tell a dozen lies where a detective will tell one, 
 and will use their slanderous tongues in insulting 
 every witness who, for the sake of promoting 
 Law and Order, has the courage to take the stand 
 against their clients." ' 
 
 The various societies are represented 
 nationally by the Citizens' Law and 
 Order League of the United States 
 (Charles C. Bonney of Chicago, Presi- 
 dent, and L. Edwin Dudley of Boston, 
 Secretary), which holds its meetings on 
 Washington's Birthday of each year. 
 
 Lawlessness. — The liquor traffic is 
 emphatically a law-defying traffic.' Its 
 advocates constantly tell us in regard to 
 
 1 From a speech at a meeting of the Citizens 1 Law and 
 Order League of Massachusetts, May 1, 1889. 
 
 any law which opposes its interests, 
 "You cannot enforce it." In other 
 words, the liquor traffic will violate and 
 defy any law which it does not like to 
 obey. This is the claim of the dealers 
 and their friends. It is also their con- 
 stant practice, as it has been since the 
 foundation of our Government. As early 
 as 1794, the western counties of Pennsyl- 
 vania, with some adherents from Ohio 
 and Virginia, rose in arms to resist the 
 Excise tax on whiskey of 9 to 25 cents 
 a gallon according to the strength of 
 the liquor. The insurgents burned the 
 house of the Inspector, John Neville, and 
 forced him and the United States Marshal 
 to flee for their lives down the Ohio liiv- 
 er in an open boat. They then assembled 
 about 16,000 men in arms, and compelled 
 President Washington to call out the 
 militia to the number of 15,000 against 
 them. It is noteworthy that the very first 
 armed resistance to the authority of the 
 United States was in behalf of whiskey, 
 and that George Washington had to force 
 the liquor traffic to obey the law at the 
 point of the bayonet. It is noticeable, 
 too, that the traffic displayed this spirit 
 before there was any thought of Prohibi- 
 bition — almost a century ago. 
 
 The prevalent lawless attitude of the 
 rum power can be most instruc- 
 tively considered from a few striking in- 
 stances. 
 
 In the city of Cincinnati for about 
 20 years the sale of liquor on Sunday 
 was practically unmolested, State laws 
 to the contrary notwithstanding. The 
 Scott law and afterwards (in 1885) the 
 Dow law made concessions to the Cincin- 
 nati rumsellers by authorizing City Coun- 
 cils to permit liquor-selling on Sunday. 
 The City Council of Cincinnati promptly 
 passed a permissive ordinance. But so 
 great was the clamor of temperance men 
 that in 1888 the Owen Sunday law was 
 enacted, completely prohibiting Sunday- 
 selling and making it a criminal offense 
 even to keep open " the place " where 
 liquors were sold on other days. Kev. 
 John Pearson, in Our Day for September, 
 1889, graphically tells what followed. 
 He says : 
 
 " With a great show of virtue Mr. Amor 
 Smith, then Mayor, ordered all arrested who 
 were found violating the law. The Saloon- 
 Keepers' Asso.iation decreed that all should 
 keep open, and that all expenses of prosecution 
 
Lawlessness.] 
 
 269 
 
 [Lawlessness. 
 
 should be paid out of their common treasury. 
 In each case a jury was demanded. The Police 
 Court Jury provides that each of the 60 Council- 
 men shall select 50 names to be put into a wheel 
 and from it the venire of jurors shall be drawn'. 
 Half a dozen of the cleanest men in Council did 
 not furnish their quotas of names, but every 
 saloon-keeper and his helper has supplied his 
 consequently as high as 48 per cent, of the 
 names on those lists have been found to be 
 saloon-keepers or barroom dependents ! The 
 remainder are generally those who it is certain 
 will not convict. Consequently it is next to im- 
 possible to secure a conviction. Once last year, 
 when the evidence for the State was as clear as 
 the noon, and the defense offered none, the jury 
 returned a verdict of 'Not Guilty' without 
 leaving their seats! When the Mayor had piled 
 up nearly 2 000 cases in the Police Court he an- 
 nounced that ha would make no further attempt 
 to enforce the law, as he was ' satisfied the peo- 
 ple do not want it enforced.' The city was 
 under the heel of the saloon. The worst of all 
 was that a veritable pusillanimousness had taken 
 possession of that part of the people that really 
 wanted the law enforced. They would assure 
 you in a hopeless way that they fully agreed 
 the saloons should be closed up, ' but you can- 
 not do anything, and what is the use of trying 
 it ? You will either show your weakness or 
 make the rumsellers mad Tou had better let 
 things alone.' This was so nearly universal as 
 to threaten paralysis of any effort to throw off 
 the yoke." 
 
 Then the Evangelical Ministers' Meet- 
 ing took up the question. A committee 
 of 500 was formed, which presented at 
 the municipal election of April, 1889, a 
 mixed ticket made up of candidates of all 
 political parties on the simple .issue of 
 Sunday-closing, and elected their whole 
 ticket except the Mayor. As the tide of 
 public sentiment rose, the police officers 
 were ordered to arrest all violators. The 
 saloon-keepers then resolved to make "the 
 muckers take their own medicine," and 
 insisted that the Mayor should enforce 
 the Sunday law against " common labor." 
 Accordingly he " promptly issued his 
 proclamation ordering all confectioneries, 
 cigar and tobacco-stores, drug-stores ex- 
 cept for medicine, barber-shops, groceries, 
 meat-stores, etc., closed. This fearful 
 stroke of retaliation proved to be in the 
 main exceedingly popular. The barbers, 
 the drug-store proprietors and nearly all 
 the others were well pleased. For two 
 weeks the city had real Sabbaths, show- 
 ing above everything else that what nearly 
 all pronounced impossible can be done — 
 viz., the law can be enforced." 
 
 In this is strikingly noticeable the 
 difference between the liquor traffic and 
 all other businesses. The saloon- 
 
 keepers themselves procured an object- 
 lesson to show they had stood alone in 
 defiance of a law to which all other 
 tradesmen quietly yielded. Threatening 
 letters with skull and cross-bones were 
 sent to persons prominent in promoting 
 enforcement. 
 
 " On Sunday, July 20, 1889, was reached the 
 period of bloodshed. A member of the Law 
 and Order League was set upon and brutally 
 beaten— rescued only at the muzzle of a police- 
 man's revolver, while that policeman himself 
 was stunned with a blow from a loaded cane. 
 At another time in the same beer-hall a quiet 
 citizen, because he called for lemonade, was 
 seized and beaten on suspicion that he was a 
 Law and Order spy Later in the evening, in 
 the same den, after its proprietor had been ar- 
 rested and released on a $10,000 bond, 
 another policeman going to arrest a bartender 
 was also brutally assaulted, while the most 
 villainous outcries rent the air. A meeting of 
 saloon-keepers was held in Turner Hall on the 
 ensuing Thursday afternoon, attended by five or 
 six hundred, who adopted the following resolu- 
 tions 
 
 " ' Whereas, The well-known Owen law, through which 
 corruption and hypocrisy can sneak in everywhere, threat- 
 ens to become established in Cincinnati; and, 
 
 " ' W/i&reas, No concerted action has been taken to re- 
 sent the said law, which is an insult to common 6ense; 
 therefore, be it 
 
 " 'Resolved, That we,the saloon keepers here assembled, 
 openly oppose this law, which is unpopular and damaging 
 to our business; and therefore we have decided to keep 
 our places of business quietly open on next Sunday, and on 
 all succeeding Sundays, conducting our business as on any 
 other day, and avoiding all disturbances. 
 
 "_' Resolved, That we condemn the side and hack-door 
 business as corrupting in its tendency, and we will make it 
 our special duty to oppose it by all legal means. 
 
 '"'Resolved, That each saloon-keeper who signs the 
 resolutions of this meeting shall have our solid protection 
 in every case of prosecution, and the expenses thereof 
 shall he defrayed by our own means. 1 " 
 
 About 300 saloon-keepers pledged them- 
 selves in writing to keep open on the 
 following Sunday. It is safe to say that 
 no such compact was ever formed by the 
 devotees of any other business in the 
 United States. The result of that con- 
 spiracy of defiance is told as follows : 
 
 " We are glad to report that Mayor Mosby 
 took his stand for law and order, and Col 
 Deitsch manifested his ability to handle the 
 lawless element, and it is due to the police force 
 of this city to say that they did their duty fear 
 lessly and promptly, with one exception, who 
 was suspended on the spot by Lieutenant Scahill. 
 Several officers were injured in making arretts, 
 but every man was landed in the station-house, 
 although many fights occurred and two incipi- 
 ent riots were quelled by the timely arrival of 
 help. After one of these, an immense crowd, 
 who did not appreciate the manner in which 
 they had been handled by the police, assembled 
 at the Bremen Station, the ringleaders urging 
 the crowd to assault the station-house. Suddenly 
 the doors flew open and a large body of police, 
 under Captain Hartley and Lieutenants Rakel 
 and Langdon, filed out and quickly formed and 
 
Lawlessness.] 
 
 r Lawlessness. 
 
 drove the mob from the street. At the Oliver 
 Street Station the officers found it necessary to 
 play upon the crowd with the fire-hose to clear 
 the street. The Police Board has stood nobly 
 by the law. When on the late occasion of the 
 Turnfest the Chief of Police issued, by com- 
 mand of the Mayor, an order not to arrest 
 violators of the law, the Police Commissioners, 
 on complaint of a Law and Order man, tried the 
 Chief for malfeasance and misfeasance in office 
 and found him guilty. Last week they revoked 
 the appointment of the private policeman in the 
 notorious beer-garden alluded to above, and 
 ordered the most determined prosecution of the 
 assailants." 
 
 Many have supposed that the persistent 
 violation of law by the liquor traffic is due 
 to the excessive severity of Prohibition, 
 which, they affirm, "public sentiment 
 does not sustain." These persons declare 
 that High License is better than Pro- 
 hibition " because it can be enforced, 
 while Prohibition cannot." But the fact 
 is that the restrictive provisions of High 
 License laws are not enforced. The fol- 
 lowing statements were given by the 
 Agent of the Law and Order League of 
 Pittsburgh in the Voice of Jan. 16, 1890: 
 
 " There are just 92 licensed saloons in Pitts- 
 burgh, paying the $500 fee under the Brooks 
 High License law, but it is not an easy matter 
 to give the exact number of ' speak-easies ' or 
 unlicensed saloons in operation. The police 
 authorities of the city claim that they have a 
 list of over 700 ' speakeasies ' with the locations 
 and testimony to convict, but, dog-in-the-manger 
 like, they will neither prosecute themselves nor 
 furnish the information to any one who will. 
 These ' speakeasies ' nourish under the guise of 
 ' boarding ' ' rooms to let.' grocery stores, and in 
 cellars, garrets and stables, and are run very 
 secretly. We are in a most deplorable state. 
 ( lur county detective announces annually or 
 oftener that he is just getting ready to wipe out 
 the ' speak-easies,' but we never hear of any 
 results. Our police are the creatures of a ring 
 whose political power is perpetuated by the 
 liquor element, and, as a consequence, when it 
 does strike a blow at the unlicensed liquor- 
 dealer it is generally directed against a man who 
 has no political pull, or a poor woman." 
 
 The Pawtucket (E. I.) Gazette and 
 Clironicle, a strong Republican daily 
 paper, for Oct. 18, 1889, said: 
 
 "The citizens of Rhode Island cannot have 
 forgotten the rather profuse assurances that 
 were given them only a few months ago, that 
 when the demon of Prohibition should have 
 been exorcised from the body politic, once more 
 would the State of Rhode Island rejoice in a 
 government by law. Nor will they readily for- 
 get with what unction the advocates of a repeal 
 of Prohibition deplored the demoralizing influ 
 ences of a law that was at variance with public 
 opinion and, therefore, incapable of enforce- 
 
 ment, thereby destroying popular respect for all 
 law. If we mistake not,, the proposed conditions 
 of righteousness have been fulfilled, and law has 
 been made in entire harmony with that class of 
 public opinion represented in the demand for 
 repeal of Prohibition. Who says that law is 
 either enforced or respected to-day in either 
 Pawtucket or Providence 1 Is liquor being sold 
 only according to law in eitheF city? How 
 many law-breaking liquor-sellers have been ar- 
 rested? There are laws and ordinances against 
 drunkenness, and it is the sworn duty of officials 
 to enforce these laws and ordinances. Is one 
 drunken man arrested out of every ten that reel 
 by our policemen ? Will somebody tell us the 
 conditions under which law may be permitted 
 to be enforced ? Or is it best to annul all law ?" 
 
 Similar testimonies come from Chicago, 
 St, Louis, Kansas City and Omaha. No- 
 where are the restrictive provisions of 
 High License laws obeyed. We have laws 
 against selling liquor on Sunday, yet 
 there is no day in the week when there 
 are so many men intoxicated ; laws against 
 selling to minors, yet boys are continually 
 made drunk, and many before they are 
 21 become confirmed drunkards; laws 
 against selling to men in the habit of get- 
 ting intoxicated, yet the habitual drunk- 
 ard is constantly made drunk again ; laws 
 against selling within the neighborhood of 
 an agricultural fair, yet the saloons do a 
 most profitable business in fair time. The 
 saloon-keepers, as a class, are known to 
 be law-breaking and law-defying. Nor is 
 this statement to be limited to the retail 
 dealers.- In 1874-6 the rich distillers 
 of this country proved themselves de- 
 frauders of the revenue on a gigantic 
 scale; and to-day the United States Gov- 
 ernment keeps its agents in every brew- 
 ery and distillery to watch the whole pro- 
 cess of production' as a cat watches a 
 mouse. Criminality sticks to every step 
 of the inhuman traffic. The effect of the 
 business upon the general administration 
 of criminal law has been most pernicious. 
 The shifts and evasions adopted to clear 
 the saloon-keeper have been found ample 
 to clear other criminals. Whenever we 
 take pains to inquire whence his crimes 
 originated, we trace the Anarchist straight 
 back to the saloon. The Cleveland Leader 
 says: 
 
 " The saloon played a very disreputable role in 
 the Chicago riots. Reports say that ' the men who 
 had money spent it in getting drinks for them- 
 selves and friends, and soon they were fighting 
 drunk.' The Anarchists went forth from 
 saloons to make their incendiary harangues and 
 they slunk away, into saloons when charged 
 
Lawlessness.] 
 
 271 
 
 [Lawlessness. 
 
 on by the police. August Spies and Michael 
 Schwab were arrested in a room over a saloon 
 where tbey print their Anarchist paper, and in 
 the same room were found the forms of type 
 from which incendiary hand-bills were panted. 
 •' The Milwaukee riots were also fomented by 
 Anarchists, who were aided in no slight degree 
 by Ihe saloons. Large numbers of the rioters 
 were striking employees of breweries; and the 
 objective point of the mob at each of its wild 
 demonstrations was either a brewery or one of 
 the immense beer- gardens of the city." 
 
 It is the same in New York. The chief 
 Anarchist, Hcrr Most, was arrested in a 
 saloon, and the moment he obtained bail 
 was " dodging in and out of saloons all 
 day," meeting and attempting to re- 
 organize his followers. 
 
 The early advocates of High License 
 supposed — and the supposition seemed a 
 ■ reasonable one — that the licensed saloon- 
 keepers would be practically a police force 
 to carry out the law against any dealers 
 who might sell without license. But that 
 hope utterly failed. The explanation is, 
 that the licensed saloon-keepers, by Sun- 
 day-selling, selling to minors and inebri- 
 ates, etc., are themselves violators of law, 
 and dare not invoke the law against un- 
 licensed dealers, on the principle that 
 "those who live in glass houses should 
 not throw stones.'' 
 
 These are remarkable facts. Prom the 
 foundation of the Government to the 
 present time the liquor traffic stands out 
 as the great law-defying "industry," not 
 "against Prohibition, but against any laws 
 which restrict its profits or privileges. 
 The first and most natural resort of the 
 liquor traffic is deliberate violation of law 
 carried to any extent of defiance or vi- 
 olence. If there were no other reason for 
 Prohibition this would be enough, that it 
 is not safe to tolerate within our civili- 
 zation a business which holds itself so 
 haughtily, composed of 500,000 men 
 closely organized, wielding untold mil- 
 lions of capital, manipulating all the 
 vilest elements of the populace, setting 
 aside at its pleasure the laws of State or 
 nation, and exhibiting to all the danger- 
 ous classes of the community one great 
 example of defiant, triumphant and pros- 
 perous lawlessness. To allow this is to 
 legalize anarchy. 
 
 The law-defying traffic can be sup- 
 pressed. While the liquor traffic differs 
 from all other lines of business in a set- 
 tled disposition to evade and defy the 
 
 law, it does not differ from others in the 
 necessity of submission to law in the 
 hands of resolute officials. This has been 
 found true from Washington's day to 
 our own. The Whiskey Insurrection was 
 suppressed, the distillers conceding the 
 Government's right of taxation, which 
 they have never since challenged, al- 
 though the Government tax is now more 
 than four times the original cost of the 
 product. 
 
 The attempt was at one time made to 
 resist by force the execution of the Maine 
 law. Gen. Neal Dow, then Mayor of 
 Portland, tells the story as follows : 
 
 " The rum press had for many days been fir- 
 ing up the brains of the advocates of • personal 
 liberty ' by ferocious denunciations of the 
 Maine law, which undertook to prescribe 
 ' what men should or should not eat and drink.' 
 The wrath of these people culminated when 
 the Board of Aldermen, in preparation for an 
 ' Agency ' for the sale of liquors according to 
 law, for medicinal and mechanical purposes 
 and the arts, ordered a quantity of them from 
 New York, which were deposited in the cellar 
 of the old City Hall where the Agency was to 
 be located. The cry among the personal lib- 
 erty men was. ' If we can't sell liquor nobody 
 shall ! ' So they assembled at night in great 
 numbers, with the purpose of destroying the 
 Agency liquors and burning the City Hall and 
 also the residences of obnoxious temperance 
 men. The city authorities had but brief notice 
 of the intended outbreak; consequently it re- 
 quired some time to summon the military to the 
 spot. The police force did its best, in the 
 meantime, to make head against the howling 
 mob. There had been many mobs in Portland 
 in the old rum times, no one of which had ever 
 been successfully resisted, or any member of it 
 punished. So these misguided patriots sup- 
 posed that they also could accomplish their pur- 
 pose, which was to break down the Maine law. 
 Some of the most prominent men in Portland 
 were behind this mob, instigating it to violence 
 and outrage. The Mayor, after long and vainly 
 waiting for the fury of the mob to subside, as- 
 sured th.m that he would Are upon them, but 
 they did not believe it. Twice he ordered the 
 military to fire, and twice, at the aim, he or- 
 dered ' Recover arms.' This seemed to justify 
 the notion of the mob that there would be no 
 tiring. The third time there was no order to 
 recover arms, and the rattle of the musketry 
 was fearful. The military, not being accus- 
 tomed to such work, fired just over the heads 
 of the mob, so that only one man was killed and 
 a few were wounded— it was never known how 
 many, because the instigators of the tumult 
 feared to be known as being mixed up in it. It 
 was impossible to foresee what might have been 
 the result if this savage mob, fired with strong 
 drink, had succeeded in breaking down mu- 
 nicipal authority, thus leaving the city at its 
 mercy. The mob was summarily suppressed, 
 
Legal Suasion]. 
 
 272 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 and the mob spirit in Portland was completely 
 crushed out. This manner of dealing with the 
 rebellion was unanimously approved by all the 
 better part of the people." 
 
 In every instance of decided conflict 
 the liquor traffic has yielded to official 
 determination. The conclusion is inevit- 
 able that any law needed to protect the 
 people against this desolating traffic can 
 be enfrrced, if honest and efficient execu- 
 tive officers are elected by the people. 
 J. 0. Fernald. 
 
 Legal Suasion ia a term which prop- 
 erly designates the permanent influence 
 of penal law upon the morals of society. 
 It is really a phase of moral suasion, but 
 the latter term has been limited to a class 
 of moral efforts to lessen evil without the 
 assistance of force. Hence arises the 
 necessary use of this new and distinctive 
 expression — Legal Suasion. To abate a 
 bawdy-house by the voluntary consent of 
 its inmates is moral suasion; to abate it 
 by police force as a nuisance is legal 
 suasion, provided the result be permanent 
 moral improvement. 
 
 All jurists agree that the ulterior ob- 
 ject of criminal law is not the punish- 
 ment of the offender but the prevention 
 of the offense. The prevailing motive of 
 crime being that of gain, the punishment 
 is inflicted to make the offense unprofit- 
 able. Freed from self-interest, the hu- 
 man mind is better able to judge between 
 right and wrong and thus the law tends 
 to a permanent moral result. 
 
 Again, the standard of right with many 
 people is good citizenship, and a general 
 tendency exists to obey law simply be- 
 cause it is law. Morals are thus affected 
 through the operation of what may be 
 termed an artificial conscience. In the 
 early history of this country, for instance, 
 lotteries were a popular and legal method 
 of raising funds for the founding of col- 
 leges and hospitals and the building of 
 roads and bridges. At the present day 
 it would be difficult to find any consider- 
 able number of people, outside of Louis- 
 iana and Kentucky, favorable to the 
 existence of the lottery system. This 
 change of sentiment is not due to the 
 fact that the inhabitants of the excepted 
 States are naturally less moral than their 
 neighbors, but to the educative effect of 
 prohibitive laws and Constitutional pro- 
 
 visions in the States where the sentiment 
 against lotteries prevails. 
 
 Another instance of legal suasion is 
 found in the abhorrence with which hu- 
 man slavery is now regarded ;_ yet for- 
 merly so strong was the moral influence 
 of the Christian church in its favor that 
 in 1859 a Church Anti-Slavery Society 
 was instituted " for the purpose of con- 
 vincing American churches and ministers 
 that slavery was a sin and inducing them 
 to take the lead in the work of its aboli- 
 tion." Such a changed tone of opinion 
 in this short period can logically be ac- 
 counted for on no other basis than that 
 of the Emancipation Proclamation and 
 the succeeding 13th and 14th Amend- 
 ments to the United States Constitution. 
 
 There can be no doubt that a similar 
 moral effect is produced by laws prohibit^ 
 ing the liquor traffic. It is hardly con- 
 ceivable that the State of Maine in the 
 year 1884 would have put Prohibition 
 into her Constitution by a majority vote 
 of three to one, unless for 30 years the 
 people of that State had experienced the 
 practical advantages of Prohibitory legis- 
 lation. 
 
 It is true that unless careful discrimina- 
 tion be exercised in each case, there is 
 great danger of misconceiving the pre- 
 cise educative effect of law. For a law 
 may be so loosely drawn and the attempt 
 at its enforcement so farcical as to im- 
 pede the real moral working of the law 
 itself. To this difficulty, doubtless, is 
 due the sudden revulsion of opinion 
 which occasionally occurs where a small 
 but energetic body of corrupt politicians 
 bends its energies to cast a well-inten- 
 tioned law into disrepute. 
 
 Coleridge A. Hart. 
 
 Legislation. — It is one of the most 
 interesting facts in history that in all 
 English-speaking nations, colonies and 
 States the regulation of the sale of liquor 
 has occupied the attention of Parliaments 
 and legislative assemblies almost from 
 the beginning, and that this is true of 
 none of the other countries of Christen- 
 dom. One of the things contended for 
 by the framers of the Magna Charta, and 
 conceded by that instrument, was the 
 right to have it decreed that all measures 
 for wine and ale should be of uniform 
 size. Soon followed a period in which 
 the prices of these beverages were as 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 273 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 carefully watched and adjusted as those 
 of bread, for in those days it was within 
 the sphere of practical political economy 
 for the Legislature to fix the prices, of 
 labor and its products, leaving nothing 
 but agricultural products to competition, 
 or supply and demand. During the first 
 two or three centuries after Magna 
 Charta, the efforts toward restricting 
 the traffic in the liquors then in vogue 
 (ale and wine) were only partial and ten- 
 tative. Indeed, the Judges gravely de- 
 cided that at common law it was lawful 
 for any one to keep an alehouse (the 
 King v. Joyes, 2 Show., 468), unless it 
 were kept in a disorderly manner (Stevens 
 v. Watson, 1 Salk., 45). By the act of 
 11 Henry VII, c. 2 (1494), any two Jus- 
 tices were given power to suppress un- 
 necessary alehouses. 
 
 But the first license law was that of 
 5 & 6 Edward VI, c. 25 (1551-2). It re- 
 quired that none should keep alehouses 
 who were not authorized to do so by the 
 Sessions of the Peace or two Justices, 
 and those permitted or licensed were to 
 give bond for good order and were not to 
 allow unlawful gaming. Any person 
 selling without license was to be fined 20 
 shillings. The act of 7 Edward VI, c. 5 
 (1553-4) regulated wines separately, 
 providing that none should sell wines ex- 
 cepting in cities and market towns, and 
 then only in restricted numbers and 
 under licenses issued by the Mayors and 
 Sessions respectively; the penalty for un- 
 lawful selling was £5. The famous Tip- 
 pling acts of James I (1 James I, c. 9 
 [1G03-4] ) applied to both ale and wine- 
 selling and fined each seller 10 shillings 
 for allowing townsmen to tipple; while 
 chapter 5 of 4 James I (1606-7) pro- 
 vided that drunkenness should be pun- 
 ished by a fine of five shillings or confine- 
 ment for six hours in the stocks. An- 
 other law passed in the reign of the same 
 king (7 James I, c. 10 [1609-10] ) pro- 
 vided that any alehouse-keeper convicted 
 of violating the law should be disqualified 
 for three years from keeping such a house. 
 The last restrictive act of this series was 
 the one passed in 1627 under Charles I 
 (3 Charles I, c. 4), by which was estab- 
 lished an alternative penalty of whipping 
 for the first offense of illegal selling, and 
 for the second offense imprisonment for 
 one month. 
 
 The vending of spirits was first regu- 
 
 lated in 1700 (12 and 13 William III, c. 
 11), a Justice's license being required be- 
 fore anybody was entitled to sell. But 
 distillers were permitted to retail without 
 license provided they did not tolerate 
 tippling in their houses. 
 
 English legislation includes no more 
 celebrated acts than those designed to re- 
 strain the promiscuous sale of geneva or 
 gin, passed, in the reign of George II. 
 Soon after the beginning of the 18th 
 Century the evils resulting from the use 
 of dislilled spirits in England became in 
 the highest degree alarming. Lecky, in 
 his "England in the' 18th Century" 
 (vol. 1, p. 519), speaking of the universal 
 demand for gin at that time, says : 
 
 " Small as is the place which this fact occu- 
 pies in English history, it was probably, if we 
 consider all the consequences that have flowed 
 from it, the most momentous in that of the 18th 
 Century — incomparably more so than any event 
 in the purely political or military annals of the 
 country. " 
 
 Among the most famous cartoons of 
 the great Hogarth, portraying the man- 
 ners, vices and follies of that age, are 
 those that picture the evils of intemper- 
 ance, particularly mentionable being his 
 shocking " Gin Lane. - ' The eminent 
 writers of that period have left vivid 
 descriptions of the inordinate drinking 
 and the wretchedness occasioned by it. 
 The following is a striking passage from 
 Smollet's " History of England " (vol. 3, 
 chap. 7) : 
 
 "The populace of London were sunk into the 
 most brutal degeneracy by drinking to excess 
 the pernicious spirit called gin, which was sold 
 so cheap that the lowest class of the people 
 could afford to indulge themselves in one con 
 tinued state of intoxication, to the destruction 
 of all morals, industry and order. Such a 
 shameful degree of profligacy prevailed that 
 the retailers of this poisonous compound set up 
 painted boards in public inviting people to be 
 drunk for the small expense of one penny, as- 
 suring them they might be dead drunk for two 
 pence, and have straw for nothing. They ac- 
 cordingly provided cellars and places strewed 
 with straw, to which they conveyed those 
 wretches who were overwhelmed with intoxica- 
 tion. In these dismal caverns they lay until 
 they recovered some use of their faculties, and 
 then they had recourse to the same mischievous 
 potion ; thus consuming their health and ruin- 
 ing their families in hideous receptacles of the 
 most filthy vice, resounding with riot, execra- 
 tion and blasphemy. Such beastly practices 
 too plainly denoted a total want of all police 
 and civil regulations, and would have reflected 
 disgrace upon the most barbarous community." 
 
 The first of the Gin laws was that en- 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 274 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 acted in 1729 (2 George II, c. 17), and 
 imposed a license fee of £20 on every 
 seller of geneva. It was repealed in 1733 
 by the act of G George II, c. 17, not hav- 
 ing served the purpose of checking gin- 
 drinking. In 173G (9 George II, c. 23) 
 a more stringent measure was adopted, as 
 follows : 
 
 ' ' Whereas, The excessive drinking of spirit- 
 nous liquors by the common people tends not 
 only to the destruction of their health and the 
 debauching- of their morals but to the public 
 ruin; for remedy therof. 
 
 " Be it enacted, that from Dec. 29 no person 
 shall presume, by themselves or any others em- 
 ployed by them, to' sell or retail any brandy, 
 rum. arrack, usquebaugh geneva, aqua vitae, 
 or any other distilled spirituous liquors, mixed 
 or unmixed, in any less quantity than two gal- 
 lons, wiihout first taking out a license for that 
 purpose within ten days at least before they sell 
 or retail the same ; for which they shall pay 
 down £50, to be renewed ten days before the 
 year expires, paying the like sum, and in case 
 of neglect to forfeit £100 ; such licenses to be 
 i a '-en out within the limits cf tli2 penny-post 
 a, the chief office of Exc : se, London, and at 
 the next office of Excise for the country. And 
 be it enacted tha f , for all such spirituous 
 liquors as any retailers shall be possessed of 
 on or after Sept. 39, 1736, there shall be paid a 
 duty of 20* per gallon, and so in proportion 
 for a greater or lesser quantity, above all other 
 duties charged on the same." 
 
 This measure was strengthened by 10 
 George II, c. 17, § 9, which provided that 
 hawkers of liquor not able to pay their 
 fines should be whipped; and prosecu- 
 tions were facilitated by another law 
 passed in 1738 (11 George II, c. 26). 
 The act of 1735 endured for only eight 
 years, meanwhile giving rise to much dis- 
 cussion of the principles lying at the 
 foundation of restrictive liquor legisla- 
 tion. The elegant Lord Chesterfield's 
 ever-memorable plea for Prohibition of 
 vice as opposed to regulation, belongs to 
 this era. (See p. .) 
 
 Tin Excise duties, which had been in- 
 creasing in volume, were now a distinctive 
 feature of the Government revenue. 
 After the repeal of the special taxes on 
 spirituous liquors in 1743, the Excise 
 duties steadily became more and more 
 important from the revenue point of 
 view, and were relied on to provide a large 
 part of the money needed in the wars 
 upon which England embarked. Spirit- 
 sellers were still required, however, to 
 .take out magisterial licenses, as ale and 
 wine-sellers had always been compelled to 
 udou^nd are now. The repealing act of 
 
 1743 and the acts of 1751 and 1783 con- 
 solidated all licenses on the basis of ale- 
 house licenses. 
 
 In the present century the tendency 
 has been towards an increase in the Ex- 
 cise rates, although the Beer act of 1830 
 (discriminating in favor of beer, sup- 
 posedly in the interest of temperance) 
 marks a departure quite as interesting as 
 that instituted by the Gin acts of a hun- 
 dred years previously. (See Light Liq- 
 uors.) In the last decade there have 
 been some indications of a disposition to 
 give a more radical turn to legislation 
 and grant Local Option, and there seems 
 to be a growing realization that the future 
 policy of England in reference to the 
 drink traffic will be gradually adapted to 
 the demands of temperance agitators. 
 This tendency is shown by the two crush- 
 ing defeats of the liquor-sellers' efforts 
 for compensation in the event of the ex- 
 tinguishment of licenses, and in frequent 
 significant utterances from British states- 
 men, notably the very recent remark by 
 Mr. Gladstone that it would be wrong to 
 do anything that would "throw back the 
 cause whose progress we have observed 
 and registered from day to day, and in the 
 great future triumph of which we have 
 uudoubting confidence." (See pp. 95-6.) 
 
 In the English colonies in America, 
 the question of license was more or less 
 prominent from the first, as will be seen 
 by reference to the dates of the early 
 laws enumerated under the names of 
 States that were formerly colonies. These 
 colonial acts were expressed in strong 
 language, copied from the English 
 statutes mostly ; but nothing beside reg- 
 ulation 'by license was attempted (al- 
 though there were fugitive discrimi- 
 nations against distilled spirits, and the 
 sale of liquor to Indians was prohibited 
 in a number of cases). License fees and 
 penalties for violations were low. It was 
 attempted to confine liquor-selling to 
 those who kept hotels and taverns and 
 actually accommodated the public. 
 
 Until 1830 there was no perceptible 
 change in the character of the enact- 
 ments; but before the end of the decade 
 beginning with that year, Ohio, Ten- 
 nessee and Mississippi had passed, laws 
 prohibiting the retail selling of liquors by 
 refusing license therefor. In both Mis- 
 sissippi and Tennessee these measures 
 were very short-lived. 
 
Legislation,] 
 
 275 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 Maine enacted a law prohibiting the 
 sale of liquor in 1846, and in 1851 the 
 Maine law prohibiting both manufacture 
 and sale was adopted. It was followed 
 in the same decade by similar laws 
 (nearly all of them short-lived) jn many 
 States. 
 
 The development of Southern Local 
 Option had begun before the war. 
 During .that cataclysm distillation was 
 prohibited in most of the States of the 
 Confederacy as a war measure. After 
 peace was restored the Local Option 
 movement advanced rapidly until this 
 policy covered most of that section and 
 was embodied in the Constitutions of 
 Texas and Florida, 
 
 Constitutional Prohibition and High 
 License are both of very recent origin, 
 and the regulations peculiar to these 
 systems may be best studied by examining 
 the digests of laws in the States where 
 they prevail. 
 
 Each new general act relating to the 
 drink traffic is more extended than former 
 ones; and in many cases anything like a 
 complete analysis of State laws consec- 
 utively is almost out of the question. In 
 the ensuing digests, the acts of the sev- 
 eral States and Territories are brought 
 down to the begining of 1890. Only ac- 
 tual legislation is considered : it is impos- 
 sible to notice the numerous bills (al- 
 though some of them are highly interest- 
 ing) that have been introduced in State 
 Legislatures from time to time but have 
 failed to pass or have been vetoed. 
 
 The subject of Federal legislation on 
 the liquor question deserves special treat- 
 ment, and is therefore not touched upon 
 in this article, except in the cases of Ter- 
 ritories for which separate liquor regu- 
 lations have been provided by Federal 
 authority. (For general Federal Legis- 
 lation, see United States Govern- 
 ment and the Liquor Traffic.) 
 
 Since the liquor laws of the Dominion 
 of Canada closely resemble those of many 
 of the States, they may profitably be 
 considered in this connection. But 
 having been summarized in the article 
 on Canada, they are not repeated here. 
 The manuscript of the whole of this 
 wticle goes to the printer before the ses- 
 si n laws of 1890 are obtainable. There- 
 lore the law as it existed in 1889 is given 
 as the latest law in each case, excepting 
 North Dakota. 
 
 DIGESTS OF STATE LAWS. 
 
 Alabama. 
 
 Earliest Provisions. — The act of Mississippi 
 Territory, of March 4, 1803, revised in 1807, 
 provided that every person who should be 
 recommended for the purpose, to the County 
 Court, by six reputable freeholders of the 
 county, might be licensed to keep a tavern 
 on payment of *20. He "was to provide tavern 
 accommodations to travelers, and not suffer 
 gaming. Anyone presuming to keep a tip- 
 pling-house or sell liquor without a license for- 
 feited $10, and for subsequent off enses ¥20. But 
 merchants and shopkeepers were not prevented 
 from retailing liquors, in any quantity above a 
 quart, not to be drunk on the premises. Selling 
 to or entertaining any servant, apprentice or 
 slave without permission of the master; sell- 
 ing to soldiers and to Indians, and selling adul- 
 terated liquor, were fined as above. (Toul. Dig., 
 1823, p. 727.) Tavern-keepers getting drunk 
 forfeited their licenses. Any one else getting 
 drunk was by an act of 1803 fined SI. (Id., p 
 218 ) An act in 1809 required a licensee to 
 take oath not to sell to a slave without written 
 consent of his master. (Id, p. 730.) License 
 fees were, in 1814, reduced to $10. The same 
 year owners of distilleries were authorized to 
 sell their product in quantities of not less than 
 a quart, (Id., p. 732.) About 20 years later the 
 license fee was again made $20. and the free- 
 holders were required to live within five miles 
 of the petitioner for license. (Laws, 1837, No. 
 47.) 
 
 Other Provisions Before the War. — The revenue 
 act taxed licenses to retail spirituous or ferment- 
 ed liquors $30. (Laws. 1842, No. 1, § 7. ) The 
 law relating to tavern licenses was to be con- 
 strued to apply to cities, towns, or villages only. 
 (Laws, 1845, No. 10.) License for retading 
 spirits in cities was placed at $100; in towns or 
 villages having 500 inhabitants or more, £50: 
 having less, $30. and in the country, §30. (Laws, 
 1847, No. 1, § 98. ) Retailers were not allowed 
 to retail in more than one building or place 
 underthesamelicer.se. (Id.. § 99.) License in 
 cities was changed to *75; on water-craft, $60 ; 
 in towns or villages having over 500 inhabitants, 
 $37.50; having less, s-25; in the country, $15. 
 (Laws, 1849. No. 1, p. 8.) Judges of Probate 
 might at regular term grant licenses to retail the 
 same as County Courts then did. (Laws, 1849, 
 No. 3, §10.) 
 
 License for sales of liquor, on water-craft, 
 was required to be in the name of the captain, 
 and to be hung up in a conspicuous place in the 
 bar-room. (Laws. 1857, No. 273.) Delivering 
 liquor to slaves, on boats, rendered the captain 
 liable to indictment and fine of from $50 to *100. 
 (Id., No. 275, § 1.) And a charge that such cap- 
 tain permitted delivery to a slave shall be suffi- 
 cient, and proof that any person of color, not con- 
 nected with the vessel, obtained liquor of any 
 person connected therewith, or was seen coming 
 off said boat with liquor, was prima facie evi- 
 dence of the guilt of the accused, without prov- 
 ing the name of the slave or that he was a 
 slave. (Id., §2.) 
 
 Adulteration, by manufacturers of spirits, 
 with poisonous or unwholesome substances, was 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 276 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 prohibited in 1857, on penalty of not over $500, 
 or imprisonment one year. (Laws, No. 274.) 
 Four 1. cal acts prohibiting sales of liquor within 
 certain distances of schools and churches were 
 also passed in 1857. Many prohibitions or 
 Prohibitory powers had previously been incor- 
 porated in charters. By the act of 1859, No. 
 79, the penalty against adulteration was made 
 from $200 to #500, with imprisonment for one 
 year, in the cases of manufacturers and vendors. 
 
 The War Period — Local Prohibitory laws 
 continued to be passed, 16 being passed in 1861, 
 while several former ones were repealed. By 
 act No. 25, of 1861, sales to free negroes were 
 prohibited, on penalty of not less than $500; and 
 sales to slaves were punished by fine of $200 to 
 $500, or imprisonment from one to five years. 
 As a war measure, distillation of grain was for- 
 bidden, in 1862, except under direction of the 
 Governor, under heavy penalties. In 1868, six 
 acts extended such provisions to peas, potatoes, 
 molasses and sugar, and increased the stringen- 
 cy of the regulations. No. 128 of the acts of 
 1864 repealed the above laws, authorized such 
 distillation, but forbade the distillation of corn 
 and wheat under penalty of #5,000 to $50,- 
 000, or imprisonment from one to 12 months, 
 or both. The same acts authorized granting 
 licenses to distillers of cane or molasses or 
 fruit, for a fee of $100 per 40-gallon still. 
 Liquor so distilled from cane was taxed $10 a 
 gallon, and that from fruit $5 a gallon. The 
 penalty for distilling without license was from 
 $5,000 to $50,000, for the first offense, with a 
 discretionary imprisonment of one to three 
 years. Tbis law was repealed in 1866. 
 
 After the War. — A few local prohibitions 
 were passtd in 1866 and thereafter, 17 such 
 being passed in 1870. Act No. 3, Laws, 1871, 
 exempted distdlers of fruits, cane and grapes 
 from all tax. In 1872 were passed 32 prohi- 
 bitions to sell within certain distances from 
 towns, churches, schools, factories, etc. Forty- 
 one local prohibitions were made in 1873, and 
 70 in 1874, the radii of such protected districts 
 being from one to six miles. Such enactments 
 have continued to be very numerous, with only 
 a small proportion of repeals to the present 
 time (1890). They are the peculiar feature of 
 Alabama legislation upon this subject. 
 
 The tax on licenses was somewhat reduced by 
 the Revenue law of 1874. In this State, the pro- 
 visions for taxes on liquor licenses have always 
 been coupled with those on all other kinds of 
 business, and the amounts charged apparently 
 according to the exigencies of the revenue. 
 The ordinary regulative provisions as to ob- 
 taining licenses, with the conduct required and 
 the penalties attached, have also applied to 
 other kinds of license, and have been repeated, 
 with slight variations, in each of the revenue 
 laws which are almost annually passed. In 
 1875 (Laws No. 120), it was provided that no 
 license should be granted without the recom- 
 mendation of ten freeholders, and oath not to 
 sell illegally. 
 
 No. 204 of Laws, 1874, is a regular Local 
 Option law, author.zing the Probate Judges of 
 17 counties, upon the petition of any free-' 
 holder within the proposed limits, to submit to 
 vote therein the question of the Prohibition of 
 
 the sale of liquor, within certain distances of 
 any place, in any of said counties. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — It shall be 
 the duty of the General Assembly to pass 
 adequate laws giving protection against the 
 evils arising from the use of intoxicating 
 liquors at all elections. (Const., Art 8. § 6.) 
 Selling or» giving any liquors, during the 
 day of any election, or on the day preceding, is 
 unlawful, and it is the duty of any Sheriff or 
 Constable to arrest all persons violating this sec- 
 tion. (Code, 1887, § 380.) License fees are re- 
 quired of persons engaging in the business of 
 the retail of spirituous, vinous or malt liquor on 
 any water-craft, or on any sleeping, dining or 
 buffet car. to the amount of $250 ; and the State 
 has a preferred lien on such craftor cars forthe 
 same. Retail of such liquors in any place of 
 less than 1,000 inhabitants, $125; 
 places of 1,000 to 3,000, $175; 
 places of 3 000 to 10,000, $250; 
 places of more than 10,000, $300; 
 dealers in lager-beer, exclusively, one fourth 
 above rates. (Code, 1887, t? 629.) 
 
 The wholesale license fee is 8200. Any dealei 
 selling only one quart or more is a wholesale 
 dealer ; and if he sells liquors, or permits them 
 to be taken, in less quantity, or permits the same 
 to be drunk by the glass or single drink in cr 
 about his premises, he shall be deemed a retail 
 dealer. Compounders and rectifiers pay $200. 
 Distillers of spirituous liquors pay $200, but 
 this does not apply to distillers of fruits. 
 Brewers pay $15. The County Commissioners 
 may add to such taxes not exceeding 50 per 
 cent, for county purposes. (Id., § 630.) 
 
 On the last day of March, and every three 
 months thereafter, the Judge shall forward to 
 the Auditor lists of all licenses, and pay to tl:e 
 State and County Treasurers the amounts re- 
 ceived therefor, minus %"% per cent, for his 
 commission. If such Judge fails herein, he 
 shall be impeached. (Id, §633.) All licenses 
 shall be kept posted up in plain sight near 
 the bar, on pain of forfeiture of license. (Id., 
 §636.) 
 
 A license to retail must not be granted by the 
 Probate Judge until the applicant produce a 
 recommendation signed by 20 respectable 
 householders and freeholders, residing in the 
 town, city or precinct of the business, stating 
 that they are acquainted with him, that he is of 
 good moral character, and a proper person to be 
 licensed. If there are not so many such house- 
 holders and freeholders in such district, a major- 
 itv of the whole number therein is sufficient. 
 (Id.. §1319.) 
 
 Every applicant for license must take and file 
 an oath not to sell to minors or persons of un- 
 sound mind, without permission of guardian or 
 parent, or to any person of known intemperate 
 habits, or keep open on Sunday, or violate the 
 statute prohibiting sales of agricultural products 
 between sunset and sunrise, or permit the same 
 in or about the premises, or allow any gaming 
 thereon (Id., § 1320.) 
 
 All sales or exchanges of liquor, or contracts 
 for the san.e. by persons not licensed as above, 
 or by licensed persons to or with minors or 
 p nons of unsound mind, without consent 
 cf parent or guardian, or a person of known 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 277 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 intemperate habits without a physician's requi- 
 sition, are void. (Id., § 1323 ) 
 
 Persons selling or giving liquors to a minor, 
 without consent of his parent or guardian, unless 
 upon physician's prescription, or to a person of 
 known intemperate habits, unless upon such 
 p: escription, shall be fined $50 to $500. Any 
 minor obtaining such liquor by means of false 
 representation as to his age must be fined not 
 mjre ;han 850. (Id., 55 40b8.) 
 
 Persons selling within one mile of any place of 
 religious worship, not in an incorporated town, 
 on any day of public preaching, shall be fined 
 820 to $50 or punished by imprisonment or 
 both. (Id , § 4040.) Any person who conceals 
 himself in any place and disposes of intoxicat- 
 ing liquor in evasion of law, must be fined 
 i250 to §1,000, and may be imprisoned not 
 more than one year. (Id., g 4041 ) 
 
 And any owner or proprietor of any place, 
 permitting such evasion knowingly, shall be 
 fined -?50 to 81,000, and may be imprisoned not 
 more than one year. (Id , § 4042.) 
 
 Any person who. while intoxicated or drunk, 
 appears in any public place where one or more 
 persons are present, or at any private residence 
 not his own, and manifests a drunken condition 
 by boisterous or indecent conduct or loud and 
 profane discourse, shall be fined $5 to $100. 
 (Laws. 1838, No. 10.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (R. S., 1888, 
 S934; passed in 1887.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by two-thirds of all the members of 
 each House at one session ; popular vote to be 
 taken at the next general election for Represen- 
 tatives, three months' notice to be given. A 
 majority carries it. 
 
 Alaska Territory. 
 
 May 4, 1887. the following executive order 
 was issued by President Cleveland, through C. 
 S. Fairchild, Secretary of the Treasury : 
 
 "The following regulations are prescribed 
 under the authority of Section 14 of the act of 
 May 17, 1884 entitled 'An Act providing a civil 
 government for Alaska,' and Section 1955 of 
 the Revised Statutes : 
 
 " 1. No intoxicating liquors shall be landed 
 at any port or place in the Territory of Alaska 
 without a permit from the chief officer of the 
 customs at such poft or place, to be issued upon 
 evideuce satisfactory to such officer that the 
 liquors are imported and are to be used solely 
 for sacramental, medicinal, mechanical or 
 scientific purposes. 
 
 "2. The importation into said Territory of 
 breech-loading rifles and suitable ammunition 
 therefor, except for the personal use of white 
 settlers or temporary visitors not traders, is 
 hereby prohibited. 
 
 " 3. The master of any vessel departing from 
 any port in the United States having on board 
 intoxicating liquors or breech loading rifles and 
 ammunition suitable therefor, when such vessel 
 is destined to any place in said Territory, or if 
 not so destined, when the intended course lies 
 within the waters of the Territory, will be re- 
 quired to file with the Collector of Customs at 
 the port of departure a special manifest, signed 
 
 and verified in duplicate, of all such liquors, 
 arms, and ammunition ; and no clearance shall 
 be granted to any such vessel unless the articles 
 embraced in the special manifest are shovvn to 
 the satisfaction of the Collector to belong to the 
 necessary supplies and equipment of the vessJ, 
 or to be entitled to the above specified exemp- 
 tions, or are covered by bonds taken under the 
 provisions of said Section 1955. 
 
 "4. One of the special manifests above pro- 
 vided for will be delivered to the master, to- 
 gether with the clearance, if granted, and any 
 intoxicating liquors, breech-loading rifles and 
 ammunition found on board a vessel within the 
 waters of the Territory without such special 
 manifest will be seized and the offenders prose- 
 cuted under the provisions of Section 1,957 of 
 the Revised Statutes." 
 
 This is still in force. 
 
 Arizona Territory. 
 
 Early Provisions.— Howell's Code, authorized 
 by the first act of the first Legislature of the 
 Territory, provided (c. 49, §§ 3 and 4) that all 
 tavern or inn-keepers, all keepers of restau- 
 rants or saloons, and all other persons selling or 
 disposing of spirituous or malt liquors, in 
 quantities of less than a quart, should pay a 
 license tax of $30 per quarter; eating-houses 
 selling only malt liquors, $10 per quarter, and 
 peddlers selling liquors, 810 per month. In 
 1871 those whose sales amounted to more than 
 85,000 per quarter were taxed 820 per quarter, 
 others 1-8. (Laws, 1871, p 126.) Selling or 
 giving intoxicating liquors to Indians was pro- 
 hibited under a penalty of 8100 to 8300, or im- 
 prisonment from one to six months, or both 
 (Laws, 1873, p. 78, (5 1.) One-half said fine re- 
 covered was to go to the informants. (Id., § 3.) 
 
 No:es or accounts for liquor, by the drink or 
 bottle, were not collectable where they 
 amounted to over $5. (Laws, 1875, p. 42.) 
 This was repealed the next session. (Laws, 
 1877, No. 5.) All station-keepers upon the 
 public highways who sold liquor were taxed 
 $10 per quarter. (Laws 1877, No. 43.) 
 
 Tne Law as It Existed in 1889.— The County 
 Treasurer shall prepare suitable blank licenses 
 and deliver to the Sheriff on his receipt there- 
 for, and he shall issue the same on payment of 
 the license tax. (R. S.. 1887, Sg 2332, 2233.) 
 Persons doing business without license shall be 
 liable to a fine of not less than the amount of 
 the delinquent tax, nor mors than $300, or im- 
 prisonment in default of payment. (Id., 
 (; 2236.) All persons selling or disposing of 
 wines, distilled or malt liquors in quantities of 
 two gallons and upward, shall pay, on quarterly 
 sales of 825.000 and upward, 8125 per quarter, 
 on sales of $25,000 to T15.000, 8100; on sales of 
 815,000 or less, 870. Dealers in quantities from 
 one quart to two gallons shall pay 830 per 
 quarter, and retailers of one quart or less. 850 
 per quarter in addition to any tax for any other 
 business in the same place. Persons at a way- 
 side inn or station, not within four miles of any 
 city, town or village, shall pay 810 per quarter. 
 (Id., § 2239.) Distiller'es and breweries pay 
 $10 to 840 per quarter, according to the volume 
 of their business. No license exempts the 
 property used in the business from tax under 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 278 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 the general revenue laws. (Id., § 2240) No 
 license shall be required of any physician or 
 apothecary for any liquors they may use in the 
 preparation of medicines. Licenses are not 
 transferable, but in the case of the death of 
 any licensee, his widow, executor or administra- 
 tor may continue the business until the expira- 
 tion of the term. (Id., S 2243). Minors under 
 the age of 16, unless accompanied by their 
 parents or guardians, shall not be allowed in 
 any saloon under penalty of $10 to $200 or 
 imprisonment five to 50 days, or both. (Pen. 
 Code, 1887, S 513.) No person shall knowingly 
 sell or give liquor to any minor under 16 with- 
 out consent of parent or guardian, under pen- 
 alty of $5 to $100, or imprisonment 20 to 90 
 days, or both. (Id., §514.) Every person fur- 
 nishing intoxicating liquor to an Indian or 
 common drunkard is guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 (Id., § 635.) Every person who adulterates or 
 dilutes any spirituous or malt liquor or wine 
 with fraudulent intent to cause or permit it to 
 be offered for sale, or fraudulently sells or 
 offers the same for sale, is guilty of a misde- 
 meanor. (Id., §606.) 
 
 Arkansas. 
 
 Early Provisions. — To prevent disorders and 
 mischief which might result from a multiplicity 
 of public-houses, no persons were allowed to 
 keep such without license by the County Court, 
 upon penalty of $10. Disorder incurred a 
 penalty of $2 and revocation of license. The 
 sum to be paid for license was fixed at $10 to 
 $30. No persons were to sell to slaves and sol- 
 diers without license obtained of master or of 
 officer, respectively. (C. L., 1835, p. 541.) By 
 R. S., 1838. c. 148. such license tax was made 
 4 10 to $100. and violations of the act were pun- 
 ished by fine of not exceeding $60. By the 
 act of 1854, p. 125, a person applying for 
 license to retail vinous or ardent spirits must 
 produce a petition therefor, signed by a major- 
 ity of the resident voters of the township; 
 whereupon it was the duty of the County 
 Court to grant the license. Every separate sale 
 contrary to the act was declared a distinct 
 offense. By act of 1854 p. 148. no license was 
 allowed to be granted in Phillips County and 
 Taylor Township, in Columbia County. Dis- 
 posing of liquors to Indians was made a misde- 
 meanor and fined from $1 to $500. (Laws, 
 1856 p. 155.) Thirteen local Prohibitory laws 
 were passed in 1860 for townships, churches and 
 schools, and four in 1866. The County Courts 
 were given discretionary authority to grant 
 license upon the above petition after having 
 fixed the price of county license at $25 to $500. 
 It was made the duty of the Collector of Rev- 
 enue to prosecute persons selling without 
 license. (Laws, 1866. No. 42.) 
 
 By the Revenue law of 1871 (Laws, No. 35, 
 § 154), a .county tax of $100 was placed upon 
 all liquor- sellers, except where sales were ex- 
 clusively for medicinal purposes. And in the 
 election act of that y^ar (Laws, No. 65, § 28), 
 saloons were to be closed from 5 a. m. to' 10 p! 
 m. of ih? day of election an-l sales or gifts of 
 liquor on that day were misdemeanors. By 
 the Revenue law of 1873 (Laws, No. 124. § 157), 
 a State tax of $100 was added to the above, and 
 
 by§ 159, selling without license was fined $200 
 to $1,000. For Washington County the license 
 law was made more stringent, and civil damages 
 resulting from intoxication were awarded 
 against those selling the liquor in favor of any 
 person injured thereby. (Laws, 1873, No. 127.) 
 
 The Civil Rights law of 1873 (No. 12, g 4) 
 made it unlawful for saloon-keepers to refuse 
 to sell drinks to any person on account of race 
 or color, under penalty of $25 to $100. 
 
 Laws of the special session of 1874 (No. 37) 
 provided for an annual election in each town- 
 ship, ward of a city and incorporated town on 
 the question whether licenses should be granted 
 by the County Board of Supervisors. Each 
 applicant for license was also to enter into bond 
 of $2,000 to pay damages occasioned by reason 
 of liquors drank at his house. Persons 
 aggrieved by the keeping of a saloon, or losing 
 money at gaming therein, were given right to 
 action on such bond. A fine of not less than 
 $100 and imprisonment not less than 30 days, 
 were imposed on a person keeping a saloon 
 without license. Six local Prohibitory laws 
 were enacted in the session of 1874r-5, six in 
 1879, over 20 in 1881, and about the same num- 
 ber at each biennial session since. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — The law as it 
 stands was enacted in 1S79, with some additions 
 made in 1881 and 1883. 
 
 It shall be unlawful, without license, to be 
 procured of the County Court, to sell any spirit- 
 uous, ardent, vinous, malt or fermented liquor 
 or any compound or preparation thereof, com- 
 monly called tonics, bitters or medicated 
 liquors, or intoxicating spirits, to be drunk as a 
 beverage; provided that manufacturers may 
 sell in the original package of not less than five 
 gallons without license. (Dig. Laws, 1884. § 
 450.) The applicant for license must file his 
 petition, specifying the place of sale, and the. 
 receipt of the Collector for the license fee. (Id., 
 §4509.) For such annual license he shall pay 
 $400 as a county tax. $300 as a State tax and $2 
 for Clerk's fees. (Id., § 4510.) Persons selling, 
 or keeping a saloon, without license are guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined double 
 the license fee, and each day of unauthorized 
 selling is a separate offense. (Id., §g 4511, 
 4519). 
 
 At each general election for State officers the 
 question shall be submitted to the electors 
 whether license shall be granted in the county 
 for the next two years, ild.. §§ 1513, 1515). 
 
 Each applicant for license shall give bond in 
 $2,000, conditioned to pay damages caused by 
 liquors sold He shall, besides the above fees 
 (g 4510). before being licensed, pay the addi- 
 tional sum determined by the County Court of 
 $50 to $200. (Id., § 4516.) The law does not 
 apply to one who manufactures and sells wine 
 from grapes or berries or other fruits, and who 
 sells no other liquors. (Id., § 4520.) All the 
 provisions of this law apply with equal force 
 to the sale of alcohol. (Id.. § 4521. » No debt 
 for spirits sold in a saloon shall be recoverable. 
 (Id., § 452.) 
 Whenever the adult inhabitants residing within 
 three miles of any school-house, academy, col- 
 lege, university or other institution of learning, 
 or of any church-house, shall desire it, and a 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 279 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 majority thereof petition therefor, the County 
 Court shall make an order prohibiting the sale 
 of liquor there for two years. (Id., §4524.) Fe- 
 males as well as males are included as inhabit- 
 ants in above section i Id. , § 4525.) 
 
 This three-mile law does not prohibit the use 
 of wine for sacramental purposes or sales upon 
 a physician's prescription. But no physician 
 may make such prescription except he has filed 
 his aflidavit with the County Clerk that he will 
 not do so without necessity in treatment of dis- 
 ease. (Id., § 4526.) Persons violating this 
 three mile law shall be fined $20 to $100. (Id., 
 S 45^7.) 
 
 Licenses are forfeited for allowing gaming 
 upon the premises. (Id., § 1857.) Dramshop 
 ke pers allowing fighting, quarreling or disor- 
 derly conduct in their places shall befined not over 
 $50. (Id.. §1858 ) Selling to United States soldiers 
 forfeits license. (Id., § 1859.) Selling liquor to 
 minors without written consent of parent or 
 guardian, subjects to a fine of $50 to $100. (Id., 
 § 1878.) Selling to an Indian to a fine of $1 to 
 $500. ild, §1879.) Persons contemptuously 
 offering liquor for sale within one mile of any 
 campground during campmeeting, or of any 
 place of meeting for worship, shall be fined 
 not less than $10. This doss not apply to licensed 
 places of sale. (Id,. §§ 1896-7 ) ' Persons using 
 or controlling any device to sell liquor, such 
 as is known as the " blind tiger, ' or any other 
 such are guilty of a misdemeanor. (Id., § 
 1926) If any person obtains liquor in any 
 room or place of another, by going therein or 
 thereto and by call, sound, word or token, it 
 shall be prima facie evidence of the guilt of the 
 person who owns or controls such place. (Id., 
 | 1927.) It shall be the duty of all officers to 
 execute and prosecute under this act. (Id., 
 § 1928 ) On oath of any person, filed with a 
 Justice of the Peace, that any named person is 
 violating this " blind tiger " act, the Prosecut- 
 ing Attorney must prosecute such person and 
 cause his arrest. (Id., § 1929.) Persons con- 
 victed under the " blind tiger " act shall be fined 
 $200 to $500 and imprisoned 30 days. (Id., 
 § 1932.) The " blind tiger " act does not apply 
 to persons giving liquors at their residences to 
 friends, or to licensed dealers, i Id., § 1932.) 
 Dramshops shall not be kept open on Sunday, 
 on penalty of $25 to $100. (Laws, 1885, No. 
 33.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by a majority of all the members of 
 the two Houses, at one session ; popular vote to 
 be taken at the next general election, six 
 months' notice to be given. A majority carries 
 it. 
 
 California. 
 
 Early Provisions — The first session of the 
 Legislature taxed licenses to retail any spiritu- 
 ous, vinous or fermented liquors, to be granted 
 by the Court of Sessions, $50 to $1,000| at dis- 
 cretion. (Law3, 1850, c. 130, § 1.) Furnishing 
 liquor to Indians was fined $20. (Id., c. 133, 
 §15.) The Revenue act of the next year im- 
 posed license taxes, for county purposes, of $50. 
 (Laws, 1851, c 6, § 60.) The license tax was 
 the next year but one placed at $5 to $40 per 
 month, according to volume of business. 
 
 (Laws, 1853. c. 167, art. 4, § 3.) Chapter 187, 
 Laws of 1855, authorized the taking the sense of 
 the people on the passage of a Prohibitoiy 
 liquor law, ■ ' the provisions of which shall pro- 
 hibit the manufacture and sale of all spirituous 
 and intoxicating liquors, except for mechanical, 
 chemical, medicinal and sacramental purposes." 
 The proposed act was no further set out. 
 Promises to pay for liquor sold at retail to the 
 amount of over $5 were declared void by the 
 Laws of 1858, c 232. Adulteration of liquor was 
 prohibited under penalty of $25 to $500. iLaws, 
 1860, c. 223, § 1.) On affidavit to a Justice of 
 the Peace charging adulteration he was to order 
 the seizure of not exceeding one gallon of such 
 liquor for analysis. (Id., §2. ) No person con- 
 victed under this act was to be again licensed. 
 (Id., § 3.) Nothing was to affect compounding 
 of liquors by a regular physician or druggist 
 for medicinal purposes. (Id., § 6.) 
 
 By the laws of 1863, c 289, it was to be as- 
 certained in every criminal action if the offense 
 of the defendant was due to intoxication, and if 
 so the costs and expenses to the county of the 
 aggregate of the same were to be added pro- 
 rata to the amounts required for license, in ad- 
 dition to the regular rate. Section 306 of the 
 Penal Code, as amended in 1874, prohibiting 
 employment of females in dance-houses where 
 liquor is sold, was declared unconstitutional, as 
 discriminating against the employment of a 
 female in a lawful business on account of her 
 sex. (Matter of Maguire, 57 Cal., C04.) 
 
 The act of 1873^, c. 300, to permit the voters 
 of every township or incorporated city in the 
 State to vote on the question of granting licen- 
 ses to sell intoxicating liquors was declared un- 
 constitutional, as delegating the power of the 
 Legislature to make laws. (Ex-parte Wall, 48 
 Cal,. 279.) 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — Any county, 
 city, town or township may make and enforce 
 within its limits all such local, police, sanitary 
 and other regulations as are not in conflict with 
 general laws. (Const., art. 11, § 11.) Under 
 this section it was held that the city of Pasa- 
 dena might prohibit tippling houses, dramshops 
 or barrooms where liquors were dealt in. (Ex- 
 parte Campbell, 74 Cal., 20.) It surrenders the 
 subject to local control entirely. 
 
 I ersons selling spirituous, malt or fermented 
 liquors or wine, in less quantities than one quart, 
 must, on sales of $10,000 or more monthly, pay 
 $10 per month ; on such sales of $5,000 to 
 810,000, $-30; less than $5,000, $5. (Pol. Code, 
 § 3381.) Wholesalers, in classes according to 
 their monthly sales, pay from $1 to $50 per 
 month. (Id., §§3282-3.) No license is required of 
 physicians, surgeons, apothecaries or chemists, 
 for any wines or spirituous liquors they may use 
 in the preparation of medicines. (Id., § 3383.) 
 Sales of liquors at theatres, and employing 
 women to sell liquors thereat are misdemeanors. 
 (Pen. Code, § 303.) Selling liquors within one 
 mile of a camp or field-meeting for religious 
 worship during the time of holding such meet- 
 ing, except regularly licensed businesses, is fined 
 $5 to $500 I Pen. Code, §§ 304-5.) Every 
 person who sells or gives to another under the 
 age of 16 years, to be by him drank at the time 
 as a beverage, is guilty of a misdemeanor, pro- 
 
Legislation] 
 
 280 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 vided this does not apply to parents, guardians 
 or physicians. (Pen. Code, § 306 ; Acts 1871, p. 
 231.) Selling liquor within two miles of Cali- 
 fornia University, in Alameda County, is pun- 
 ishable by fine of $50 to $100, or imprison- 
 ment 30 to 90 days, or both. (Pol. Code, § 1405 ; 
 Laws, 1873, p. IS.) Selling within one mile of 
 Napa Insane Asylum is fined not exceeding 
 $500. (Pol. Code, g 2222: Laws, 1873, p. 27.) 
 Sales one mile from College City, Colusa 
 County, are prohibited. (4 Codes* Slats., p. 617; 
 Laws. 1875, p. 691.) The delivery of liquor by 
 retail is invalid cons-deration for any promise 
 to pay exceeding $5, and no Court will give 
 judgment for the amount thereof. (4 Codes & 
 Mats , p. 616 ; Laws, 1873, p. 509.) Sale or dis- 
 tribution of liquor in the Capitol Building is 
 prohibited under penalty of $1,000. Selling on 
 election day, while the polls are open, is a misde- 
 meanor. (Laws, 1873, c. 198.) Selling intoxi- 
 cating liquors to those addicted to the inordi- 
 nate use of such liquor, after notice thereof, is 
 punished by fine not exceeding $200 or impris- 
 onment not exceeding six months, or both. (5 
 Codes & Stats., p. 542; Laws 1889, p 352.) 
 
 The provision made in Laws. 1887 p. 46, and 
 5 Codes & Stats., p. 493. is a very elaborate and 
 technical act defining pure wine, prohibiting its 
 sophistication or adulteration and requiring 
 labels to be marked " Pure California "Wine." 
 It was held that a failure to thus mark was not a 
 violation of theact. (Ex-parte Kohler 74Cal.,38) 
 
 The California laws also provide for a Board 
 of State Viticultural Commissioners (to he sup- 
 ported from State funds), charged with the duty 
 of promoting the interests of the wine growers 
 and producers. 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed bv two-thirds of all the members of 
 the two Houses, at one session ; the popular 
 vote must be taken at the next general election 
 for Kepresentatives, notice to be given " as 
 deemed expedient." A majority carries it. 
 
 Colorado. 
 
 The history of liquor laws in this State is 
 brief. They now exist substantially as passed 
 at the first session of the Legislature in 1861, 
 and re-enacted in the first Revised Statutes of 
 1868. except the provisions that the Board of 
 County Commissioners may grant licenses to 
 keep saloons, hotels, public houses or groceries 
 upon condition that the applicant shall pay into 
 th3 county Treasury $25 to $300 at the discretion 
 of the Board, and that he shall give bond in 
 $500 conditioned to keep an orderly house and 
 will not permit any unlawful gaming in his 
 house. (G. S., 1883, §2103.) 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889.- The license 
 fee for the privilege of retailing spirituous, vin- 
 ous and malt liquors shall be in cities not less 
 than $600 ; in incorporated towns, not less 
 than $500 ; in counties, where the Board of 
 County Commissioners may grant, $300. ( Laws, 
 1889, p. 228, § 1.) No person shall be licensed 
 until he has executed a bond in not less than 
 $2,000 to be fixed by the County Commissioners 
 or municipal authorities granting the license, 
 conditioned that he will keep an orderly house, 
 permit no unlawful gaming, and not violate any 
 
 law or ordinance in reference to selling liquors, 
 and pay all damages, fines, penalties and for- 
 feitures for violating such laws and ordinances. 
 (Id., § 2.) Licenses to sell malt liquors exclu- 
 sively may be grafted on payment of one-half 
 of the above sums, respectively. ■ (Id., § 4.) 
 The Board upon application for license may re- 
 ject or grant the same at its discretion. (G S., 
 1883, § 2104.) The Board, upon complaint 
 made to it, has power to revoke the license upon 
 being satisfied it has been abused or that the 
 licensee has violated the law. (Id., § 2105.) It 
 is not plain that the Boards of Trustees of 
 incorporated towns and the City Councils 
 of cities have the right to revoke, or even 
 the discretion to grant, as stated above. The 
 Board of County Commissioners only is there- 
 fore mentioned in the General Statutes of 1883, 
 though municipal authorities are in the next 
 section given the exclusive authority to license 
 in such towns and cities. (Id., § 2103, see 
 below ; Id., § 3312, p. 18.) Licenses do not 
 authorize sales in more than one place, and 
 must describe the place intended to be occu- 
 pied. (Id.. § 2i06.) A saloon or grocery shall 
 be deemed to include all places where liquors 
 are retailed, i Id., S 2107.) Sales by persons 
 not licensed are fined $20, half to the informer. 
 (Id., t; 2108. ) This was increased to a fine of 
 $50 to S200 by act of 1889. p. 231. 
 
 No person may sell or d liver liquor to any 
 Indian under penalty of §50, one-half to the 
 informer. (G. S., 1883, § 2109. i If licensee 
 knowingly suffers disorder, drunkenness or un- 
 lawful games in his house, his license shall be 
 suppressed by the County Commissioners. (Id., 
 § 2110.) Persons carrying on the business 
 without license shall be fined not exceed- 
 ing $300, or imprisoned not exceeding six 
 months, or both. (Id. ,§2112. ) Persons prose- 
 cuting or giving information maybe competent 
 witnesses at the trial, notwithstanding their in- 
 terest in the penalty. (Id., § 2115. ) Penalties 
 may be recovered by action in debt, or by in- 
 dictment, before any Justice of the Peace or 
 Court of competent jurisdiction, upon complaint 
 of any citizen of the county. (Id , § 2116.) 
 No license shall be issued for more than a year 
 or less than six months, or until the whole fee 
 has been paid (Laws, 1889, p. 220, § 6.) No 
 license is transferable (Id., § 7.) No license fee 
 may be refunded for any unexpired term except 
 in case of the death of the licensee. (Id., § 8.) 
 City Councils and Town Boards of Trustees 
 have the exclusive right to license, regulate or 
 prohibit the selling or giving away of any in- 
 toxicating liquor within the limits of the town 
 or city or within one mile beyond, such 
 authorities complying with the geaeral laws of 
 the State in force. (G. S., 1883, § 3312, p. 18.) 
 The same authorities may grant permits to drug- 
 gists to sell liquor for medicinal, mechanical, 
 sacramental and chemical purposes only. (Id.) 
 They may also forbid and punish the selling to 
 minors, apprentices, insane, idiotic or distracted 
 persons drunkards, or intoxicated persons. (Id., 
 p. 19.) Retailers selling or giving liquor to 
 common drunkards shall be fined 31-50. (G. 8., 
 1883, § 853.) Any person procuring liquor 
 for any habitual drunkard knowingly shall be 
 fined $100 to $300, or imprisoned three to 12 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 281 
 
 [uegislation. 
 
 months or both. (Id., § 854.) Selling to Uni- 
 ted States troops or State militia is punished by- 
 imprisonment not exceeding three months, or fine 
 not exceeding §50, and forfeiture of license. 
 (Id., § 855.) 
 
 If any person sell liquor between sunrise and 
 sunset of any general election, or election for 
 Mayor of any incorporated place, he shall for 
 the first offense forfeit $10 to $100, and for the 
 second $50 to $200. (Id., §856.) This section 
 does not apply to wholesalers of over 20 gallons. 
 (Id., § 857.) Saloons shall be closed election 
 day. under penalty of $50 or 20 days' imprison- 
 ment, or both. (Id., ^1220.) Any person sell- 
 ing liquors within one mile of any gathering- of 
 citizens assembled for worship, unless a regular- 
 ly-licensed business, shall be fined not over 
 $100; this not applying to persons selling at 
 their own distillery, store or dwelling-house. 
 (Id., S 878.) 
 
 Every person, relative or employer injured in 
 person, property or means of support by the 
 intoxication of anyone, has his action against 
 the seller of the liquor, if such seller has been 
 notified not to sell to such person. (Id., g 1034; 
 Act, 1879, p. 92.) 
 
 The importation of, or bringing into this 
 State of any spurious or adulterated vinous or 
 malt liquors, is prohibited. (Laws, 1887, p. 18, 
 § 1.) The compounding, manufacture or sale 
 of any such spurious liquors is prohibited. 
 (Id.. §2.) Any such liquor found to contain 
 any thing other than the extract or property of 
 the juice of the grape, or than the quality or 
 property of malt and hops combined with water, 
 respectively, is spurious. (Id., § 3. ) No vinous 
 or malt liquors shall be offered for sale, unless 
 the package be plainly marked or stamped with 
 the manufacturer's name and place, and the 
 words "pure" ale, "pure" wine. etc.. as the 
 casemaybe. (Id., §4.) No dealer in liquors 
 shall keep in his possession any spurious liquors. 
 (Id., § 5. ) Any person violating this act shall 
 be fined $1 to $500 or imprisoned not exceeding 
 six months, or both. (Id. , § 6. ) Justices of the 
 Peace have jurisdiction, except under § 5, when 
 the party if not discharged upon hearing shall 
 be held to bail to the next District Court. (Id., 
 § 7. ) For two years, and until otherwise pro- 
 vided, fines collected under this law shall be- 
 long to the prosecuting witness. (Id., § 8 ) 
 
 Au Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by two-thirds of all the members of 
 the two Houses, at one session ; popular vote to 
 be taken at the next general election for Repre- 
 sentatives, three months' notice to be given. A 
 majority vote carries it. 
 
 Connecticut, 
 
 Colonial Provisions. — No one was to sell wine 
 or strong water without license. (Colonial 
 Records, vol. 1, p. 100(1643].) Tippling in " or 
 dinaries" was prohibited. (Id., p. 154 [1347].) 
 So was selling to Indians, under penalty of 40s 
 to £5. (Id., p. 254. ) A small excise of 40.? per 
 hhd. of wine, etc., was levied in 1654 (Id., p. 
 255.) The rates at which liquors were to be 
 sold were fixed in 1656. (Id., p. 283.) A penalty 
 of 5s per quart for liquor sold without license 
 was imposed in 1659. (Id., p. 332.) A fee of 
 2s 6d for license to retail liquor, to be obtained 
 
 of the General Court, was required in the same 
 year. (Id.) If any person was found drunk at 
 any private house he was fined 20s, and the 
 owner of the house 10s. (Id., p 333.) Distilla- 
 tion of corn or malt into liquor was prohibited 
 at the same time. 
 
 Ludlow's Code, 1650 (Id., p. 533), provided, 
 under title "Innkeepers," and Introduction: 
 " Forasmuch as there i i a necessary use of houses 
 of common entertainment in every Common- 
 wealth, and of such as retail wine, beer and 
 victuals, yet because th'rc are so many abuses 
 of that lawful liberty, both by persons enter- 
 taining and persons entertained, there is also 
 need of strict laws to regulate such an employ- 
 ment." It was ordered that no such licensed 
 person should suffer any to be drunken or drink 
 excessively (viz., above half a pint at a time), 
 or to tipple above the space of half an hour, or 
 at unreasonable times, or after 9 o'clock at 
 night, on penalty of 5s ; and every person found 
 drunk, so as to be bereaved or disabled in the 
 use of his understanding, appearing in his 
 speech or gesture, 10s ; for excessive drinking. 
 3s id; for tippling over half an hour. 2.9 65, 
 and for tippling at unreasonable times or after 
 9 o'clock. 5s. It was provided, however, that 
 travelers and strangers might be kept and enter- 
 tained in an orderly manner. Drunkenness and 
 excessive or long drinking for second offenses 
 were fined double the above amounts, and in 
 default the first kind of offense were to be given 
 ten stripes, and the second three hours in the 
 stocks. The other above several regulations 
 were also duly codified. 
 
 It was ordered that only the Ordinary in each 
 town should sell wine and strong waters. (1 
 New Haven Col. Rec , p. 27 [1646].) And it 
 was provided that no one should retail liquors 
 without license upon penalty of £5. (2 Id. , p. 
 595 [1656J. ) The law was shortly codified in an 
 act which added whipping at discretion for 
 those selling without license and not able to pay 
 their flues. (Conn. Col. Rec, 1089-1706, p. 436.) 
 Selling liquor without license was fined £5, to be 
 doubled for each succeeding offense, half to the 
 complainant ; and officers were to post the 
 names of tavern-haunters at the doors of taverns, 
 and selling to them afterwards was fined £5, 
 and their drinking thereafter 20s. (Id., p. 562.) 
 
 Early Slate Provisions. — Selling without 
 license was fined $10, doubled for each subse- 
 quent offense, half to the informer. (Laws. 
 1803, p. 728.) Cider, ale and beer were excepted 
 from the law by Laws of 1810, p. 33. Retailers 
 of liquor not to be drunk on the premises were 
 authorized to be licensed the same as innkeep- 
 ers and pay $5 for their licenses and forfeit $50 
 for illegal sellng. (Laws, 1813, c. 12.) All 
 laws then in force regulating the sale of spiritu- 
 ous liquors were repealed, and it was provided 
 that no person excepting taverners should sell 
 any liquor to be drank in his house or place, 
 upon penalty of $5. (Laws, 1842, c. 27., No 
 one was to sell on the highway, iu a booth, or 
 any place erected or located for temporary pur- 
 poses, on public days at camp meet.ngs. or on 
 any temporary occasion, under penalty of $7. 
 (Laws, 1844 c. 38, § 1 ) No jailor could sell on 
 his premises. (Id., § 2.) 
 
 By the act of 1845, c. 50, three special Com- 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 282 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 missoners were to be elected annually by each 
 town, who only should grant licenses to such 
 persons, under such limitations and restrictions, 
 as they judged proper, and revoke the same at 
 pleasure. Violators of the act were fined $10 to 
 §100. This act was repealed by the Laws of 1846, c. 
 56; and by the next act of the same year, 
 taverners only were authorized to sell to be 
 drunk on the premises, under penalty of 810, 
 half to the informer. By § 2 of that act no 
 person but a taverner was to keep any house or 
 place for the sale of liquor, under penalty of 
 $30. And by § 3 no person was to sell to com- 
 mon drunkards under penalty of $10. 
 
 Connecticut's Maine Law of 1854 —An elaborate 
 Prohibitory or Maine law, against the manufac- 
 ture and sale of liquor (only excepting cider 
 and native wine in quantities of five gallons or 
 over), providing for Town Agents to sell for 
 sacramental, medicinal, chemical and mechan- 
 ical purposes only, providing penalty of $10 for 
 first conviction and $20 and imprisonment three 
 to six months for subsequent convictions for 
 selling, and $100 for first, $200 for second and 
 $200 and four months in prison *for third 
 offenses of being a common seller, with search 
 and seizure clauses, was submitted to the vote 
 of the people on the first Monday of April, 
 1851. (Laws, 1853, p. 151.) Such an act, more 
 elaborate and with somewhat heavier penalties, 
 was enacted on June 23, lb54. (Laws, c. 57.) 
 
 Persons fouDd intoxicated were fined not ex- 
 ceeding > 7 by the Laws of 1859, c. 58. The sec- 
 tion (19* of the Liquor act giving Selectmen, 
 Constables. Mayors and Aldermen the powers 
 of Grand Jurors to prosecute under the act, was 
 repealed by Laws of 1860, c. 7. And § 27 of 
 said law, which made sales of liquor void 
 and not actionable, was repealed by Laws of 
 1861, c. 50. And by Laws of 1863. c. 22, it was 
 enacted thatno.hing in the Prohibitory liquor 
 act should impair the obligation of any con- 
 tract. This was a reversal of the common law 
 that contracts made in violation of law are non- 
 enforceable. This policy was again reversed, and 
 rights acquired by the sale of liquors were 
 again made null and void. (Laws of 1872, c. 
 71.) The manufacture or sale of adulterated 
 liquor was punished by fine not exceeding 
 $500, or imprisonment, not exceeding one year, 
 or both, by Laws of 1865 c. 01. 
 
 In 1867 a license law was enacted and held in 
 suspension until the next session, accompanied 
 by the majority report of a committee in favor 
 of it and against the Prohibitory liquor law then 
 in force. (Laws, 1867, p. 182. ) The next Legis- 
 lature did not concur. In 1869 was passed a law 
 (c. 136) providing for a State Chemist and 
 analysis by him of liquors, which is still in force 
 and will be noticed below. Liquor-shops were 
 prohibited to keep open on Sunday, in 1872. 
 (Laws, c. 82.) 
 
 License and Local Option (1872). — The Prohi- 
 bition law was impliedly repealed in 1872 by 
 the passage of a law authorizing the County 
 Commissioners to license applicants recommend- 
 ed by a majority of the Selectmen of the towns, 
 though the towns might instruct such Selectmen 
 to so recommend no one for license The 
 license fee was $100. and the penalty f cr viola- 
 tion $20. (Laws, 1872, c. 99.; The license fee 
 
 was made $100 to $500 at discretion, in each 
 case, and district licenses for the sale of beer, 
 ale, and Rhine wine only, were provided for as 
 were agents to be appointed by the County 
 Commissioners, to prosecute for violations, by 
 Laws of 1874, c. 115. By the Laws of 1875, c. 
 104, the County Commissioners were to pay 
 moneys received for licenses to the several 
 towns. By Laws of 1878, c. 137, the Mayors of 
 cities, Wardens of boroughs and Selectmen of 
 towns might close saloons between 12 p. m. 
 Saturday night and 12 p. m. Sunday night fol- 
 lowing. Town Agents, to sell for medicinal 
 and similar purposes only, in towns voting 
 against license, were provided for by Laws of 
 1879, c. 66. Twenty-five per cent, of the license 
 moneys was awarded to the counties by Laws of 
 1879, c. 107. The Clerk of tlie Superior Court 
 was to keep a record of all licenses. (Id., c. 124.) 
 
 Prohibitory Amendments Proposed. — In 1880 
 (Laws, p. 601) a Prohibitory law with all the or- 
 dinary provisions was proposed, but never fi- 
 nally enacted. And in 1882 (Laws, p. 2241 a 
 Prohibitory Amendment to the Constitution 
 was proposed tothe next Legislature, which was 
 not concurred in. Another such Amenoment 
 was proposed in 1887 (Laws, p. 766), concurred 
 in, submitted to the people (Laws, 1389, c. 163), 
 and defeated at the polls. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889.— The term 
 spirituous and intoxicating liquors shall be held 
 to include all spirituous and intoxicating licjuors. 
 all mixed liquors, all mixed liquor of which a 
 part is spirituous and intoxicating, all distilled 
 spirits, all wines, ale and porter, all beer manu- 
 factured from hops and malt, or from hops and 
 barley, and all beer on the receptacle containing 
 which the laws of the United States require a 
 revenue stamp to be affixed, aud all fermented 
 cider, sold to be drunk on the premises, or in 
 quantities of less than five gallons (made one 
 gallon by Laws of 1889, c. 187), to be delivered 
 at one time. tG. S., 1888, g 3048.) 
 
 Upon petition of 25 voters of a town, the 
 Selectmen must submit the question of license to 
 the next annual town meeting. Licenses not in 
 accordance with that vote are void, ild., §§ 
 3050-1. i Whenever a town has so voted against 
 license, delivery of liquor by the vendor or his 
 agent in such town shall be deemed a sale within 
 such town, although the contract of sale was 
 made outside the town. (Id., g 3052.) 
 
 The County Commissioners may license, fcr 
 a period not extending beyond the first Monday 
 of the month next after the next annual town 
 m- eting, by licenses signed by themselves, suit- 
 able persons to sell liquors in suitable places. 
 (Id., s? 3053.) But no person who has been con- 
 victed of a violation of liquor law, or paid a fine 
 to settle such a prosecution, or forfeited his 
 bond to appear to answer such charges, 
 shall be deemed a suitable person. (Id.,am'd 
 by Laws, 1889, c, 117.) The County Commis- 
 sioners shall, on or before the 10th of every 
 month, report to the Town Treasurers the licen- 
 ses granted and the money received therefor. (G. 
 S. , 1888. g 3054. ) The said Commissoners shall 
 pay 5 per cent, of such license moneys to the 
 County Treasurers, and on the first of the next 
 month shall pay the -est of the money to the 
 Town Treasurers. (Id., §§ 3055-6.) The Com 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 283 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 missioners shall report, by the 1st of December, 
 specifically, of all licenses granted by them 
 for the year ending June 30 preceding. (Id., § 
 3057. i_ They may, upon complaint made of any 
 violation of the law, revoke any license ; and 
 they have the power of Justices of the Peace for 
 the purpose of a hearing thereon. (Id., § 3U58.) 
 Any prosecuting agent, of his own motion or 
 upon complaint of two legal voters, may prefer 
 charges before the Commissioners, who shall 
 wiihin 14 days summon the accused to appear 
 and show reason why his license should not be 
 revoked. (Id, «$ 3059.) The fees of the prose- 
 cuting agent shall be $5 per day, those of others 
 the same as in ordinary criminal cases, to be 
 t:ixed. drawn and paid by the Commissioners. 
 (Id., $ 3060. ) Such revocation is not subject to 
 app.al. On revocation, the Treasurer of the 
 county shall sue on the bond, and on proof of 
 any violation of the conditions thereof recover 
 . the full amount of the bond. (Id., S 3061.) 
 County Commissioners shall not deal in liquors, 
 or become surety on the bond of any person 
 licensed. (Id., g 3062.) 
 
 Application for license shall be signed by the 
 applicant and five electors and taxpayers of the 
 town. It shall specify the building wherein 
 liquor is to be sold. ' And, if within 200 feet of 
 church or public-school premises, it shall state 
 the distance. The Town Clerk shall certify as 
 to the signers. The application shall be then 
 transmitted to the Commissioners and a copy 
 of the application filed with the Clerk, who shall 
 advertise the same in some paper of the town, or 
 if none, by posting, two weeks before the hear- 
 ing thereon by the Commissioners. The ex- 
 pense of advertising or posting, and 50 cents, 
 shall be paid to the Clerk on th3 filing. Any 
 person of the town may file with (he Com- 
 missioners any objection to the granting of the 
 license, and the Commissioners shall give five 
 days' notice of the hearing on the objection, 
 when they shall decide whether to grant the 
 license or not. (Id.. § 3063.) Before license, 
 a bond in $3,000 shall be filed with the Com- 
 missioners, and no liquor-dealer can be a surety 
 th^icou. Any conviction of violation of the 
 law forfeits the bond, and the Treasurer must 
 sue upon it and shall recover the full amount 
 thereof. (Id., § 3064.) 
 
 The license fee shall be $100 to $500, as the 
 Commissioners shall determine, in each case, 
 except in towns of less than 3.000 people, when 
 it shall be §100 for all liquors, and $50 for ale. 
 lager beer, cider and Rhine wine only ; and for 
 portions of a year, such proportion as the Com- 
 missioners judge proper. A druggist's license 
 to sell forcomnounding prescriptions, and upon 
 prescriptions, shall be $12, or $10 in towns of 
 less than 5 000 inhabitants. Druggists' licenses 
 to sell in quantities not exceeding one gallon, 
 not to be drunk on the premises, are $50 ; and 
 druggists' licenses to sell only on prescription, 
 not to be drunk on the premises, in No-License 
 towns, $12 (Id., § 3064. ) One sale only shall 
 be made on one prescription. (Id., § 3;)65.) 
 Prescriptions shall be dated and filed by the 
 druggist (Id., S 3086.) Druggists must sign 
 an application for license, to be lodged with the 
 Commissioners two weeks, and objections may 
 be made as in other cases, and revocation the 
 
 same way. (Id., § 3067.) Druggists' licenses 
 shall contain the words, " This license does not 
 authorize the sale of spirituous or intoxicating 
 liquor to be drunk on the premises." (Id., S 
 3068.) 
 
 Every license shall specify the building and 
 town, and authorizes sales in no other place, 
 and shall be made revocable, in terms, for vio- 
 lation of law. The Commissioners may indorse 
 the license with permission to remove to another 
 specified building in the town. (Id., 3 3069 ) 
 All licenses shall have plainly printed on their 
 faces §■; 3092 and 3094, G. S. (Id.. ^ 3070) 
 On the death of a licensee, his executors or ad- 
 ministrators may, with the consent of the Com- 
 missioners, transfer his license to a suitable per- 
 son, who must himself make application and 
 execute bond as for original license. (Id , S 
 3071 ) Every one shall have his license framed 
 and hung in plain view in the room of sale, on 
 penalty of $5. (Id., g 3072.) The Clerk of the 
 Superior Court of the county shall keep a rec- 
 ord of all licenses. Persons not having their 
 licenses so recorded shall be fined $5 a week. 
 A certificate of such Clerk that any person is or 
 is not duly licensed, or that his license has been 
 revoked, is prima facie evidence. (Id., § 3073.) 
 
 No liquors shall be sold in any State, county 
 or town building No license shall be granted 
 for any building used as a dwelling-house, ex- 
 cept a hotel, until access from the dwelling por- 
 tion has been effectually closed; and if any 
 such way is opened it forfeits the license. (Id., 
 § 3074.) No license shall be granted to any 
 Sheriff, Constable, Grand Juror, Justice of tbe 
 Peace. Prosecuting Agent, Selectman (except 
 such Selectman is a hotel-keeper), or to any fe- 
 male not known to be a woman of good repute, 
 or any female member of the household of a 
 person who has been refused license or who has 
 forfeited his license, or to a house of ill-fame or 
 place reputed to be a house of ill-fame, or to any 
 person keeping a gambling place (Id., § 3074 ) 
 
 "Whenever any licensee is convicted of a vio- 
 lation of §§ 3087-3101 he shall, in addition to 
 the other penalties, forfeit his license, and the 
 Commissioners shall revoke it and he may not 
 be licensed again for a year. (Id., § 3075.) 
 
 License to sell is not required of importers 
 into the United States of liquors remaining in 
 the original packages. (Id., § 3076. ) Executors 
 or administrators, or the trustees of an insolvent 
 estate, may sell the liquors belonging to the 
 estate in one lump, to a regularly-licensed 
 dealer only. (Id., §3077.) No person shall 
 sell liquor by sample, by soliciting orders, with- 
 out taking out a license; but if he does so he 
 may solicit orders in any town where liquor 
 may be legally sold. (Id , § 3078. i Whenever 
 any license has been obtained by fraud, the 
 Commissioners may revoke the same without 
 refunding moneys paid therefor. (Id., § 3079. ) 
 No licensee shall employ any minor as a bar- 
 tender or porter on his place, on penalty of 
 revocation of his license by the Commissioners. 
 (Id., § 3080.) All liquors intended to be sold 
 unlawfully shall, together with the vessels con- 
 taining them, be deemed nuisances. (Id., § 
 3081.) 
 
 Any Justice of the Peace or Police Court, 
 upon the sworn complaint of two voters, or of 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 284 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 any prosecuting agent, setting forth with reason- 
 able certainty as to the kind of liquor, place and 
 owner, that such liquors are intended to be sold 
 in violation of law, may issue a warrant direct- 
 ing any police or other officer to search the prem- 
 ises and seize the liquor. If the place is a 
 dwelling house, the prosecuting agent or one of 
 the said complainants shall make oath that he 
 believes unlawful sales have been made there 
 within 30 days. And the Justices or Court 
 must fijd that there is an adequate reason for 
 such belief (Id. , § 3082.) On such seizure the 
 Justice or Court shall within two days post and 
 leave at the place of seizure, and at the usual 
 residence of the owner, a summons notifying 
 him and all concerned to appear in six to 12 
 days to show cause why the liquor is not a 
 nuisance. (Id., §3083.) The costs under the 
 last two sections shall De paid by the town 
 except when paid by defendants. (Id., 
 § 3084; see Laws, 1889, c. 48, § 1.) The 
 Court shall direct by warrant, if the complaint 
 is sustained, some officer to destroy the liquor. 
 If judgment be that the liquor is not a nuisance 
 the Court shall direct that it be restored and the 
 costs' taxed and paid as in case of acquittal of a 
 criminal charge. (G. S., 1888, § 3085 ; am'd by 
 Laws, 1889, c. 48, § 3.) All proceedings for 
 seizure shall be in rem, and conducted as 
 civil actions, and the defendants have the right 
 of appeal (G. S., 1888, S 3086.) 
 
 Any person selling without license, or con- 
 trary to his license, shall for the first offense be 
 fined not more than $50, for the second shall be 
 fined $50 and imprisoned 30 days, for third and 
 subsequent ones, 8100 and 60 days imprison- 
 ment. (Id., §3037.) Every person keeping a 
 bar or place in which it is reputed liquors are 
 kept without license, shall be fined not over $30. 
 (Id.. §3088.) 
 
 The Selectmen shall semi annually prepare a 
 list of those persons aided by the town who use 
 liquor, and lodge a copy thereof, forbidding 
 sales to such persons, or their families except 
 upon prescription, also signed by the Selectmen, 
 with every licensed dealer in town. (Id., § 
 3089.) Every licensee who sells to such per- 
 sons after such notice, shall be fined $10 to $50, 
 or imprisoned 10 to 60 days, or both.. (Id., § 
 3090. ) Whenever any person shall complain to 
 the Selectmen that his father, mother, husband, 
 wife, child or ward is addicted to the excessive 
 use of liquors, the Selectmen, believing the 
 same, upon request, shall notify every licensed 
 dealer in town not to sell to such person so desig- 
 nated. Such notices remain in force as long as 
 the dealer is annually licensed, or may be re- 
 voked in a year by the Selectmen. (Id., § 
 3091; am'd by Laws, 1889, c. 136.) Licensees who 
 deliver liquor to a minor for his or any other 
 person's use, or to any intoxicated parson, or to 
 any husband or wife after receiving notice from 
 wife or husband, respectively, not to do so, or 
 knowingly to any habitual drunkard, or to any 
 persons after a Selectmen's notice, as in last sec- 
 tion, or allow any minors to loiter upon their 
 premises, shall be fined not more than $50, or 
 be imprisoned 10 to 60 days, or both. (G. S., 
 1888, § 3092.) 
 
 Every person keeping open any place for the 
 sale of liquor to be drank on the premises on 
 
 election day shall be fined f 50. (Id., 3093 ; 
 Laws, 1889, c. 197.) Licensees shall not keep 
 open their places between 11 p. m. and 5 a. m.. 
 on penalty of $25 to $50; but this does not 
 apply to druggists ; and the town, or the au- 
 thorities of any city, borough, or town, may fix 
 the hour of closing as late as 12 p. m. (,G. S., 
 1888, §3094.) 
 
 Druggists violating §§ 3087-3101 shall be 
 fined $50 to $100. (Id., § 3095.) Any person 
 violating §§ 3065-6 shall be fined $25 to $100. 
 (Id., §3096.) 
 
 Keeping open a saloon or reputed place of 
 sale of liquor, or gaming place on Sunday from 
 midnight to midnight, shall be punished by fine 
 of $50 to $100, or imprisonment not more than 
 six months, or both; but this does not apply to 
 druggists. (Id., § 3097.) 
 
 Every jailer, prison keeper or other officer 
 who shall furnish liquor to any prisoner under 
 his charge, except as medicine, shall be fined ' 
 $20. (Id., § 3098.) Every person who delivers 
 liquor to any prisoner without permission of 
 the keeper shall be fined $10. (Id., § 3099.) 
 
 Persons manufacturing adulterated liquors 
 shall be fined not over $250, half to the informer. 
 (Id., §3100.) 
 
 Persons selling liquor to be drunk on their 
 premises shall be liable for any damages to the 
 person or property of another, caused by the 
 intoxication of the person so sold to. (Id., 
 §3101.) 
 
 Prosecutions may be before Justices of the 
 Peace or any City or Police Courts, but no 
 such Justice shall fine more than $100 or im- 
 prison more than 60 days. An original informa- 
 tion may, in all cases, be filed in the Superior 
 Court by the State's Attorney. (Id.. § 310 J.) 
 The County Commissioners, subject to the ap- 
 proval of a Judge of the Saperior Court, may 
 appoint one or more persons as prosecuting 
 agents, who shall inquire into and prosecute 
 for violations of this law. They shall render 
 monthly accounts of their doings to the Com- 
 missioners and hold office two years, unless 
 sooner removed Selling liquor vacates their 
 offices. (Id , § 3103.) Prosecuting agents shall 
 receive not exceeding $10 (to be taxed by the 
 Court) in each case. (Id., § 3104.) 
 
 Whenever a person arrested for intoxication 
 discloses to the prosecuting officer where and 
 how he procured the liquor, and testifies at the 
 trial of the accused, such evidence shall not be 
 used against him for his intoxication. (Id., 
 
 § 3105. y 
 
 Any officer having a warrant for the arrest of 
 a person for keeping a house of ill-fame or dis- 
 orderly house, or keeping open on Sunday, or 
 for the seizure of liquors, may make forcible 
 entry into the place described, after demanding 
 admittance as an officer. The County Commis- 
 sioners, the Sheriff, the Chief of Police or any 
 Deputy Sheriff, or policeman specially author- 
 ized by such Sheriff or Chief , respectively, may 
 at any time enter upon the premises of any 
 licensee, to see how the business is conducted 
 and to preserve order. ( Id., § 3106.) 
 
 Whenever liquor is found in possession 
 of one having a United States " license," such 
 " license" shall be prima facie evidence that the 
 liquor was intended for sale. (Id., § 3107.) 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 285 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 Where towns have voted against license 
 therein, the Selectmen shall appoint one agent 
 for every 5,000 inhabitants or fraction thereof 
 in said town, to sell liquor for sacramental, 
 medicinal, chemical and mechanical purposes 
 only. He holds office one year, or until re- 
 moved The Selectmen shall authorize the 
 Town Treasurer to furnish said agent necessary 
 money to purchase liquor for the agency. (Id. , 
 § 3109.) Such agent shall give bonds iu S500, 
 to be forfeited to the town on any violation of 
 the rules in relation to his agency. (Id., § 3110 ) 
 He shall sell only at the place designated. He 
 shall purchase and sell according to rules of 
 the Selectmen. He shall keep an accurate ac- 
 count of his purchases and sales, as to quantity, 
 kind, price, date and names, and residence of 
 sellers to him, and buyers from him, and in 
 the latter case, the use to which the liquor was 
 to be put. This account shall be open to the 
 Selectmen, Grand Jurors and prosecuting 
 agents, and the civil authority. (Id., s 3111.) 
 He shall sell liquor at not over 25 per cent, ad- 
 vance on cost, and shall receive compensation 
 not dependent on his sales, fixed by the Select- 
 men; (Id., § 3112.) Persons purchasing of 
 him, who make false representations of the use 
 to which the liquors are to be put, shall be fined 
 $50 or imprisoned not over 60 days, or both. 
 (Id., § 3113.) 
 
 All contracts, any part of the consideration of 
 which has been the illegal sale of liquor, are 
 void and action cannot be maintained to re- 
 cover upon the same. (Id., §3114.) 
 
 Whenever a town that has voted No-License 
 reverses that vote, the liquors in the hands of 
 the Town Agent may be sold by the Selectmen 
 at wholesale. (Id., § 3115.) 
 
 When in any liquor prosecution any sample 
 of such liquor is presented in Court, it may 
 order such sample conveyed to a State Chemist 
 for analysis. (Id., § 3116.) State Chemists 
 shall analyze such samples, keeping a record of 
 the same, copies of which shall be legal evi- 
 dence of the facts. (Id., §3117.) Liquors may 
 be levied upon and sold, on execution, in the 
 same manner as other personal property, with- 
 out license, in quantities of not less than five 
 gallons. (Id., §1159.) 
 
 No part of the buildings or grounds of an 
 agricultural fair shall be leased for the sale of 
 liquor. (Id., § 1723.) No person shall sell 
 liquor withiu 1,000 feet of such grounds, on 
 penalty of not more than $50 for the first of- 
 fense, $50 and 30 days' imprisonment for the 
 second, and $100 and 60 days for third and 
 subsequent offenses. (Id., § 1725.) The com- 
 manding officer of any encampment or parade 
 may prohibit the sale of liquor within one mile 
 thereof. (Id., § 3187.) 
 
 Every person found intoxicated shall be 
 fined $1 to $20, or imprisoned not over B0 days. 
 (Id.. § 1542.) Any Justice of the Peace having 
 personal knowledge of any drunkenness may 
 render judgment thereon, without previous 
 complaint or warrant, having the person first 
 brought before him. (Id. . § 689.) 
 
 Physiology and hygiene relating especially 
 to the effects of liquors, stimulants and nar- 
 cotics on the system, shall be taught in the pub- 
 
 lic schools, and teachers must be qualified 
 therein. (Id, §2141.) . 
 
 In towns that have voted No-License, all 
 places used for clubs or societies where liquor 
 is sold or distributed to the members thereof, 
 shall be deemed common nuisances. (Laws, 18S9, 
 c. 127.) And whoever keeps or assists in keep- 
 ing such nuisance, shall be fined not more than 
 $50. (Id.) 
 
 Town Clerks within 10 days after election 
 shall return to the Secretary of State the num- 
 ber of votes for and against license. (Laws, 
 1889, c. 115 ; G. 8., 1888, sj 51) 
 
 No Agent shall procure and deliver liquors 
 for any one not licensed to sell, without a writ- 
 ten order from such person or firm therefor. 
 Such Agent shall keep such orders on file, and 
 produce the same when called for by any prose- 
 cuting agent or Grand Juror, under penalty of 
 § 3087 G. S. (Laws, 1889, c. 187.) 
 
 A druggist shall not sell on physicians' pre- 
 scriptions, unless they state kind and quantity, 
 name, date and residence, the need of the liquor, 
 and are signed by physicians (who shall he 
 known to the druggist); they must be filled 
 within three days. (Laws, 1889, c. 199. £ 1.) 
 Such prescriptions shall be filed and entered in 
 a book, and such entry shall be open for ir- 
 spection, and be sufficient evidence of sale. 
 (Id., §2.) Physicians knowingly issuing pre- 
 scriptions falsely, as procured for a beverage, 
 shall be fined $25 to $50, and druggists violating 
 this law shall be fined $50 to 8100. (Id., § 3.) 
 
 Town or probate records shall not be kept 
 where liquor is sold as a beverage, on penalty 
 of *7 to §100. (Laws, 1889, c. 27.) 
 
 Disclosure, by a person prjsecuted for in- 
 toxication, shall be requested by the prosecuting 
 officer, and, if refused, the accused shall be 
 committed for contempt for 10 to 3J days. 
 (Laws. 1889, c 167.) 
 
 No premises where liquor is sold shall be ob- 
 structed by any curtain or screen, to prevent a 
 view of the bar and interior from the street 
 during times when sales are prohibited, on pen- 
 alty of not more than $50 or imprisonment not 
 more than 30 days, or both. (Id., c. 112.) This 
 does not apply to druggists. (Id.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by a majority of either House, and if 
 at the next session this is concurred in by two- 
 thirds of each House a special election on the 
 question may be ordered — a majority vote of 
 the people being necessary to adoption. 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (R. S., 1888, 
 §2141 ; passed in 1886, c. 116.) 
 
 Dakota Territory. 
 
 The first Legislature authorized license by 
 the County Commissioners for 810 to $10, », 
 fined sales without license $30 to $100, and 
 made it the duly of public officers to make com- 
 plaint of violations of the law. (Laws, 1862, 
 c. 83.) Selling or giving liquor to Indians was 
 punished by imprisonment, 30 to 90 days, and 
 fine of $20 to $100, and prosecutions by officeis 
 and individuals were provided for. (Laws, 
 1862, c. 47.) The License law of 1864 (c. 28) 
 included other businesse-i tlun liquor-selling, 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 286 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 increased the saloon license from $25 to $300, 
 and gave the Board of Commissioners discretion 
 to grant and revoke. 
 
 The License law was made somewhat stronger 
 by Laws of 1872, c. 25. Damages caused by an 
 inloxicated person were awarded against the 
 liquor-seller, and the real estate upon which 
 the sales were made was made liable therefor. 
 By c 26 of the same year, selling on election 
 days was punished by fine of $25 to $100 and 
 imprisonment for not exceeding 20 days. 
 
 A more elaborate license law was passed in 
 1879. (Laws, c. 26.) It provided license fees of 
 $200 to $500 to be fixed by the Commissioners, 
 increased the penalty for violation to a fine of 
 S'100 to $300 or imprisonment not exceeding 60 
 days or both, and provided for a druggist's 
 license to sell for medicinal purposes upon pre- 
 scription. 
 
 This law was amended by c 71, Laws of 
 1887, to make the license fee from $500 to 
 $1 000. Sales within half a mile of fairs, within 
 three miles of the University of Dakota, and in 
 Iroquois and Denver, were prohibited by 
 Special Laws of 1885, c. 3 g 12 ; c. 150, and c. 
 49, respectively. Prohibition by Local Option 
 was provided for on petition of one-third of the 
 voters of any county, and a majority vote on 
 submission of the question at time of general 
 elections. (Laws, 1887, c 70.) Injunction was 
 provided to be issued against violators of this 
 act. (Id., {3 5.) 
 
 All these laws are now, of course, repealed by 
 the adoption, in the States of North and South 
 Dakota, of Prohibitory Constitutional pro- 
 visions. (See North Dakota and South Dakota.^ 
 
 Delaware. 
 
 Colonial Provisions. — A general license law of 
 1740 required all keepers of inns or alehouses to 
 obtain licenses of the Governor, by recommenda- 
 tion of the Justices of the Court of Quarter Ses- 
 sions; and none but fit persons with suitable 
 places were to be recommended. Suffering tip- 
 pling at unseasonable hours, gaming or drunken- 
 ness was fined 20«; for a second offense, 40s to 
 £5, and for a third was punished by suppres- 
 sion of license and disqualification to receive 
 one for three years. Selling liquor without 
 license was fined £5. The Justices might settle 
 rates and prices at such houses, which were to 
 be posted. (Laws, vol.1, p. 192 ) No Sheriff 
 or jailer was to keep a tavern or sell liquor to 
 prisoners. (Id., p 207.) 
 
 Early Slate Provisions. — Justices of the Peace 
 were not to hold court at an inn. (2 Id , p. 1052 
 [1792] ) Tavern-keepers or any persons pro- 
 moting horse-racing, foot-racing, cock-fighting 
 or shooting matches, and selling liquor to those 
 assembled thereat, were to have their licenses 
 suppressed, and be fined £10. (3 Id , p. 230 
 [1802].) Tavern licenses were to pay $12. (4 
 Id., p 261 [1809J.) The penalty for permitting 
 tippling, drunkenness and gambling was placed 
 at^lO, $20 for second offense, $30 and for- 
 feiture of license and disqualification three 
 years for third ; for selling without license, it 
 was $14. (Laws, 1827, c 28.) 
 
 By the Laws of 1841, c. 301, applications for 
 inn licenses in Wilmington were required to 
 pass the City Council. Laws requiring all re- 
 
 tailers of goods, wares and merchandise to take 
 out licenses and pay fees according to value of 
 stock, but not in excess of $30, were passed in 
 1843, 1845 and 1847, the first one taking the 
 place of an act of 1822. By Laws of 1845, c. 
 83, tavern licenses with the privilege of selling 
 spirituous liquors were fixed at $12; without 
 such privilege $5 ; penalty for selling liquor by 
 licensees of the latter class, $14 and forfeiture 
 of license. 
 
 Local Option and Prohibitory Legislation of 
 1847-57. — License or No License (and conse 
 quent Prohibition) was submitted to the people 
 to decide, by Laws of 1847. c. 186. This was de- 
 clared unconstitutional, as a delegation of the 
 legislative authority to make laws. (Rice v Fos- 
 ter, 3 Harring, 479. ) Selling liquor as a beverage 
 by keepers of public houses, was prohibited, up- 
 on penalty of $20 for first and $50 for second of- 
 fense. (Laws, 1851, c. 597.) Later, the recom- 
 mendation of a majority of the voters in any 
 school-district was required for license to sell 
 liquor, together with a recommendation to the 
 Governor, by the Judges of General Sessions. 
 The fee was fixed at $25 ; penalty for violation. 
 $20. (Laws, 1853, §§ 2-5.) tavern-keepers 
 were exempted from this provision, but w<re 
 allowed to sell only for consumption within 
 their houses. (Id., «j 6.) Alehouses were pro- 
 hibited. (Id., §8.) Records of applications for 
 license were required to be kept by the Clerks 
 of the Peace. (Id., § 10. ) A Prohibitory liquor 
 or Maine law was passed in 1855. (Laws, c. 255.) 
 This act, and the act last above it, were re- 
 pealed by c. 330 of Laws of 1857. 
 
 Return to Li-snse. — By the act of 1857, c. 438, 
 licenses to sell liquors were granted at from 
 $20 to $50, without recommendation Penalties 
 for unlawful sales were placed at $5 to $10, 
 with forfeiture of license for third offense. The 
 act of 1861, c. 107, required the recommenda 
 tion of the Grand Jury to obtain licenses, and 
 that licensee be hung up in the barroom. Sell- 
 ing or distributing liquor in a concert sa'oon 
 was prohibited by Laws of 1863, c. 295. Recom- 
 mendation by the Judges of the Court of Gen- 
 eral Sessions was substituted for lhat of the 
 Grand Jury by Laws of 1864, c. 413. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — No person 
 shall sell intoxicating liquor except as herein- 
 after provided. (Revised Code, 1874, p. 259. 
 § 1.) The Secretary of State shall furnish 
 licenses to the Clerks of the Peace to issue. 
 (Id., S 2. ) All officers having knowledge of 
 violations of this act shall proceed against the 
 delinquents. (Id., p. £60, §4.) Licenses shall 
 be conspicuously hung up in the place of busi- 
 ness. (Id.. § 5. ) It is the duty of tin Court to 
 charge this act to the Grand Jury, and their 
 duty to present all violators they individually 
 know of. (Id. , § 7. ) Any retailer of goods cr 
 druggist of good character, and whose stock is 
 worth not less than $500, may be licensed to sell 
 liquor in the same way as a tavern is licensed ; 
 but in the case of the druggist, he can retail 
 only in quantities greater than a quart, and in 
 the other case, not less than a half gallon (Id., 
 g 8), not to be drunk on the premises upon pen- 
 alty of $50 to $100. (Id., §9.) 
 
 To be licensed as a tavern-keeper, application 
 must be made to the Clerk of the Peace, describ- 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 287 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 ing his place, stating that ho has tavern accom- 
 modations for travelers, and that an inn there is 
 necessary. (Id., p. 2G1, g 1.) He shall publish 
 his intention to apply three times in two papers, 
 and shall rile a certificate of 12 citizens (half of 
 them freeholders) or 24 in Wilmington. (Id., 
 S 2; Laws, 1889, c. 555, § 3.) The application 
 is laid before the Court of General Sessions, 
 which, at its discretion, marks it approved or 
 not approved, and the license issued or not, ac- 
 cordingly. (Id., §§ 11, 12.) 
 
 Licensees, selling liquor on Sunday or elec- 
 tion day to a minor, in<aoe person, habitual 
 drunkard or intoxicated person, are fined $50 to 
 §100, and on second conviction forfeit their 
 licenses and are disqualified to be licensed two 
 years. (Id., p. 262, £ 14. ) No secret door shall 
 be allowed, no disorderly or lewd conduct or 
 gambling; nor shall any pawn be taken for 
 liquor under the same penalty. No debt for 
 liquor retailed is collectable. (Id., §15.) Any 
 one found drunk or excited by liquor, and noisy 
 in any public place, may be arrested and locked 
 up, and on hearing be recommitted five days or 
 fined not exceeding $10. (Id., $ 16.) The sale 
 of liquor not herein authorized is a misdemeanor 
 and fined £50 to $100. (Id., p 263, § 19.) This 
 act does not apply to manufacturers of liquors, 
 wine or cider, selling not less than one quart. 
 not to be drunk upon the premises. (Id.. § 20.) 
 
 Hereafter no licenses shall be granted to any 
 person to sell intoxicating liquors, but they 
 shall authorize sale thereof to be made in some 
 house described in the petition. The owner of 
 the house shall be petitioner for license, which 
 shall be granted as before. (Laws, 1881, c. 384, 
 % 1.) Judgments for violations of the liquor 
 laws shall be liens on the premises licensed. 
 
 (Id- § 2 ) 
 
 A druggist must take oath not to sell over 
 $75 worth of liquor during the year. (Id., § 3. ) 
 
 If any tenant is convicted of violating the law 
 his lease is made void if the landlord is not 
 privy to such violation. (Id.. § 4. ) 
 
 A tax of 10 cents a gallon is laid on liquors 
 manufactured. (Id., §6.) 
 
 The Court may take official notice that spirit- 
 uous, mixed or fermented liquors, except cider, 
 are intoxicating. (Id , § 7. ) 
 
 Conviction of the owner or occupier of prem- 
 ises, of unlawful sales, makes the continuance 
 of the business thereafter a nuisance, which 
 may be, by addition to the judgment of the 
 Court, suppressed ; and the Sheriff shall seize 
 and hold the building. (Id., 8 9 ) 
 
 Where there is no specific penalty in this act, 
 it shall be $100 and imprisonment one to six- 
 months, and forfeiture of license. (Id , § 12.) 
 
 "Whenever it is shown that any injury has 
 been caused to any one of known intemperate 
 habits, in consequence of sales to him of liquor, 
 the wife, husband or children may recover of 
 the vendor actual and exemplary but not ex- 
 cessive damages. (Id., § 14.) 
 
 There shall be a special bailiff for Wilmington, 
 for the special duty of searching out violations 
 of the liquor laws. (Id., § 10.) 
 
 Provisions shall be made immediately for in 
 structing all pupils in physiology and hygiene, 
 with special reference to the effects of alcoholic 
 drinks, stimulants and narcotics upon the human 
 
 system. Teachers must pass satisfactory ex- 
 aminations therein. (Laws, 1887, c. 09 ) 
 
 Druggists may not sell intoxicating liquors 
 unless licensed to sell the same, and then only 
 upon physician's prescription. Such sales shall 
 be but one on each proscription, which itself 
 must be filed by pasting in a book open to the 
 public upon penalty of ©100. (Laws, 1889, c. 
 555, § 1.) 
 
 The price of tavern licenses shall be $300 in 
 cities of over 10,000 inhabitants : elsewhere, 
 $200; druggist's license, $20; retailer of mer- 
 chandise, $100. (Id., 8 2.) 
 
 Licensed places shall be kept so as to be seen, 
 fully, and easily, by passers-by, and not ob- 
 structed by screens, blinds frosted glass or any 
 other device, upon penalty of $50 to $100. 
 (id., §4.) 
 
 In case tavern-proprietors die. the executor or 
 administrator may assign the license with the ap- 
 proval of the associate Judges, as the proprietor 
 himself might have. (Laws, 1889, c. 554.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by two-thirds of each House, with 
 the approbation of the Governor ; if ratified by 
 a three-fourths vote in the next Legislature, it 
 goes to the people, who may adopt it by a ma- 
 jority. 
 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 See United States Government and the 
 Liquor Traffic 
 
 Florida. 
 
 Earliest Provisions. — The Revenue act of the 
 first Legislature of Florida taxed tavern-keepers, 
 or persons retailing spirituous liquors. $20 in 
 cities and $5 in the country. (Laws, 1822, p. 
 67.) This was made $5 except in St. Augustine 
 by the Laws of 1827, p. 49. and $5 everywhere 
 by the Laws of 1828. p 236. for tavern-keepers, 
 and $2 for retailers of spirituous liquors selling 
 under half a gallon. Selling liquor to slaves, 
 without express license of their owners, was 
 punished with fine not exceeding $100 and im- 
 prisonment not exceeding three months. ( Laws 
 1834, c. 753.) Retailers of spirituous liquors 
 received licenses of the County Clerks on pay- 
 ment of £25, and on giving bond in $100 
 for keeping orderly houses. The penalty for 
 selling without license was a fine of not over 
 $500 and imprisonment not exceeding three 
 months. (Laws 1840, No. 42.) The law against 
 selling liquor to slaves, free negroes or mulattos, 
 without written permission of the master of the 
 slave or guardian of the fre.' negro or mulatto, 
 was modified in 1842. a fine of $20 being im- 
 posed, one-half to the informer. (Laws. 1842, 
 c. 17.) 
 
 The Revenue act of 1845 (Laws, c. 10, § 22) 
 made the license fee *-30; reduced to $20 at the 
 adjourned session; licenses to be granted by 
 Shrifts. (Id., p. 64.) Sellers by the quart and up- 
 ward, not to be drunk on the premises, were 
 exempted from retail license. (Laws, 1846, c. 
 91.) 
 
 The retail license was placed at $200 bv the 
 Laws of 1853, c. 513. And by the Laws 
 of 1858, c. 994, the penalty for selling without 
 license was $50 to $500. The license was re- 
 duced to $100 by the Laws of 1859, c. 1003. 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 288 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 And sellers by the quart or over might allow 
 the liquor 1o be drunk on the premise. (Laws, 
 1859, c. 1008. ) Distilleries were, prohibiten, and 
 required to be abated as nuisances by the Gov- 
 ernor, except those distilling liquor for usj in 
 the Confederate Army and for medicinal pur- 
 poses; penalty, $1,000 to $5,000, or imprison- 
 ment three to 12 months, or both. (Laws, 
 1863, c. 15)82.) By the laws of 1833. c. 1423, 
 such flistillation was prohibited under the high- 
 er penalty of $10,000 and imprisonment, but 
 distillation from fruits of the country was 
 allowed. 
 
 Ketail licenses were charged $200 by the Rev- 
 enue act of 1865, c. 1501, § 6, reduced to $50 by 
 Laws of 1888, c. 1713, §'3, and raised to $100 by 
 Laws of 1872. c. 1887, 8 1. Selling without li- 
 cense was fined double the required fee. In 
 1881 the license was made $300. though only 
 $25 was charged for s?lling bear and wine ex- 
 clusively ; distillers were cnarged £.300. (Laws, 
 1881, c. 3219, § 10.) In 1887 (Laws, c. 3681) the 
 whiskey retailer's license was raised to $400, and 
 the beer and wine license was abandoned. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — The Revenue 
 law of 1889 (Laws, c. 3847, § 1 ) enacts that no 
 person shall engage in a business requiring 
 license without a State license. Counties, cities 
 and towns may impose additional license, equal 
 to half the State license. Licenses shall be 
 for one year, or a fractional part thereof, 
 expiring Oct 1. and may be transferred with 
 the approval of the Comptroller. (Id.) Dealers 
 in spirituous wines and malt liquors shall pay 
 •|400, and distillers $100. for each place of 
 business. No license is required for distilling 
 from the products of the vines or fruit-trees 
 of the State, and no license shall be granted 
 in Prohibition districts. Makers of domestic 
 wines are permitted to sell' in quantities of 
 one quart or more, and druggists are allowed 
 to sell mixtures made officinal by the United 
 States Dispensatory without license. Liquor- 
 dealers on boats shall only need to take out 
 license in the county where they do their prin- 
 cipal business, and at landings can sell to no 
 or.e but passengers and crew. Selling without 
 license is fined double the amount of the required 
 license tax. (Lawn, 1883, c. 3413, § 12. ) 
 
 Applications to Vie ( < unty Commissioners 
 for license to sell liquor siail be s ; gned by a 
 majority of the registered voters of the election 
 district in the presence of two credible wit- 
 nesses, and contain the oath of the applicant 
 that each signature is genuine. The petition is 
 to be published in full, in a paper, published in 
 the county, for two weeks preceding a hearing 
 thereon, at t!ie expense of the applicant. (Laws, 
 1883, c. 3416. g 2.) No Collector shall issue a 
 license without permit of the Coun'.y Commis- 
 sioners, and the license shall provide that it 
 may, by them, be revoked for violations of 
 this act. (Id., g 3 ) 
 
 No person shall sell liquor to any minor or 
 person intoxicated. (Id., § 4) The County 
 Commissioners, upon the affidavit of two reliable 
 citizens that such sales have been made by any 
 dealer, may suspend his license. (Id., 4$ 5.) Such 
 affidavit shall be made before the Clerk of the 
 County Court, who shall notify th? dealer to 
 appear at the next regular meeting of the Board, 
 
 when the Commissioners shall, if the charge is 
 sustained, revoke the license. (Id , § 6.) Any 
 person or firm that shall give or by pretended 
 sale of a different article shall furnish liquor, to 
 entice custom or evade the law, shall be deemed 
 selling without license. (Id., § 7.) Barrooms 
 shall be closed on days of election Sales or 
 gifts of liquor within two miles of any election 
 precinct, on such days, shall be punished by 
 imprisonment not longer than six months, or by 
 fine of not exceeding $500. (Laws, 1883, c. 
 3457. ) 
 
 The Board of County Commissioners of each 
 county in the State, not oftener than once in 
 every two years, upon application of one-fourth 
 of the registered voters, shall call and provide 
 for an election to decide whether the sale of 
 intoxicating liquors, wines or beer, shall be pro- 
 hibited in the county, the question to te de- 
 termined by majority vote; which election shall 
 be conducted in the manner of general elections 
 — provided that intoxicating liquors shall not 
 be sold in any election district in which a 
 majority vote has been cast against the same at 
 the said election. Elections under this section 
 shall be held within 60 days from the time of 
 presenting said application, except if any elec- 
 tion so ordered shall thereby fall within 60 days 
 of any State or national election, it must be held 
 within 60 days after any such election. The 
 Legislature shall provide necessary laws to carry 
 out and enforce the provisions of this article. 
 (Const., 1885, Art. 19, gg 1, 2.) Upon such ap- 
 plication, the Clerk of the Board of Commis- 
 sioners shall give 30 days' notice of the election 
 by publishing in a paper in each town, or if 
 there is no newspaper in the county, by posting 
 in ten places. The Clerk of the County Court 
 shall appoint registration officers who shall 
 register voters for such election. (Laws, 1887, 
 c 3700, § 1.) If any county votes for license, 
 such shall be granted as provided by law, 
 but liquors shall not be sold in any precinct 
 voting against license. (Id.) Penalty for vio- 
 lating this law is placed at not exceeding $500 
 fine, or imprisonment not longer than six 
 months, or both. (Id., § 3.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by three-fifths of all the members cf 
 the two Houses, at one session; the popular vote 
 to be taken at the next general election for 
 Representatives, three months' notice to be 
 given. A majority carries it. 
 
 Georgia. 
 
 Oglethorpe's Prohibition of Rum (1733-42). — 
 The second day after the arrival of James Ogle- 
 thorpe with his colonists in Georgia (February, 
 1733), in an address to them regarding their 
 duties, he said that " the importation of ardent 
 sp'rits was illegal." This announcement, how- 
 ever, was made on his own responsibility, and 
 did not have formal legal effect until the policy 
 was approved in London (November, 1733) by 
 "the Trustees for establishing the Colony of 
 Georgia in America." In a letter to Oglethorpe, 
 dated Nov. 22, 1733, the Trustees said : " As it 
 appears evidently by your letters that the sick- 
 ness among the people is owing to the excessive 
 drinking of rum punch, the Trustees do abso- 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 289 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 lutely forbid their drinking, or even having 
 any rum, and agree with you so entirely in your 
 sentiments that they order all that shall be 
 brought there to be immediately staved. As 
 the Trustees are apprehensive all their orders to 
 this purpose may be ineffectual while the trad- 
 ing-house is so near and can supply the people, 
 they are of opinion that the trading-house shall 
 not be permitted but on condition that they offer 
 no rum for sale, nor indeed keep any." Parlia- 
 ment accordingly passed an act prohibiting " the 
 importation of rum and brandies " into Georgia, 
 which was read at a meeting of the Trustees on 
 April 23, 17d5. This prohibition was warmly 
 supported by the influence of Wesley. Whitfield 
 and others; but. giving rise to dissensions 
 among the colonists, and being neutralized to a 
 considerable extent by the contrary policy of 
 the neighboring colony of South Carolina as 
 well as by illicit traffic, it was rescinded by act 
 of Parliament in 1742. ' 
 
 Later Colonial Provisions. —After the repeal 
 of the Rum act, the magistrates of the colony 
 were authorized to grant licenses, " under proper 
 restrictions and regulations," for the selling of 
 rum. In 1752 the governing power was taken 
 out of the hands of the Trustees, in 1754 the 
 first Royal Governor arrived, and in January, 
 1755, the first General Assembly of Georgia 
 met. Only two months later (March, 1755) this 
 General Assembly passed an act forbidding the 
 selling or giving of "any beer or spirituous 
 liquor whatsoever" to any slave without the 
 owner's consent, under penalty of 20s fine for 
 the first offense and 40* for the second, with 
 recognizance in £20 not to offend for one year 
 — the accused to be committed to prison without 
 bail for a period not exceeding three months in 
 case he should be unable to present suitable 
 bondsmen. 
 
 The thirtieth legislative act, passed in 1757, was 
 " for regulating taverns and punch houses and 
 retailers of spirituous liquors," the preamble to 
 it declaring: " The measures hitherto taken to 
 prevent unfit persons from obtaining licenses to 
 keep taverns, punch-houses and retailing of 
 strong liquors have proved ineffectual, and the 
 increase of tippling-houses are become hurtful 
 and prejudicial to the common good and welfare 
 of tiiis His Majesty's Province, but more espe- 
 cially the little tippling-houses which are for the 
 most part haunts for lewd, idle and disorderly 
 people, runaway sailors, servants and slaves." 
 It provided that from Oct. 1, 1757, no person 
 should sell any intoxicating drink in less quan. 
 
 1 These particulars are obtained from Prof. H. A. 
 Scomp's " King Alcohol in the Realm of King Cotton." 
 Summing up his account of this early experiment, Prof. 
 Scomp says (p. 112) : 
 
 "For nearly nine years Prohibition of the rum traffic 
 was of legal force in Georgia. While Oglethorpe remained 
 in Savannah, the Prohibition, as we have seen, was faith- 
 fully enforced; but when war and other causes had sepa- 
 rated him from the little metropolis, the execution of the 
 laws was committed to weaker hands, to men most of whom 
 were themselves violators of the" statutes they were sworn 
 to defend. Then the temptations of the Indian trade, the 
 influence of the Carolinians, the allurements and the com- 
 merce with the West Indies and the Northern Colonies, all 
 flowing with rum, the confusion of wars and the corrupt- 
 ing presence of an immoral soldiery — all these causes 
 operated to the demoralization of the people and the final 
 abrogation of the law." 
 
 tity than three gallons at one time to any one 
 person without obtaining a license from the 
 Treasurer, under penalty of £3 for each offense 
 (half to the informer); the annual license fee to 
 be £3 in Savannah, 40s in Augusta and Ebene- 
 zer and 20s elsewhere ; each licensee to execute 
 a bond in £20 not to sell to negroes or Indians. 
 Any unlicensed person selling to Indians was 
 fined £5. A curious provision of this act wus 
 that no liquor license should be granted to any 
 joiner bricklayer, plasterer, shipwright, silver 
 or goldsmith, shoemaker, smith, tailor, tanner, 
 cabinet maker or cooper, who should "be able 
 and capable by his or their honest labour and 
 industry of getting a livelihood and maintaining 
 himself and family by exercising any of tlte 
 trades aforesaid." 
 
 An act (No. 55) for the better regulation of 
 drinking-places was passed in 1759. 
 
 No person keeping a public house of enter- 
 tainment was to suffer any persons, except 
 strangers or lodgers, in his house, or to allow 
 them to remain drinking, or in any manner idly 
 spending their time Sundays, on penalty of 5? 
 for the person so entertaining as well as for the 
 one entertained. (Dig. Ga., Phila. 1801, p. 80 
 [1762].) Liquor-sellers suffering any appren- 
 tices, overseers, journeymen, laborers or ser- 
 vants to game in their houses, were fined 40s ; 
 and any person so gaming there 10s. (Id., p. 96 
 [1764].) Patrols might enter tippling-houses to 
 correct slaves found there. (Id. , p. 123 [1765].) 
 
 Another act regulating taverns was passed in 
 1765 (No. 127), another, explaining and amend- 
 ing, in 1736 (No. 146) and anotherin 1767. Tip- 
 pling-house-keepers were not to sell sailors over 
 Is dd worth of liquor in any one day, or permit 
 them to tipple or drink after 9 o'clock. unle-:s 
 by consent of the master of the vessel, under 
 penalty of 20s (Id., p. 131 [17661.) Persons 
 selling or giving liquor to slaves, without con- 
 sent of owners, were fined £5 ; for the second 
 offence £10, with recognizance in £20 not to 
 offend again for a year. (Id , p. 174 [1770].) 
 In 1777, suffering gaming, by licensed tavern- 
 keepers, was fined £20. (Id., p. 201.) 
 
 Early State Laws. — An act to enforce the col- 
 lection of arrearages due from persons keeping 
 taverns, etc., and to amend former acts regu- 
 lating them, was passed in 1777. (No. 459 ) 
 Another act regulating taverns was passed in 
 1786 ( No. 353),— -an act regulating taverns and 
 reducing the rates of tavern license, requiring 
 applicants to petition the Justices of the inferior 
 Court of the county who at discretion granted 
 the license if the place was convenient and; 
 petitioner had sufficient accommodations for 
 travelers, upon bond in £50 to keep an orderly 
 house. Selling without license was fined £10 ; 
 but merchants, makers and distillers might sell 
 in quantities of a quart or over, not to be drunk 
 on the premises, except that merchants might 
 not sell less than a gallon in Chatham. Liberty 
 or Eppingham Counties. The. license fee was 
 made $2. In 1791 Savannah and Augusta were 
 given sole power to regulate taverns and licen- 
 ses. (Id., p. 453.) 
 
 The act of 1809 (Laws, p. 78) made the license 
 fee $5, and provided that persons might have 
 license to retail liquors without being obliged 
 to keep places of public entertainment, pro- 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 290 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 vided such persons gave bonds in $500 to keep 
 orderly houses. 
 
 The Tirst Grant of Local Option. — By the 
 Laws of 1833, p. 125, the inferior Court was per- 
 mitted to grant or withhold licenses at discretion 
 in Camden and Liberty Counties. 
 
 Keeping a tippling-shop, or retailing liquor 
 without license, was punished by fine of $50. 
 Tuis was to correct tne wording of the Penal 
 Code, s 27, 10th Divisiou, which was so worded 
 as not to apply to cities. (Laws, 1853, No. 73.) 
 
 Liquor licenses having in some counties been 
 given to free persons of color, or to persons 
 acting as their guardians, thtreby evading the 
 law, selling by such persons was forbidden, 
 even when acting as agents for whites, upon 
 penalty of $100 in case of a white, or 39 lashes 
 in case of the free person of color. Sales by 
 such persons of color to slaves were punished 
 by 39 lashes and $50 for the first offense, and 50 
 lashes a:.d $100 for second offense ; and if the 
 fine were not paid the offender might be sold 
 for time enough to produce it. (Laws, 1853, 
 No. 75.) By Laws of 1858, No. 164, the price 
 of license in Wilson County was made $100. 
 By No. 165 the Grand Juries in four counties 
 might fix the license fee each year. By No. 
 167 the inferior Court of another county was 
 given power to grant or refuse licenses, and to 
 demand as much for those granted as they 
 chose. By Laws of 1859, No. 341, peddling 
 liquor was prohibited in ,32 named counties, 
 and by No £88 a petition of a majority of the 
 voters within three miles was required for a 
 license. Selling liquor to slaves and free per- 
 sons of color was for the first offense punished 
 by fine $50 to $200 and imprisonment 10 to 30 
 days. (Laws, 1859. No. 78.) Peddling liquors 
 in 19 counties was prohibited by Laws of 1860, 
 No. 219. 
 
 War Provisions. — Distillation of corn or grain, 
 except for medicinal and similar other purposes, 
 ■was prohibited upon penalty of $2,000 to $5,000 
 and imprisonment not over 12 months ; and 
 no grain was to be exported for distillation, ex- 
 cept that whiskey might, under restriction, be 
 allowed to be distilled for the Confederate Gov- 
 ernment. (Laws, 1862, Nos. 19 and 20.) These 
 acts were repealed in 1865. (Laws, No. 110.) 
 
 Since (he War. — The oath to be taken by re- 
 tail dealers not to sell to minors, either white or 
 colored, without consent of parent, was so 
 amended by Laws of 1866, No. 17. Selling 
 liquor on election days within one mile of city, 
 town or precinct where elections might be held, 
 was fined not over $50, with alternative im- 
 prisonment not exceeding 10 days, or both. 
 (Laws, 1869. No. 133.) By Laws of 1871, No. 
 221, liquor selling was prohibited within one 
 mile of Clement's Institute, and one such law was 
 parsed the next year. By Laws of 1872, No. 
 22, gaming in saloons was prohibited. This 
 was made to apply only to minors, by Laws of 
 18;3, No. 43. In 1873, five local liquor laws 
 were passed affecting six counties and three 
 other places. They prohibited the sale, or re- 
 quired a license to be recommended by a ma- 
 jority or more of the residents of the vicinity 
 of the saloon. Such laws now increased in num- 
 ber every year, and to indicate them, even by 
 count, would be tedious. 
 
 Selling to minors was prohibited by Laws of 
 1875, No. 113, and to drunken persons by No. 
 12, the last being an amendment to apply to 
 sellers whether licensed or not. Sale to minors 
 was allowed on written consent of parent or 
 guardian by Laws of 1877. No. 1C9. Domestic 
 wines were exempted from the license laws by 
 Laws of 1877, No. 32. And in the General Tax 
 act of that year (No. 123, s 4) liquor-dealers 
 were taxed $25, excepting those selling not less 
 than five-gallon quantities of spirits, produced 
 by themselves of fruits grown 1 y them. 
 
 There has been no other change in Georgia's 
 liquor laws until, out of the local Prohibitions 
 arjd regulations there grew the General Local 
 Option act which is now in force. 
 
 The Law as Lt Existed in 1889. — A special tax 
 on the sale of spirituous and malt liquors, which 
 the General Assembly is hereby authorized to 
 assess, is hereby set apart and devoted for the 
 support of common schools. (Const , art. 8. § 
 3; Code, 1882, § 5206.) Dealers in spirituous 
 and malt liquors and intoxicating bitters are 
 taxed $25. (Code, 1882, § 809 a.) They must 
 annually go before the Ordinary and register, 
 and then the Ordinary must notify the Comp- 
 troller of the State and the Tax Collector of the 
 county. And the Comptroller must keep a book 
 as a register of liquor-dealers. And the Collect- 
 or, when so notified, must enter the name in a 
 county register of liquor-dealers. After regis- 
 tering, the dealer must pay to the Tax Collector 
 his tax. On his failing so to register ar.d pay, 
 he is punished as in Code, § 4310, by fine of not 
 over $1,000, imprisonment not over six months, 
 or chain gang not over 12 months, or all com- 
 bined. (Id., g§ 809 b-k; see Laws, 1882, c. 
 277. ) This does not relieve the dealer of the 
 United States or local taxes. (Id., g 8091.) 
 The Ordinary and Tax Collector must lay their 
 registers before the Grand Juries at their fall 
 meetings. (Id., 809 m.) Except in incorporated 
 towns and cities, application for license must be 
 made to the Ordinary of the county, consented 
 to by ten of the nearest residents (five of whom 
 must be freeholders owning land nearest the 
 place of business). Bond in $500 must be ex- 
 ecuted to keep an orderly house and observe 
 the oath taken not to sell to minors without 
 consent of parent or guardian. (Code, 1883, § 
 1419, amended 1884, c. 422.) Vendors of less 
 than one gallon, not taking such oath by 1he 
 1st of June of each year, are subject to penalty 
 for selling without license (Code. 1882, $ 1420.) 
 Licenses only authorize sales in one place. (Id., 
 fc? 1421.) Corporate towns and cities must 
 charge as much for licenses, at least, as is re- 
 quired in the county. (Id., § 1422.) Sellers 
 must not furnish liquors to one who is drunk, 
 under penalty of selling without license. (Id, 
 g 1423.) A dealer furnishing liquor to a habit 
 ual drunkard, known to him, or of whose habits 
 he has been notified in writing by wife, father, 
 mother, brother or sister, is guilty of a mis- 
 demeanor. (Laws. 1882, c. £51.) Sale of liquors 
 in quantities less than one quart makes the 
 seller a retailer. (Code, 1882, § 1424.) 
 
 Selling to minors without written au- 
 thority of parent or guardian is punished as 
 in Code, § 4310 (Id.. § 4540 a), and so is em- 
 ploying minors in barrooms. (Id., 4540 c.| 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 291 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 Keeping a tippling-shop or selling liquor with- 
 out a license, is punished under § 4810 of the 
 Code. (Id, §4565.) 
 
 Persons who manufacture wine from the 
 grapes of a vineyard in the State may freely 
 sell the same in quantities not less than one 
 quart. (Id., § 4565 a.) But where, under the 
 General Local Option law or any other local or 
 general law, the sale of liquor has been or may 
 be prohibited, but with exceptions in relation to 
 any kinds of wines, a tax of $10,000 shall be 
 annually levied on every dealer in domestic 
 wiues or other intoxicants not prohibited as 
 aforesaid, except dealers in or producers of 
 wines made from grapes or berries raised or 
 purchased by them. (Laws, 1887, No. 168.) 
 
 The General Assembly shall by law forbid the 
 sale, distribution or furnishing of intoxicating 
 drinks within two miles of election precincts on 
 days of election — State, county or municipal, — 
 and prescribe punishment for any violation of 
 the same. (Const., art 2, § 5: Code, 1882, § 
 5037.) In pursuance of this provision, § 4570 
 of the Code of 1882 was enacted i amended in 
 1887 by Laws, No. 376), prohibiting any person 
 to furnish liquor to any one within two miles 
 of any election precinct on days of election, 
 either State, county, municipal or primary, 
 under penalty of § 4310 of the Code. This 'is 
 not to operate against physicians' prescriptions. 
 
 Sailing within a mile of any church not in an 
 incorporated town or city, during worship, or 
 of any camp-ground, during worship, without 
 consent of the trustees of such ground, is pro- 
 hibited under penalty of Code. § 4310. (Id , §§ 
 4575-6-7.) Carrying liquor, except for medic- 
 inal or sacramental purposes, to any place where 
 people are assembled for worship, or Sunday- 
 school, or Sunday-school celebration, or day- 
 school celebration, shall be so punished. (Id.. 
 § 4577 b.) Pursuing business on Sunday is 
 prohibited under same penalty. (Id., §4579. 1 
 Sailing adulterated liquor is prohibited under 
 same penalty. (Id., § 4551.) 
 
 The Laws of 1857 (being §§ 1580-7 of the 
 Code of 1882) provide for Inspectors of 
 liquors, spirits and wines, monthly inspections 
 or upon call, and penalties for selling drugged 
 liquors, or evading inspection, or selling with- 
 out inspection, where an Inspector has been ap- 
 pointed. 
 
 Upon petition to the County Ordinary by 
 one-tenth of the qualified voters, an election 
 shall be ordered by him. within 60 days, but 
 not for any month of a general election. (Laws, 
 1884, No. 182, § 1.) Notice of such election 
 shall be published four weeks in the official 
 oro-an, and it shall be conducted as general 
 elections. (Id. , § 2. ) Ballots shall be • ' For the 
 Sale" or "Against the Sale." (Id.,§2) One 
 list of voters and tally-sheet shall be delivered 
 the Ordinary, who shall consolidate the returns 
 and declare the result, when the act goes into 
 effect, after a further notice of four weeks in 
 the same papers of the vote -Against the Sale." 
 Contests of the result may be made in the 
 Superior Court by petition of one-tenth of the 
 voters, .such contest not to be a supersedeas of 
 the result. (Id., § 4.) No other election shall 
 he held for two years hereunder. (Id.. § 5.) 
 The law against selling at elections applies to 
 
 these elections. (Id., § 7.) Nothing in this 
 act shall prevent the manufacture, tale or use 
 of domestic wines or cider, or the use of wine 
 in the sacrament, provided such wines or cider 
 are not sold in barrooms, by retail ; nor shall 
 druggists be prohibited selling pure alcohol for 
 medicinal, art. scientific or mechanical purposes. 
 (Id., § 8.) No election hereunder shall he held 
 for any county, city, town or place where by 
 law the sale is now prohibited by local legisla- 
 tion. (Id., §9.) Alter vote against the sale, 
 selling, bartering or giving away liquor is pro- 
 hibited, in the county, under penalty of Code, 
 § 4310 (Id., § 10 ) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by vote of two-thirds of all the mem- 
 bers of the two Houses, at one session ; popular 
 vote to be taken at tlie next general election for 
 Representatives, two months' notice to be given. 
 A majority carries it. 
 
 Idaho Territory. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889.— The license 
 clauses in the Revenue law' of the first session 
 of the Legislature (1863) were still in force in 
 1889, except that the procedure for granting 
 licenses has been somewhat elaborated, piece- 
 meal, in succeeding Revenue laws. These are 
 mere official regulations to insure the revenue, 
 and not affecting the licenses. 
 
 Retail liquor licenses, procured of the Tax 
 Collector, are charged $50 per quarter, or $25 
 within the limits of Boise City, or $15 for per- 
 sons retailing liquors in connection with the 
 entertainment of travelers at any point one mile 
 or more outside any city or town. (R. S , 1887, 
 § 1648.) Merchants selling wines or distilled 
 liquors or goods, etc., pay $1 to $25 per month, 
 according to volume of bnsiness. in ten classes. 
 Sales of liquors not to be in less quantity than 
 a -quart. (Id., g§ 1649-50.) 
 
 Selling liquor to Indians is a misdemeanor by 
 act of 1863. (R. S.. 1887, § 6929.) Persons 
 adulterating liquor or selling the same so adul- 
 terated, are guilty of a misdemeanor. (Id., § 
 6918.) Carrying on business without license is 
 a misdemeanor. (Id, §6983.) Keeping open 
 saloons and selling liquor Sunday was forbidden, 
 under penalty of $15 to $50, by Laws of 1872, 
 p. 86. Sales by retail of liquor were made in- 
 valid considerations for any promise to pay in 
 excess of $10, and Courts were not to give 
 judgment on account thereof in excess of that 
 sum. (Laws, 1870, p. 75.) 
 
 [Idaho's admission as a State was provided 
 for by act of Congress in 1890. J 
 
 Illinois. 
 
 Earliest Provisions. — At the beginning of or- 
 ganized government in Illinois, it was provided 
 that "for preventing disorders and the mischiefs 
 that may happen from a multiplicity of public 
 houses " no person was to keep such, until_ he 
 obtained permission of the County Commission- 
 ers, upon penalty of $1 per day (one-third to 
 the informer). And he should suffer no drunk- 
 enness, disorder or gaming, under the same 
 penalty. The license fee was to be fixed by the 
 Commissoners, at not exceeding $12; and a 
 bond (in not exceeding $300) to obey the law 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 292 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 was required. Unlicensed persons were fined 
 $12 for selling. Selling to and harboring minors 
 and servants after being warned not to do so, 
 was fined $3. and for the third offense license 
 was forfeited and the licensee rendered forever 
 incapable of being licensed again. Selling to 
 slaves was fined $3; for subsequent offenses. 
 14. (R. L., 1833, p. 595 ; passed in 1819.) Sell- 
 ing to Indians was fined $20. Debts for liquor 
 at retail of over 50 cents were made void, and no 
 licenses were to be granted those who had not 
 tavern accommodations for four persons. (Laws, 
 1823, p. U\) 
 
 The Laws of 1835 (p. 154) provided that the 
 license rate was to be not exceeding $50. taking 
 into consideration the place where the tavern 
 was located. Any one was authorized to sell 
 cider and beer as he might think proper. (Laws, 
 1837. p. 326. ) 
 
 Earliest Local Option C1839). — Soon these laws 
 were all repealed, and the license fee was placed 
 at $25 to $300, the Commissioners to grant and 
 reject at discretion, and revoke licenses on being 
 satisfied the law had been violated. In incor- 
 porated towns the authorities were given the 
 exclusive privilege of granting licenses. And 
 if a majority of the voters in any county, 
 justice's district, incorporated town or ward in 
 a city should petition against licenses therein, 
 none should be granted until a like petition in 
 favor of licenses should be filed. (Laws, 1839, 
 p. 71.) 
 
 A grocery was defined to be any house or 
 place where spirituous or vinous liquor was 
 sold in quantities less than a quart, and persons 
 without license to keep a grocery, so selling, 
 were to be fined #10. (Laws, 1841, p. 178.) 
 
 Sliort-li-ed Prohibition (1851-3). — All retailing 
 of liquor to be drunk on the premises was pro- 
 hibited and fined $25, excepting by druggists 
 or physicians for medical, mechanical or sac- 
 ramental purposes. And all acts authorizing 
 licenses to be granted were repealed bv Laws of 
 1851, p. 18. 
 
 The act of 1853, p. 91. declared re-enacted all 
 laws in force at the time of the above-mentioned 
 act, except that license fees should be $50 to 
 $300. The Laws of 1871, p. 552, declared un- 
 lawful saloons to be nuisances, and provided for 
 civil damages. This provision is virtually re- 
 enacted in the Revised Statutes now in force. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in, 1889.— The General 
 Assembly has power to tax liquor-dealers by 
 general law. (Const, art. 9, § 1 ) 
 
 A dramshop is a place where spirituous, vinous 
 or malt liquors are retailed in less quantity than 
 one gallon. (R. S, 1887, c. 43, § 1.) Selling 
 liquor, without license to keep a dramshop, to 
 be drunk on the premises, is punished by fine of 
 $20 to $100 or by imprisonment 10 to 30 days, 
 or both. (Id, §2.) 
 
 The County Boards may grant licenses to as 
 many as they judge the public good requires, 
 upon application by petition of a majority of 
 the legal voters of the town or election precinct, 
 upon payment of not less than $500. provided a 
 license for sale of malt liquors only may be 
 granted for $150, and provided such Board 
 shall not have power to issue any license to 
 keep a dramshop in any incorporated city, town 
 or village, or within two miles of the same, in 
 
 which the corporate authorities have the author- 
 ity to grant the same, or in any place in which 
 sale of liquor is prohibited by law. (Id., § 17, 
 amending § 3.) The corporate authorities of 
 any city, town or village cannot grant licenses 
 for less than $500, or $150 for malt liquors only 
 
 provided that City Councils, Town Boards 
 of Trustees and the President and Board of 
 Trustees of villages may grant permits to phar- 
 macists for the sale of liquor for medicinal, 
 mechanical, sacramental and chemical purposes 
 only, under such restrictions as may be provided 
 by ordinance. (Id., §16.) Each license shall 
 state the time for which it is granted, not to ex- 
 ceed one year. The place of the dramshop shall 
 not be transferable, nor shall more than one 
 place be kept under any license. Any license 
 mny be revoked by the County Board when- 
 ever satisfied the licensee has violated the law, 
 or that he keeps a disorderly house or allows 
 illegal gaming. (Id., §4.) No person shall be 
 licensed without giving a bond in $3,000, con- 
 ditioned that he will pay all persons all damages 
 they may sustain, either in person or property or 
 means of support, by reason of sales under such 
 license. Such bond may be sued by any person 
 so injured, or his representatives. (Id., § 5.) 
 
 Giving or selling liquor to any minor, with- 
 out written order of the parent, guardian or 
 physician, to any person intoxicated or in the 
 habit of getting so. is punished by fine of $20 
 to $100 or imprisonment 10 to 30 days, or both. 
 (Id., § 6.) 
 
 All places where liquors are sold in violation 
 of law are common nuisances, and whoever 
 shall keep such a place shall be fined $50 to 
 $100, and imprisoned 20 to 50 days; and it shall 
 be a part of the judgment that the place so kept 
 be shut up and abated until the keeper give bond 
 in $1,000 not to sell unlawfully. (Id., «• 7. ) 
 
 Every person, with or without license, who 
 shall by sale of liquors cause the intoxication of 
 any person, shall be chargeable for a reason- 
 able compensation, and $2 per day beside, to 
 anyone taking care of such intoxicated person. 
 (Id., § 8.) 
 
 Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, 
 employer or other person, who shall be injured 
 in person, property or means of support by any 
 intoxicated person or in consequence of the in- 
 toxication, habitual or otherwise, of any pereoa, 
 shall have action, severally or jointly, against 
 any person or persons who have by selling 
 liquor caused such intoxication, in whole or in 
 part ; and any person owning, renting or per- 
 mitting the occupation of any premises, with 
 knowledge that liquor is sold therein, shall be so 
 liable, severally or jointly, with the person 
 selling, and for exemplary damages. The un- 
 lawful sale of liquor thereon shall make void 
 a'l leases of the premises leased. (Id.. § 9.) For 
 the payment of damages under the above section, 
 the real estate of the defendant is liable, and the 
 real estate upon which the liquor was sold with 
 the knowledge of the owner ; but if such last 
 real estate belong to a minor, his guardian shall 
 be held liable instead of the ward. (Id., § 10.) 
 Actions for damages for less than $200 under 
 this law may be brought before a Justice of the 
 Peace. (Id.. § 11 ) 
 
 Any fine or imprisonment in this act may be 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 293 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 enforced by indictment ; and in case of con- 
 viction the offender shall stand committed until 
 the judgment is fully paid. (Id., § 12.) Giving 
 away liquor, or other shifts or devices to evade 
 the law. constitute unlawful selling. (Id. , § 13. ) 
 In all prosecutions, it is not necessary to state 
 the kind of liquor sold, or to describe the place 
 where soli, or to show the knowledge of the 
 priucipal, in order to convict for the acts of his 
 agent ; and the persons to whom the liquor was 
 sold are competent witnesses. (Id., §14.) It is 
 no objection to a recovery that the defendant is 
 punishable under any city, village or town or- 
 dinance. (Id., §15.) A person licensed to sell 
 malt liquors only, selling other liquors, shall he 
 fijed $20 to 8100 or imprisoned 10 to 30 days, or 
 both, andforfeit his license. (Id., 4$ 18.) Who- 
 ever shall sell liquor in less quantities than four 
 gallons, outside the incorporated limits of any 
 city, town or village, shall he fined $50 to $100, 
 or be imprisoned 80 to 90 days, or both. (Id., § 
 19.) This shall not he construed to prevent 
 County Boards from granting license to keep 
 dramshops as now provided by law, and all per- 
 sons so licensed shall be exempt from the pro- 
 visions of the last above section. (Id., § 23. | 
 
 The City Council in cities, and the President 
 and Board of Trustees in villages, have the 
 power to license, regulate and prohibit the sell- 
 ing of liquor therein, and may grant permits to 
 druggists to sell for medicinal and similar pur- 
 poses only, conforming to the general law when 
 granting licenses. (R. S., 1887, c. 24, § 62, p. 46.) 
 And they may forbid and punish selling to 
 miuors, apprentices or servants, or insane, idiotic 
 or distracted persons, or habitual drunkards, or 
 persons intoxicated. (Id., p. 48.) 
 
 Adulteration of liquor, or selling such adul- 
 terated liquor, is punished by fine not over 
 ?1.000, or imprisonment not over one year, or 
 both. (Id , c. 38, § 8 ) 
 
 Any intoxicated person found in any public 
 place or disturbing the public peace or that of 
 his own family, in any private building or place, 
 shall be fined not exceeding $5, or $25 for any 
 subsequent offense — prosecutions to be begun 
 within 30 days. ( Id., ^ 64.) 
 
 Selling liquor within one mile of a camp or 
 field-meeting, during the time of holding the 
 meeting, without consent of the authorities 
 of the meeting, is fined not exceeding 
 $100, provided "" that no one is required 
 to suspend his regular business. (Id., t? 59.) 
 Keeping a tippling-shop open on Sunday is 
 fined not exceeding $200 (Id., §259.) Furnish- 
 ing liquors to prisoners is punished by fine of 
 not exceeding $50, or 30 days' imprisonment, or 
 both. (Id., § 210.) Sheriffs and jailers shall 
 not permit prisoners to send for or have liquor, 
 except upon physician's prescription. (Id., c. 
 75, § 18.) Selling liquor within two miles of fair- 
 grounds shall be liued $100 to $500, but no reg- 
 ular business is affected. (Id.,'c. 5, §§12,13.) 
 Opening a saloon or selling liquor wi hin one 
 mile of the place of holding any election is 
 prohibited, upon penalty of $25 to $100; and it 
 shall be the duty of officers and magistrates to 
 see that this is enforced. (Id., c. 46, § 79.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (Laws, 1889, 
 p. 345.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may he 
 proposed by two thirds of all the members of 
 the iwo Houses at one session ; popular vote to 
 be taken at the next general election for Repre- 
 sentatives, three months' notice to be given. A 
 majority carries it. 
 
 Indiana. 
 
 Early Provisions.— -The Governor was em- 
 powered to prohibit the sale of liquor with- 
 in 30 miles of any council with the Indians ; pen- 
 alty, $50 to $500. (Laws, 1805, c. 1 ) A prohi- 
 bition against selling liquor to Indians was en- 
 acted, conditioned on similar laws being passed 
 by Kentucky, Ohio, Louisiana and Michigan. 
 (Id., c. 7.) The Courts of Common Pleas were 
 empowered to grant licenses for not exceeding 
 $12. (Id., c. 18.) Selling liquor to Indians 
 within 40 miles of Vincennes was prohibited in 
 1806. (Laws, c. 27 ) 
 
 Chapter 17 of the Laws of 1807 was the 
 same as was subsequently (1819) passed in Illi- 
 nois. It provided that the Court should issue 
 licenses upon bond in not exceeding £300 to 
 obey the law. The Laws of 1816, c. 17, § 7, 
 provided that tavern license fees were to be paid 
 to the County Treasurer. The County Com- 
 missoners were entrusted with the right to grant 
 licenses, each applicant presenting a certificate 
 of 12 householders that he was a person of good 
 moral character and that the place would be for 
 the convenience of travelers, and giving bond 
 in $500 not to permit disorder or gaming, or to 
 sell on Sunday, or unlawfully. Selling to minors 
 and intoxicated persons was fined 43. as was 
 selling without license. (Laws, 1817, c. 48. ) In 1819 
 (Laws. c. 36) the Circuit Courts were given the 
 authority to license and tavern accommodations 
 were required. By Laws of 1824. c. 107, the 
 licensing power was again vested in the County 
 Commissioners. The Circuit Court was to sup- 
 press the license or abate the tavern upon vio- 
 lation of law. And there was a general fine, 
 not to exceed $50, for violating the act. Twenty- 
 four signers to the applicant's certificate were 
 required. (Laws, 1835, c. 71 ) By Laws of 
 1828, c. 63, the County Court was authorized to 
 grant licenses to retail to those who did not 
 keep taverns, on the same conditions otherwise 
 required. 
 
 Earliest Local Option (1832). — The laws were 
 consolidated in 1832 (Laws, c. 170), with the 
 added provision that licenses to retail only 
 should not be granted in any town or township 
 where the majority of the freeholders remon- 
 strated against granting the same. 
 
 All tippling-houses or places where intoxicat- 
 ing liquors were sold without license, and 
 drunk in and about the same, if kept in a dis- 
 orderly manner, were nuisances, and the keepers 
 might be fined $25 to *100. (Laws. 1840, c. 85.) 
 Licenses to retail liquors were fixed at $25 to 
 $200, provided that a majority of the citizens, 
 householders of any town or township, might 
 remonstrate, in writing, against granting licenses 
 therein, and the County Board would be gov- 
 erned thereby. (Laws, 1840. c. 5, §§ 16, 17.) 
 This was repealed as to three counties by 
 Laws of 1842. c. 125. License was not to be 
 granted in any township in Carroll and Cas s 
 Counties unless, at the next annual town elee- 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 294 
 
 Legislation. 
 
 tions, the majority voted therefor. (Laws, 1841, 
 c. 152.) Licenses in 12 counties were not 
 to be granted, except upon petition of a 
 majority of the legal voters of the township. 
 And the license fee was to he determined by the 
 Board in 16 other counties. (Laws, 1842, c. 119.) 
 
 Three laws making the obtainment of licenses 
 easier in seven counties were passed at the 1843 
 session, and one prohibiting sales in a township. 
 
 It was made lawful for tne voters of the sev- 
 eral townships, at their annual spring elections, 
 to vote against the granting of licenses to retail 
 liquors therein. (Laws. 1847, c. 7.) In 1849 
 '50 and '51, many laws were passed modifying 
 the general law, one way or the other, in certain 
 specified counties and townships. In 1853 (Laws, 
 c. 66) the last above-mentioned provision for 
 Local Option was re-enacted, with strict nuisance 
 and civil damage features, and providing for 
 abond of $2,000, and prohibiting sales on Sunday. 
 
 Prohibition's Bnef Reign (1855-8. )— A Prohi- 
 bitory or Maine law was passed in 1855 > Laws, 
 c. 105) ; and by c 106 the former law was re- 
 pealed, so far as it granted licenses, and such 
 licenses granted theieunder were made void 
 after a certain date. Under the Prohibitory law, 
 the penalty for manufacturing was 820 to $50 
 for the first offense, $50 to $100 for the second, 
 and $100 for each subsequent one — a penalty of 
 30 days' imprisonment to be added for each 
 offense after the first. Penalties for selling were 
 the same, except that for selling to minors the 
 fine was not less than 850. Every device or 
 contrivance to deal out or sell liquor ana con- 
 ceal the person selling it was declared a nuisance, 
 to be abated under fine of $50 to $100 and im- 
 prisonment SO to 90 days. The Prohibitory 
 law was repealed in 1858 (Laws, c 15), after 
 having been declared unconstitutional generally. 
 (Beebe v. State, 6 Ind. 501 ; Herman v. State. 8 
 Ind. 545 ; O. Daily v. State, 9 Ind 494 ; 10 Ind. 
 26, 572. ) 
 
 C. 130 of Laws of 1859 was a license law re- 
 quiring $50 license fee, prohibiting sales on 
 Sunday and election days, to minors and to 
 habitual drunkards after notice, with penalty 
 for sellingwithout license of $5 to $100. to which 
 imprisonment might be added, not exceeding 30 
 days. This was amended by giving a remon- 
 strant against gi anting a license right to appeal. 
 (Laws. 1861. c. 72.) Another amendment was 
 made by Laws of 1865, c 96, which, added a 
 penalty of $10 to $50 for selling Sundays or 
 election days, the original law having no penalty 
 attached to it C. 59 of Laws of 1873 was a 
 stricter license law, requiring a petition for 
 license to be signed by a majority of the voters 
 in the townships or wards, and abond of $3 000, 
 with penalty of forfeiture of license for violation 
 of the act. and providing that no violator should 
 be qualified to receive another licence for five 
 years. Full civil damage provisions were added, 
 as were also the usual prohibitions. No fee for 
 license, or permit to sell, as it wascalled, was re- 
 quired, beyond the cost involved in procuring 
 it. 
 
 The act of 1875, c 13, repealed all former 
 laws relating to liquors, and now remains in 
 force. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — It is unlawful 
 to sell, barter or give away any spirituous, vinous 
 
 or malt liquor, in quantities less than a quart, 
 without first procuring a license of the Board 
 of Commissioners of the county. (R S., 1888, 
 §5312.) 'Intoxicating liquor" applies to any 
 spirituous, vinous or malt liquor. (Id., § 531b ) 
 Any one desiring a license shall give notice in a 
 paper published in the county, or if there is 
 none, by posting in three places, at least £0 
 days before the meeting of the Board, stating 
 the precise location of his premises and the 
 kinds of liquor he desiris to sell. And any 
 voter of the township may remonstrate against 
 such license on account of immorality or other 
 unfitness of the applicant. (Id.. § 5314.) The 
 Board shall grant a license upon the giving of 
 bond in $2,000, conditioned that the applicant 
 will keep an orderly house and pay all fines and 
 costs and all judgments for civil damages against 
 him, if such applicant is a fit person to be in- 
 trusted with the sale of liquor, and if he be not 
 in the habit of becoming intoxicated. 2So ap- 
 peal from the order of the Board shall operate 
 to estop the applicant from receiving lictnse and 
 selling thereunder until the close of the next 
 term of the Court in which it might be lawfully 
 tried. (Id.. §5315.) 
 
 The license fee to sell all liquors is $100 ; to 
 sell vinous or malt, or both, $50 — such fees to go 
 to the school fund of the county. (Id., § 5316. 1 
 No city shall charge more than $250 more, and 
 no incorporated town more than $150 more, 
 than the above fees, ild., § 5317; amended 
 by Laws of 1889. c. 218.) 
 
 License shall be issued by the County Auditor 
 upon the order of the Board granting the 
 license and the receipt of the County 
 Treasurer for the fee. It shall specify the name 
 of the applicant, the place of sale and time to 
 run, and permit liquors sold to be drunk on the 
 premises. (R. 8., 1888, § 5318.) No license 
 shall be for more or less than a year. (Id. , § 
 5319.) 
 
 Persons not licensed, selling to be drunk on 
 the premises, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor 
 and fined $20 to $100. and the Court may add 
 imprisonment for 10 to 30 days. (Id,. § 53£0.) 
 Criminal and Circuit Courts have jurisdiction 
 under this act. (Id. ,§5321.) And Justices of 
 the Peace have jurisdiction to try and determine 
 all cases under this act, provided that if the 
 Justice think a fine of $25 is inadequate in any 
 case, he is to recognize the party to the 
 Criminal or Circuit Court. (Id., § 53^2.) Every 
 person who shall sell liquor in violation of this 
 act shall be personally' liable, and also liable on 
 his bond, to any person who shall sustain any 
 injury or damage to his person or property on 
 account of the use of such liquors so sold. 
 (Id., § 5323.) Cities may regulate and license 
 all inns, taverns and shops where liquor is sold 
 to be used upon the premises. iR. S.. 1888, § 
 3106, c. 13. > To exact license money from per- 
 sons selling liquor, cities have jurisdiction two 
 miles beyond the city limits. (Id., § 3154.) 
 
 Adulterating native wine and selling such is 
 fined $10 to $100 (Id., § 2072', and the same 
 penalty is charged for so adulterating liquors. 
 (Id., § 2073.) Using active poison in intoxica- 
 ting liquors is punished by imprisonment one to 
 seven years, and fine not exceeding $500. (Id. 
 § 2074.) 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 295 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 Whoever is found drunk in any public place 
 is fined not exceeding $5 ; for the second con- 
 viction not exceeding $25, and for third not 
 over £100, and he may be imprisoned five to 30 
 days and disfranchised for any determinate 
 period. (Id, § 2091.) Selliug liquor to a 
 drunken man knowingly is fined $10 to f 100, to 
 which may be added imprisonment for 30 days 
 to one year, and disfranchisement for any de- 
 terminate period. (Id., § 2092.) Selling to a 
 habitual drunkard, after notice in writing by 
 any citizen of the township, is fined £50 to $100, 
 to which may be added imprisonment 30 days 
 to one year and disfranchisement any determi- 
 nate period. (Id., § 2093.) Selling to a minor 
 is fined $20 to $100. (Id., § 2094.) Any minor 
 over 14 years of age misrepresenting his age as 
 being over 21 to procure liquor, is fined $10 to 
 $100. ild... § 2095.) Furnishing liquor to prison- 
 ers, or keepers permitting them to have such 
 liquor, except the same is prescribed by a 
 physician, is fined $20 to $100. (Id., § 2096.) 
 Keeping a disorderly liquor-shop is fined $10 to 
 $100. ( Id . J5 2097 ) Selling liquor on Sunday, 
 or any legal holiday or upon election day, or 
 between the hours of 11 p. m. and 5 a. m., is 
 fined $10 to $50, to which may be added im- 
 prisonment f >r 10 to 60 days. (Id., g 2098 ) 
 Druggists sel dng on such days or nights, ex- 
 cept upon physicians' prescriptions, are so pun- 
 ished. (Id , § 21)99.) Selling liquor within one 
 mile of an a;semblage for religious worship, or 
 any agricultural fair or exhibition, without au- 
 thority of the managers of such meeting or 
 fair, shall be punished by fine of $10 to $50 and 
 imprisonment for JO days. But this does not 
 apply to regular business. (Id.. § 2100.) 
 
 The State Board of Health shall, in its annual 
 report, state what, in its best judgment, is the 
 effect of the use of liquors upon the industry, 
 health and lives of the people. (Id. . § 4987.) 
 
 Appeals, upon the granting of a license or its 
 refusal, shall be to the Circuit Court within 10 
 days, upon bond to pay costs and not without. 
 (Laws, 1889, c. 148.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by a majority of the members of the 
 two Houses, must be concurred in by a majority 
 of the members of each House in the next 
 Legislature, and to be adopted must be approved 
 by a majority of the electors voting on the 
 question at the polls. 
 
 Indian Territory. 
 
 Clierolcee Nation. — The introduction and vend- 
 ing of ardent spirits in this Nation shall be 
 unlawful, under penalty of having the same 
 wasted and destroyed, and the officers of the 
 Nation are authorized to put under oath and to 
 exact information from any persons in searching 
 for ardent spirits, and to procure search war- 
 rants to search any house in which there is good 
 reason to believe liquors are concealed. The 
 Sheriff may summon a guard to assist in wasting 
 liquors' should resistance be offered. Persons 
 introducing or trading in spirits shall be fined 
 $10 to $50 (one-fourth to the Sheriff and one- 
 fourth to the Solicitor of the district). Failure 
 in duty on the part of the Sheriff or Solicitor 
 shall be fined $25 (Laws Cherokee Nation, 1839- 
 
 67, p. 28 [passed 1841].) Any citizen is author- 
 ized to arrest any person guilty of introducing 
 spirituous liquors, and who may be found con- 
 veying the same to any point thereof, and to 
 waste them. And the members of any assembly 
 or congregation for religious worship are author- 
 ized to take temporary measures for ptace and 
 harmony, by the suppression of the sale and in- 
 dulgence in spirits.in their vicinity, as may seem 
 to them most proper and best. (Id., p. 29 
 [passed I860].) The first of these acts was 
 codified, with the penalty increased to $50 to 
 $100, in Compiled Laws, Cherokee Nation, 1881, 
 p. 161. 
 
 Chickasaw Nation. — All persons are prohi- 
 bited from introducing spirituous liquors into 
 this Nation under penalty of $10, and for all 
 succeeding offenses $40. Any person giving 
 away or selling such liquor shall be fined $25, 
 and for succeeding offenses $50 (half to the in- 
 former in both cases). In case the offender 
 refuse to pay the fine the liquor shall be con- 
 fiscated and sold. The Sheriff or Constable 
 shall destroy any whiskey or spirituous liquor 
 in the Nation, and citizens called on are bound 
 to assist, and those resisting such destruction 
 may in self-defense be killed by the officers or 
 citizens. (Laws Chickasaw Nation, 1860, p. 25 
 | passed 1856] ; re enacted and approved, Id., p. 
 105 1 1858].) 
 
 Choctaw Nation. — It is not lawful for any 
 person to introduce for their own use or sell or 
 give away any vinous, spirituous or intoxicating 
 liquors, except wines for sacramental purposes 
 by a member of the church, on penalty of $10 
 to $100, or on default of payment, imprison- 
 ment one to three months. Any person found 
 with such liquors is deemed guilty. The Cir- 
 cuit Judges shall give this act in charge to the 
 Grand Jury, who shall diligently inquire into 
 violations of the same. In every conviction 
 under the act the District Attorney shall be en- 
 titled to $5. The Sheriff, Light horsemen and 
 Constables are authorized, upon suspicion with- 
 out warrant, to forcibly enter all places, search 
 for and seize, break and destroy all bottles, bar- 
 rels, jugs or any vessel containing liquor and 
 arrest the persons in charge, and such officers 
 shall receive $2 upon conviction of the offender. 
 If any person sell or give away liquors, and any 
 person be thereby maimed or injured, such 
 seller shall be fined $5 to $100 for the person 
 injured. (Laws Choctaw Nation, 1869, p. 163 
 [passed 1857].) 
 
 Iowa. 
 
 Earliest Provisions. — By the Bevenue act of 
 the first Legislature, groceries retailing liquors 
 were taxed $100 in incorporated towns and $50 
 elsewhere. (Laws, 1838, p. 401.) By the Laws 
 of 1839, c. 22, County Commissioners were to 
 grant such licenses for $25 to $100, the applicant 
 to give bond in $100 to keep an orderly house, 
 and to be fined $10 to $50 for offenses against 
 the law. And selling without license was fined 
 $50 to $100. Selling on Sunday, except for 
 medicine, was fined $5. (Laws, 1843, c. 43.) 
 
 The law was extended to all cities, and the 
 penalty for selling without license was reduced 
 to $S0 to $50 by Laws of 1845. c. 28. The 
 question of license or no-license was submitted 
 
Legislation] 
 
 296 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 to the voters of each county to determine. 
 (Laws, 1846. c. 49.) 
 
 The second Legislature of the State enacted 
 a license law, placing the fee at $50 to $1 25, 
 with bond of $150 to keep an orderly house, 
 and fining sales without license $50 to jl50. 
 i Laws, 1848,c. 67.) 
 
 Partial Prohibition (1855-84).— A Prohibitory 
 liquor or Maine law was submitted to vote of 
 the people on the first Monday of April, 1855. 
 (Laws, c. 45.) In the case of State v. Santo 
 (2 la., 165) the submission clauses were declared 
 unconstitutional, but the rest of the law was 
 upneld This law excepted sales of five gallons 
 or more of domestic wines, and of cider by the 
 maker when sold to be taken away at one time ; 
 appointed County Agents to sell liquor for 
 medi'inal, mechanicaland sacramental purposes, 
 ard punished manufacturing by a fine of $100 
 for first offense £200 for second, and 8200 and 
 imprisonment 90 days for third; the penalty for 
 selling was $20, $50 and $100, and three to six 
 months' imprisonment, for first, second and third 
 offenses respectively. It declared (he building 
 or ground of unlawful sale, manufacture, or 
 keeping a nuisance, and authorized search, 
 seizure and forfeiture of liquors. By the act of 
 1857 (Laws, c. 157). any citizen except hotel- 
 keepers, keepers of saloons, eating-houses, 
 grocery-keepers and confectioners was permit- 
 ted to buy and sell liquors for mechanical, 
 medicinal, culinary and sacramental purposes 
 only, on procuring the certificate of 12 citizens 
 of the town to his moral character and giving 
 bond in $1,000. He was to keep an accurate 
 account of his purchases and sales. Purchasers 
 buying of him were fined $10 for the first 
 offense of making a false statement of the use 
 for which liquor was inquired, and $20 
 and 10 to 50 days in prison for the second 
 offense 
 
 A license law, allowing County Judges to 
 grant licenses upon petition of 12 freeholders 
 of the township, with civil damage provisions, 
 was enacted to be adopted by any county upon 
 vote, after petition by 100 citizens of such 
 county. (Laws, 1856. c. 221.) This act was 
 declared unconstitutional in whole because of 
 its submission clauses, and because it would not 
 have a uniform operation. (Geebrick v. State, 5 
 la., 491.) 
 
 Wilfully selling adulterated or drugged 
 liquors, was punished by fine not exceeding 
 $500, or imprisonment for not over two years. 
 (Laws. 1858. c. 140 ) And by the Laws of 1858, 
 c. 1J3, the manufacture and sale of beer, cider 
 from apples or wine from grapes, currants or 
 other fruits grown in this State, were excepted 
 irom the prohibitions of the law. 
 
 Persons selling liquor were charged with the 
 expense of the care of the intoxicated person, 
 and were made liable in civil damages for the 
 injury caused by intoxication to any one's per- 
 son, property or means of support. (Laws, 
 18t>2 c. 47.) 
 
 The privileges of buying and selling confer- 
 red by act of 1857, c. 157. were cut off by c. 94, 
 Laws of 1862, and permits for the sale of 
 liquor for such excepted purposes were required 
 to specify the house of sale and the term of its 
 continuance, with the same system of accounts 
 
 for every purchase and sale elaborated. Such 
 agent's permit was forfeited for unlawful sell- 
 ing. And search warrants were allowed to be 
 issued upon information by one credible person 
 of the county, instead of three. Sales of liquor 
 at fairs were prohibited by Laws of 1864, c. 
 109. The Laws of 1868, c. 128, amended the 
 granting of permits under the above laws, and 
 made a hearing upon notice necessary to the 
 granting of such permits, and directed the 
 County Judge to consider the wants of the 
 locality and the number of permits issued 
 therefor in granting the same. 
 
 Incorporated cities and towns were given 
 power to regulate or prohibit the sale of liquor 
 for purposes not prohibited by the State law, 
 i.e., beer, wine and cider. (Laws, 1868, c. 154) 
 In 1870 the sale of beer, wine and cider was 
 prohibited, but the Board of Supervisors of each 
 county might determine whether a vote should 
 b3 taken upon the question, and not till such a 
 vote was in favor of Prohibition should such 
 Prohibition be in force. (Laws, 1870, c. 82.) 
 By Laws of 1872, c. 24, permits to sell for 
 the excepted purposes were allowed, only upon 
 petition of a majority of the legal voters of the 
 township or ward. The bond of the holder of 
 a permit was increased to £3.000, his profits were 
 limited to 33J- per cent., and monthly returns of 
 his sales to the Auditor were required. Penal- 
 ties were $100. Druggists were not to sell 
 liquor or its compounds as a beverage. (Laws, 
 1880, c. 75 §5 9.) Selling on election day was 
 prohibited by Laws of 1880, c. 82. 
 
 The Constitutional Amendment. — A Prohi- 
 bitory Amendment to the Constitution was pro- 
 posed to be submitted. (Laws, 1880, c. 215 ; 
 Laws, 1882, p. 178.) This Amendment was in- 
 validated, after adoption, on account of an in- 
 formality in its passage, as indicated in the 
 journals of the Legislature. (Koehler v. Hill. 
 60 la., 543.) 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889— In 1884. 1886 
 and 1888 were passed the laws, more and more 
 stringent and elaborate, which make up most of 
 the present sections of the Revised Code of 
 1888 upon the subject. Citations that follow are 
 to McClain's Code of 1888. The corresponding 
 matter is found in Miller's Revised Code, at § 
 1523 and following. 
 
 No person shall manufacture or sell, directly 
 or indirectly, any intoxicating liquors except as 
 hereinafter provided. Keeping liquor with in- 
 tent to sell the same unlawfully is prohibited ; 
 and the liquor and vessels containing it are de- 
 clared nuisances. (Code, 1888, § 2359.) 
 
 Persons holding permits may sell intoxicating 
 liquors for pharmaceutical and medicinal pur- 
 poses, alcohol for specified chemical purposes, 
 and wine for sacramental purposes. Permits 
 must be procured of the District Court, and con- 
 tinue one year, with renewal annually upon 
 showing to the Court that the law has been 
 complied with the preceding year, and giving a 
 new bond ; but parties may resist renewals 1he 
 same as applications for permits. (Id., §2360.) 
 Notice of application for permit must be pub- 
 lished three weeks in a newspaper of the city, 
 town or county. And in one of the official 
 papers of the county. It shall state the name 
 of the applicant, the purpose of the application, 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 297 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 the particular location of the place where liquor 
 is proposed to he sold, and that the petition will 
 he on file 10 days before the first day of the 
 term when the application will tie made, and a 
 copy thereof shall be served on the County At- 
 torney. (Id , § 2362.) Application for permits 
 shall be by petition, staling the applicant's 
 name, place of residence, present business and 
 business for two years previously, a particular 
 description of the place of sales, that he is a 
 citizen of the State, a registered pharmacist 
 and proposes to sell liquor as the proprietor of 
 such pharmacy, that he has not been convicted 
 of unlawful liquor-selliugfortwo years, does not 
 keep a hotel, eating-hous^, saloon, restaurant or 
 place of public amusement , that he is not addicted 
 to the use of liquor as a beverage, and has not 
 been engaged in unlawful liquor traffic for two 
 years. (Id., § 2364.) The permit shall issue, 
 or be renewed, only upon a bond by the appli- 
 cant in $1,000, conditioned to observe the law 
 relating to the sale of liquor, and to pay all fines, 
 penalties, damages and costs against him. Such 
 bond shall be for the benefit of any person 
 damaged by reason of violation of the permit. 
 (Id.. § 2364.) 
 
 The applicant shall file, 10 days before the 
 term, in support of the application, a petition 
 signed by one-third of the freehold voters of 
 the township, town, city or ward in which the 
 permit is to be used. Each person shall state 
 that he has read the petition and is personally 
 acquainted with the applicant, that he is a resi- 
 dent of the county, over 21 years of age, of good 
 character, reputed to be law-abiding, has not 
 be. n found guilty of violating the liquor laws 
 for two years, is not in the habit of using liquor 
 as a beverage, that the permit is necessary for 
 the convenience and accommodation of the 
 people of the locality, and that he believes the 
 applicant is worthy of confidence and will ob- 
 serve the law. At or before 9 a. m. of the 
 first day of the term, a remonstrance against the 
 granting of the permit may be filed by any per- 
 son. (Id., § 2365.) On the first day of the term, 
 having ascertained that the application is proper- 
 ly presented, the Court shall hear it unless ob- 
 jection is made, and if objection is made it 
 shall be set down for hearing during the term. 
 The County Attorney or any citizen, or his at- 
 torney, may resist the application, and in any 
 case the Court shall not grant the permit until 
 it appears by evidence that the applicant is 
 worthy of confidence and that the application 
 and petition are altogether true. If more than 
 one permit for the same locality is asked for at 
 the same time, the various applications shall be 
 heard together, and any or all shall be refused 
 or granted, as will best subserve the public in- 
 terest. (Id., S 2-167.) Permits shall not issue 
 until the applicant makes oath, to be endorsed 
 upon the bond, that he will not sell unlawfully 
 and will make required returns of sales. (Id., 
 $2367.) 
 
 Permits shall be deemed trusts reposed in the 
 recipients, not as a matter of right, and may be 
 revoked by order of the Court upon sufficient 
 showing. "Complaint, sworn to by three citizens, 
 may at any time be presented to the District 
 Court; and, with five days' notice to the accused 
 to appear, the Court may hear and determine 
 
 the controversy and the permit may be suspend- 
 ed during its pendency. After revocation of a 
 permit for violation of law, such adjudication 
 may, in the discretion of the Commissioners of 
 Pharmacy, work a forfeiture of the certificate of 
 registration as a pharmacist, and upon receipt of 
 a record showing a second such violation of law, 
 such Commissioners shall cancel such registra- 
 tion. The Clerk must forward such records to 
 them. (Id., £ 2368.) If no registered pharma- 
 cist shall obtain a permit not in any township, 
 some person not a registered pharmacist may 
 under like conditions obtain a p.rmit. (Id., 
 g2369.) 
 
 All papers relating to the granting or revoca- 
 tion of permits shall be filed as part of the 
 records of the Clerks' offices. The applicant 
 for permit shall pay all the costs incurred in any 
 case, except the costs of any malicious resistance. 
 (Id., § 23T0 ) 
 
 When any person holding a permit desires to 
 purchase liquor for use thereunder, he shall ap- 
 ply to the County Auditor for a certificate au- 
 thorizing such purchase, which must be attached 
 to the way-bill accompanying the shipment as 
 authority to the common carrier. After use 
 such certificate shall be returned to the Auditor, 
 who shall cancel, file and preserve the same. 
 (Id. , § 2371. ) Requests for liquor shall be dated 
 and shall state the age and exact residence of the 
 signer and person for whose use the liquor is re- 
 quired, the amount and kind required, its pur- 
 pose, that neither the applicant nor the person 
 who is to use the liquor uses liquor as a bever- 
 age, and be signed by the applicant and attested 
 by the permit-holder, but must not be granted 
 by the permit-holder unless he personally knows 
 the applicant and that he is not a minor or per- 
 son addicted to drunkenness, and is of good 
 character, and believes the application is true. 
 If he does not know the applicant, one whom 
 he does know must in writing vouch tor such 
 applicant in the same way. The requests shall 
 be upon blanks numbered consecutively, fur- 
 nished by the County Auditor, in books of 100 to 
 holders of permits, who shall, after filling, re- 
 turn to the Auditor, who will file and preserve 
 the same. All unused or mutilated blanks shall 
 be returned or accounted for before other blanks 
 shall be issued to the permit-holder. (Id., t$ 
 2372.) 
 
 On or before the 10th day of eacb month, 
 each permit-holder shall make returns, under 
 oath, to the Auditor, of all requests filled by 
 him Every permit-holder shall keep strict ac- 
 count of all liquors purchased by him, and the 
 amounts sold and used, and the amount on 
 hand, each month. Such accounts shall be open 
 for inspection by officers, and shall be evidence. 
 Monthly statements thereof shall be made to 
 the Auditor with the return of the above re- 
 quests. (Id., § 2373.) On trial for illegal sales 
 under permits, the requests for liquors and re- 
 turns made to the Auditor, the general repute 
 of the accused, and his manner of conducting 
 his business, and the character of applicants 
 for liquor, shall be competent evidence. (Id., 
 § 2374.) 
 
 Registered pharmacists, not permit-holders, 
 are authorized to obtain liquors i not including 
 malt) of permit-holders, for compounding 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 29S 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 medicines, tinctures and extracts that cannot be 
 used as beverages, at not over 10 per cent, net 
 profit on such liquors, such purchasers to keep 
 and return monthly to the Auditor a record of 
 such purchases and the uses made thereof. The 
 Commissioners of Pharmacy are directed to 
 make rules to govern this subject and revoke 
 registrations of pharmacists abusing the trust. 
 (Id., § 2375.) A permit-holder may employ 
 not more than two registered pharmacists as 
 clerks, for whose acts he is personally respon- 
 sible. (Id., § 2376.» The Commissioners of 
 Pharmacy are to have as a fund for further 
 prosecutions 50 per cent, of all fines collected 
 in prosecutions instituted by them. (Id., 
 g 2378.) 
 
 Any person making a false signature or rep- 
 resentation upon papers required by this act 
 shall be fined £20 to jriOO, or imprisoned 10 to 
 30 days. Permit-holders or clerks making false 
 oaths shall be punished for perjury. Permit- 
 holders violating the law are guilty of mis- 
 demeanors. (Id., § 2379.) 
 
 Selling or giving to minors, except upon 
 written order of parent or guardian or physi 
 cian, or to any intoxicated person or habitual 
 drunkard, is fined $100 (half to the informer;. 
 (Id., S 2889.) 
 
 Selling without a permit, by any device, is 
 fined $50 to $100 for first offense, and £300 to 
 $500, with imprisonment not exceeding six 
 months, for subsequent offenses. (Id., £ 2381.) 
 Persons keeping liquor for illegal sale shall be 
 punished as last stated above, except that such 
 imprisonment is alternative. (Id., g 2383.) 
 
 In cases of unlawful manufacture, sale or 
 keeping, the building or ground upon which it 
 happens is a nuisance and the user is fined not 
 over $1,000. Any citizen of the county may 
 maintain an action to abate and perpetually en- 
 join the same, and any person violating any 
 such injunction shall be fined $500 to $1,000, or 
 imprisoned not more than six months, or both. 
 (Id., g 2384.) It is the duty of the County At- 
 torney to institute actions to enjoin such nui- 
 sances. (Id.^ g 2385 ) 
 
 In any such action the Judge may grant a 
 temporary injunction, if the nuisance is being 
 maintained, as of course. (Id., § 2386.) A 
 Judgs may summarily try and punish parties 
 violating such injunction, by the penalty of 
 § 2384. which (if imprisonment alone) must be 
 three to six months. (Id., g 2387.) If the ex- 
 istence of such a nuisance has been established 
 by action, it shall be abated by order of Court, 
 by seizing and destroying liquor therein, re- 
 moving all fixtures of the business in the build- 
 ing, and closing the same against occupation 
 for saloon purposes, for one year. (Id., 
 § 2389.) If an owner appear and pay costs, and 
 file a bond in the full value of the property, 
 conditioned that he will immediately so abate 
 such nuisance, the action shall be abated. (Id., 
 §2391.) 
 
 Finding liquors in the possession of any one 
 not authorized to sell the same, except in a 
 private dwelling which is not used as a tavern, 
 eating-house, or place of public resort, is pre- 
 sumptive evidence of illegal keeping. (Id,, 
 § 2392.) 
 
 After a conviction of keeping a nuisance, if 
 
 any person engages in such unlawful business he 
 shall be imprisoned three months to one year. 
 But no equitable order or judgment shall be 
 deemed such conviction. (Id., § 2393.) In no 
 action to abate a nuisance shall fees be demand 
 ed in advance, and costs shall be paid as in other 
 criminal cases. But the costs may be taxtd to 
 the prosecutor if he act maliciously and without 
 probable cause. (Id., § 2396.) Any person en- 
 joined in such action who again engages in the 
 sale anywhere within the jurisdiction of the 
 Court, shall be guilty of contempt. (Id., g 2398.) 
 Keeping a United States revenue "license" 
 posted in any place of business is evidence that 
 the person owning it is engaged in unlawful 
 selling, and prima facie evidence that liquors 
 found in possession of such person are 
 kept unlawfully, if such person is not author- 
 ized by law. (Id., §2400.) 
 
 Search-warrant is provided for upon complaint 
 of any credible resident of any county upon 
 oath that he believes particular liquor in a par- 
 ticular place is owned by the person named or 
 described and is kept by him ior unlawful sale. 
 If the place named is a dwelling, it must be 
 stated that liquor has been sold there within 
 one month (Id., § 2401.) The information 
 and seaivh warrant shall describe the place and 
 liquor with reasonable particularity, but thiir 
 insufficiency only entitles the owner to be heard 
 upon the merits of the case. (Id., § 2402.) 
 Upon seizure of liquor under search-warrant, 
 the Justice issuing the warrant shall cause notice 
 to be left at the place of such seizure and at 
 the last known place of residence of the owner, 
 summoning such person, from within five to 15 
 days, to appear and show cause why said liquor 
 and the vessels containing it should not be for- 
 feited. The proceedings shall be the san>e ; s 
 in cases of misdemeanor. (Id., e 2404.) When- 
 ever decided that such liquor is forfeited, war- 
 rant shall issue to an officer to destroy it ; in the 
 other case to return it. (Id.. § 2405.) 
 
 If any person is found intoxicated, he may be 
 taken by any peace officer without warrant, and 
 may be fined "10 or imprisoned 30 days. But 
 this may be remitted upon the prisoner's giving 
 information when, where and of whom he pur- 
 chased the liquor, piovided he give tail to ap- 
 pear as a witness against the party who sold tue 
 liquor. (Id., g 2405.) In any information or in- 
 dictment, it is not necessary to set out exactly 
 the kind and quantity of liquor, nor the exact 
 time of offense ; and proof of any violation of 
 liquor law, substantially as set forth and within 
 the time mentioned, is sufficient. It is only 
 necessary to allege second or subsequent offenses, 
 without cetting forth the record of the same. 
 And the purchaser of liquor is a competent wit- 
 ness. (Id., g 2406.) 
 
 All debts for liquor unlawfully sold, and all 
 contracts and securities based in whole or in 
 part on such unlawful sale, shall be void, ard 
 no action for liquor sold in another State in vi- 
 olation of the law of this State shall be main- 
 tained. 1 (Id., § 2407.) All peace officers shall 
 
 1 The United States Supreme Court has decided that any 
 State may not only lawfully suppress the manufacture of 
 liquor intended for consumption within the State, but also 
 the manufacture of liquor intended for transportation to 
 or sale in another State. (Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S., 1.) 
 
Legislation.! 
 
 299 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 see that the provisions of this chapter are ex- 
 ecuted and shall prosecute violations, under 
 penalty of $10 to $ 50 anc i forfeiture of their 
 offices. (Id , S 2408. ) 
 
 If any express or railway company, or com- 
 mon carrier shall transport liquor irom place 
 to place in this State, without certificate of the 
 Auditor as above mentioned, its agent so offend- 
 ing shall be fined $100. This offense is com- 
 plete in any county of this State to or through 
 which liquor is transported, or where unloaded, 
 (id., § 2110.) This section, in so far as it applied 
 to liquors brought into the State from another 
 State, was by the United States Supreme Court 
 declared to be unconstitutional, ns an attemnt to 
 regulate commerce between the States. 1 (Bow- 
 man v. Chicago & N. W. R R. Co., 125 U. S., 
 465. i Any person making a false statement to 
 procure transporation of liquor by a common 
 carrier, or falsely making it therefor, shall be 
 fined £100. (Code, 1888, § 2411.) Liquors shall 
 not be conveyed from point to point in this 
 Stat j by common carriers without being marked 
 as siich, and all liquors so carried shall be sub- 
 ject to seizure. (Id., $ 24f2.) 
 
 Every person, by himself or by associating 
 wi'h olherj, keeping a club or place in which 
 liquors are distributed or divided among mem 
 bers. shall be fined $100 to $500, or imprisoned 
 30 days to six months, lid., § 2413.) 
 
 Courts and juries shall construe the liquor 
 laws to prevent evasion, and so as to cover giv- 
 ing as well as selling. (Id., J? 2415.) 
 
 'Intoxicating liquors" include alcohol, ale, 
 wine, beer, spirituous, vinous and malt and all 
 intoxicating liquors whatever. (Id., § 2416.) 
 Any person, by selling liquor unlawfully, who 
 causss the intoxication of another, shall be 
 liable for his keep and $1 a day additional 
 (Id., S 2417.) Every wife, child, parent, 
 guardian, employer or other person, injured in 
 person, property or means of support, in con- 
 sequence of the intoxication of any person, has 
 right to action for actual and exemplary dam- 
 ages against the person or persons selling liquors 
 and causing such intoxication. (Id., tj 2418.) 
 
 For all fines, costs and judgments under the 
 liquor law, the real property of the defendant 
 and of ihe owner knowingly permitting the 
 business on his property, are liable. And any 
 bond given by defendant may be sued therefor. 
 (Id., S 2419.) 
 
 Persons making false statements to procure 
 liquor of those authorized to sell, shall be fined 
 $10 ; for the second offense, #20 and imprison- 
 ment 10 to 30 days. (Id.. S 2420.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (Code, 1888, 
 §2884; passed in 1886, c. 1.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by a majority of all the members o p 
 the two Houses, and if concurred in by similar 
 majorities in the next Legislature may be sub- 
 
 1 The Supreme Court has decided that so long as Con- 
 gress doe3 not specially authorize States to prohibit 
 the inter-State traffic in liquors, such imported liquors may 
 not only be lawfully imported into one State from another 
 State, but may also be Jold in the original packages at the 
 point of their destination, despite State prohibitions to the 
 contrary. (Leisy v. Hardin [1890], 135 U. S., 100.) But 
 by an act passed in 1890, Congress concedes to each State 
 the right to deal with imported liquors the same as with 
 liquors manufactured within its own borders. 
 
 mitted to the people for ratification or rejection 
 — a majority vote of the people being necessary. 
 
 Kansas. 
 
 Earliest Provisions.— The Laws of 1859, c. 91, 
 required the petition of a majority of the house- 
 holders of the township or ward for a license, 
 and $50 to $500 license fee. Selling without 
 license was fined not to exceed $100. felling 
 on Sunday, election day or 4th of July was 
 fined $25 to $100. with imprisonment 10 to 30 
 days and forfeiture of license. Persons licensed 
 had to give bond in $2,000. They were not to 
 sell to intoxicated persons or to married men 
 against the known wishes of their wives. Pull 
 civil damage provisions were included. This 
 act did not apply to corporate cities of over 
 1.000 inhabitants, which had full power to 
 regulate licenses themselves. 
 
 Complete Prohibition was 6 *cted for the 
 unorganized counties of the State in 1867. 
 (Laws, c. 81.) 
 
 The Constitutional Amendment. — In 1879, by 
 Laws, c. 165, the Amendment. "The manufac- 
 ture and sale of intoxicating liquors shall be 
 forever prohibited in this State, except for med- 
 ical, scientific and mechanical purposes," was 
 proposed, and it was adopted in 1880. becoming 
 §10 of Art. 15 of the Constitution. In 1881 
 was passed a complete Prohibitory law, which, 
 as amended in 1885 and 1887 is summarized 
 below. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — Any person 
 or persons who shall manufacture, sell or barter 
 any spirituous, malt, vinous, fermented, or other 
 intoxicating liquors, shall be guilty of a misde- 
 meanor, provided that such liquors may be sold 
 for medical, scientific and mechanical purposes, 
 as provided by law. (C. L, 1885, § 2287.) It shall 
 be unlawful to sell liquor for the above excepted 
 purposes without procuring a druggist's permit 
 therefor from the Probate Judge, who has dis- 
 cretion to grant the same for one year to any 
 person of good character who is a registered 
 pharmacist, engaged in the business of a drug- 
 gist, who can be intrusted with the responsibil- 
 ity of so selling ; and such Judge may at any 
 time revoke such permit. To obtain such per- 
 mit the applicant shall file, 30 days before hear- 
 ing thereon, a petition, signed by the applicant 
 and 25 reputable freeholders who are electors, 
 and 25 reputable women over 21 years, 
 residing; in the township, city of the third class 
 or ward, setting forth the place where such 
 business is located, that the applicant is of good 
 character, etc., and does not use liquor as a 
 beverage, and that said applicant has a stock 
 of drugs if in a city of at least $1,000 value, 
 or elsewhere MOO value. The applicant shall 
 publish a notice of his application, and shall be 
 required to prove the truth of every statement 
 in the petition ; and the County Attorney shall, 
 and any other citizen may, appear and oppose. 
 The permit, if granted, shall be recorded upon 
 the journal of the Probate Court, and a certified 
 copy thereof posted in a conspicuous place in 
 the store where the business is carried on. The 
 druggist shall file bond in $1,000 not to violate 
 the law. Any applicant or citizen may appeal 
 from the Probate Judge's decision to the Dis- 
 trict Court, but not therefrom. Upon a petition. 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 300 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 on oath, by 25 reputable men and 25 reputable 
 women of the township, city or ward afore- 
 said, requesting the revocation of the permit, 
 the Judge shall cite such druggist to appear ; 
 and if it appear that he id not in good faith car- 
 rying out the law, his permit may be cancelled. 
 On appeal as above, the permit shall be inoper- 
 ative until the appeal is decided. But the Pro- 
 bate Judge may cancel any permit at any time 
 of his own motion. Such Judge issuing a per- 
 mit to one not legally qualified shall be fined 
 $500 to $1,^00, and any person signing a petition 
 for any applicant known to him to be in the habit 
 of becoming intoxicated or not in good faith a 
 druggist, shall be fined $50 to £100. (Laws, 
 1887, c. 165, § 1.) 
 
 Any regular physician in case of actual 
 need may give prescription for liquor or ad- 
 minister it himself. But if he does so to evade 
 the law he shall be fined $100 to $500, or be im- 
 prisoned 10 to 90 days. (C. L , l!r85, § 2289.) 
 Any druggist having a permit may sell for 
 medical purposes only on affidavit of the 
 person for whom the liquor is required, setting 
 forth the purpose, kind and quantity, that it is 
 actually needed by the named patient, and 
 stating that it is not intended as a beverage and 
 that the applicant is over 21 years of age Such 
 druggists may sell for mechanical and scientific 
 ' purposes only upon a similar affidavit. There 
 shall be but one delivery on one affidavit , and no 
 druggist shall permit drinking on his premises. 
 Any such druggist may sell in quantities not 
 less than a gallon to another druggist having a 
 permit. The affidavits above required shall be 
 provided by the County Clerks in printed book 
 forms of 100 each, consecutively numbered. 
 The books must be indorsed with the date of 
 delivery and the name of the person to whom 
 delivered, and be signed and sealed with the 
 official seal. The Clerk must keep two exact 
 copies (except as to the numbers of the blanks), 
 a record of the series, and the numbers thereof 
 delivered to each druggist. The?e copies «f the 
 books must be filed one by the Clerk and one 
 in the office of the Probate Judge as well as the 
 Clerk's records of deliveries of bonks. Such 
 affidavits filed by the druggists, while they re- 
 main in book form, must with an affidavit be 
 returned monthly to the Probate Judge. The 
 druggist must also file at the same time an affi- 
 davit of the amounts of liquor purchased by 
 him and the amounts remaining on hand. The 
 Probate Judge shall receive no fees under this 
 act. but receives &15 per annum for each 1,000 
 inhabitants of his county, not to exceed $1,000. 
 
 Persons making false affidavits for liquors 
 shall be guilty of perjury and imprisoned 
 six months to two years. A person subscribing 
 any other name than his own to such shall be 
 guilty of forgery in the fourth degree. Persons 
 selling to others liquor so obtained, upon affi- 
 davit, as a beverage, shall be fined $100 to $500 
 and imprisoned 30 to 90 days. Each druggist 
 shall keep a daily record, in a book open for 
 inspection, of all liquors sold by him or his em- 
 ployees. (Laws, 1887, c. 165, § 2.) 
 
 No person shall manufacture liquor except 
 for the above- excepted purposes. To obtain a 
 permit therefor one must apply by petition 
 signed by 100 resident electors of the ward or 
 
 by a majority of those of the township or city 
 of the third class to the Probate Judge and file 
 bond in $10,000. Such manufacturer shall sell 
 only in original packages for such purposes, 
 and for medical purposes only, to druggists 
 duly authorized to sell, and shall not sell in less 
 quautities than five gallons. (Laws, 1887, c. 165, 
 §6.) 
 
 Persons selling directly or indirectly with- 
 out a permit shall be fined &100 to ^500 and im- 
 prisoned SO to 90 days. (Id., S 2293.) Persons 
 manufacturing without permit shall be so pun- 
 ished ; but making wine or cider from grapes 
 or apples grown by the maker for his own use, 
 or the sale of wine for communion purposes, is 
 excepted from the prohibition. (Id., fcj 2294.) 
 
 A druggist not keeping the required record, 
 or refusing permission to examine it, or failing to 
 sign or make returns of affidavits, or selling as 
 a beverage or when liquor is not a remedy for 
 the ailment described, or selling to any minor 
 or intoxicated person or habitual drunkard, or 
 allowing liquor to be drunk on the premises, 
 shall be fined $100 to $500 and imprisoned 30 to 
 90 days, forfeit his permit and be disqualified 
 to obtain another for five years. (Laws, 1S87, 
 c. 165, S 3.) 
 
 All liquors mentioned in § 2287, C. L., and 
 all other liquors or mixtures thereof, by what- 
 ever name called, that will produce intoxication, 
 will be held intoxicating liquors. (C. L., 1885, 
 § 2296.) 
 
 A permit to sell shall continue one year and a 
 permit to manufacture five years unless sooner 
 forfeited ; but the Probate Judge may require 
 the renewal of a manufacturer's bond at the 
 end of any year on 30 days' notice, upon pain of 
 forfeiture. (Id., §2297.) 
 
 It is the duty of all Sheriffs, Constables, 
 Marshals, Police Judges and police officers hav- 
 ing knowledge of violations of this law 1o no- 
 tify the County Attorney and furnish him the 
 names of witnesses. If any such officer fail to 
 do so. he shall be fined $100 to $500 and forfeit 
 his office, and such officer maybe removed there- 
 for by civil action. (Id., § 2298 ; amended, 
 1887, c. 165, § 9. ) 
 
 Places where liquors are manufactured or 
 sold unlawfully, or where persons are permit- 
 ted to resort for drinking liquor as a beverage, 
 are declared nuisances; and upon judgment 
 thereof the Sheriff, or any Constable or Mar- 
 shal, shall be directed to abate such places by 
 taking possession and publicly destroying liquors 
 found and all property used in keeping such 
 nuisance, and the keeper thereof sLdil be fined 
 *100 to 8-500 and imprisoned £0 to 90 days. 
 The County Attorney or any citizen may main- 
 tain action for such abatement. The "injunc- 
 tion shall be granted at ti.e commencement of 
 the action without' bond. Persons violating the 
 injunction shall be punished for contempt by 
 $100 to $500 fine and imprisonment SO days to 
 six months. (Laws, 1887, c. 165, £ 4. ) 
 
 Every person causing the intoxication of 
 another by sales to him of liquor shall be li- 
 able to any one for the charge of such-intoxicat- 
 ed person and $6 per day besides. (C. L., 1885, 
 § 2300.) Every wife, child, parent, guardian, 
 employer or other person who may be injured 
 in person, property or means of support by the 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 301 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 intoxication of any person has right of action 
 for actual as well as exemplary damages 
 against the person or persons causing such in- 
 toxication. (Id., § 230J.) 
 
 Every person, by himself or by associating 
 ■with others, keeping a club-room or place where 
 liquor is received and kept for sale, distribution 
 or division among the members, shall be pun- 
 ished by fine of $100 to $500 and imprisonment 
 30 days to six months. (Id., § 2302.) Giving 
 away liquor, or any shifts or devices to evade 
 the provisions of the law shall be deemed un- 
 lawful selling. (Id.. 2303.) 
 
 All fines and costs for any violation of this 
 law shall be a lien upon the real estate of the 
 defendant and upon the building or premises 
 where unlawful sales are knowingly permitted 
 by the owner. (Id., § 2304.) 
 
 Upon application to the Probate Judge to sell 
 or manufacture, the Judge shall notify the 
 County Attorney, who shall advise with him. 
 No person who shall inform under this act shall 
 be liable for costs unless the prosecution is 
 malicious or without probable cause. (Id., 
 §2305.) In prosecutions under this law it is not 
 necessary to state the kind of liquor sold or the 
 place where sold, except in nuisance cases and 
 those in which lien is sought against the premi- 
 ses ; nor is it necessary to state the name of the 
 person to whom sold, and it is not necessary to 
 prove in the first instance that the defendant did 
 not have a permit. The persons to whom liquor 
 is sold are competent witnesses, and so are the 
 meTib3i's of a club. No person is excused from 
 testifying on the ground that he will be incrim- 
 inated, but his testimony shall n ot be used against 
 him (Id., §2306.) 
 
 All Courts shall charge the Grand Juries 
 especially with this law. (Id., § 2307.) 
 
 If the County Attorney is notified by any 
 person or officer of any violation of this law, he 
 is authorized to subpoena any person he be- 
 lieves to have knowledge thereof to appear be- 
 fore him to testify ; and if such testimony dis- 
 close a violation the County Attorney shall file 
 a complaint against the person and in the war- 
 rant direct the officer to seize liquors which are 
 particularly in such person's possession, and such 
 liquora shall be destroyed or returned to the per- 
 son according to the result of the case. (Id., 
 § 2310.) If any testimony before the County At- 
 torney as above provided for discloses the sale 
 of liquor by an unknown person, said Attorney 
 upon complaint filed shall issue warrant to 
 search the premises as particularly described 
 and seize all liquors therein and arrest the keep- 
 ers thereof, who if found guilty shall be fined 
 $100 to ¥500 and be imprisoned 30 to 90 days, 
 and the property shall be seized and destroyed. 
 The County Attorney shall receive 20 per cent. 
 of all sums so collected (Id., § 2312.) 
 
 The County Attorney shall diligently prose- 
 cute violations of this law, and the bonds given 
 thereunder, and if he fail to do so is guilty of a 
 misdemeanor and shall be fined $100 to $ 500 and 
 imprisoned 10 to 90 days and forfeit his office. 
 "Whenever the County Attorney is unable or ne- 
 glects to so prosecute, the Attorney-General 
 shall do to in his stead. (Laws, 1887, c. 165, 
 §5.) 
 
 Any person receiving an order for liquors 
 
 from any person in this State, or contracting 
 with any such person for the sale thereof, ex- 
 cept such person is authorized to sell under this 
 law, shall be punished for selling liquors. (C. 
 L., 1885, §3314.) 
 
 Whenever any relative of any person notifies 
 any druggist that such person uses liquor as a 
 beverage and shall forbid sales to him, druggists 
 so selling to him shall be fined $100 to $500 and 
 imprisoned 30 days to six months, lid ,s3315. ) 
 Treating or giving liquor to any minor by any 
 person but the parent or guardian or physician 
 of such minor, shall be punished as last above. 
 (Id., § 2316.) 
 
 Common carriers knowingly carrying or de- 
 livering liquor to or for any person, to be used 
 unlawfully, shall be fined $100 to $500 and im- 
 prisoned 30 to 60 days. 
 
 Any citizen may employ an attorney to assist 
 the County Attorney to perform his duties as 
 associate-counsel. (Id., §2318.) 
 
 County Clerks or Probate Judges neglecting 
 or refusing to perform their duties under this 
 law shall be fined $500 to $1,000 and forfeit 
 their offices. (Laws, 1887, c. 165, § 7.) 
 
 Drunkenness in any public place, or in one's 
 own house disturbing his family or others, is 
 fined not over $25, or punished by imprisonment 
 not exceeding 30 days, or both. (C. L., 1885, 
 §2223.) 
 
 In any election hereafter held in any city of 
 the first, second or third class, for the election of 
 city or school officers or for the purpose of au- 
 thorizing the issuance of any bonds for school 
 purposes, the right of any citizen to vote shall 
 not be denied or abridged on account of sex ; 
 and women may vote at such elections thesimc 
 as men, under like restrictions and qualifica- 
 tions, and any woman possessing the qualifica- 
 tions of a voter under this act shall be eligible 
 to any such city or school office. (G. S., 1889, 
 § 1084 ; passed 1887, Laws. c. 230.) 
 
 The Governor shall by the advice and con- 
 sent of the Senate appoint a Board of Police 
 Commissoners of three members in any city of 
 the first class, provided he may refrain from 
 making such appointment if not nece-sary for 
 the good government of the city, in each case. 
 (G. S , 1889, § 733, § 1 ; passed 1887, c. 100, S 1.) 
 These Commissioners shall appoint a Police 
 Judge and a Marshal who shall be Chief of 
 Police, and as many policemen as necessary 
 (not exceeding one for every 1,500 inhabitants i. 
 Thsy may appoint special policemen to serve at 
 any designated time or place at the expense of 
 the persons applying therefor. (Id.. §§ 734-5.) 
 Neither the Mayor nor Council shall have any 
 government of such police force. I Id. , § 739. ) The 
 Attorney General of the State or the Assistant At- 
 torney-General of each county may upon petition 
 of 50 householders, or shall upon direction of the 
 Executive Council, prosecute an action in quo 
 warranto against the Mayor and Councilman of 
 any city of the second class which by means of 
 license pretends to authorize, or by simulated 
 fines or forfeiture attempts to foster and en- 
 courage the illegal manufacture and sale of in- 
 toxicating liquors, or shields offenders against 
 the laws of the State relating thereto, or habitual- 
 ly neglects to require the police officers to per- 
 form their duties under such laws. (Id., §743.) 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 302 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 In case of ouster of the Mayor in such suit, the 
 Governor shall appoint Police Commissioners as 
 in case of cities of the first class. (Id.. § 745. ) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (G. S., 1889, 
 § 5669 ; passed in 1885, c. 169.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may he 
 proposed by vote of two-thirds of each House, 
 at one session ; popular vote to be taken at the 
 next general election of Representatives, three 
 months' notice to be given. A majority carries 
 it. 
 
 Kentucky. 
 
 Earliest Provisions. - In 1793 the existing Vir- 
 ginia acts were repealed. Licenses were to be 
 given by the County Courts to persons not of 
 bad character, upon their giving bond in £100 to 
 provide tavern accommodations for travelers, 
 not to suffer unlawful gaming, or suffer any 
 person to tipple or drink more than necessary, 
 or allow disorder. Selling without license was 
 fined £3, and on second offense the liquor was 
 confiscated besides. Producers of liquor might 
 retail not less than a quart not to be drunk on 
 the premises. (Littel's Stats , vol. 1, p 194.) In 
 1819 it was provided that County Courts 
 were not to grant licenses unless a majority of 
 the Justices of the Peace of the county were 
 present and the applicants showed that they had 
 tavern accommodations. Persons making tavern- 
 keeping a mere pretense to sell liquor were li- 
 able to $200 fine (half to the informer). (Laws, 
 1819, c. 467. ) In 1823 it was provided that cider 
 and beer might be retailed without license. 
 (Laws, 1823, c. 639.) A license tax of $10 was 
 required in 1831. (Laws, c. 595.) By the Laws 
 of 1833, c. 511, tavern-keepers had to take oath 
 not to sell to slaves except by permission of 
 their masters, and persons of color were not to 
 be licensed. In 1845 (Laws, c. 417. g§ 1, 2, 3 
 and 4), it was made unlawful for any free negro 
 or mulatto to manufacture or sell any spirituous 
 liquors, upon penalty of $50 to $300 and com- 
 mittal until paid. In 1848 (Laws, c. 654), licenses 
 to retail spirituous liquors were taxed $10 for 
 the county, and persons licensed by any town or 
 city were not to sell until such tax was paid. 
 In 1849 selling or giving liquor to slaves was 
 fined $50, with forfeiture of license, if any. 
 (Laws, 1849, c. 444.) 
 
 'Legislation Since 1850.— By the Revenue act 
 of 1850 (Laws, c. 14 1, license to retail liquor was 
 kept at $10 and a merchant's license to sell 
 liquor at $5 And c. 490 of the same laws pro- 
 hibited adulteration of liquor and provided for 
 analysis of suspected liquors and fine of not 
 more than $500 or less than 20 cents per gallon 
 for knowingly buying or selling adulterated 
 liquor, and Inspectors were to condemn the 
 liquor. The privilege of selling spirituous 
 liquor was declared not to be implied in any 
 tavern, coffee-house or restaurant license, but 
 to be taxed for the State extra at $10 to $25 in 
 the discretion of the licensing authority. Mer- 
 chants', druggists' and other licenses to sell not 
 less than one quart were to be granted by County 
 Courts at $5 to 815, but no druggist selling ex- 
 clusively for medical purposes needed a license. 
 (Laws, 1851, c. 116.) On p. 41 of the same ses- 
 sions' laws, taverns were regulated as having 
 
 liquor-selling rights, and their suppression for 
 being dsorderly and unlawfully selling liquor, 
 as well as for not providing sufficient accommo- 
 dations to travelers, was provided for. Dis- 
 tillers were allowed licenses as merchants. 
 Keeping a tippling-bouse without license was 
 fined $60 ; and retailing without license within 
 a mile of a place of worship was fined fsaO. 
 
 Selling to a minor without consent of his 
 parent was prohibited in 1859. (Laws, c. 1133.) 
 This provision was amended in 1869 (Laws, c. 
 232) to include lager beer in Louisville. 
 
 By the Laws of 1865-6. c. 886. all licenses to 
 sell liquor granted by special act were repealed, 
 and at this session began the series of local acts 
 prohibiting licensing, prohibiting selling and 
 providing Local Option in special localities 
 having schools and churches, and also granting 
 Prohibition or Local ( iption in districts, towns 
 and counties. These acts soon became very 
 numerous each session, and culminated in a Gen- 
 eral Local Option law in 1874, though the num- 
 ber of special acts passed by the Legislature for 
 localities did not decrease, and such special acts 
 are still passed at each session. 
 
 There are no other features of the progress of 
 legislation to justify tracing the sequence of en- 
 actments. 
 
 The Law as Lt Existed in 1889.— Licenses to 
 sell at retail spirituous, vinous or malt liquors 
 shall be granted by the County Court ; but no 
 such license shall be granted until 10 days' notice 
 has been had by posting in five places, or if a 
 majority of the legal voters of the neighbor- 
 hood protest against the same. The Court shall 
 determine what is the neighborhood in each 
 case. (G. S , 1887, p. 1047, g 1.) 
 
 The tax on licenses shall be to retail spirit- 
 uous and vinous liquoralone, $100 ; malt liquor 
 alone, $50 ; all three, $150. (Id., § 2.) Selling 
 any liquors without a license is fined $20 to 
 $100. (Laws, 1887-8, p. 70.) Persons selling 
 in packages of less than five gallons shall be 
 considered as retail dealers. (G. S., 1887, p. 1048, 
 §3.) 
 
 The license shall specify the place of busi- 
 ness, and none but the person named can sell 
 under the same, nor shall it be done at any other 
 place. It is valid for one year only and is not 
 assignable, nor shall the Clerk give copies or 
 duplicates thereof. (Id., p. 1049, § 9.) A license 
 granted by a city or town having authority 
 shall be void unless the State license be obtain- 
 ed and the Stale tax paid. (Id., §10.) 
 
 It shall be unlawful for any druggist in any 
 place where the sale of spirituous, vincus or malt 
 liquor is prohibited by law, to sell any such 
 liquor or any nostrum containing alcohol which 
 may be used as a beverage, unless he obtain a 
 license to do business as a druggist in such 
 place from the County Court. (G.~S.,1887, p. 
 502, § 1. ) Any person desirous cf such a license 
 shall give 10 days' notice of application Ihere- 
 for, to be posted and to be given the County At- 
 torney. (Id., § 2.) The County Court may 
 upon proof of the required notices and that the 
 applicant is of good character and in good faith 
 a dealer in drugs and medicines, grant a license 
 to sell liquors under this act, provided he give 
 bond not to violate the liquor laws. (Id., § 3.) 
 Any dr.:ggist selling any liquor in any place 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 303 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 ■where retailing is prohibited without obtaining 
 this license, or while his license is suspended, is 
 fined $50 to S100 or imprisoned 10 to 30 days, 
 or both. (Id., §4.) No person so licensed un- 
 der this act shall sell any liquor except upon 
 the regular prescription of a regular practicing 
 physician, which prescription shall be pasted in 
 a book and preserved by the druggist, and such 
 prescription shall authorize but one sale and no 
 morj than a quart (Id., § 5.) Those violaiiag 
 the last section are liable to tine of £50 to jlOO. 
 (Id., Sj 6.) And upon such judgment the license 
 shall be forfeited. And any surety on the bond 
 of a licensee may be released upon application, 
 and the license be suspended until a new bond 
 is given. (Id., § 7.) Any physician giving 
 such a prescription not in good' faith, upon a 
 proper examination, and believing the person to 
 be sick and in need of such liquor as a med- 
 icine, shall be fined $50 to $"200. (Id., § 8.) 
 
 Any person charged on affidavit with a viola- 
 tion, upon examination by a magistrate, shall 
 be held to bail or committed to answer, i Id , 
 § 9.) It is the duty of the County Attorney to 
 resist the improper granting of licenses under 
 this act. (Id., §10.) A rejected applicant for 
 such a license has an appeal to the Circuit 
 Court, where tin application shall be heard de 
 novo. (G. 8., 1887, pp. 504-5.) 
 
 Tavern licensees must give bonds not to suffer 
 any person to tipple or drink more than is ne- 
 cessary in their houses. (G. S., 1887, p. 1231, 
 §4.) 
 
 The County Court may suppress tavern 
 licenses for violations of the bond until the next 
 County Court session, when if the tavern- 
 keeper is guilty he will be disqualified to keep a 
 tavern thereafter; if not, he will be restored to 
 his right. (Id.. § 5.) Any tavern-keeper who 
 sells liquor while his license is so suppre-sed or 
 suspended, or until the order for the same i? re- 
 versed, is guilty of keeping a tippling-house. 
 (G S., 1887, p. 1232, §9.) 
 
 The County Court shall every year fix the 
 prices to be paid in taverns for wines, liquors, 
 lodging, diet, etc.; penalty, $30 fine. (Id., § 11.) 
 Every tavern-keeper must keep such scale of 
 prices posted up in his public room under penal- 
 ty of $75. (Id, 8 12.) 
 
 The Clerk of the county shall make out a 
 list of licensed taverns and vendors of spirit- 
 uous liquors in his county and deliver it to the 
 Circuit Court to be laid before the Grand Jury 
 on the first day of every term, under penalty 
 of $20. (Id , ?5 13.) 
 
 A merchant may sell at his storehouse, to be 
 taken off and drunk elsewhere, any liquor not 
 less than a quart, on obtaining of the County 
 Court a license. (G. 8., 1887. p. 1233, {5 1.) 
 License will be so granted upon satisfactory evi- 
 dence that the applicant is in good faith a mer- 
 chant and his business is that of retailing mer- 
 chandise, and that he has not assumed it with 
 the object of obtaining a license to sell liquors. 
 (Id., §2.) Distillers have the privilege of sell- 
 ing at their residences any spirits of their own 
 manufacture, not less than a quart, not to be 
 drunk on the premises. (G. 8., 1887, p. 1234, 
 
 The privilege to sell liquors shall not be im- 
 plied in any license to keep a tavern or coffee- 
 
 house. boarding-house, restaurant or other 
 place of entertainment, unless Ihj licensing au- 
 thority deem it expedient and specify the priv- 
 ilege in such license. (Id., pp 1234-5.) On 
 trial for suffering a person to tipple or diink 
 more than is necessary in a tavern or coffee- 
 house, the intoxicatio.1 of any habitue of such 
 place shall be prima facie evidence. (Id., p. 
 1235, § 2.) It shall be deemed a breach of the 
 bond of any licensed retailer if he sell or 
 give liquor to an intoxicated person. (Id., 
 § 3.) Any licensee shall be fined £23 for selling 
 to any known inebriate And any relative or 
 the inebriate may recover a like amount for his 
 own benefit if notice has by such relative been 
 previously given forbidding such sales. (Id., p. 
 1235.) 
 
 Upon written petition of at least 20 legal 
 voters in any civil district, town or city in his 
 county, the County Judge shall make an order 
 directing the Sheriff or other officer to open a 
 poll in such place at the next regular State, 
 town, city or county election held therein, to 
 take the sense of the voters whether or not 
 liquors shall be sold therein. (G. 8., 1887, p. 
 470, § 1.) Such officer shall give notice of such 
 election two weeks in a newspaper and by post- 
 ing hand-bills 20 days before the election. (Id., 
 § 3.) At the poll the question shall be pro- 
 pounded, "Are you in favor of the sale of 
 spirituous, vinous or malt liquors in this dis- 
 trict, town or city ? " (Id., § 4. ) If a majority 
 is against selling, that fact shall be certified to 
 the Clerk, who at the next term shall have the 
 same spread upon the order-book. (Id., § 5.) 
 After such entry any person selling liquor in 
 that district shall be fined 825 to $100. 'Id., 
 § 6.) This act shall not apply to any manufac- 
 turer or wholesale dealer, or to druggists selling 
 on physicians' prescriptions. But physicians 
 must not give such prescriptions except for 
 medicine for a person actually sick. (Id., § 7. ) 
 The County Judge shall not make an order for 
 such an election until the signers of the petition 
 have deposited with him sufficient money to pay 
 advertising expenses and legal fees, (id., tj 8.) 
 f'uch an election shall not be held oftener than 
 once in two years. (Id., § 9.) 
 
 Persons knowingly selling or preparing for 
 sale any wine or liquor containing any adul- 
 teration shall be fined not more than $500 for 
 each offense or less than $20 for each gallon so 
 adulterated. (G. S., 1887, p. 787, § 8 ) When 
 an Inspector suspects liquor to be adulterated 
 he shall procure its analysis by a skilful chemist 
 at the cost of the owner, and if it contains any- 
 thing impure or other than the extract of grain 
 or substance from which it ought to be made, 
 he shall mark the cask -'condemned for im- 
 purity." (G. S., 1887, p. 787, S 1.) In prosecu- 
 tions against wholesale dealers under this sec- 
 tion the fact of rectifying the liquor shall be 
 primafacie evidence of any adulteration on the 
 part of the dealer. (Id., p. 788, § 2.) 
 
 A tavern-keeper indicted for breach of his 
 obligation, on conviction shall have judgment 
 rendered against him, and such of his sureties 
 as have notice, for $300. (G. S.. 1887, p 459, 
 S 1.) Any tavern-keeper receiving a greater price 
 than tavern rates fixed shall be fined #5. (Id., 
 3 2. ) Any person (unless licensed) selling liquor 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 304 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 to be drank on the premises, shall b3 guilty of 
 keeping a tippling-house and fined $60. (Id., 
 g 3.) For keeping a tippling house three months 
 he shall be liable in $-00. (Id., p. 460, § 4.) 
 Twice selling in the same house shall be evi 
 dence of keeping a tippling-house. (Id., £ 5.) 
 Any person retailing without authority shall 
 be fined $20. (Id., § 6.) No person shall vend 
 or buy liquor within a mile of any place of 
 public worship during service, except in au- 
 thorized houses, upon pain of $10 fine. (Id., 
 §7.) It is unlawful to sell within one mile of any 
 lock or dam where the general Government is 
 improving a stream, under psnalty of $50 to 
 $100. This does not apply to incorporated 
 places or to Henry, Anderson and McLean 
 Counties. (G. S., 1887, p. 461.) 
 
 Any person selling to an '• infant" under 21 
 years of age, without special direction of the 
 father or guardian, shall be, fined $50, but if to a 
 person over 18 years, the seller shall not be 
 deemed g.iilty if he had reason to believe him 
 21. (Id., § 9.) 
 
 Selling on Sunday, or keeping a bar or store 
 for the sale of liquor on Sunday, is unlawful 
 and subject to a fine of $2 to $50, and the third 
 offense forfeits license. (G. S.. 1887, pp. 436-7.) 
 
 No liquors shall be sold in any room where a 
 billiard, pigeon-hole or pool-table is kept, upon 
 penalty of 460. (G. S., 1887, p. 1052, § 21.) 
 
 Distilled spirits are taxed as other property 
 for State and county purposes. (G. S , 1887, 
 pp. 1092-6.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 obtained only through the action of a Consti- 
 tutional Convention, provision for calling such 
 Convention to be made by vote of a majority of 
 the two Houses during the first 20 days of any 
 regular session, and to be concurred in by a ma- 
 jority vote of the electors at the next general 
 election for Representatives. 
 
 Louisiana. 
 
 Early Provisions. — An undated law, at p. 41 of 
 the Laws of Louisiana Territory (St. Louis, 1809). 
 gave the Courts of Quarter Sessions the right to 
 grant licenses ; selling without license was fined 
 $10 per day; $10 to $30 was 1 charged for li- 
 cense, and pales by unlicensed persons were 
 fined $5. But the act of 1805, at the second 
 session of the Legislative Council of the Ter- 
 ritory, gave the County Judge the licensing 
 power. The licensee was to pay a tax of $30 
 and give a bond in $500 to obey the law. Sell- 
 ing without license was fined $49. The act did 
 not apply to New Orleans. (2 Martin's Dig., p. 
 429.) An act of 1806 required the applicant for 
 an inn-license to be recommended by two free- 
 holders. No one was to sell or give liquor to a 
 slave without consent of hi3 master, or to any 
 Indian under penalty of $20 and forfeiture of 
 license. Merchan ts or shopkeepers might sell 
 in quantities over two quarts. Selling to United 
 States soldiers without permission of their 
 commandant, and allowing gaming, were fined 
 $^0 (half to the informer). (Id., p. 430.) 
 
 The act of 1812 punished selling to Indians by 
 fine of $200 (half to the informer), besides 
 making the seller liable for any damages arising 
 from the Indian's intoxication. (Id., p. 438.) 
 
 Under the Black Code (passed in 1806), selling 
 liquor to a slave without the master's written 
 permission was fined $20 to $100 and rendered 
 the seller liable to the master for any damages 
 suffered. (1 Id., p. 622.) 
 
 The act of 1822 repealed the license tax, gavs 1 
 the police juries of parishes power to tai 
 liquor-sellers as they thought proper and gave 
 to the Mayor and Council of incorporated towns 
 full power w regulate them, the tax to be levied 
 not to exceed the State tax, except in New Or- 
 leans. (Dig. Laws, 1828, p. 566.) 
 
 By the Laws of 1848, No. 95. anyone selling 
 or giving liquor to a slave forfeited his license, 
 disqualified himself ever after to te licensed 
 and was fined $200 to $400, and for the second 
 offense $400 to $800. The owners or superin- 
 tendents of slaves were excepted from this act 
 
 Selling within two miles of Pleasant Hill 
 Academy was prohibited by Laws of 1850, No. 
 286 ; but this did not apply to the regular deal- 
 ers of the district. 
 
 Local Option Law of 1852. — By Laws of 
 1852, No. 105, the police juries of the parishes, 
 the Selectmen of towns and Mayor and Alder- 
 men of cities were given exclusive power to 
 make such laws and regulations for the sale or 
 prohibition of the sale of liquor as they should 
 deem advisable, and to grantor withhold license 
 for sale thereof as the majority of the voters 
 of any ward, parish, town or city might deter 
 mine by ballot. The State relinquished all 
 right to grant such license but held the right 
 to collect the State tax from such licensed 
 drinking-houses and shops. This was re-enacted 
 with provision that the police juries and munic 
 ipal authorities should adopt rules and regula- 
 tions for the annual elections upon the subject, 
 and that the act should be given in charge to the 
 Grand Juries. (Laws, 1854, No. 221. ) 
 
 Legislation of 1859-79.— Licensing of free 
 negroes to keep coffee-houses, billiard-tables or 
 retail stores where spirituous liquors were sold, 
 was forbidden. (Laws, 1859, No. 16.) 
 
 By the Revenue act of 1869 (Laws, No 114, 
 § 3), every person selling wines or liquors by 
 the drink was taxed $1 50, to go to the State By 
 the Election law of 1870 (c. 100 §£ 41-44), drink- 
 ing-saloons within two miles of any polling- 
 place were to be closed, and officers refusing to 
 obey the election officers and close them were, 
 imprisoned three to six months and fined $100 
 to $500. Peace officers might issue warrant to 
 any police officer or constable to close such 
 places, and such functionary should seize the 
 liquors, and the vessels, tents or booths contair- 
 ing them, and hold them until 24 hours after 
 the election, releasing them on payment of §10 
 
 In 1 877 keepers of liquor places were prohi- 
 bited selling liquor to a minor without an order 
 sisned by his father, mother or tutor. (Laws, 
 1877, c. 116.) Licenses to sell liquor to te 
 drunk on the premises but not otherwise, were 
 required to be obtained of the State Tax Col- 
 lector. Then followed elaborate provisions for 
 the use by each dealer of a barroom register or 
 "Moffatt Register,' to register every drink sold 
 by turning a crank and striking a bell once for 
 each five cents paid by the customer, a tax of 
 one-fourth of one cent being levied on each fiv3 
 cents of receipts. Every violation of the act 
 
Legislation. ] 
 
 305 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 was fined not over $100 (one-third to the in- 
 former), wilh forfeiture of license and disquali- 
 fication to hold one thereafter for one year. 
 (Laws, 1878, No. 26 ) This law was repealed 
 by Laws of 1879, No. 27, which imposed an 
 occupation tax of 885 on sellers by the drink 
 and ¥15 on those selling less than a gallon but 
 not les? than a bottle, not to be drunk on the 
 premises. 
 
 Tlu Law as It Existed in 1889.— The regula- 
 tion of the sale of alcoholic or spirituous liquors 
 is declared a police regulation, and the General 
 Assembly may enact "laws governing the sale 
 and use. (Const., art. 170.) The Gjneral As- 
 sembly shall by law forbid the giving or selling 
 of intoxicating drinks on the day of election 
 within one mile of pre3incts at any election 
 held within this State. (Const., art. 190.) The 
 General Assembly may levy a license tax, and 
 in such case shall graduate the amount of such 
 tax to be collected from the persons pursuing 
 the several trades, professions, vocations and 
 callings. ... No political corporation shall 
 impose a greater tax than is imposed by the 
 General Assembly for State purposes. (Const., 
 art. 2J6.) 
 
 The police juries of the several parishes, and 
 the municipal authorities of the towns and 
 cities, shall have exclusive power to make such 
 laws and r 'gulations for the sale or prohibition 
 of the sale of liquor as they may deem ad- 
 visable, and to grant or withold licenses from 
 drinking-houses and shops within the limits of 
 any city ward of a parish or town, as the ma- 
 jority of the voters thereof may determine by 
 ballot ; and the said ballot shall be taken when- 
 ever deemed necessary by the above-named au- 
 thorities, not oftener than once a year. (R. L , 
 1881, S 1211.) The Slate relinquishes all right 
 to grant licenses in any town, city or parish in 
 which it is not granted by the authorities. 
 "Whenever any licenses maybi granted theState 
 shall have power to collect the tax coming to 
 the State for such licensed drinking-houses or 
 shops. (Id., §1212.) 
 
 It shall be the duty of the Judges of the 
 ssveral District Courts of this State, and the 
 Judge of the Criminal Court of the parish of 
 Orleans, to call the attention of the Grand 
 Jury to the laws regulating the sale of liquors, 
 at each jury term. (1:1., g 1213.) It shall be the 
 duty of the police juries of the several parishes 
 and the municipal authorities aforesaid, to adopt 
 such regulations as may be necessary to carry 
 out this act. (Id.. §1214.) 
 
 Keepers of any disorderly inn, tavern, ale- 
 house, tippling-house, etc., shall be fined or 
 imprisoned, or both, at the discretion of the 
 Court, and forfeit their licenses. (Id., § 908) 
 "Whoever shall keep a grog or tippling-shop, or 
 retail liquors without license, shall be fined $100 
 to $500. (Id., § 910; amended by Laws of 
 1886, No. 83, by making defense of sale on pre- 
 scription good only in case of good faith.) 
 
 Selling to minors is prohibited as in Laws of 
 1877, c. 116, cited above. 
 
 By the Revenue law of 1886 (Laws, No. 101, 
 p. 181). licenses to retail liquor were placed at 
 from §50 for those doing a business of less than 
 $2,000 annually to $750 for those receiving over 
 $50,000 annually, in nine classes. Distilling, 
 
 rectifying and brewing are taxed from $15 to 
 $3,500 in 20 classes according to annual re- 
 ceipts, lid., p. 176.) The same act, from p. 184 
 on, provides ways of enforcing and collecting 
 licenses which are purely revenue rules rather 
 than liquor or restrictive regulations. 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temper- 
 ance instruction in the public schools. (Laws, 
 1888, No. 40 ) 
 
 Lotteries. — Louisiana at this time (1890) en- 
 joys the distinction of being the only State that 
 sanctions lotteries. The Constitution (art. 167) 
 provides that the General Assembly has author- 
 ity to grant lottery charters or privileges, lor 
 not less than $40,000, to be paid annually into 
 the State Treasury. All such charters shall 
 cease Jan. 1, 1895. from which time all lotteries 
 are prohibited. The charter of the Louisiana 
 State Lottery Company is recognized as a con- 
 tract binding upon the State until that period, 
 1 except its monopoly clause, which is abrogated. 
 
 At the legislative session of 1890, an act was 
 passed submitting a proposed Constitutional 
 Amendment for re-chartering the Lottery 
 Company. 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by vote of two-thirds of all the mem- 
 bers of the two Houses, at one session ; popular 
 vote to be taken at the next general election for 
 Representatives, three months' notice to be 
 given. A majority carries it. 
 
 Maine. 
 
 Early Provisions. — Chapter 133 of the Public 
 Laws of 1821 was the first license act. It pro- 
 vided that no one should presume to be a com- 
 mon victualler, innholder, or seller of wine, 
 beer, ale, cider, brandy, rum or any strong liq- 
 uors by retail, or in a less quantity than 
 28 gallons delivered at one time, except he was 
 duly licensed, on pain of forfeiting $50 ; and if 
 any person sold spirituous liquors or mixed liq- 
 uors any part of which was spirituous, with- 
 out license, he should forfeit $10. (P. L., 1821. 
 c. 133, tj 1.) The Selectmen, Treasurer and 
 Clerk of each town were to meet on the second 
 Monday in September, after posting notice 
 thereof seven days, to license any persons of 
 sober life and conversation qualified for th3 em- 
 ployment. Each person so licensed was to pay. 
 for the use of the town, $6. and 25 cents to the 
 Clerk. And at any other time license might be 
 granted on payment of $1. and 50 cents per 
 month thereafter. (Id, §2.) No such license 
 was to allow billiards or gaming, on penalty of 
 $10, the person playing forfeiting $5. (Id.,§ 4.) 
 Nor was he to suffer revelling or disorderly 
 conduct, on penalty of $5, the reveller to pay 
 $2 And no retailer was allowed to suffer any 
 one to drink to excess upon his premises, or 
 suffer minors or s rvants to sit drinking there, 
 without permission of parents, guardians or 
 masters respectively, on penalty of $5. (Id., 
 § 5. ) The Selectmen were to post up, in all liq- 
 uor-places, the names of all persons reputed to 
 be common drunkards, tipplers or gamesters, 
 after which such persons could not be sold 
 drink on penalty of $5. (Id, $ 6.) Liquor- 
 sellers were not to entertain any persons, lodgers 
 excepted, drinking or spending their time 
 Saturday or Sunday evenings, on penalty of ;3, 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 306 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 (Id., c 9, § 5.) The act of 1824, c. 278, forbade 
 licensed persons to sell in more than one place; 
 and if any licensed person violated the law his 
 license could not be renewed for two years. 
 The Laws of 1829, c. 423, prohibited sales to 
 soldiers of the United States' Army, without 
 permission of the commandant, if such com- 
 manding- officer posted in the office of the Town 
 Clerk a list of those belonging to his corps. 
 
 Rudimentary Local Option (1829). — Chapter 
 436 of the same year separated licenses to victual- 
 ed and innholders from those to retailers of 
 liquors, prohibiting the former classes of li- 
 censees to sell liquors to be drunk on the 
 premises. And licenses to retail liquor to be 
 drunk on the premises were only allowed after 
 a vote at annual town meeting in favor of grant- 
 ing such licenses. This act provided that the 
 Licensing Board might revoke licenses for 
 violations of the law. 
 
 Chapter 482 of the Laws of 1830 simply con- 
 solidated the former licensing sections and re- 
 duce! the licenses of those not selling liquors to 
 $3. It, however, added a penalty of $10 for 
 selling to Indians, unless under direction of a 
 physician. It was provided that those aggrieved 
 by any refusal to grant license or by any revo- 
 cation of license, might appeal to the County 
 Commissioners, who might grant the person a 
 license in case of the improper withholding or 
 revoking of license. (Laws, 1833, c. 77.) 
 
 Annual License Fee, $1 (1834). — The act of 
 1834 ( Laws, c. 141), repealed all former acts and 
 provided that license should be granted for $1, 
 but exacted a bond in §300, the penalty of which 
 was forfeited for disobeying the law. The 
 special prohibitions and penalties were the 
 same as in the first act in 1821. 
 
 Chapter 84 of laws of 1844 gave the Selectmen 
 of towns power to license inns and common 
 victuallers, restricting and prohibiting them 
 frbm selling wine or any strong liquors by re- 
 tail or in less quantity than 28 gallons at a time. 
 
 The Prohibitory Laic of 1846. — By c. 205, Laws 
 of 1846 (Aug. 7, 1846), the Selectmen at an an- 
 nual meeting (of which seven days' notice had 
 been given) might license one person in every 
 town of less than 1.000 inhabitants, two in any 
 having over 1,000, and three to five in any hav- 
 ing over 3 000, to be sellers of wines and strong 
 liquors for medical and mechanical purposes 
 only. All other selling was prohibited. The 
 p nalty for selling in violation of these 
 1 revisions was $1 to $20. On conviction for a 
 recond offense the offender was fined $5 to *20 
 and was to give bond in $50 not to violate the 
 act for six months. And on breach of such 
 bind license was to bs revoked. Provisions 
 denying right of action on obligations to pay 
 for liquor sold in violation of the law. and for 
 recovering payments made for such liquor, were 
 added. 
 
 In 1848, by Laws, c. 67, the above-mentioned 
 law was amended by adding the word '■ intoxi- 
 cating " so as to provide for the prohibition of 
 wine or spirituous or intoxicating liquors. 
 
 Selling liquor within two miles of cattle- 
 shows was prohibited to those not licensed by 
 Laws of 1849, No. 147. 
 
 Being a common seller of liquor without li- 
 cense was punished by forfeiture of $20 to $300 
 
 or by imprisonment 80 days to six months. 
 (Laws, 1850, c 202. j 
 
 The Maine Law of 1851.— The Prohibitory 
 law which was the type and example of such 
 laws passed since and called ''Maine laws" 
 wherever adopted, was passed June 2. 1851, as 
 c. 211 of the laws of that year. It prohibited 
 any one to manufacture or sell any intoxicating 
 liquors, except as thereinafter provided. It 
 empowered towns and cities to appoint agents 
 for the sale of liquor for medicinal and mechani- 
 cal purposes only. It punished selling in viola- 
 tion of the act, for the first conviction $10, 
 second $20. third $20, with imprisonment three 
 to six months. Clerks and agents were made 
 equally guilty with principals. If any one of 
 the Selectmen or Mayor and Aldermen indorsed 
 his approval of the writ, the defendant was to 
 recover costs. It was made the duty of these 
 officers to prosecute violations of the law on he 
 ing informed of them. 
 
 If the defendant prosecuted an appeal he was 
 to give bond not to violate any of the provi- 
 sions of the act pending the appeal, and in the 
 event of final conviction the defendant was to 
 suffer double the punishment first awarded 
 against him. 
 
 This last paragraph was declared unconstitu- 
 tional for increasing the penalty on account of 
 taking out an appeal (State v. Gurney, 37 Me., 
 156), and for requiring a bond before appeal 
 was allowed. (Saev v. Wentworth, 17 Me., 165.) 
 
 The municipal authorities were to revoke the 
 appointment of A gent upon complaint and hear- 
 ing thereupon, and prosecute his bond. Manu- 
 facturing and being a common seller without 
 such appointment were punished in$lC0 for the 
 first conviction. $200 for the second, and $200 
 with four months' imprisonment for third. 
 Persons engaged in the unlawful traffic in in- 
 toxicating liquors were declared incompetent ,. 
 to sit upon any jury in any case under the act. 
 
 Search warrants, seizure and destruction of 
 liquor were authorized upon complaint of three 
 inhabitants. And liquor was again made void 
 consideration for any promise to pay or pay- 
 ment made. 
 
 Definition of the Term "Maine Law." — A 
 "Maine Law," then, is one prohibiting the 
 manufacture and sale of intoxicating liqucr ex- 
 cept by specially appointed or permitted agents 
 who may sell for excepted purposes only, with 
 provision for search, seizure and forfeiture of 
 liquors kept for illegal sale. Nuisance and civil 
 damage clauses were seldom inserted in such 
 laws until they ceased being called Maine laws 
 and were simply called Prohibitory liquor laws. 
 Bolh of such last-named provisions may he 
 found in stringent license laws, as well as search 
 and seizure clauses. 
 
 By c. 48, Laws of 1853, the search, seizure 
 and forfeiture provisions of the law were greatly 
 elaborated and provisions to meet cases of de- 
 stroying liquors to prevent seizure were includ- 
 ed. Liquors used by any chemist, artist or man- 
 ufacturer in his trade and the manufacture of 
 cider aDd the sale thereof by the manufacturer, 
 were exempted from the provisions of the law. 
 
 Agents were prohibited selling to miners with- 
 out order of parent, and to intempi rate persons. 
 
 Adulteration was prohibited and becoming 
 
Legislation] 
 
 307 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 intoxicated -was punished by 30 days' imprison- 
 ment, which might be remitted whenever the 
 Judge was satisfied the objects of the law and 
 the good of the public would be advanced there- 
 by- 
 
 The penalties were made $20 for first convic- 
 tion, *20 and 30 days' imprisonment for second. 
 $20 and 60 days for third, and $20 and four 
 months for fourth and subsequent ones. 
 
 The law was entirely re-enacted in a very 
 elaborate shap.? in 1855 (Laws, c. 136). Every- 
 thing was wrought out in detail, especially in 
 the search, seizure and forfeiture clauses. Ex- 
 ceptions in irregular and additional cases that 
 had arisen or misht arise in practice were sought 
 to be provided for within the very words of the 
 law. Not all of this elaboration has b2en pre- 
 served, for the law has been re-enacted and re- 
 vised since. In the same year (1855) penalties 
 were again increased, selling unlawfully being 
 punished by fine of s20 and imprisonment 30 
 days for the first conviction up to $200 and six 
 months for fourth and subsequent convictions. 
 The first offense of unlawfully manufacturing 
 carried $200 fine with six months' imprisonment. 
 Common carriers and druggists were closely 
 regulated by this act. 
 
 The Repeal of 1856. — All this legislation was 
 swept away by Laws of 1856, c. 255, which was 
 a license law allowing innkeepers to sell as such 
 to guests and lodgers provided no bar were 
 maintained, authorizing one or two persons to 
 be licensed in each town and for each 3 000 in- 
 habitants, not to sell to be drunk on the prem- 
 ises, and prohibiting keeping drinking-houses 
 or tippling sbops. The penalties were not ex- 
 ceeding $20 for the first conviction of selling to 
 not exceeding 8100 for the third, with alter- 
 native imprisonment not exceeding six months. 
 
 In 1858 the question was submitted to the 
 people whether they would have the '■ License 
 law of 1856 or the Prohibition law of 1858." 
 They voted for the Prohibition law. The sub- 
 mission was made by c. 50 of the Laws of 1858. 
 Ths law chosen was c. 33, which was com- 
 paratively short and moderate. It carried a pen- 
 alty of only $10 for the first conviction of un- 
 lawful selling, rising to $20 and imprisonment 
 three months for the third. An act of the same 
 year (c. 54) declared houses for the illegal sale 
 of liquor common nuisances, punished the 
 keeper by a fine of not over $1,000 or imprison- 
 ment not over one year, and mads his lease 
 void, if a tenant; and the owner was subjected 
 to the above penalty if he knowingly permitted 
 his tenant's nuisance. 
 
 A State Commissioner to furnish liquor to 
 Town Agents who were prohibited buying else- 
 where, was established by Lavs of 1862, c. 130. 
 By the Laws of 1867, c. 133, the question was 
 submitted to the vote of the people whether 
 chapter 131 of that year, making an addition to 
 the penalty formerly provided of 30 days' im- 
 prisonment on the first conviction and 60 days 
 on second, and imprisonment corresponding to 
 every other penalty which was without them, 
 should be permitted to stand. 
 
 Civil damages were awarded by Laws of 1872, 
 c. 63. The Laws of 1873, c. 150, repealed that 
 part of the Laws of 1872 (c. 63) which added 
 wine and cider to the list of intoxicating liquors, 
 
 and which prohibited selling cider and domestic 
 wines by any but the manufacturer. 
 
 The Constitutional Amendment — The resolves 
 of 1883 (c. 93) submitted a Prohibitory Amend- 
 ment which was adopted in 1884. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — The manu- 
 facture and sale of intoxicating liquors not in- 
 cluding cider, and the sale and keeping for sale 
 of intoxicating liquors, are and shall be forever 
 prohibited. Except, however, that the sale and 
 keeping for sale of such liquors for medicinal 
 and mechanical purposes and the arts, and the 
 sale and keeping of cider, may be permitted 
 under such rules as the Legislature may provide. 
 (Const, in force Jan 1, 1885.) 
 
 Innholders and victuallers (who are not al- 
 lowed to sell liquors) give bond among other 
 things not to violate the L.ws relating thereto. 
 (R. S., 1883, c. 27, § 2.) They are also prohibited 
 suffering any revelling or disorderly conduct in 
 their houses or any drunkenness or excess 
 therein. (Id., §12.) 
 
 The Governor and Council shall appoint a 
 Commissioner to furnish municipal officers in 
 this State and duly authorized agents of other 
 States, with pure intoxicating liquors to be kept 
 and sold for medicinal, mechanical and manu- 
 facturing purposes. He shall so sell no liquors 
 until tested by a, competent assayer and found 
 pure. He shall sell at not over 6 per cent, above 
 cost. I Id., § 15; amended by Laws of 1887, c. 140, 
 § 1. ) Municipal officers shall buy liquors of such 
 Commissioner or of other such officers who 
 have bought of him only. (R. S., 1887, c. 27, 
 § 16.) If such officers buy of any olher persons, 
 or offer for sale liquors that have been forfeited 
 or adulterated, or sell adulterated liquor, they 
 are fined $20 to 8100. (Id , § 17.) Said Com- 
 missioner shall keep a record of the names of 
 the towns to which liquors are sold and of the 
 persons buying therefor, the kind, quantity and 
 price of liquor, and make annual report to the 
 Governor. And he shall mail such a statement 
 quarterly to each town that purchases of him. 
 (Id., §18.) Each Town Agentis to keep a record 
 in a book of the liquor purchased by him and 
 of each sale made, which record shall be open 
 for inspection on penalty of $10 to $20. Know- 
 ingly misrepresenting tosuch Agent the purpose 
 for which liquor is wanted is fined $20. (Id., 
 § 19.) The Selectmen of any town and the 
 Mayor and Aldermen of cities may each year 
 buy liquor and appoint an Agent to sell it 
 for medicinal, mechanical and manufacturing 
 purposes only. Such Agent shall have no in- 
 terest in the sale of such liquors, and be paid as 
 the board appointing him provides. (Id., § 21; 
 amended by Laws of 1881, c. 140, § 11.) Such '. 
 Agent shall receive a certificate of his appoint- 
 ment and give bond in $600 to sell for the ex- 
 cepted purposes only and in accordance with law. 
 (R. S. , 1883. c. 27, § 22.) He may not sell to 
 minors without the written direction of parent, 
 master or guardian, to any Indian, soldier, 
 drunkard, intoxicated person, or to any person 
 liable to guardianship knowingly, or to any in- 
 temperate person of whose habits he has been 
 notified by relatives or by the Aldermen, Select- 
 men or Assessors of any municipality. (Id., 
 c. 27, § 23.) Whenever such municipal officers 
 are informed by the relatives of any person of 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 308 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 his intemperate habits they shall give notice 
 thereof to all persons authorized to sell liquors 
 in their towns and such adjoining places as ihey 
 deem expedient. (Id.. £24. i Any such Agent 
 selling unlawfully shall be fined S20, and his 
 bond be sued and his authority revoked, and 
 the municipal authorities shall revoke such 
 authority when they are satisfied of a violation. 
 (Id.. § 25.) 
 
 All liquors owned by municipalities must be 
 conspicuously marked with the name of the 
 town or of the Agent, and if liquors so marked 
 are not so owned, that is conclusive evidence 
 of keeping for illegal sale. (Id., t? 26.) 
 
 If an Agent is convicted of an illegal sale he 
 is forever disqualified from holding such office. 
 (Id., §27.) 
 
 Whoever manufactures for sale any intoxi- 
 cating liquor except cider, and whoever sells 
 any such liquor so manufactured by him in this 
 State, except cider, shall be imprisoned two 
 months and fined $1000. (Id., § 28.) This 
 chapter does not apply to the sale of unadulter- 
 ated cider unless the same is sold to be used as a 
 beverage or for tippling purposes. (Id., §29; 
 amended by Laws of 1887, § 2.) 
 
 Peddlers carrying around or obtaining orders 
 for liquor are fined $20 to $500 (half to the 
 complainant \ and in default of payment they 
 sliall be imprisoned two to six months. (R. S., 
 1883. c 27, § 30; amended by Laws of 1885, c. 
 306, g 1.) 
 
 Railway or express companies transporting 
 liquor from place to place to sell unlawfully, or 
 agerts removing liquors from cars anywhere 
 but at established stations, shall be fined $50. 
 All liquors intended for unlawful sale may be 
 seized while in transit. (R. S., 1883, c 27, § 31 ; 
 amended by Laws of 1887, c. 140, £ 3. ) 
 
 Municipal and police Judges and trial Justices 
 have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme 
 Judicial Courts in offenses under this law. (R. 
 S., 1883, c. 27, § £2 ) 
 
 No person except as authorized shall sell any 
 intoxicating liquor. Wine, ale, porter, strong 
 beer, lager beer and all other malt liquors and 
 cider, when kept or deposited with intent to 
 sell the same for tippling purposes, or as bev- 
 erages, as well as all distilled spirits, are declared 
 intoxicating within the meaning of the chapter ; 
 but this enumeration shall not permit any 
 other pure or mixed liquors from being con- 
 sidered intoxicating. (R. S., 1883, c 27, §33; 
 amended by Laws of 1887. c. 140, §4.) 
 
 Whoever sells intoxicating liquor in violation 
 of law shall pay a fine of $50 and be imprisoned 
 30 days ; < n subsequent convictions he shall be 
 fined $200 and imprisoned six months. Any 
 clerk, servant or agent assisting in violation of 
 law is equally guilty and shall suffer like pen- 
 alties. (R, S., 1883, c 27, § 34; amended by 
 Laws of 1887, c. 140, § 5.) Whoever is a common 
 seller of liquor shall be fined $100 and imprison- 
 ed 30 days, and on every subsequent conviction 
 #200 and four months. (R. S , 1883, c. 27, § 35 ; 
 amended by Laws of 1887, c. 140, § 6.) But 
 persons selling as Town Agents are not common 
 sellers. (R. S.. 1883, c 27, § 35.) No person 
 shall keep a drinking-house or tippling-shop. 
 Whoever sells liquor in any building or boat 
 contrary to law, and if the same is there drank is 
 
 guilty of keeping a drinking-house or tippling- 
 shop and shall be fined $100 and imprisoned 60 
 days, and on subsequent convictions $200 and 
 six months. (R S., 181:3. c. 27, §37; amended 
 by Laws of 1887. c. 140, § 7.) 
 
 No person shall deposit or have in his pos- 
 session liquors with intent to unlawfully sell 
 the same (R. S., 1883, c. 27, § 38.) Liquors so 
 kept or deposited, intended for unlawful sale in 
 the State, are contraband and forfeited to the 
 municipalities where they are when seized. 
 Any officer may seize liquor without a warrant 
 and keep the same safely until he can procure 
 one. (Id., § 39.) 
 
 If any person competent to be a witness in 
 civil suits makes sworn complaint before a 
 police or municipal Jurlge cr trial Justice that 
 he believes liquor is kept in any place for illegal 
 sale, such magistrate shall issue his warrant to 
 seize 1he liquor and vessels containing it. 
 The name of the person so keeping the liquor, 
 if known, shall be designated in the complaint 
 and warrant. If the officer finds the liquors, 
 or believes that such individual has them con- 
 cealed about his person, he shall arrest h'm and 
 bring him before the magistrate. If the Court 
 is of the opinion that the liquor was so kept, 
 the keeper shall be fined $100 or imprisoned six 
 months. On every subsequent conviction he 
 shall be fined $100 and such imprisonment. The 
 payment of a U. S. special tax as a liquor-seller 
 or notice of any kind in any place of public 
 resort that liquors are there sold, shall be prima 
 facie evidence of common selling (R. S , lc83, 
 c. 27, § 40 ; amended by Laws of 1887, c. 140, 
 § 8.) When liquors are so seized the officer 
 shall immediately file a libel against them and 
 issue notice to all interested, citing them to ap- 
 pear and show cause whv they should not be 
 forfeited. (R. S.. 1883," c. 27, § 41.) If no 
 claimant appears, on proof of such notice they 
 shall be declared forfeited. If any one dees so 
 appear he shall file his claim, and if the magis- 
 trate decides the liquor was not fcr unlaw- 
 ful sale they shall be restored, otherwisedeclared 
 forfeited. (Id., §42.) No warrant shall issue 
 to so search a dwelling-house unless the magis- 
 trate is satisfied by evidence that liquor is kept 
 there in violation of law. (Id., § 43.) 
 
 All liquors declared forfeited shall be destroy- 
 ed by pouring them upon the ground and 
 breaking the vessels. (Id., § 44.) 
 
 If complaint is made to any , magistrate 
 against any claimant that the liquor was kept 
 for unlawful sale, said claimant shall be arrest- 
 ed and on conviction fined $50 or imprisoned 
 three months, and on a second conviction both. 
 (Id., §45.) 
 
 If an officer with a warrant is prevented from 
 seizing liquor by its being destroyed he shall 
 arrest the owner and bring him before the 
 magistrate, and the offender shall be punished as 
 if the liquor had been seized. All appliances 
 for concealing, disguising or destroying liquor 
 shall be seized. (R. S„ 1883, c. 27, § 46; 
 amended by Laws of 18£5, c. 366. § 5.) 
 
 Any person found intoxicated on any high- 
 way, and any one intoxicated in his own house 
 or in any place and becoming quarrelsome, dis- 
 turbing the peace of the public cr of his own 
 family, may be arrested by any officer until a 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 309 
 
 Legislation. 
 
 warrant may be made. If found guilty he 
 shall be imprisoned five to 30 days ; for the sec- 
 ond offense, 10 to 90 days. But any portion of 
 such punishment may be remitted if the prison- 
 er gives information where he procured the 
 liquor. (R S., 1883, c. 27, § 48 ; amended by 
 Laws of 1885, c. 366, § 6.) 
 
 Every wife, child, parent, guardian, husband 
 or other person injured in person, property or 
 means of support or otherwise by any intoxi- 
 cated person by reason of such intoxication, has 
 an action against any one who sold liquor con- 
 tributing to such intoxication The owner of 
 premises upon which such sales were made to 
 his knowledge is jointly and separately liable 
 also. (R. S.1883, c. £7, g 49.) 
 
 Liquors seized as herein provided shall not be 
 taken from the custody of the officer by writ of 
 replevin while the proceedings are pending. 
 (Id., S 50.) 
 
 Prosecutions for manufacturing, or keeping 
 drinking-houses and tippling-shops, and for 
 being common sellers, shall be by indictment ; 
 in all others, municipal Courts and trial Justices 
 have concurrent jurisdiction. Such magistrates 
 may examine and hold to bail in the other 
 cases. (Id., §51.) Every magistrate or County 
 Attorney having knowledge of a previous con- 
 viction shall allege the same on penalty of $100. 
 (Id., §52.) In appeals the proceedings shall be 
 the same in the higher as in the lower Court, 
 and shall be conducted by the attorney for the 
 State. No portion of the penalty of any re- 
 cognizance shall be remitted. (Id., § 54.) 
 
 Custom-house certificates of importation and 
 proofs of marks on packages corresponding 
 thereto shall not be received as evidence that the 
 identical liquors contained in the package were 
 actually imported therein. (Id. ,§55. ) 
 
 No action shall be maintained on any obliga- 
 tion contracted for liquor sold in violation of 
 this chapter. < Id. , § 56. ) 
 
 Whenever an unlawful sale is alleged, delivery- 
 is sufficient evidence of sale A partner is li- 
 able for the unlawful selling or keeping of his 
 co-partner. A principal and his agent may be 
 included in the same complaint. The munic- 
 ipal authorities shall cause suit to be commenced 
 hereunder on any bond in which his town or 
 city is interested. Mayor and Aldermen, 
 Selectmen, Assessors and Constables shall make 
 complaint and prosecute hereunder and enforce 
 the law against drinking-houses. If any mu- 
 nicipal officer on notice of a violation of this 
 law, signed by two persons, wilfully neglects 
 to institute proceedings, he shall be fined §20 to 
 $50. (Id, §57.) 
 
 Persons engaged in unlawful traffic in liquors 
 are not competent to sit on juries in cases here- 
 under. (Id , § 58..) 
 
 Proceedings under this chapter are not barred 
 within six years, (id. §59.) 
 
 Sheriffs shall inquire into all violations of 
 this law and institute proceedings therefor or 
 furnish the County Attorney promptly with the 
 names of offer.ders and witnesses. (Id., § 60.) 
 County Attorneys shall cause all such witnesses 
 to be summoned before the Grand Jury, and di- 
 rect inquiries into violations of the law and 
 prosecute offenders. Whenever the Governor 
 is satisfied any County Attorney has wilfully 
 
 neglected such duty, he shall remove him and 
 appoint another in his place. (Id., §61.) Upon 
 petition of 30 tax-payers in any county that this 
 chapter is not enforced in the county, the Gov- 
 ernor shall appoint two or more constables with 
 powers and duties of Sheriffs for such county. 
 (Id., § 62; amended by Laws of 1885, c. 366, 
 
 Whoever advertises or gives notice of the 
 sale or keeping of liquors, cr publishes any 
 newspaper in which such notices are given, shall 
 be fined $20 (one-half to the complainant). 
 (Laws, 1885, c. 366, § 8.) 
 
 It shall be the duty of. the Clerk of 
 Courts, within 30 days after adjournment of 
 any superior or supreme judicial Court, to pub- 
 lish in some newspaper of the county the dis 
 position of each appealed case and indictment 
 under the liquor laws. iLaws, 1887, c. 44.) 
 
 Supplying liquor to any prisoner, or having 
 liquor in one's possession within any place of- 
 confinement with intent to deliver the same to 
 any person confined therein, unless under di- 
 rection of the physician appointed to attend 
 such prisoner or of the officer in charge, is fined 
 not exceeding $20 or by imprisonment not exceed- 
 ing 30 days. (Laws, 1889, c. 157.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (Laws, 1885, 
 c. 267. ) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by vote of two-thirds of all the mem- 
 bers of the two Houses, at one session ; popular 
 vote to be taken at the next general election for 
 Representatives. A majority carries it. 
 
 Maryland. 
 
 Colonial Provisions. — In 1642 it. was provided 
 that drunkenness should be fined 100 lbs. of 
 tobacco, or if the offender was a servant and 
 not able to pay, he was imprisoned or set in the 
 bilbos, being compelled to fast for 24 hours. 
 (Acts Assembly, vol. 1, p. 159.) By the Laws 
 of 1658 (Id., p 375), drunkenness was punished 
 by confinement in the stocks six hours, or fine 
 of 100 lbs. of tobacco (half to the informer); 
 for the second offense, by public whipping or 
 fine of 300 lbs. of tobacco ; for the third the 
 offender was adjudged infamous and dis- 
 franchised three years. 
 
 The act of 1662 (Id., p. 447) was to encourage 
 honest persons to set up ordinaries, by giving 
 them an easy way to collect their bills. But by 
 that of 1666 (2 Id., p. 149) their charges were 
 complained of and regulated. 
 
 In 1715 carrying liquor to Indian towns was 
 fined 5,000 lbs. of tobacco, and selling over a 
 gallon of spirits in a day to an Indian was fined 
 3,000 lbs. (Laws, 1759, p. 34.) 
 
 A law of 1746 provided that licenses were to 
 be granted by the Justices of each county for 
 50s; in Annapolis, £5. Disorder was not to be 
 suffered, nor were poor persons to he suffered to 
 tipple or game cr run up bills over 5s. Si lling 
 without license was fined £5 (half to the in- 
 former). (Id., p. 161.) 
 
 A later act provided that the Justices of each 
 county in Court sitting were empowered to 
 grant licenses to keep ordinaries, to persons of 
 good repute in such and so many places as need- 
 ed them, for the ease and convenience of the 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 no 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 inhabitants, travelers and strangers; license fee, 
 £6. Such ordinaries might be suppressed by 
 the Justices for disorder until the next Court, 
 when it should be determined whether to per- 
 mit continuance. For selling without license, 
 the penalty was 600 lbs. of tobacco. Ordinary- 
 keepers entered into recognizance in 600 lbs. of 
 tobacco to keep good rules and orders, and not 
 allow loose, idkTor disorderly persons to tipple, 
 game or commit any disorder. (Killy's Laws, 
 1780, c. 24.) 
 
 Early State Provisions. — Subsequently the 
 penalty for selling without license was placed 
 at £6 (Id., 1784, cc. 7, 37). and appropriated to 
 the University. The recognizance was made 
 £100. Merchants selling over 10 gallons were 
 excepted from the law, and selling on Sunday 
 was fined 40s. Licenses were allowed to be 
 granted in vacation of Court by Laws of 1791, 
 c. 58. By Laws of 1806, c. 31, the Justices of 
 the Peace, upon information of unlicensed sell- 
 ing, were to issue warrant for the arrest of such 
 persons and bind them over in £6 to appear at 
 the next County Court. Constables were to 
 make inquiry to the same purpose. By Laws of 
 1816, c. 193, £§ 14, 15, the Court was given dis- 
 cretion to grant or refuse licenses, and selling 
 without license in Baltimore was fined $24 
 (half to the informer). 
 
 By Laws of 1827, c. 117, licenses to retail 
 liquor were to be issued by the Clerk of each 
 County Court on payment of $12, and in Balti- 
 more $4 additional. But if the Grand Jury 
 signified an opinion that the license ought not 
 to be granted, it could nptbe. 
 
 By Laws of 1845, c. 140, £ 3, no person was to 
 S3ll spirituous liquors in less quantities than a 
 pint without first obtaining license as an ordi- 
 nary-keeper, under penalty of $50. 
 
 Beginning of Local Option and Local Prohibi- 
 tion (1846).--The Clerk of Montgomery County 
 was not to issue license to sell liquor within 
 *hree miles of the District of Columbia line, or 
 on or near the roads leading from Georgetown 
 to Brookville, Frederick or Seneca Mills, with- 
 out an order issued by one of the Judges of the 
 Court on his being satisfied from the representa- 
 tions in writing of respectable inhabitants of the 
 neighborhood of the necessity and propriety of 
 granting such license. (Laws, 1846. c. 90.) By 
 c. 283 of Laws of 1854, the Commissioners of the 
 town of East Newmarket were given power to 
 i estrict license. From this time on local acts 
 rrohibiting sales, submitting Prohibition to 
 vote of districts, towns and counties, and all 
 kinds of local license acts multiplied and be- 
 came the leading features of the laws, leaving 
 Ihe general license laws much less developed 
 than in any other State. These local laws, as 
 Ihty at present stand, are re-stated under the 
 alphabetical order of names of localities, includ- 
 ing counties, in the Public Local Laws of 1888. 
 
 The Law as Lt Mristed in 1889. — When any 
 person intends to sell spirituous or fermented 
 liquors or lager beer in quantities less than a 
 pint he shall apply to the Clerk of the Circuit 
 Courts or of the Common Pleas of Baltimore 
 lor a license therefor. (P Q. L., 1888, p. 9;s0, 
 S 55 [enacted 18581.) Upon such application he 
 shall state on oath the amount of his stock on 
 hand, or if not previously engaged in that busi- 
 
 ness, the amount he expects to keep. (Id., £ 56.) 
 If that amount does not exceed $500 he shall p;.y 
 $18; if from §500 to $1,000, $35 ; $1,000 to 
 $2,0.00, (50; $2,000 to $4,000, 575; $4,000 to 
 $6,000. $100; $6,000 to $10,000, $120; f,10,000to 
 $20,000. $130; $20,000 to $30,000, $140; more 
 than $30 000. $150. (Id., §§ 57-65.) No such 
 license shall be granted for less than $18 unless 
 the person obtains a license to sell goods, paying 
 a license therefor according to the amount of 
 his stock in trade. (Id. . § 68 ) If any person 
 intends to keip an ordinary and sell liquor by 
 retail, he shall apply to the Clerk lor a license. 
 (Id., p. 932, § 67.) He shall pay according to the 
 rental value of his place $25 to *450. (Id., §£ 
 69-81. ) If any person intends to keep an oysrer- 
 house, cook-sbop, victualling-house or lager 
 beer-saloon, and retail liquor there, he shall ap- 
 ply to such Clerk and pay $50 for each license. 
 (Id., p. 934, §3 82-83.) 
 
 Persons selling liquor without license are 
 fined $50 to $100. '(Id- 8 84 ) 
 
 Persons taking out ordinary licenses without 
 hotel accommodations as required, or any per- 
 sons selling liquor to a minor or to any one to 
 be drunk by a minor, or any person having a 
 license selling to a minor or allowing a minor 
 upon his premises, shall be fined $50 to •■ 200, 
 with suppression of license. (Id., p 9S5 c= 86.) 
 
 The Clerk shall not without the special order 
 of the Judge grant a license to any person to 
 sell liquor from whom the Grand Jury has 
 recommended a license to be withheld, or to a 
 person whose license has been suppressed by 
 the Court. (Id., p. 936, § 87.) Any person carry- 
 ing on a shad, herring or alewife fishery may 
 obtain a license to sell liquors during the fishing 
 season, of the Clerk, for ?6. (Id., p. 924, g 25.) 
 Licenses may be granted to sell at horse-races 
 for $4. (Id., § 26.) No license to sell liquors 
 shall be issued by any Clerk to a married woman 
 or minor without special order of the Judge. 
 No Judge shall give such special order without 
 the recommendation of at least 10 respectable 
 freeholders of the ward or district. (Id., p. 927, 
 §36.) 
 
 Section 36, page 926, probably authorizes the 
 licensing of traders in goods to sell liquors by 
 whole-ale in quantities not less than a pint, and 
 they are prohibited to so sell without a license 
 upon penalty of $20 to $100 by Id., p. 935, § 85. 
 
 In prosecutions for violations of this law re- 
 lating to liquers, one-half of the fine goes to the 
 informer. (Ie\, § 88.) 
 
 No peddler >hall traffic in spirituous liquors 
 in any manner. (Id , p. 926, g 38.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (Laws, 1886, 
 c. 495.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by vote of three-fifths of all the mem- 
 bers of the two Houses, at one session ; popular 
 vote to be taken at the next general election for 
 Representatives, three months' notice to be given. 
 A majority carries it. 
 
 The first general regulation of the liquor 
 traffic was made in an order of the General 
 Court that no person should rell either wine or 
 strong water without leave from the Governoroi 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 311 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 Deputy Governor, and that no one, except in the 
 ordinary course of trading, should sell or give 
 liquor to Indians. (1 Records of Mass., p. 106 
 1 1633].) In 1637 ordinary-keepers were ordered 
 not to sell either sack or strong water. (Id., 
 p. 205.) Beer-selling was regulated, tippling by 
 townspeople in inns was forbidden, andbreweis 
 were required to be licensed. (Id., p. 213 1 1687 1.) 
 In 1638 one person in each of 11 named towns 
 was authorized to retail sack and strong water. 
 (Id., p. 221.) In 1639 retailers of -wine were 
 ordered not to allow it to be drunk in their 
 houses (Id., p. 258), and drinking healths was 
 prohibited, under pain of 12i (Id. , p. 2 71. ) 
 
 Licenses were to be allowed by the quarter 
 Courts; and suffering tippling or excessive 
 drinking was punished, both the keeper of the 
 house and the drinker being fined from 5s to 10s. 
 (2 Id., p. 100 [1645].) 
 
 In 1647 it was provided that County Courts 
 were to grant licenses. (Id., p. 188. ) Games 
 were prohibited at licensed places. (Id , p. 195.) 
 Concealing drunken men about licensed premises 
 was fined £5. (Id., p. 257 [1648].) Youths, 
 servants, apprentices and scholars were not to 
 be allowed to spi'nd their time in ordinaries, 
 upon penalty of 40s. (3 Id., p. 212 [1651].) 
 
 In 1651 allowing tippling and excessive drink- 
 ing was fined 20s, and forfeiture of license for 
 the second offense. (Id., p. 359.) 
 
 In 1657 selling liquor to Indians was abso- 
 lutely prohibited, under penalty of 40s. (Id., 
 p. 435.) Unlicensed retailing was fined £5. 
 (4 Id., pt. 2 p. 37 1 1661] ) The Selectmen were 
 to post drunkards in public houses and prohibit 
 sales to them, and prohibit their frequenting 
 such places, uoon penalty of 20s and 5s, re- 
 spectively. (Id . p 463 [16701,.) Selling liquor 
 at trainings and other gatherings of the people 
 was prohibited under penalty of £5 (half to the 
 informer). (5 Id., p. 211 [1679]. ) 
 
 Province Laws, c. 20 il692), was a re-enact- 
 ment of license provisions. 
 
 Frequent acts were passed after 1700, but they 
 were Excise acts and added no new license 
 restrictions, but only provided for collection of 
 the revenue. 
 
 The act of 1751 (c. 5, Prov. Laws) included a 
 prohibition to sell to any "negro, Indian or 
 mulatto slave," which was repealed. In 1761 
 the Justices were allowed to grant a license to a 
 representath e of any deceased licensee. ( Prov. 
 Laws, 1761, c. 14.) 
 
 Early State Provisions. — In 1787 (Laws, Mass., 
 1780-1807, vol. 1, p. 374) was passed a longer act 
 than any previous one for the regulation of 
 licensed bouses. It punished selling without 
 license £20. charged £2 to £6 for licenses, pro- 
 vided for a bond in £20 to observe the law, and 
 prohibited giving a credit for drink of over 10s 
 on pain of closing the place. It included most 
 of the former provisions. 
 
 Persons not in any incorporated town were 
 allowed to be licensed by the Licensing Court 
 of General Sessions. (2 Id., p. 556 [1792].) 
 
 Those aggrieved by the refusal of the Select- 
 men to approve their applications for license 
 might appeal to the Licensing Court, giving the 
 Selectmen notice. (4 Id., p. 38 [1808].) Con- 
 fectioners and victuallers in Boston were put 
 
 upon the footing of innkeepers. (Id., p. 680 
 [1816].) 
 
 Chapter 136 of the Laws of 1831 made the 
 penalty for common selling *30, for single 
 offenses $10. Licenses were put at $5 or $1 for 
 the " soft " liquors. Chapter 16 J of the Laws 
 of 1832 repealed all former statutes, inc'uded 
 most of the common clauses and imposed pen- 
 alties of $100 for being an unlicensed common 
 seller, *10 to $20 for each offense. The County 
 Commissioner and Mayor and Aldermen of 
 Boston might grant licenses to as many as they 
 decided the public good required. No license 
 fee was required. In 1837 it was enacted that 
 nothing in the last law required the County 
 Commissioners to grant any licenses when in 
 their opinion the public good did not require 
 them. (Laws, 1837, c. 242 ) By Laws of 1838, 
 c. 157, no licensed dealer might sell in les3 
 quantities than 15 gallons to be carried away all 
 at one time, upon penalty of $10 to $20; but 
 apothecaries and practising physicians might be 
 licensed to retail for medicinal purposes only. 
 
 The act of 1838 was repealed by Laws 
 of 1840. c. 1. By Laws of 1-44, c. 102, the de- 
 fendant was presumed not licensed. The word 
 " spirituous " in the liquor laws was replaced by 
 " intoxicating" by Laws of 1850, c. 232, § 1. 
 By the same act the County Commissioners, 
 upon the recommendations of municipal author- 
 ities, were authorized to license as many persons 
 as might be desirable for the public good, to sell 
 by retail to be delivered and carried away, for 
 medicinal and mechanical purposes only. (Id., 
 
 § 2-) 
 
 The Maine Law of 1852. — A regular Prohibi- 
 tory or Maine law was passed in 1852 (c. 322). 
 It provided for penalties of £10 and the giving 
 a bond in $1,000 not to unlawfully sell within 
 one year for the first conviction ; §20 and same 
 bond for second, and $20 and three to six 
 months' imprisonment for the third. Giving 
 liquor to prisoners was prohibited by Laws of 
 1854. c. 93. Sheriffs, Constables, Coroners, ex- 
 ecutors, administrators and assignees were ren- 
 dered not liable under the law for their legal 
 sales of liquor at auction only. (Laws, 1854, c. 
 100. ) Several laws in 1855 regulated various 
 single points of procedure. Chapter 356 pro- 
 hibited adulteration, and c. 470 provided for the 
 appointment of a State Agent in Boston to pur- 
 chase liquor and sell to town and city Agents ; 
 records of purchases and sales to be kept and 
 reports thereof to be made. 
 
 The act of 1855, c. 215. took the place of that 
 of 1852 very much elaborating it. The penal- 
 ties were changed to §10 fine and imprisonment 
 20 to 30 days for first conviction, $20 and 
 30 to 60 days for second aud $50 and three to 
 six months for third. For manufacturing and 
 being a common seller the first conviction was 
 punished by fine of $50 with three to six months 
 in prison. 
 
 The act in relation to single offenses of drunk- 
 enness was repealed by Laws of 1861, c 133 § 1. 
 
 Civil damages were provided for by § 4 of 
 that act. 
 
 The Repeal of 1868 —This Prohibition policy 
 was reversed in 1868. (Laws, c. 141.) Anew 
 act provided for County Commissioners' licenses 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 312 
 
 [Legislation, 
 
 in four classes : Licenses to sell liquor to be 
 drunk on the premises were put at $100; 
 grocers' and druggists' license (not to be drunk 
 on the premises i at §50. and sixth class brewers' 
 and distillers' license (tor export) at ijilOO. Un- 
 lawful sales were punished by fine not exceed- 
 ing $50J and imprisonment not exceeding six 
 months. Cities and towns were to vote annually 
 on the question of license. This act contained 
 adulteration and civil damage clauses. By § 22 
 all licensed vendors were required to keep an 
 account of all liquor purchased by therm and 
 sellers of liquor to be drunk on the premises 
 were taxed 2 percent, on such liquors ; brewers 
 and dealers in malt liquor were taxed 30 cents 
 p?r barrel, and other licensed persons were 
 taxed 1 per cent. 
 
 Prohibitory Law of 1869-75.— By c. 191 of 
 Laws of 1869, all licenses to sell liquor were to 
 have no force after April 30, and by c. 415 of 
 that year the Prohibition law was re-enacted 
 with penalties for unlawful sales beginning with 
 a fine of $10 and imprisonment 20 to 3U days 
 for the first offense. This act provided for 
 license to manufacture for export only, and for 
 a State Assayer. In 1870 the act was amended 
 so as to allow any one to manufacture and sell 
 ale, porter, strong beer and lager beer. (Laws, 
 1870, c. 389.) 
 
 By Acts 1871,c. 334, ale, porter and beer were 
 restored to the prohibition of the law, but cities 
 and towns were to note annually on the licens- 
 ing of the sale th?reof. Chapter 42 of the laws 
 of lb73 repealed the provisions for submitting 
 the question of the sale of beer and left its sale 
 prohibited. 
 
 License Act of 1875. — A license law was 
 adopted in 1875 by c. 99 of the laws of that 
 year. It provided for licenses in classes with a 
 license fee of $100 to $1,000 for retailing liquor 
 to be drunk on the premises. It was a compara- 
 tively short act, and the usual provisions of a 
 strict license law were added by separate laws 
 during the years ensuing, until the law was re- 
 vised in 1882, and subsequently by amendments 
 of the Public Statutes of 1882 and further laws 
 added to the laws then existing. 
 
 A State Constabulary was constituted in 1871 
 by c. 394, and it was popularly connected with 
 the l ? quor law and its enforcement, though the 
 purview of the Constabulary act was not con- 
 fined to liquor law enforcement, and indeed the 
 liquor laws were not mentioned in it. This 
 Constabulary act also was repealed in 1875. 
 (C. 15, § 14.) 
 
 The present Local Option law of Massa- 
 chusetts, providing for annual votes on the 
 license question by cities and towns, was passed 
 in 1881. (Laws, c. 54 ) 
 
 Submission of C'onstihitional Prohibition. — 
 A Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the 
 manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor as 
 a beverage was proposed in 1888 (Laws, p. 566). 
 passed by the next Legislature, submitted and 
 defeated by the people in 1889. 
 
 The Lo.w as It Existed in 1889 —No person 
 shall sell liquor except as authorized, except 
 that nothing herein applies to sales by a person 
 under a law requiring him to sell personal 
 property, or to sales of cider and of native 
 
 win?s by the makers thereof, not to be drunk on 
 the premises. (P. S., 1882 c. 100, § 1.) 
 
 Druggists' licenses may be granted. One or 
 mor j annually may be granted. Such licensees 
 may sell on Sunday upon prescription. (Laws, 
 1887, c. 431 . § 1 . ) Sales by them for medicinal , 
 mechanical or chemical purposes only shall be 
 made only upon the certificate of the purchaser, 
 stating the use for which the liquor is wanted, 
 which certificate must be cancelled at the time 
 of sa!e. (Id., § 2.) A book must be kept of the 
 particulars of each sale, with the purchaser's 
 signature to the entry ; and if on prescription, 
 also the name of the physician must be entered. 
 (Id., § 3.) The said book shall always be open 
 to inspection of officers. (Id.. § 4.) Persons 
 making a false certificate or prescription shall 
 be fined $10, and a druggist violating this law 
 forfeits his license. (Id., § 5 ) 
 
 Importers into the United States holding and 
 selling in the original package are exempted 
 from the law. (P. S., 1882, c. 100, S 4. ) 
 
 In cities and towns which at their annual 
 elections vote for license, licenses may be 
 granted by the municipal authorities. The 
 Boards of Aldji men and Selectmen respectively 
 shall insert the question of license in the war- 
 rant for the town or city meeting, and the vote 
 shall be by separate ballot. The City or Town 
 Clerk shall transmit a statement of the vote to 
 the Secretary of State, and also in November 
 a statement of licenses granted and revoked. 
 (Id., §5.) 
 
 No more licenses than one for every 1,000 of 
 population, or in Boston one for every 500, can 
 be granted. (Laws, 1888, c. 340. ) No license 
 shall be granted within 400 feet of a public 
 school. (Laws, 1882, c. 220.) 
 
 Full notice of application for license must be 
 made, at the expense of the applicant ; and if 
 license be granted without the required publica- 
 tion, any citizen may make complaint and have 
 it revoked. (P. S., 1882, c. 1C0, g 6.) The 
 owner of any real estate within 25 feet of pro- 
 posed licensed premises may notify the Licens- 
 ing Board in writing of his objection and no 
 license shall be granted, or if granted may be 
 revoked. (P. S., 1882, c. 100, § 7 ; amended by 
 Laws of 1887, c. 323 ) Licenses may be refused 
 to unfit persons, and nothing in the law is to 
 compel the Licensing Boards to grant licenses. 
 (P S., 1882, c. 100, §8.) 
 
 Each license shall express that it is subject to 
 the following conditions: (1) That the provi- 
 sions in regard to the nature of the license and 
 building shall be strictly adhered to. (2) That 
 no sales shall be made between 11 at night and 
 6 in the morning (1885, c. 90), or on Sunday, 
 except to guests of an inn. (3i That none but 
 good standard liquor free from adulteration 
 shall be sold. (4) That no sale or delivery shall 
 be made to a known drunkard, or to an intoxi- 
 cated person, or to one known to have been 
 drunk within six months, or to a minor for his 
 own or any other's use, or to one helped by pub- 
 lic charity within a year. (1884, c. 158). (5) That 
 there shall be no disorder, prostitution or illegal 
 gaming on the premises, or on any communicat- 
 ing premises Licenses to sell light wines, 
 cid: r or malt liquors shall be conditioned not to 
 sell spirituous liquors ; those to sell to be drunk 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 313 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 on the premises, that no public bar will be kept 
 and that the licensee must be licensed as an inn- 
 keeper or common victualler, and shall specify 
 the room or rooms in which said liquors may 
 be kept by a common victualler. No person 
 licensed as aforesaid and not licensed as an inn- 
 holder shall keep or sell any liquors in any 
 room not specified as aforesaid. (6) That the 
 license shall be posted in a conspicuous position 
 on the premises, where it may be easily read. 
 (7) That the license is forfeited for breach of its 
 conditions, and on conviction thereof in any 
 Court. An added condition of license is that 
 no liquor shall be sold election day (Laws, 
 1888, c. 262 ; Laws, 1889, c. 361.) And no com- 
 mon victualler may sell on any holiday, nor 
 may innkeepers so sell except to guests. (Laws, 
 1888, c. 254.) 
 
 No license, excepta druggist's shall be granted 
 to be exercised in any dwelling-house or store 
 having an interior connection with a dwelling or 
 tenement, and such connection makes u. license 
 void. (Laws, 1888, c 139.) 
 
 Common victuallers must close betweon mid- 
 night and 5 in the morning. (Laws, 1882. c. 242.) 
 
 Licenses shall be of the following classes : 
 (1) To sell liquors of any kind, to be drunk 
 on the premises. (2) To sell malt liqusrs, cider 
 andlight wines containing less than 15 percent. 
 of alcohol, to be drunk on the premises. (3) To 
 sell malt liquor and cider, to b e drunk on the 
 premises. (4i To sell liquors of any kind, not 
 to be drunk on the premises. (5) To sell malt 
 liquors, cider and light wines as aforesaid, not 
 to be drunk on the premises. (6) Druggists' 
 licenses as above (P. 8., 1882, c 100, § 10), which 
 shall only be granted to registered pharmacists 
 engaged in business on their own account. 
 (Laws. 1889, c. 270.) 
 
 The fees for licenses shall be as follows : 1st 
 class, not less than f 1,000 ; 2d or 3d classes, not 
 less than $250 ; 4th class, not less than $300 ; 5th 
 class, not less than $150; 6th class, $1. (P.S., 
 1882, c. 100, § 11 ; amended by Laws of 1888, c. 
 341.) 
 
 The Licensing Board may require that no en- 
 trances to the premises except from the street be 
 allowed, and that no screens or other obstruc- 
 tions to a view of the interior of the premises be 
 maintained, and that no licensee shall expose to 
 view in any window any bottle or cask or vessel 
 containing liquor to so obstruct a view of the 
 business. (P. S., 1882, c. 100, §12 ) 
 
 No license shall issue until the fee is paid 
 and a bond in $1,000 given, conditioned to pay 
 all costs, damages and fees incurred by viola- 
 tions of law, such bond to be approved by the 
 Town or City Clerk. (P. S.. 1882, c. 100, § 13; 
 amended by .Laws of 1888, c. 283.) 
 
 The Treasurer of a city or town shall pay to 
 the Treasurer of the State one-fourth of all 
 license moneys received by him within a month. 
 (P. S.,1882, c. 100. §14.) 
 
 The Mayor and Aldermen of a city, or the 
 Selectmen of a town, or any police officer or 
 constable specially auftiorized by either of them, 
 may enter the premises of any licensee to ascer- 
 tain how he conducts his business and to pre- 
 serve order. And such police officer may at 
 any time take samples for analysis, which shall 
 
 be sealed in vessels until placed in the analyst's 
 hands. (P. S., 1882, c. 100, § 15 ) 
 
 The Mayor and Aldermen of a city or Select- 
 men of a town may, after notice and heariuy, 
 revoke a license. This disqualifies a licensee to 
 be again licensed for ayear. (P. S., 1882, c. 100, 
 
 A conviction under any of these provisions 
 makes the license void. (Laws. 1887, c. 392.) 
 
 No person shall bring into a town in which 
 licenses (except druggists') are not granted, any 
 liquor to be sold in violation of law. This sec- 
 tion does not apply to transportation through a 
 town to a place bevond. (P. S., 1882, c. 100, 
 
 Whoever violates any provision of his license 
 or of this chapter shall be punished by fine of 
 $50 to $500 and imprisonment one to tix 
 months, and forfeit his license if licensed. ( P. 
 S., 1882, c. 100, § 18 ; amended by Laws, 1889, 
 c. 114.) When a person holding a license is 
 convicted thus, the Court or magistrate convict- 
 ing him shall send a certificate thereof to the 
 Board which issued the license. (P. S., 1882. 
 c. 100, § 19.) Such Court or magistrate shall 
 also serve a written notice of such conviction 
 on the owner of the building used bv the de- 
 fendant. (Id., §20.) 
 
 Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, 
 employer or other person injured in person, 
 property or means of support by an intoxicated 
 person in consequence of such intoxication, 
 shall have action in damages against those who 
 by selling liquor contributed to or caused such 
 intoxication, and the owner of the building who 
 knowingly permits an unlicensed tenant to so 
 sell. (Id., § 21.) And such owner may recover 
 money so paid, of his tenant. (Id., § 22.) A 
 judgment under § 21 revokes licenses until the 
 judgment is paid. (Id., §23.) 
 
 Whoever sells liquor to a minor for his own 
 or any other's use. or allows a minor to loiter 
 upon his premises where liquor is sold shall 
 forfeit $100 to the parent or guardian of such 
 minor. (P. S , 1882, c. 100, § 24 ; amended by 
 Laws, 1889, c. 390.) 
 
 The husband, wife, parent, child guardian or 
 employer of a person habitually drinking liquor 
 to excess may give notice in writing to any 
 person, requesting him not to sell to such 
 habitual drinker and if he does, may recover 
 $150 to $500 This applies to druggists selling 
 except upon physicians' prescriptions. And the 
 Mayor of a city or any one of the Selectmen of 
 a town may give the notice and sue for the 
 benefit of the injured party. (P. S„ 1882, c. 
 100, § 25 ; amended by Laws, 1885, c. 282.) 
 
 The delivery of liquor from any building, 
 booth or other place except a private dw-elling- 
 house, or from such when a part thereof is used 
 as a place of common resort (such delivery being 
 to a person not a resident therein), shall bepnma 
 facie evidence that such delivery is a sale. (P. 
 S., 1882, c. 100, § 26.) 
 
 Signs, placards and advertisements, except in 
 drug-stores, announcing the keeping of liquor, 
 and a United States tax-receipt as a dealer in 
 liquors, shall be prima facie evidence that such 
 liquors are there kept for sale. (Laws, 1887, 
 c. 414J 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 514 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 Ale, porter, beer, cider, wine and any bev- 
 erage containing more than 1 per cent, of alcohol 
 by volume at 00° F., as well as distilled spirits, 
 shall be deemed intoxicating. (P. S., 1882. c. 
 100, §27; amended by Laws of 1888, c 219.) 
 
 The powers of Mayor and Aldermen in cities 
 shall be exercised in Boston by the Board of 
 Police Commissioners and in any other city the 
 Council may determine that a Board of three 
 License Commissioners, appointed by the Mayor 
 and Council, shall perform such duties. (P. 8., 
 1883, c. 100, §28.) 
 
 The Governor and Council may appoint an 
 Inspector and Assayer of liquors, at a salary of 
 $1,000 yearly (payable monthly i, who shall 
 analyze liquors sent to him by officers and whose 
 certificate is evidence. The Court may order 
 analysis by other chemists. (P. S., 1882, c 100, 
 t? 29; Laws, 1882, c. 221 ; Laws, 1885, c. 224; 
 Laws, 1887, c. 232.) 
 
 If two persons make complaint on oath be- 
 fore a magistrate that they believe liquor is 
 kept at a place by a person "named, for illegal 
 sale, the magistrate (if he believes the complaint 
 true) shall issue a search-warrant to seize such 
 liquor and the vessels containing it and imple- 
 ments of sale. (P. S„ 1882. c. 100, § 30 ; 
 amended by Laws, 1887, c. 297.) No warrant 
 shall issue to search a dwelling-house (unless a 
 place of public resort is kept therein), unless 
 one of the complainants makes affidavit that he 
 has reason to believe liquor has been 
 unlawfully sold there within a month, 
 stating facts and circumstances. (P. S., 
 1882, c. 100, g ?.l.) The place or build- 
 ing to be searched shall be particularly desig- 
 nated. (Id., § 33. ) The officer shall search the 
 premises and seize the liquor described, the ves- 
 sels containing it, and furniture of sale. (Id., 
 § 33 ; amended by Laws of 1887, c. 406 ; Laws, 
 1888, c. 297.) Notice of hearing shall be given, 
 and trial by Ihe magistrate issuing the search- 
 warrant, if the liquor is under $50 in value ; by 
 the Superior Court if of more than that value. 
 The liquor aQd other things seized are forfeited 
 and sold or returned to the claimant thereof ac- 
 cording to the result of the trial. (P. S., 1882, 
 c. 100, <§ 34-42; Laws, 1887, c. 53; Laws, 1888, 
 c 297 and c. 277.) 
 
 An officer may arrest without warrant any 
 one found in the act of illegally selling, trans- 
 porting or delivering liquor, and may seize the 
 liquor and put the culprit in a safe place until 
 warrant can be procured. (P. 8., 1882, c. 100. 
 §43.) 
 
 All liquor kept for illegal sale is a common 
 nuisance. (Id., § 4 1 ) 
 
 In any No-License town or city, clubs for 
 selling or distributing liquors among members 
 are common nuisances, and the maintainers are 
 liable to £50 to §100 and imprisonment three to 
 12 months. (Id., § 45.) But in other towns and 
 cities such clubs may be licensed for $50 to 
 $500, if deemed proper organizations. (Laws, 
 1887. c. 206.) 
 
 The Mayor or Selectmen may prohibit the 
 sale of liquors in cases of great public .excite- 
 ment. (Laws. 1887, c. 365.) 
 
 Licensing Boards may permit the transfer of 
 licenses upon the same notice, etc., as in grant- 
 
 ing licenses without new fee. (Laws, 1889, c. 
 344.) 
 
 There is a Metropolitan Police law for the city 
 of Boston, providing that the Governor shall 
 appoint a Board of three Police Commissioners, 
 appointees to be chosen from the two principal 
 political parties and to serve for four years. 
 (Laws, 1885, c. 323.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (Laws, 1885, 
 c. 332.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by a, majority of the Senators and two- 
 thirds of the Representatives present and voting ; 
 the proposal to be agreed to in the same way by 
 the next Legislature, and the Amendment to be 
 ratified by a majority of the electors when sub- 
 mitted. 
 
 Michigan. 
 
 Earliest Provisions. — No person was permitted 
 to keep a tavern or retail liquor without a license 
 from three Justices of the district and paying 
 $10 to $25 the'refor. Disorder and drunken- 
 ness on licensed premises were prohibited. 
 (Terr. Laws, vol. 1, p. 43 [1805].) But the 
 deputy of the Marshal who kept the jail might 
 obtain such license for SI. (Id , p. 91 [1805].) 
 
 Persons selling liquor to Indians were fined 
 $5 to $100, with forfeiture of the article the 
 Indian gave for such liquor. (Terr. Laws, vol. 
 1, p. 180 [passed 1812].) 
 
 Permitting disorder by a retailer was fined 
 not exceeding $300 (Id., p. 195 L1816]), retail- 
 ing without license, not exceeding $100. (Id.) 
 
 The tax was raised to $28 where a billiard- 
 table was kept ; where one was not, $10 in De- 
 troit and $5 outside. (Id., p. 200 ) 
 
 No person was to retail without license from 
 three Justices on recommendation of 12 re- 
 spectable freeholders of the vicinity. Selling 
 without, license was fined $10. (Id.) Liquois 
 were not to be given minors or apprentices with- 
 out written permission of parent, guardian or 
 master, or to any soldier without consent of his 
 commanding officer, or to any Indian without 
 consent of the Superintendent of Indian 
 Affairs, or to any person (travelers and lodgers 
 excepted) on Sunday, on penalty of $10. (Id, 
 p 201.) In 1822 Detroit was given power to tax 
 and regulate retailers of liquor who were not 
 innkeepers. (Id , p. 254.) 
 
 In 1819 was passed a comparatively full li- 
 cense law, vesting the granting of license in 
 the County Courts practically at discretion, and 
 making debts for liquors void (Id , p. 407.) 
 Prisoners were not allowed liquor except in 
 case of sickness. (Id.. 471.) 
 
 In 1833 another license law was enacted put- 
 ting the licensing authority in the hands of 
 Township Boards, to be granted only where tav 
 erns were necessary for travelers ; there were 
 no other new provisions. (Id., vol. 2. p 1172.) 
 
 Local Option (1845) and Constitutional Anti- 
 License. (1850).— By No. 46 of the Laws of 1845, 
 at every annual township and charter election 
 the question of license or no-license was sub- 
 mitted to vote. 
 
 " The Legislature shall not pass any act 
 authorizing the grant of license for the sale of 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 315 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 ardent spirits or other intoxicating liquors." 
 (Const., 1850, art. 4, §47.) 
 
 The act of 1831 (No. 178) provided that any 
 person who might retail any liquor without 
 first giving bond as required should forfeit $25 to 
 $100. A bond in $500 to $1,000 was required of 
 any who should retail liquor, conditioned to pay 
 any penalties and forfeitures incurred by reason 
 of violating any provisions of law regulating 
 the retail of liquor. Those who should sell 
 without first giving bond as required forfeited 
 $25 to $100. Civil damages were provided. 
 This act was upheld as not contrary to the above 
 Constitutional provision, which it was said pro- 
 hibited granting licenses as a means of revenue 
 but did not interfere with the right of the Legis- 
 lature to prohibit under heavy penalties the 
 traffic in ardent spirits when conducted in such 
 manner as should corrupt public morals. The 
 statute was said not to be an enabling statute, 
 or to authorize the traffic by granting license. 
 (Langley v. Ergansinger, 3 Mich.. 314.) 
 
 The act of 1853 (No. 66) submitted to vote of 
 the people a regular Prohibitory or Maine law. 
 The Court was equally divided as to the sub- 
 mission clauses of this act, and it was therefore 
 upheld. (People v. Collins, 3 Mich., 343.) 
 
 Mj,ine Law of 1855. — A regular Prohibitory 
 law was definitely enacted in 1855 (Laws, No. 
 17), with nuisance but not civil damage clauses. 
 The penalties for selling were : first conviction, 
 $10; second, $20; third, $100 and imprison- 
 ment three to six months ; common sellers and 
 manufacturers were punished by double these 
 penalties. 
 
 Manufacturing alcohol, 80 per cent, pure or 
 over, to sell out of the State, and making cider 
 and wine, and the sale of the same in quantities 
 of one gallon or over, and manufacturing beer 
 and the sale thereof in quantities of five gallons 
 or over, not to be drunK on the premises, were 
 excepted from the Prohibitory law. (Laws, 
 1861, No. 226.) 
 
 By Laws, 1871, No. 71, Justices were given 
 jurisdiction under the liquor law; and No 196 
 slightly increased the penalties for unlawful 
 selling and gave civil damages. The Laws of 
 1873 (No. 131) provided that females selling un- 
 lawfully were to be imprisoned the same as 
 males. The owner or occupant of any house in 
 which liquors were sold or bought or obtained 
 for money or otherwise, by means of any 
 wheel, drawer, or other device to evade the law, 
 was deemed an illegal seller of liquor. (Laws, 
 1873, No. 150.) 
 
 Repeal (1875). — The Prohibitory laws were 
 repealed by Laws of 1875, c. 223, § 18. That 
 act taxed the business of retailing all intoxicat- 
 ing liquors $150, of retailing malt liquors $50; 
 and persons selling at both wholesale and retail 
 were taxed $300 if they dealt in whiskey, and 
 $100 if they dealt exclusively in malt liquors. 
 Adulteration was prohibited by Act No. 225 of 
 the same year. Act No. 231 made various pro- 
 hibitions of sale to minors, etc., and gave civil 
 damages. And Joint Resolution No. 21 of that 
 year (Laws, p. 305) provided for repealing the 
 Constitutional provision against license, which 
 was carried by the people. 
 
 Act No. 197, Laws of 1877, amended and 
 
 elaborated the Tax law, but in revenue-collect- 
 ing matters alone. 
 
 The two last-mentioned laws were amended 
 with an increase in tax of $5J, by Laws, 1879, 
 No. 268. 
 
 Submission of Constitutional Prohibition (1887). 
 — The Legislature submitted a Prohibitory 
 Amendment to the Constitution to vote of the 
 people, by Laws of 1887, p. 466. It did not 
 carry. 
 
 At the same session, by Laws, No. 197, under 
 title, " An act to regulate the manufacture and 
 sale of malt, brewed or fermented, spirituous 
 and vinous liquors in the several counties of this 
 State," was enacted a regular County Local 
 Option law ; but the Supreme Court decided 
 that the title of the act did not constitutionally 
 express the nature of it. It therefore became 
 inoperative. (Re Hanck, 38 N. W. Rep., 269.) 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — The liquor 
 tax rates are: for those manufacturing and sell- 
 ing their product at wholesale, $1,000 per year ; 
 manufacturers of malt liquors only, $500; 
 wholesalers, $500; retailers, $500; persons sell- 
 ing all kinds of liquors at both wholesale and 
 retail, $1,000. (Laws, 1889, No. 213, § 1. , Re- 
 tail dealers are those selling three gallons or one 
 dozen quart bottles or less; wholesalers, those 
 selling over that. No tax is required of any 
 person selling any wine or cider made from 
 fruits grown or gathered in the State, unless 
 sold by the drink. (Id., § 2.) 
 
 Druggists who sell liquor for chemical, scien- 
 tific, medicinal, mechanical or sacramental pur- 
 poses only, are excepted ; but they must keep 
 records of persons applying for liquor, and 
 must give bond in $2,000 not to sell unlawfully. 
 Druggists violating the law are fined $100 to 
 $500 or imprisoned 90 days to a year, or both. 
 (Id., g 3.) 
 
 Dealers must annually, on May 1, make and 
 file statements concerning their places and 
 businesses, and pay their taxes. (Id.. § 4) 
 Those beginning business after that date must 
 pay pro rata, but not less than one-half of the 
 yearly tax. (Id , § 5.) The tax-receipt serves 
 as a license, and must be posted as such in the 
 place of business. (Id., § 6. ) Persons violating 
 any of the provisions of this law are punished 
 by fine of $50 to $200, or imprisonment 10 to 90 
 days, or both. (Id., S 7.) 
 
 Those engaged in the business must give bonds 
 in ,«4,000 to $6,000, to be approved by the 
 Municipal Council, not to violate the law, and 
 to pay all damages arising from selling. (Id., 
 §8.) 
 
 Half the moneys received goes to the munic- 
 ipality, the rest to the county fund except 
 that in the Upper Peninsula all goes to the 
 municipility. (Id., § 9.) 
 
 It is the duty of officers and all persons to 
 notify the County Attorney, who shall prosecute 
 violations of the act. (Id., § 10.) Any officer 
 neglecting his duty under this act is fined $100, 
 and the Governor may appoint another to do 
 the duties of his office. (Id., § 12.) 
 
 It is unlawful for any one to furnish liquor to 
 any minor, intoxicated person or one in the 
 habit of getting so, to any Indian or to any per- 
 son when forbidden in writing by husband, 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 316 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 wife parent, child, guardian or employer, 
 Director or Superintendent of the Poor. The 
 fact of so selling or furnishing is evidence of 
 intended violation of law. (Id., §13.) Dealers 
 must not allow minors or students to play cards, 
 dice or billiards in saloons, or sell students liquor 
 except when prescribed for medical purposes. 
 Minors are not to be allowed to visit saloons ex- 
 cept when accompanied by parent or guardian. 
 (Id., § 14 ) Liquor may not be furnished in 
 any concert hall, show, theatre, etc. (Id., § 15.) 
 Saloons shall be closed on Sunday, election days 
 and legal holidays, and after 9 o'clock p. m. and 
 until 7 o'clock the following morning, except 
 that municipal authoritiss by ordinance may 
 allow saloons to open at 6 a. m. and remain 
 open not later than 11 P. M. (Id., §16.) Upon 
 complaint that any person is found intoxi- 
 cated or has been intoxicated in a 
 public place, a magistrate shall issue his warrant 
 for such person, take his disclosure and 
 issue his warrant for the person disclosed as the 
 seller of the liquor if the sale was illegal. (Id., 
 § 17.) Persons selling to a minor are liable to 
 damages not less than $50, and general civil 
 damages are also given. (Id., §§ 18, 20.) Mar- 
 shals and Chiefs of Police, or some officer ap- 
 pointed by them, shall visit all saloons once 
 every week to see how they are conducted and 
 whether the law is being violated. (Id., § 21.) 
 When complaint is made under this law security 
 for costs shall not be demanded. (Id., § 22.) 
 
 Clubs selling or distributing liquor to mem- 
 bers are liable to the tax, and the members and 
 employees are liable to the penalties of this act. 
 (Id., § 23.) 
 
 Adulteration of liquor with deleterious sub- 
 stances, and selling such liquor, are prohibited 
 under penalty of $50 to $500 or imprisonment 
 10 days to six months, or both. (Id., § 25. ) 
 
 Provision is made for the branding of barrels 
 which are filled with liquor. (Id., §s 26-29.) 
 
 Liquors may be compounded by the users or 
 sellers for medicinal and mechanical purposes. 
 (Id., § 30.) 
 
 Screens or obstructions to a view from the 
 street shall be removed from saloons during the 
 time when they are required to be closed. (Id., 
 §31.) 
 
 In addition to the branches now required by 
 law, instruction shall be given in physiology and 
 hygiene with a special reference to the Dafure of 
 alcohol and narcotics and their effect upon the 
 human system. (Laws, 1887, No. 165 [passed 
 1881].) 
 
 The act of 1885 (Laws, No. 217) taxes the 
 business of selling liquors made in the State to 
 be shipped out of the State. 
 
 It is unlawful t manufacture, sell or keep for 
 sale any intoxicating liquors after Prohibition as 
 provided in this act; but this does not apply to 
 druggists selling under the general law of the 
 State. (Laws, 1889, No. 207, § 1.) And the 
 general law as to taxation of the liquor business 
 is suspended thereafter. (Id., § 2.) 
 
 To ascertain the will of the electors in regard 
 to such Prohibition, upon petition of one fourth 
 of the voters of the county to the Clerk, he 
 shall call a meeting of the Board of Supervisors. 
 (Id., §3.) To the petition must be attached 
 certified poll-lists of the last preceding election. 
 
 (Id., § 4.) At the meeting of such Board of 
 Supervisors it shall be finally decided whether 
 the petition is sufficient ; and if so, the elec- 
 tion shall be ordered — not to be on the day of a 
 general election. (Id., § 6.) The election shall 
 be conducted as a general election, but the pro- 
 position shall not be submitted oftener than 
 once in two years. (Id., § 9.) When there- 
 suit of the vote is for Prohibition, the Board of 
 Supervisors may then, by a majority of all the 
 members elected, vote to so prohibit. (Id., § 13.) 
 And the Prohibition provisions of this act 
 shall after the first day of May following be in 
 force in the county. (Id., § 15.) The first 
 violation of this act shall be punished by fine of 
 $50 to $200, or imprisonment 20 days to six 
 months, and subsequent offences by $100 to 
 $500 fine, and imprisonment six months to two 
 years, t Id , § 16. ) 
 
 Civil damages are allowed in case of intoxi- 
 cation by liquor sold in violation ol the law. 
 (Id- § 19.) 
 
 No Board of Registration shall hold sessions 
 in or near places where liquors are sold. (Laws, 
 1889, No. 23.) No election shall be held in such 
 place. (Id., No. 263, § 28.) Nor shall liquors 
 be brought into the building where such elec- 
 tion is being held, or drunk therein by the 
 election officers. (Id , § 29.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (Laws, 1883 
 No. 93; amended by Laws, 1887, No. 65 ) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by vote of two-thirds of all the mem- 
 bers of the two Houses, at one session ; popular 
 vote to be taken at the next spring or autumn 
 election. A majority carries it. 
 
 Earliest Provisions. — The first session of the 
 Legislature provided for granting grocery 
 licenses to retail liquor, by the County Commis- 
 sioners, at $100 to ¥200 on delivery of a bond in 
 $500 not to permit disorderly conduct or violate 
 the law. Selling without license was fined $100 
 to $200, and keeping open Sunday $10 to $25. 
 (Laws, 1849, c. 8.) By c. 7, Laws of 1851. the 
 license fee was put down to $20 to $50, and the 
 penalty for selling with out license to $50to $100. 
 
 A regular Prohibitory or Maine law was sub- 
 mitted to vote of the people by Laws of 1852, 
 c. 8. This apparently failed, for it did not be- 
 come a part of the statutes. The proposed law 
 prohibited the manufacture and sale of spirituous 
 and intoxicating liquors and prescribed penalties 
 of $10 for the first conviction, $20 for second, 
 and $20 and three to six months' imprisonment 
 for the third. 
 
 Prohibition in the Sioux Lands (1854).— Manu- 
 facturing, selling or introducing l.quor west of 
 the Mississippi within the limits of lands lately 
 purchased under the Sioux treaties was pro- 
 hibited. (Laws, 1854, c. 31.) Outside the said 
 Sioux lands, the County Commissioners were to 
 grant licenses as deemed expedient at $75 to 
 $200. on the giving of a bond in $5,000 not to 
 violate the license. Selling without license was 
 fined $25 to $150, or punished by imprisonment 
 not exceeding six months. (Laws, 1855, c. 48 ) 
 
 Another general license law reducing the 
 license to $50 to $100, but providing for town,.- 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 31*; 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 ship Local Option on petition of 10 voters, was 
 enacted in 1858. (Laws. c. 74. ) 
 
 Selling to minors, wards, servants and habitual 
 drunkards, was regulated by cc. 53 and 54, 
 Laws of 1861. Selling on election days was 
 prohibited by c. 55, Laws of 1865. 
 
 The law has not been materially altered since, 
 except by the High License act of 1887, which is 
 incorporated in the General Statutes and the 
 Laws of 1889. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — No one may 
 sell liquor directly or indirectly, in any quantity 
 or for any purpose, to any minor or to any 
 student or pupil, or to any habitual drunkard, 
 or to any intemperate drinker, or to any intoxi- 
 cated person, on penalty of $25 to $100 or 30 to 
 90 days' imprisonment. Any employer or rela- 
 tive of any habitual drunkard or intemperate 
 drinker, or anyone injured or annoyed by his con- 
 tinued intoxication, or any relative or employer 
 of any minor, may give notice in writing to any 
 person not to sell to such minor or drunkard ; 
 and if he does so sell he shall be fined $50 to 
 §100 and imprisoned 30 to 90 days. Persons 
 procuring liquor for such minors or drunkards 
 shall be fined 825 to $100 or imprisoned 20 to 
 90 days. No person may sell liquor on Sunday 
 or election days, and licensed places must be 
 closed on those days, on penalty of $30 to 
 $100 and 10 to 30 days in prison. (G. S., 1888, 
 Supp, c. 16, §10.) 
 
 In prosecutions it shall not be necessary to 
 prove the kind of liquors sold. Finding liquors 
 on the premises in question is prima facie evi- 
 dence of their sale thereon ; proof that the 
 accused has paid the United States revenue tax 
 and has a receipt therefor posted up is also 
 prima facie evidence that he has sold such 
 liquor, but this does not apply to druggists; 
 and in the prosecution of the keeper of a place 
 for violating £ 10, proof of furnishing liquor to 
 any minor is sufficient proof of the defendant's 
 knowledge of and liability unless disproved by 
 two witnesses. (Id., § 11; amended by Laws of 
 1889, c. 105. ) In all cases of selling to a minor 
 or drunkard, after notice, the license of the 
 seller is void. (G. S., 1888. Supp., c 16, § 12.) 
 
 Gaming tables in saloons are prohibited, but 
 not billiard and pool-tables, on penalty of $ 10 to 
 $50. (Id., § 24.) 
 
 Licenses must be posted in the room where 
 the business is done. (Id., g 25.) Licenses shall 
 contain a description of the premises, and sales 
 elsewhere are sales without license. (Id., § 26.) 
 
 When any person is convicted hereunder, the 
 Court shall send a certificate thereof to the 
 Licensing Board of the district. (Id., § 27.) 
 Any Licensing Board may revoke any license 
 granted by it on proof satisfactory to it of a 
 violation of law, and the party shall be dis- 
 qualified to receive license for a year, or, if the 
 conviction is of a sale to a minor or drunkard, 
 for five years; and if the licensee is the owner 
 of the premises licensed no license shall be 
 granted thereon for one year. (Id., §28.) All 
 applications for license shall be signed by the 
 applicant and state the place where the business 
 is to be carried on. The Clerk of the munici- 
 pality or the County Auditor shall cause notice 
 thereof to be published in the official newspaper 
 two weeks before the hearing. Any person 
 
 may appear and object to the granting of the 
 license, and if it appear that the applicant has 
 violated the law within a year, or sold to a 
 minor or drunkard after notice within five 
 years, the license shall be refused. (Id., § 29.) 
 
 In cities of 10 000 inhabitants or more the 
 license fee shall be not less than $1,000. (Id., 
 §30.) In other cities license fee shall be not 
 less than $500. (Id , § 31.) In all other places 
 it shall be not less than $500. (Id., § 32.) The 
 term of the license shall be one year, or for a 
 •period not beyond 20 days after the next annual 
 election. (Id.) Bond in $2,000, conditioned to 
 sell lawfully and keep a quiet, orderly house, 
 shall be given before license issues. No person 
 may be surety on such bond who is surety on 
 any other such bond. (Id., § 34.) No license 
 shall be issued to any member of any Board of 
 County Commissioners, City Councilor munici- 
 pal corporation who shall take any part in issu- 
 ing such license upon penalty of $100 to $500 
 and forfeiture of the license. (Id., § 35.) If 
 any officer neglects or refuses to do his duty 
 under this law, he shall be liable on his bond 
 in $100 to $500. (Id., § 36.) Selling without 
 license is punished by fine of $50 to $100 and 
 imprisonment 30 to 90 days, except druggists' 
 sales on prescriptions. (Id., § 37.) This act 
 applies to all municipalities, anything in their 
 charters to the contrary notwithstanding. (Id., 
 § 38 ) 
 
 " Intoxicating liquors " means spirituous, 
 vinous, fermented and malt liquors, or either of 
 them. (Id., § 40.) 
 
 Evading the laws by means of any artifice 
 known as " Blind Pig " or " Hole in the Wall," 
 or other device concealing the identity of the 
 person selling, shall be fined $25 to 8100 or 
 punished by imprisonment 10 days to three 
 months, or both. (Id., § 41 ) 
 
 It is the duty of all officers to arrest any 
 persons found offending against this law and 
 make complaint against them, on penalty of 
 removal. (Id., § 43.) 
 
 Pharmacists duly registered may lawfully sell 
 liquors upon a physician's prescription without 
 a license. (Id. ,§44. ) Any pharmacist violat- 
 ing the law is guilty of selling without license, 
 and if he permits liquors sold to be drunk on 
 his premises he shall be fined $25 to $100. (Id., 
 § 45.) Physicians giving prescriptions to evade 
 the law shall be punished as for selling without 
 license. (Id., §46.) 
 
 All persons licensed to sell intoxicatingliquors 
 in this State are required to close their places 
 of business (except hotels) at 11 at night and 
 keep them closed until 5 in the morning, and 
 not to sell liquor during that time. ( G. S. , 1888, 
 c. 16, § 19; amended by Laws of 1889, c. 87.) ' 
 
 In cities of 10,0(10 inhabitants or more, no 
 election shall be held in any saloon or barroom. 
 or in any place adjoining, and no liquor shall 
 be introduced into a polling place; nor shall 
 any licensed saloon be, opentd from 5 in the 
 morning until 8 in the evening of such days. 
 (Laws, 1889, c. 3, §§ 37. 38.) Selling within 
 half-a-mile of the State Fair Grounds during 
 the fair is prohibited on penalty of $100 to 
 $250 for first offense, and $500 to *1,000 or im- 
 prisonment 30 days to six months, or both, for 
 subsequent offenses. (Laws, 1889, c. 21.) 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 318 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 No one shall make or offer for sale arjy adul- 
 terated liquor, on penalty of #25 to $100 for 
 first offense and $50 to *100 or imprisonment 30 
 to 90 days for subsequent offenses. (Laws, 
 1889, c. 7, §13.) 
 
 ^Whoever becomes intoxicated by voluntarily 
 drinking intoxicating liquors shall be punished 
 for the first offense $10 to $40, or by imprison- 
 ment 10 to 40 days, for the second by im- 
 prisonment 30 to 60 days or a fine of $20 to $50, 
 and for third and subsequent offenses imprison- 
 ment 60 to 90 days. (Laws, 1889, c. 13. ) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (G. S., 1889, 
 Supp., c. 36, § 179; passed in 1887, c. 123.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Consitution may be 
 proposed by a majority of the two Houses, at 
 one session, such amendment to be published 
 with the laws of the session and submitted 
 to the people, a majority of the popular vote 
 being requisite to its adoption. 
 
 Earliest Provisions.— Every person recom- 
 mended by six reputable freeholders to the 
 County Court was entitled to receive license 
 from said Court to keep a tavern, on payment 
 of $20 and entering into bond in $300 to keep 
 tavern accommodations and observe the law. 
 He was not to suffer gaming or cock-fighting 
 on his premises upon pain of $8. Retailing 
 liquor without license was fined $10; for the 
 second offense, $20. Merchants might sell above 
 a quart, not to be drunk on the premises. Sell- 
 ing or giving liquor to a servant or slave with- 
 out consent of his master was fined the same ; 
 to United States troops without permission of 
 officer, $20 ; to Indians, $10 ; selling adulterated 
 liquor, $20. Drunkenness on the part of the 
 licensee forfeited his license. (Act 1803, re- 
 vised 1807 ; Toul. Dig., p. 357.) 
 
 By the Laws of 1812, p. 5, the Clerks of the 
 County Courts were to make lists of licenses 
 granted for the Grand Jury. And the fine for 
 selling without license was made not exceeding 
 $100. By the Laws of 1814, p. 9, licenses out- 
 side of towns and villages were reduced to $10 
 and it was made the duty of the Assessors, Tax 
 Collectors and Sheriffs to give information to 
 the Attorney-General of unlicensed sellers. 
 
 These acts were consolidated in 1822 (Laws, 
 p. 168), and the Courts were enjoined against 
 licensing taverns not necessary fortravellers, and 
 were required to prevent them from being kept 
 for the encouragement of gaming, tippling, 
 drunkenness and other vices. License was put 
 at $15 to $40. Selling without license was fined 
 $20 to $100. It was made the duty of the Court 
 to revoke licenses under which the law had 
 been violated. Credit for liquor above $5 was 
 not collectible. 
 
 A law of 1831 provided that licensed dealers 
 in liquors were not to sell to slaves except by 
 the consent, verbal or written, of the masters. 
 (Laws, 1824-81, p. 349.) This was repealed in 
 1833. (Id., p. 439.) 
 
 The State Prohibitory Law of 1839, Against 
 Sales in Quantities Less than One Gallon.— In 
 1839, the liquor laws were all repealed, and 
 liquor was forbidden to be sold in less quan- 
 tities than one gallon (not to be drunk on the 
 
 premises). Tavern-keepers were not to offer 
 their guests liquor in any less quantities, and 
 candidates for office were not to bestow liquor 
 on any one. The penalty was fixed at $250 
 and imprisonment from one week to one month, 
 and for second offenses $500 and one to three 
 months in prison. Liquor was not to be sold 
 in any quantities to Indians or negroes. Tavern- 
 keepers were put under bond in $1,000 not to 
 violate the act. (Laws. 1839, c 20.) 
 
 A License Fee of $200 to $1,000, with Severe 
 Penalties (1842).— By the act of 1842, c. 10, the 
 corporate authorities of places having 2,000 
 inhabitants or over might grant license to retail 
 liquor for $200 to §1,000 license fee. Outside 
 of such towns the license fee was $50 to $1,000. 
 The penalty for selling without license was $500 
 and 30 days' imprisonment. The recommenda- 
 tion of five freeholders of the neighborhood was 
 required before license could be granted. 
 
 The Era of Local Legislation. — In 1850 began 
 the long series of local acts regulating the sale 
 of liquor, being in character all the way from 
 reducing the license fee for a locality to abso- 
 lute Prohibition, the great majority being Pro- 
 hibitory. The law of 1854 (erroneously alluded 
 to in some lists of early Prohibitory laws as a 
 Prohibitory law) amounted to Local Option. 
 (Laws, 1854, c. 42.) 
 
 War Legislation. — Distillation of liquor from 
 grain, sugar or molasses was prohibited under 
 penalty of not exceeding $5,000 and imprison- 
 ment not exceeding six months. (Laws, 1862, 
 c. 24.) In 1864 distillation from grain, sugar 
 or molasses, fruits and vegetables of any kind, 
 was prohibited. Distilleries were declared 
 nuisances abatable by any white person or 
 officers of the State and Confederate armies. 
 All license to sell liquor was suspended during 
 the war, and such places were declared nuis- 
 ances, but County Agents were to be appointed 
 to sell liquor for meaicinal purposes only, and 
 two distilleries were taken by the State to be 
 run to supply such Agents. All money from 
 the sale of liquor belonged to the State. (Laws, 
 1864, c. 34.) All officers and employees of the 
 State distilleries were required to give bonds 
 by Laws, 1865, c. 24. 
 
 Since the War.— The Laws of 1874, c. 24, 
 provided that no licenses were to be granted 
 without petition of a majority of the male 
 citizens over 21 yeara old, and of the female 
 citizens over 18, resident in the Supervisor's 
 district or town or city ; and if a counter peti- 
 tion of such majority was made against the 
 license, it should not be granted for two years. 
 (Laws, 1874, c. 24. ) If a majority of the voters 
 of a Supervisor's district or town or city peti- 
 tioned against the granting of license therein, 
 none should be so granted for three months. 
 (Laws, 1874, c. 44.) These acts were repealed 
 in 1876. (Laws, c. 81 and c. 40, respectively.) 
 
 Iu 1875 the fees for license were placed at 
 $200, $400, $700 and $1,000, with reference to 
 advantage of situation. (Laws, 1875, c. 28.) 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — It shall not 
 be lawful for any person to sell vinous or spirit- 
 uous liquor in a less quantity than one gallon 
 without license, although a retail license per- 
 mits selling in a greater quantity than one gallon. 
 (Code, 1880, g 1097; amended by Laws of 1882, 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 319 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 c. 6.) No person can sell in quantities of one 
 gallon or more without paying the tax and get- 
 ting the license required by the revenue law. 
 But any person may sell wine made of grapes 
 grown by himself, in any quantity not less than 
 one pint, without license or tax. 
 
 If any Supervisors' district or incorporated 
 town shall by a majority of voters petition 
 against it, license to retail liquor therein shall 
 not be granted for a year. (Code, 1880, § 1098 ; 
 amended by Laws of 1882, c. 6 ) 
 
 The Board of Supervisors may grant license 
 to retail within the county, but not within any 
 incorporated town or city, for from &200 to 
 f 1.000, to go to the School Fund. (Code. 1880, 
 § 1099.) The corporate authorities of any city 
 or town may so grant license, except that in 
 towns of 1.000 inhabitants or more it shall not 
 be for less than $300. (Id., §§ 1100, 1101.) No 
 county, city or town tax exceeding 100 per cent. 
 of the State tax shall be imposed upon the 
 privilege of selling liquors, but the tax herein 
 provided for shall exempt the licensee from all 
 oiher taxes, provided that the stock may he 
 taxed as other property. (Id.. § 1102.) 
 
 No license shall be issued without a petition 
 therefor signed by a majority of the legal voters 
 in the Supervisors' district, city or town. After 
 such petition is filed? the matter is to lie over 
 one month and the petition with its signatures 
 is to be published three weeks. A petition of 
 a majority of such voters against the license 
 defeats it for a year. (Id , § 1103.) Before 
 license shall be issued a bond must be given in 
 $2,000, conditioned that the licensee will keep 
 a quiet house and obey the law. On recovery 
 for breach of such bond the informer shall have 
 half. (Id., §1104.) 
 
 No license shall be granted for more or less 
 than one year. It shall not be transferable. It 
 shall designate the particular house in which 
 the liquors may be sold, and sales shall be made 
 in no other; but for sufficient reason the licens- 
 ing authority may allow a change of such place, 
 and when the licensee dies his business may be 
 continued by his personal representative until 
 his license expires. (Id., § 1105.) The Licens- 
 ing Board may revoke a license for violation of 
 law by the licensee, or on account of his unfit- 
 ness, on five day9' notice to him (Id., g 1106.) 
 This act shall extend to all itinerant vendors of 
 liquors and to all steamboats and water-craft, 
 but not to places where the sale of liquor is 
 prohibited by law or regulated by special enact- 
 ment. (Id.. §1107.) 
 
 Any licensee trusting a person for liquors 
 retailed shall lose the debt. (Id., § 1108.) 
 
 Merchants and others carrying on any busi- 
 ness who sell or give away liquors in less quan- 
 tities than one gallon shall be subject to the 
 tax on retailers. (Id., § 1109.) 
 
 Every magistrate and officer is enjoined to 
 cause this act to be strictly enforced. (Id., 
 §1110.) 
 
 In case of the breach of any bond it is the 
 duty of the District Attorney to bring suit on 
 it, but such suit may be brought by private 
 counsel. (Id, § 1111.) 
 
 Anyone selling liquor without license or con- 
 trary to law, or any person owning or having 
 any interest in liquor sold contrary to law, shall 
 
 be fined S25 to #500 or imprisoned from a week 
 to a month, or both. (Id., g 1112.) This does 
 not affect selling native wines. (Laws, 1886, 
 c. 80.) 
 
 No one licensed may keep open or sell on 
 Sunday. (Code, 1880, § 1113.) 
 
 No indictment hereunder shall be quashed for 
 want of form, and it shall not be necessary to 
 aver the kind of liquor sold. (Id.. § 1114.) 
 
 If any person sell liquor to anv minor he shall 
 be fined 1100 to $1,000. (Id., § 1115 ; amended 
 by Laws of 1882. c. 6, § 3.) 
 
 If any candidate shall treat or bestow any 
 liquor on a voter to influence his vote he shall 
 be fined $25. (Code, 1880, § 1116.) 
 
 The owner or controller of any house permit- 
 ting anyone to sell liquor unlawfully therein 
 may be fined not over $500 and imprisoned not 
 more than a month. (Id, § 1117.) 
 
 No liquor shall be sold within any prison or 
 brought into it for any prisoner, except upon a 
 permit signed by the physician of the prison 
 for the health of the prisoner. Persons selling 
 and prison officers suffering such sales contrary 
 to law shall be imprisoned not over a year or 
 fined not exceeding $300, or both, and the officer 
 forfeits his office. (Id., §1118.) 
 
 If any person adulterate liquor or sell such 
 liquor he shall be imprisoned from one to five 
 years. (Id., § 1119.) 
 
 The County Tax Collectors and Mayors of 
 citits and towns shall on the first day of the 
 Circuit Court furnish the Grand Jury or District 
 Attorney with a list of licensees for the past 
 year, which shall be evidence of the granting or 
 not of license. (Id, §1120.) 
 
 If any seller of liquor permits card-playing or 
 other games of chance upon his premises be 
 shall be fined $500 or imprisoned not more than 
 six months, or both. (Id., § 1121.) 
 
 Licensed dealers, or ary person who shall 
 sell liquor on election day, shall be fined not ex- 
 ceeding $500 or imprisoned not exceeding six 
 months, or both. (Id , S 1122 ) 
 
 By the revenue chapter of the Code and the 
 revenue laws of each session of the Legislature, 
 privilege tax is laid on liquor-selling, which is 
 usually $200 or thereabouts ; this seems hard to 
 account for, considering the above declaration 
 in the Code that such licenses are not otherwise 
 taxable than as above. 
 
 Dealers in liquor in quantities of one to five 
 gallons must comply with §§ 1103 and 1104 of 
 the Code. (Laws, 1884, c. 181.) 
 
 Appeals from the granting or refusal of 
 licenses by the Licensing Boards are provided 
 for by c. 16, Laws of 1888. 
 
 Procuring liquor for minors is punished by 
 fine of $50 to $500 and imprisonment 10 days to 
 six months. (Laws, 1 888. c. 56.) 
 
 Upon petition of one-tenth of the voters in 
 any county, it shall be the duty of the Board of 
 Supervisors to submit the question of Prohibi- 
 tion to the voters at a special election held not 
 within two months of a general election. An- 
 other such election shall not be held for two 
 years. Selling after Prohibition passes shall be 
 punished by fine not exceeding $50 and im- 
 prisonment not over 60 days for first offense, 
 $100 and 60 days for second, and $100 and im- 
 prisonment four months for third. Such selling 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 320 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 is also a nuisance and may be abated in Chan- 
 cery Court. All private acts or acts of local ap- 
 plication shall be in force until the election herein 
 provided for. and in no case shall this act be 
 construed to repeal any laws prohibiting liquors 
 at Oxford, Starkville, Clinton or at any other 
 place where there may be any institution of 
 learning chartered by legislative enactment 
 where such sale is now prohibited. (Laws, 1886, 
 c. 14) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by vote of two- thirds of all the members 
 of the two Houses at one session ; popular vote 
 to be taken at the next general election for 
 Representatives , three months' notice to be 
 given. A majority vote carries it. 
 
 Missouri. 
 
 Earliest Legislation.— Selling liquor to In- 
 dians except by permission of the agents of the 
 United States was prohibited upon penalty of 
 $tf0 to $150 or imprisonment 10 to 30 days, or 
 both. (Dig. Laws, Mo., 1825, p. 439 [passed 
 18241.) 
 
 A general license law providing a license fee of 
 $5 to $30 for six months, with a penalty of 6100 
 for selling without license, was enacted in 1825. 
 (Id., p. 660.) This law prohibited selling to 
 slaves, without written permit from the owner, 
 under the above penalty, with forfeiture of 
 license. The older act of 1806 had required a 
 tavern license with a fee of $10 to §30 per year, 
 upon penalty of $10 per day while keeping with- 
 out licence ; and it also prohibited sales to slaves 
 and United States soldiers without license ob- 
 tained from the master or commanding officer, 
 respectively. (Id , p. 761.) 
 
 In 1835 the license was called a grocer's 
 license, and the fee was made $5 to $100 for six 
 months. (R. 8., p. 291.) 
 
 The law was slightly enlarged and the fee 
 was changed to $10 to f 50 for six months by 
 Laws of 1840. p. 82, and slaves were prohibited 
 selling on pain of 39 lashes. 
 
 By an act of 1847, p. 59, persons could not 
 sell liquors by virtue of a tavern license. This 
 was repealed by Laws of 1849, p. 56, and license 
 charges of $20, and $4 per $1,000 upwards, 
 were assessed on property invested above the 
 value of $5,000. County, city and town 
 authorities were authorized to levy no greater 
 amounts than these for their respective purposes. 
 (Id., pp. 56-7.1 
 
 Local Option Law cf 1851. — In 1851 iLaws, 
 p. 216 1, whenever a mujority of the taxable in- 
 habitants of aDy cily, town or municipal town- 
 ship voted against the granting of any 
 license therein, none should be granted 
 for a year. This virtual Local Option 
 has continued until now, except that it was 
 changed after a while to provide that such a 
 majority should be obtained in a smaller division 
 on every petition fcr license. From this time 
 forward local acts of a varied nature, prohibit- 
 ing sales in various places, were passed: but 
 not so extensively as in States farther south. 
 
 By an act of 1872 (Laws. p. 48), a special 
 license was created, called the w'ne and beer 
 license, which cost '10 to §25 per year. It was 
 granted only on petition of a majority of tax- 
 
 paying citizens, a^ other licenses were. It was 
 repealed by Laws of 1885, p. 161. 
 
 The Law as Lt Existed in 1889. — A dramshop- 
 keeper is a person permitted by law, being 
 licensed to sell intoxicating liquors in quantities 
 not exceeding 10 gallons. (R. 8., 1879. g 5435.) 
 No person may so sell without such license. 
 (Id., § 5436.) Dramshop-keepers shall keep but 
 one place. The license is unassignable, and 
 sales on credit are void. (Id.. § 5437.) 
 
 On application for a license, the County 
 Court, if of the opinion that the applicant is of 
 good character and the petition being sufficient, 
 shall grant the license. (Id., g 5438; amended by 
 Laws of 1883, p. 87, § 1. ) Applicants shall give 
 a statement of their stock, upon which the same 
 ad valorem tax paid by merchants is paid. 
 (R. S., 1879, § 5439.) Bond in *2,000 to keep an 
 orderly house and not to sell to minors or vio- 
 late this law, and to pay fines, etc.. is required 
 (Id., g 5440 ; amended by Laws of 1883, p. 87, 
 § 2.) Upon every license shall be levied, for 
 every six months, $25 to $200 for State purposes, 
 and $250 to $400 for county purposes, the 
 amount to be determined by the Court in each 
 case. (Id., § 5441 ; amended by Laws of 1887, 
 pp. 178-9.) 
 
 No County Court may grant a license in any 
 place of 2,f.OO inhabitants or more, until a ma- 
 jority of the tax-paying citizens of the block or 
 square petition therefor ; in smaller places, un- 
 til the majority of such citizens of the place sign 
 such a petition. (Id., g 5442 ; amended by Laws 
 of 1883, p. 87, g 4.) 
 
 No license shall be delivered until the appli- 
 cant produces the receipt of the Collector show- 
 ing all taxes paid. (Id., § 5445.) The Clerk of 
 the Court may so grant such licenses in vaca- 
 tion of the Court. (Id., S 5446.) Persons vio- 
 lating this chapter are fined $40 to $200. (Id., 
 §5149.) 
 
 The Grand Jury shall be charged with this 
 act ; officers shall give information to the Grand 
 Jury and County Attorneys shall take special 
 care to prosecute hereunder and shall also prose- 
 cute officers failing in their duty. (Id., gg 5i50-2 ) 
 
 The authorities of incorporated towns or 
 cities may tax dramshop licenses. (Id., g 5453.) 
 
 Selling to minors without permission of 
 parent or guardian shall forfeit £50 to such 
 parents or guardians. (Id., g 5454.) Sales to 
 minors and habitual drunkards by clerks or 
 agents shall be considered acts of employers. 
 (Id., g 5455.) 
 
 Dramshop-keepers keeping open on Sunday or 
 election day, or selling on such days, are fined 
 $50 to $200 and forfeit their licenses and may 
 not again be licensed for two years. (Id., 
 § 5456; amended by Laws of 1883. p. 88, g 5.) 
 
 Whenever it is shown to the County Court, 
 upon the application of any person, that a dram- 
 shop keeper has not at all times kept an orderly 
 house, the license shall be revoked. (Id., g 5457.) 
 And one whose license has been revoked or 
 who has been convicted of violating the law, 
 shall not be licensed by any Court. (Id., 
 g 5458 ) 
 
 Liquor may be sold where made, but not in 
 less quantity than a quart and not to be drunk 
 on the premises. (Id . g 5459.) Wine-growers 
 may dispose of their wine in any quantity except 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 321 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 to minors or to habitual drunkards, without 
 consent or after notice, respectively. (Id., 5460 ) 
 Dramshop-keepers selling to habitual drunkards 
 after notice not to are liable in $50 to $500 to the 
 re.ative giving the notice. (Id., § 5462 ; amended 
 by Laws of 1883, p. 88, § 6 ) 
 
 A Local Option election shall be called in any 
 county outsHe of places having 2,500 inhabitants 
 or more, and in such places upon petition of 
 one-tenth of the voters therein, such petition to 
 be made to the County Court or the legislative 
 assembly of the place, respectively. (Laws, 1887, 
 p. 180, §§ 1, 2.) The question shall not be re- 
 submitted for four years, dd, §7.) Violating 
 the act is punished by fine of $300 to $1,000 or 
 imprisonment six to 12 months, or both. (Id 
 §9.) 
 
 Using any substitute for hops in the manu- 
 facture of beer or ale is punished by fine of 
 $500 to $5,000 or imprisonment one to six 
 months, or both. (Laws, 1887, p. 170.) 
 
 Physicians giving prescriptions for liquor, ex- 
 cept for medicinal purposes, shall be fined $40 
 to $200. (Laws, 1887, p. 214.) 
 
 No merchant's license authorizes selling less 
 than five gallons of liquor nor does it authorize 
 sales i :f liquor to be drunk on the premises, upon 
 penalty of $100 to $500 or imprisonment three to 
 six months, or both. (Laws, 1887. p. 217.) 
 
 Music, billiards, ten-p'ns, sparring, cock- 
 fights, cards and all gaming and amusements 
 are forbidden in dramshops, under penalty of 
 $10 to $50 and forfeiture of license and disqual- 
 ification 10 years. (Laws, 1889, p. 104.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (R. S., 1889, 
 § 8023 ; passed in 1885, Laws, p. 243.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by vote of a majority of all the mem- 
 bers of the two Houses, at one session ; publica- 
 tion of such Amendment to be made in the 
 session laws; popular vote to be taken at the 
 next general election for Representatives, four 
 weeks' notice to be given. A majority carries it. 
 
 Montana. 
 
 Early Provisions. — At the first session of the 
 Legislature selling liquor to soldiers and Indians 
 was prohibited. (Laws, 1864, pp. 344. 347.) The 
 next session provided a general license law, in- 
 cluding all occupations, requiring $30 per 
 quarter for retailers of liquors or $10 per 
 quarter if not within two miles of any town or 
 city. (Laws, 1866, c. 4, § 7.) 
 
 The amount of license was gradually in- 
 creased by the- revenue laws. The other present 
 regulations and prohibitions were added by 
 separate laws, and the present High License 
 and Local Option acts were passed in 1887. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889.— All persons 
 who deal in liquors by retail shall pay as fol- 
 lows: In cities, town?, villages or camps which 
 contain a population of 3,500 or more, $500 per 
 year; in those containing 1,000 to 3,500. $320; 
 in those containing 300 to 1,000, $240, and in 
 those containing less than 300 people, $100. (C. 
 S., 1887, p 1020, § 1346.) 
 
 Applications to sell such liquors shall be made 
 to the County Clerk, stating the place of busi- 
 ness, and shall be accompanied by a petition 
 therefor signed by 10 resident freeholders of the 
 
 town, ward or vicinity; and such Clerk shall 
 give the applicant a certificate to the County 
 Treasurer showing that the provisions of law 
 have been complied with. (Id., $ 1347.) The 
 County Commissioners may revoke any such 
 license for violation of law. lid.) 
 
 Any licensee selling to any minor, Indian, in- 
 sane or idiotic person, or habitual drunkard, or 
 keeping a disorderly house, shall pay $50 (half 
 to the informer) and forfeit his license. (Id,) 
 Every person so licensed selling adulterated 
 liquor shall pay $250. (Id., § 1348.) 
 
 Every distiller, manufacturer or rectifier of 
 spirituous liquor shall pay a license of $600 per 
 year. (Id.) Dealers in quantities greater than 
 one gallon in towns of over 3,500 inhabitants 
 shall pay $200, in other places $125. Such per- 
 sons shall not allow liquor to be drunk on their 
 premises, upon penalty of $50 (half to the in- 
 former) and forfeiture of licenses. (Id ) Brewers 
 shall pay from $5 to £20 per month, according 
 to volume of business. (Id., § 1349) 
 
 Doing business without license is fined $10 to 
 $100. (Id, p. 1027, §1366) 
 
 Upon application by petition signed by one- 
 third of the voters in any county, the County 
 Commissioners shall hold an election to deter- 
 mine whether intoxicating liquors shall be sold 
 therein. Such election shall not be within any 
 month of a general election. (Id., p. 1036, 
 § 1395.) After four weeks' notice of the result 
 of the election, the act shall take effect if the 
 vote is against the sale. A contest of the elec- 
 tion is provided for on petition of one-tenth of 
 the voters voting at the election, if made within 
 20 days. (Id., § 1398 ) No such election shall 
 be held oftener than once in two years. (Id., 
 § 1399 ) Nothing in this act shall prevent the 
 manufacture, sale and uss of domestic wines or 
 cider, or wines for sacramental uses, provided 
 such wine or cider is not sold in barrooms at 
 retail ; nor shall it prevent druggists from sell- 
 ing pure alcohol for medicinal, art, scientific and 
 mechanical uses. (Id., § 1402.) Selling con- 
 trary to this act is punished by fine not over 
 $500 or imprisonment not exceeding six months,, 
 or both. (Id., §1404.) 
 
 Every person who shall erect or keep a booth 
 or other contrivance to sell liquor within one 
 mile of any camp or field-meeting during the 
 holding thereof, shall be fined not exceeding 
 $500. (C. S., 1887,' p. 541, §152.) 
 
 Selling liquor to Indians or half-breeds shall 
 be punished by fine of $100 to $500 (half to the 
 informer) and by imprisonment not exceeding- 
 three years. Officers may seize wagons, horses- 
 and other property used to transport or sell such 
 liquor to such Indians, which is forfeited upon 
 conviction (half to the informer}. 
 
 Selling liquor to soldiers of the United States 
 subjects the seller to imprisonment not to ex- 
 ceed one year and a fine of $500 (Id , p 552, 
 § 188), and any soldier putting off his uniform 
 to obtain liquor shall be arrested and held till 
 his commanding officer shall apply for his re- 
 lease. (Id., §189.) If a person accused of sell- 
 ing to such soldier can show that the liquor 
 was obtained deceitfully, the soldier not being 
 in uniform, he shall not be liable to penalty. 
 (Id..§ 190.) 
 
 Saloon-keepers permitting minors to resort to 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 322 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 their places are fined $10 to $100 or imprisoned 
 one to 30 days, or both. (Id., p. 572, £ 241.) 
 Anyone furnishing liquor to anyone in the 
 habit of becoming drunk or of drinking to ex- 
 cess, after notification of such habit, or to any 
 minor without consent of his parent or guardian, 
 shall be liable in damages lo those injured there- 
 by, and shall be fined not exceeding *50, or im- 
 prisoned not exceeding 30 days, or both. (Id., 
 p. 577, §257.) 
 
 Selling on election days is fined $10 to $100 or 
 punished by imprisonment not more than a 
 month, or both. (Id , § 258.) 
 
 It is unlawful to sell or give away liquor in 
 any variety theatre, show or place where the- 
 atrical performances are given (Id., p. 578, § 259 ), 
 or in any place where public dancing is engaged 
 in (Id., § 260', or in any room or place where 
 women or minors are allowed to assemble for 
 the purpose of the business therein carried on 
 (Id., § 261), upon penalty of $100 to $300 or im- 
 prisonment 30 days to three months, or both. 
 (Id , § 262.) Establishing or maintaining a sa- 
 loon or place to sell liquor within two miles of 
 any railroad in process of construction is pun- 
 ished by fine of $20 to $50 for the first offense, 
 and $50 to $100 and imprisonment 10 to 60 days 
 for subsequent ones; but this does not apply to 
 saloons in any incorporated town, village, city or 
 town site where there is a United States post-of- 
 fice. (Id., §265.) 
 
 Employing a child under 16 in a saloon is 
 fined $50 to $100. (Id., p. 589. § 14.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by two-thirds of all the members of 
 thetwoHouses, at one session; popular vote to be 
 taken at the next general election for Represent- 
 atives ; three months' notice to be given. A 
 majority carries it. 
 
 Nebraska. 
 
 Prohibitory Law of 1855. — It was by the first 
 Legislature of the Territory made unlawful for 
 any person to manufacture, sell, give away or 
 dispose of any intoxicating liquor to be used as 
 a beverage. The places commonly called dram- 
 shops were prohibited and declared public 
 nuisances. Keeping a place where other per- 
 sons resorted, even though their own liquor 
 was purchased elsewhere, was, if the liquor 
 were drjnk in such place, made within the act. 
 Violating the act was fined $10 to $100 or pun- 
 ished by imprisonment not more than 90 days, 
 or both, and second offenses by $100 or irn- 
 pris-nment not morj than a year. (Laws, 1855, 
 p. 158.) 
 
 Fraudulently adulterating liquor was pun- 
 ished by imprisonment not more than a year or 
 fine rot exceeding $b00. (Id., p. 248.) Selling 
 liquor to Indians was punished by fine not ex- 
 ceeding $200 or imprisonment not, more than 
 one year. (Id., p. 250.) 
 
 Enactment of License (1858). — License was 
 authorized to be granted by the County Com- 
 missioners upon petition of 10 freeholders of 
 the township (bond in >500 to $5,000) and pay- 
 ment of $25 to $500 license fee, at the discretion 
 of the Commissioners. Unlicensed sales were 
 punished by fine of $100 to 01,000 cr imprison- 
 ment not exceeding one year, or both. The 
 
 usual special prohibitions and full civil damage • 
 clauses were included. (Laws, 1858, p. 256.) 
 
 In 1861 the license fee was reduced to $15 to 
 $200. and the penalty for unlawful selling to 
 $25 to $100 or imprisonment not exceeding one 
 month. (Laws, 1861, p. 144.) 
 
 Selling to Indians was lined $25 to $500, with 
 imprisonment 20 days. (Laws, 1864, p. 88.) 
 
 Provision was made that licenses should be 
 under consideration for more than two weeks 
 in the Licensing Boards. (Laws, 1875, p. 24 j 
 
 In 1881 was passed the law now in force. 
 
 Submission of Constitutional Prohibition and 
 License (1889. j— The Laws of 1889. c. 110, sub- 
 mitted separately these proposed Constitutional 
 Amendments: "The manufacture, sale and • 
 keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors as a 
 beverage are forever prohibited in this State, 
 and the Legislature shall provide by law for the 
 enforcement of this provision," and '■ The 
 manufacture, sale and keeping for sale of in- 
 toxicating liquors as a beverage shall be licensed 
 and regulated by law." Both were defeated. 
 
 The Lava as Lt Existed in 1889. — The County 
 Board of each county may grant license for the 
 sale of intoxicating liquor, if deemed expedient, 
 upon application by petition of 30 of the resident 
 freeholders of the town or precinct and upon 
 payment of $500 ; but such Board cannot grant a 
 license in or within two miles of any city or in- 
 corporated village. (C- 8., 1887, c. 50,81.) No 
 action shall be had upon license applications 
 until two weeks' notice of the filing there- 
 of has been given by publication or posting. 
 (Id., § 2. ) If there be any objection filed to the 
 license, the Board shall appoint a day for hear- 
 ing, and if the applicant has been guilty of any 
 violation of the law within a year, or if any 
 former license has been revoked for mis- 
 demeanor, then the license shall be refused. 
 (Id., § 3.) On the hearing of any such case, 
 witnesses may be compelled to attend, and their 
 testimony shall be put into writing, and either 
 party may appeal to the District Court which 
 shall try the appeal on the testimony so written 
 alone. (Id., § 4.) License shall not be trans- 
 ferable, and may be revoked by the authority 
 issuing the same upon proof of a violation of 
 the law. (Id., § 5.) Licensees shall give bond in 
 $5,000 not to violate the law and to piy fines 
 and damages adjudged against them. (Id., § 6.) 
 No person can be surety on two such bonds. 
 (Id., §7.) 
 
 Every licensee who sells liquor to a minor, 
 apprentice or servant shall be fined $25. (Id., 
 § 8 ) Every such person misrepresenting his 
 age to evade the above section is fined not ex- 
 ceeding $20, or shall be imprisoned 60 days, or 
 both (Id., § 9.) Any person selling to any 
 Indian, insane person, idiot or habitual drunk- 
 ard shall forfeit $50. (Id., g 10 ) Selling with- 
 out license is punished by fine of $100 to $500, 
 or by imprisonment not exceeding one month, 
 besides the amount assessed on account of lia- 
 bility on tha bond. But persons may sell wine 
 made from grapes grown by them, in quantities 
 not less than one gallon. (Id., § 11.) The 
 magistrate, upon complaint under the last sec- 
 tion, shall upon examination bind the party 
 ovT to the next term of the District Court, if he 
 believes him guilty. (Id., § 12 ) 
 
Legislation. ] 
 
 323 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 Every licensee disposing of adulterated liq- 
 uors intentionally shall forfeit $100. (Id., § 13.) 
 
 Selling on Sundays or election days is fined 
 $100. (Id., § 14.) 
 
 All damages the community or individuals 
 may sustain in consequence of the traffic, in- 
 cluding the support of paupers, widows and 
 orphans, shall toe paid toy the licensed persons 
 responsiDle. (Id., §§ 15. 19.) 
 
 The County Board may grant permits to 
 druggists to sell liquors for medicinal, mechan- 
 ical and chemical purposes without license fee. 
 (Id , § 24. ) 
 
 The corporate authorities of all cities and in- 
 corporated villages have power to license, regu- 
 late and prohibit the sale of liquor, for a fee of not 
 less than $500 in places up to 10,000 inhabitants 
 and not less than $1,000 in larger places. They 
 may grant druggists' permits The petition for 
 license must toe signed toy 30 or a majority of 
 the resident freeholders of the ward or village. 
 (Id., §25.) 
 
 Every druggist having a permit must keep an 
 itemized register of his sales showing date, kind, 
 quantity, purpose and name of vendor, open to 
 the inspection of the public, upon penalty of 
 $20 to $100 and imprisonment 10 to 30 days. 
 (Id., § 26.) Anyone making a false statement 
 to procure liquor of any person authorized to 
 sell the same shall be fined $10; on second 
 offense, $20, with imprisonment 10 to 30 days. 
 (Id., §27.) 
 
 Any person found in a state of intoxication is 
 guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall toe fined $10 
 or imprisoned not more than 30 days, but upon 
 disclosing when and where he obtained the 
 liquor the penalty may be remitted. (Id , S 28.) 
 
 Saloons shall be kepi unobstructed toy 
 screens, blinds, paint, etc., upon penalty of $25 
 or imprisonment 10 days, or both, with for- 
 feiture of license. (Id., § 29.) Treating in 
 saloons is prohibited under penalty of $10 or 
 imprisonment 10 days, with $15 for attorney 
 fee-. (Id., §§31-2. ) 
 
 No person shall sell liquor within three miles 
 of any assemblage of people for religious wor- 
 ship, except at regular places of business, upon 
 penalty of $20 to $100. (Id., §3 33, 35.) 
 
 In cities of tha first class there shall toe an Ex- 
 cise Board consisting of the Mayor and two 
 members elected toy the city at large. ( Laws, 
 1889, c. 14, § 13.) Such cities by ordinance may 
 restrain, prohibit and suppress unlicensed tip- 
 pling-shops. (Id., § 67, If 37.) The Excise 
 Board has exclusive control of the licensing and 
 regulation of the sale of liquor, and shall meet 
 once a month. It may license, regulate or pro- 
 hibit the sale, and determine the license fee. not 
 to be less than the general law imposes. Special 
 permits to sell liquor for medical and mechanical 
 purposes may be granted to druggists, to be re- 
 voked at pleasure. And licenses may toe revoked 
 by such Board for violations of law or ordi- 
 nance. Such Board may make all needful rules 
 and regulations as ordinances, not inconsistent 
 with the general law. and may compel the at- 
 tendance of witnesses. The penalty for selling 
 without license is $200. (Id., § 91 ) In such 
 cities of the first class as have less than 25 000 
 inhabitants, the Mayor and Council may 
 by ordinance license, restrain, regulate or 
 
 prohibit the sale of liquor, grant permits to 
 druggists and revoke licenses and permits. Sell- 
 ing without license therein is fined $100. (Laws, 
 1889, c. 15. §92.) 
 
 It is unlawful to keep liquor for the purpose 
 of sale without license, and those found in 
 possession of such liquor, with the intention of 
 disposing of the same unlawfully, shall be pun- 
 ished as in § 11. This does not apply to phy- 
 sicians and druggists holding permits, or per- 
 sons having liquors for home consumption. 
 
 If any reputable freeholder of any county 
 makes complaint under oath before a magistrate 
 that he believes liquor (describing it as nearly as 
 may be) is in any described place, owned or 
 kept by a named or described person, intended 
 to be sold unlawfully, said magistrate shall 
 issue his warrant to search the premises, seize 
 the liquor, arrest the person and bring him 
 before the magistrate ; and possession is pre- 
 sumptive evidence of a violation of law, unless 
 upon examination the defendant satisfactorily 
 accounts for the same. Liquor seized shall not 
 be discharged by reason of any insufficiency of 
 the complaint or warrant, but the claimant is 
 entitled to an early hearing upon the merits of 
 the case. If the place to be searched is a dwell- 
 ing the complaint must allege an unlawful sale 
 there within 30 days. (Laws, 1889, c. 33. § 1, to 
 be C. L., c. 50, § 20.) If upon examination the 
 accused is found guilty he shall be held for trial 
 to the next District Court, and th3 liquor shall 
 be destroyed, but defendant may appeal to the 
 District Court, when the liquor shall abide the 
 result. (Id , § 2, to be Id , § 21. ) If the defend- 
 ant is acquitted he shall toe discharged and the 
 liquor returned to him. If guilty he shall pay 
 $25 to the prosecuting attorney, toesides the fine 
 and costs. If the defendant is discharged the 
 prosecuting witness shall pay the costs, unless 
 there was probable cause for the complaint. If 
 no one is found in possession of the liquor, no- 
 tice shall toe posted upon the premises fixing a 
 hearing within five to ten days, the liquor to 
 atoide the result whether any one claim it or not. 
 (Id., § 3, to toe Id., § 22.) 
 
 Liquor shall not be taken into any place of 
 registration or drank therein, upon penalty of 
 $100 to $500. (Laws, 1889.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (C. S., 1889, 
 p. 659, § 5a; passed in lc85. c. 83 ) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by vote of three-fifths of all the mem- 
 bers of the two Houses, at one session ; popular 
 vote to toe taken at the next general election for 
 Bepresentatives, three months' notice to toe 
 given. A majority of all voting at said election 
 carries it. 
 
 Nevada. 
 
 By the Revenue act o* the first session of the 
 Legislature, in 1861, the tax on liquor licenses 
 was put substantially as it has remained in the 
 Revenue laws since passed. The laws now in 
 force have been enacted at different times, but 
 the policy of the law has not changed. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — Wholesale 
 liwnses obtained of the Sheriff, authorizing 
 sales o£ liquors in quantities of a quart or over, 
 shall cost from $2.50 to $50 per month, in 10 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 324 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 classes, according to volume of business (Q. 
 S., 1885, § 1139) Retail licenses are obtained 
 from the Sheriff also and co^t $10 per month, 
 but persons rttailing in connection with the 
 entertainment of travelers, one mile or more 
 o.itside the limits of any city or town, pay 
 quarterly $15. No person under such license 
 can sell on election days. (Id., g 11 JO) Any 
 person selling liquor without a licence shall be 
 lined §25 to ^200. I Id. . $ 4636. ) 
 
 It is unlawful (o retail liquor within one-half 
 mile of the State prison, upon penalty of $50 to 
 $500 or imprisonment 25 days to six months. 
 (Id., §4729.) 
 
 Every person selling liquor to minors or 
 mental imbeciles without written or verbal 
 order from parent or guardian shall be fined 
 $25 to S100 or imprisoned not exceeding 60 
 days. (Id., £4730.) 
 
 Selling to Indians is subject to fine of $100 to 
 $500 or imprisonment one to six month?, or 
 both. (Id., S4732; amended by Laws of 1887, 
 c. 30, to a fine not exceeding 81.000 or imprison- 
 ment not exceeding two years, or both.) 
 
 Treating to liquor in any public barroom is 
 punished by fine of $4 to *20 or by imprison- 
 ment two to ten days, or both. (Id., § 4740. ) 
 
 Licenses shall be posted conspicuously in the 
 place of the business, or $10 to $100 be for- 
 feited. (Id.. § 4822.) 
 
 Anyone knowingly selling any adulterated 
 liquor shall be fined not more than $500 or im- 
 iri-oned not more than six months. (Id., 
 S4677.) 
 
 None (hotel-keepers excepted) may keep open 
 a place for selling liquor between 12 p. M. and 
 6 A. M., upon penalty of $200 to $500 or im- 
 prisonment 30 days to six months, or both. 
 (Laws, 1889, c. 72.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (Laws, 1885, 
 p. 115.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by majority vote cf the two Houses, 
 to be concurred in by majority of each House 
 in the next Legislature; a majority of the pop- 
 ular vote carries it. 
 
 New Hampshire. 
 
 Colonial Provisions. — Permitting inhabitants 
 of the town to remain in public houses drinking 
 Saturday night or Sunday was in 1700 fined 5s, 
 both for the drinker and the keeper of the 
 house. (Laws, 1696-1725, p. 7.) In 1701 drunk- 
 enness was fined 5s. lid . p. 14.) 
 
 Taverners were not to allow apprentices, ser- 
 vants or negroes to sit drinking in their houses, 
 nor townsmen after 10 o'clock, upon penalty of 
 10s. nor to suffer excessive drinking, upon 
 penalty cf 5s. Tything-men were to be elected 
 in each town to inspect licensed houses, and 
 such houses were to be limited to six in Ports- 
 mouth and smaller numbers in other places. 
 (Id., p. 57 [1715].) 
 
 Reputed drunkards were to be posted in 
 taverns, and sales were not to be made to them, 
 upon penalty of 20s (half to the informer). 
 (Id., p. 142 1 1719].) Selling without license was 
 was fined £5 (one-third to the informer). 
 
 Early /State Provisions — By the law of June 
 14, 1791 (Laws, N. H., Portsmouth, 17C2), no 
 
 person could exercise the business of taverner or 
 retailer without license obtained from the 
 Selectmen of the, town, and if he did so sell 
 liquor he forfeited 40s. Taverners were not. to 
 surfer inhabitants of the town to tipple in their 
 places after 9 o'clock in the evening, or on the 
 Sabbath, or suffer any person to drink to 
 drunkenness, or any minor or servant to sit 
 drinking without consent of his parent or mas- 
 ter, on penalty of 20s. They were not to allow 
 gaming either. Retailers were not allowed to 
 sell liquor to be drank on the premises, on 
 penalty of 40s, nor were they to sell in less 
 quantities than one pint. License was again 
 placed at 3s, and taverners were not entitled to 
 recover more than 20s on action for liquor sold 
 to be drunk on their premises. 
 
 Chapter 86 of the Laws of 1820 provided that 
 the license should designate the particular 
 house or store in which the business was to be 
 conducted, and that it should not avail in any 
 other place. The Selectmen were to post in 
 liquor-places the names of common tipple rs, and 
 forbid sales of liquor to them, on penalty of 
 $10. Breaches of the law in general were 
 placed at HO instead of 40s. 
 
 The law of 1827, c. 65, punished selling with- 
 out license by fine of $20 to $50, and placed the 
 license fee at $2 to $5 for a taverner. with 20 
 cents for recording. Licenses to sell and mix 
 wine ar.d spirituous liquors were allowed to 
 others than tavern-keepers for $20. The 
 Selectmen who granted license might revoke 
 the same if licensee kept a, disorderly house 
 or violated the law. 
 
 The licenses to others than tavern-keepers 
 were not allowed by the act of 1829, c. 27. 
 
 The penalty for selling without license was 
 changed to $25 to $50 by Laws of 1838, c. 369. 
 
 By c. 530, Laws of 1847, the question whether 
 it was expedient for the Legislature to pass a 
 law prohibiting the sale of liquors except for 
 chemical, medicinal and mechanical purposes, 
 was to be voted upon at the next annual town 
 meeting. 
 
 By c. 848, Laws of 1849, the Selectmen of the 
 respective towns were to license one or more 
 suitable persons to sell liquor for medicinal, 
 mechanical and chemical purposes and for no 
 other use or purpose. Selling without tuch 
 license was punished under existing laws. 
 
 Prohibitory Act of 1855 — The Prohibitory 
 act of 1855 (Laws. c. 1658) prohibited the 
 sale only (not the manufacture). It is .'.till 
 in force. The law of 1858 (c. 2U80) added pro- 
 visions for appointing a State Agent, which 
 remain in force. By the act of 1878' (c. 16) lager 
 beer was added to the list of those liquors pro- 
 hibited, but the act was to be in force only in 
 towns so deciding by majority vote. The sub- 
 mission clause was repealed by c. 102, Laws of 
 1881. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889 — The Governor 
 shall appoint one or more suitable persons to 
 furnish Agents appointed by towns with un- 
 adulterated spirituous liquors. (6. L., 1878, 
 c. 109, si 1 .) Such person must give bond to the 
 State in $10 000. (Id., §2.) Agents of towns 
 must buy of such State Agent and no other. 
 (Id., §3.) Town Agents mujt not adulterate 
 liquors they keep, and must not purchase of 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 325 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 any one but the State Agent, upon penalty of 
 $50. (Id., § 4.) One or more Agents, not ex- 
 ceeding three, shall be appointed by the Select- 
 men of each town (except such ai have voted 
 no such appointment shall be made) for the 
 sale of spirits, who may be removed at pleasure 
 of the Selectmen. No inn-keeper or keeper of 
 o. place of public entertainment, and no person 
 who has been convicted of violating this chap- 
 ter, shall be so appointed. (Id., g 6.) Such 
 Town Agent may sell spirituous liquor to be 
 used in the arts and for medicinal, mechanical 
 and chemical purposes, and wine for the sacra- 
 ment, only. (Id., § 7.; 
 
 Persons buying liquor who make false state- 
 ments regarding the use for which such liquor 
 is intended shall be fined $10, for the second 
 offense $20. (Id., § 8.) 
 
 Agents shall receive such compensation as 
 the Selectmen prescribe, not to be dependent on 
 the amount of sales. (Id., § 9. ) Agents shall 
 keep, and when required, exhibit to the Select- 
 men or any Justice of the Peace an accurate 
 account of all purchases and sales, showing in 
 the latter case the name of the purchaser and 
 the use for which he said the liquor was pur- 
 chased. (Id., 8 10.) Such Agent shall sell at 
 the rate of profit determined by the Selectmen 
 and make report to them annually of his pur- 
 chases and sales and amounts remaining on 
 hand. He shall at any time exhibit to the 
 Selectmen or any Justice of the Peace his bills, 
 receipts and papers of all kinds relating to his 
 dealings. (Id., § 11.) Each Agent shall receive 
 a certificate of his appointment, which shall be 
 recorded with the Town Clerk, and if he vio- 
 late the rules prescribed for him by the law or 
 Selectmen he shall be fined $50, and for any 
 subsequent offense $50 and imprisonment not 
 exceeding 90 days. (Id., § 12.) 
 
 If a person not a Town Agent sell or keep for 
 sale any spirituous liquor he shall be fined $50, 
 and for a subsequent offense $100 or be im- 
 prisoned not exceeding 90 days, or both. ild., 
 § 13.) If any such person be a common seller 
 of such liquor he shall be fined $100 and be 
 imprisoned not more than six months. (Id., 
 § 14. ) If any such person sell cider in less 
 quantities than ten gallons (except when sold 
 by the manufacturer at the press, or in an un- 
 fermented slate, or lager beer, beer or malt 
 liquors not already prohibited), he shall be 
 fined $10, and for subsequent offenses $50. 
 (Id. , 8 15. ) The delivery of under ten gallons 
 of cider shall be deemed prima facia evidence of 
 sale. (Id., § 16.) 
 
 If any person solicit orders for liquor to be 
 delivered at any place outside the State for 
 transportation within the State, to be sold in 
 violation of the law. he shall be fined $50 and 
 upon any subsequent conviction $100 or im- 
 prisoned not more than 90 days, i Id.. §18.) 
 If such person go from place to place so solicit- 
 ing orders he shall be fined $100 or imprisoned 
 not more than 90 days. (Id., $ 19.) 
 
 A Justice or Police Court has jurisdiction to 
 sentence after final judgment if the defendant 
 plead guilty or waive his right of appeal; other- 
 wise he may bind him over to the next term of 
 the Supreme Court. (Id., §;$ 20-22.) In any 
 complaint it shall be sufficient to allege the first 
 
 offense only, and any process under this chap- 
 ter may be amended on motion. (Id., § 23.) 
 
 The delivery of liquor in any place used for 
 traffic or place of public resort is prima facie, 
 evidence of sale. (Id., §24.) 
 
 Exposing signs or bottles with liquor labels, 
 or United States special tax-receipt as a liquor- 
 dealer, in any place of business, is prima facia 
 evidence of violation of the liquor law. (Id., 
 § 25.) No clerk or agent of an accused person 
 shall be excused from testifying on the ground 
 that he might criminate himself, but his 
 evidence shall not be used against him. (Id., 
 § 26.) 
 
 The Selectmen of every town shall prosecute 
 at the expense of the town any person violating 
 this law, and on neglecting to do so shall be 
 fined not more than *200. But this does not 
 prevent any person from making complaint and 
 prosecuting such cases ; and in any case the 
 prosecutor, whether town, city or individual, is 
 entitled to half of every fine collected. (Id., 
 § 21.) 
 
 If the husband, wife, parent, child, brother, 
 sister or any near relative, guardian or em- 
 ployer of any person who has the habit of 
 drinking to excess notifies anyone in writing 
 not to sell to such person, the one giving the 
 notice may recover $50 to $500 in damages 
 from the person notified, if he so sells. (Id., 
 §28) 
 
 Spirituous liquor kept for unlawful sale may 
 be seized upon warrant issued by a Justice or 
 Police Court, and upon due proceedings ad- 
 judged forfeited. If the liquor is adjudged 
 valuable it will become the property of the 
 county and may be sold to Town Agents to sell. 
 (Id., § 29.) 
 
 Nothing herein shall prevent the sale of 
 domestic wine or cider, except when sold to be 
 drunk on the premises, nor shall it prohibit 
 sales by importers into the United States in the 
 original packages. ( Id. , § 30 . ) 
 
 If any person be drunk in any public place or 
 in any private place disturbing his family, he 
 shall be arrested and detained until sober and 
 then fined not exceeding $10 or be imprisoned 
 until he discloses the name of the one who sold 
 him the liquor. (Id , § 31.) Parties selling liq- 
 our are responsible for injuries resulting there- 
 from. (Id , § 33 ) Persons permitting their 
 premises to be occupied for illegal selling shall 
 be fined not more than $200. (Id., § 34.) 
 
 It is the duty of County Solicitors to prosecute 
 al. offenses against this act without delay or 
 indulgence to offenders. (Id, § 35.) No in- 
 dictment shall be found hereunder unless the 
 offense was committed within one year there- 
 before. (Id., §36.) 
 
 Liquor-sellers illegally selling are exempted 
 from jury duty. (Laws, 1887, c. 44.) Whoever 
 knowingly brings into or transports within 
 the State any intoxicating liquor to be illegally 
 sold or kept for sale, is to be fined $50 or im- 
 prisoned 30 days, or both. (Id , c. 53 ) 
 
 Any building . . resorted to for ... or 
 used for the illegal sale or keeping for sale of 
 spirituous or malt liquors, wine or cider, is de- 
 clared a common nuisance ; and the Supreme 
 Court upon information filed by the County 
 Solicitor or petition of 20 voters of the town or 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 32G 
 
 Legislation. 
 
 city may enjoin or abate the same (Laws, 1887, 
 c. 77.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed only through revision by a Constitu- 
 tional Convention. Once every seven years the 
 electors shall decide by majority vote whether 
 such a Convention shall be called. Amendments 
 proposed by such a Convention must be ap- 
 proved by two-thirds of the voters voting. 
 
 New Jersey. 
 
 Colonial Provisions. — In 1668 persons found 
 drinking after 9 o'clock were apprehended and 
 punished at discretion. (Learning c& Spier, 
 p. 80. ) Drunkenness was fined Is, 2s and 2s 0e?, 
 for the first, second and third offenses respec- 
 tively. (Id., p. 84) Every town was ordered 
 to provide an ordinary, and no person was 
 allowed to sell liquor but the ordinary-keeper 
 under penalty of 10s. (Id., p. 87.) 
 
 In 1677 selling to Indians was fined 20s. 
 (Id , p. 125.) The charges of ordinary -keepers 
 for liquor were modified. (Id , p 128 ) 
 
 In 1678 sales to Indians were fined £20, 
 doubled for each subsequent offense (one-third 
 to the informer), with 20 stripes if the offender 
 could not pay. (Id., p. 137.) 
 
 A law of 1688 provided that ordinary-keepers 
 were to be licensed by two Justices and give 
 bond in £20 to keep orderly houses. Selring 
 without license was fined £10 (one-third to the 
 informer). (Id., p. 317.) 
 
 Early State Proiisions.— In 1797 an act con- 
 cerning inns and taverns (R. 8., 1821 ', provided 
 for licensing liquor-selling therein upon recom- 
 mendation of resident freeholders. Such 
 licenses to be only as many as were n.eded for 
 accommodation of travelers. The Court of 
 Quarter Sessions was to grant such licenses 
 (upon bond, with two sureties in !$50 each, to 
 obey the law:, and to assess thereon such sum 
 as they thought proper, taking into considera- 
 tion desirability of location. Permitting gam- 
 ing and disorderly conduct and selling to drunk- 
 ards, minors and slaves, were prohibited upon 
 pain of forfeiture of license. The act of 1820 
 (id., p. 744 1 required the recommendation of 
 12 freeholders to procure license, and fined un- 
 licensed selling not exceeding §20. 
 
 Township Local Option (1847). — There were 
 no important additions or changes made to this 
 code, except the Sunday prohibition of 1848 
 (Laws, p. 183) and the election day prohibition 
 of 1837 (Laws, p. 1013), until 1888. There had 
 been, however, a Local Option law passed in 
 1847 (Laws, p. 158) giving townships the op 
 portunity to vote for license or no-license, and 
 to vote any year thereafter on the subject upon 
 petition of one fourth of the legal voters. This 
 was repealed the next year (1848) by Laws, 
 p. 150. There were also three or four local 
 Prohibitory acts during this period. 
 
 The law of 1888, c, 110, provided means for 
 revoking license and for County Option on the 
 question of prohibiting the sale of liquor, on 
 petition of one-tenth of the voters of the county 
 once in three years, and increased the license 
 fee to $100 in townships, and *250 in cities. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — The last act 
 was repealed by Laws of 1889, c. 53. This 
 provided that license to retail should not be 
 
 granted by any Court or Excise Board except 
 upon payment of $100 in municipalities having 
 less than 3,000 inhabitants, $150 in those having 
 from 3,000 to 10,000. and §150 in larger ones. 
 Selling without license is punished as keeping a 
 disorderly house. (Laws. I889,c.59,§ 1.) Licenses 
 to sell from one quart to five gallons must be 
 obtained in the same way and at the same rates 
 as the retail license. (Id., S3 2, 3.) Upon 
 petition of one-fifth of the voters in municipali- 
 ties wherein licenses are required to be granted 
 by the Court of Common Pleas of the county 
 (this then does not apply to any of the larger 
 cities), the question of a named minimum 
 license fee, not less than required by law to be 
 charged in such municipality, may be sub- 
 mitted to vote of the people therein. Such 
 petition is to be addressed to and granted by the 
 law Judge of the county, the election to be 
 ordered within 30 days, but not to be held 
 within 60 days of any general election, not less 
 than two or more than five months from the 
 making of the order. (Id., § 4.) Three weeks' 
 notice of such election, next pieocding the elec- 
 tion, shall be published in all the newspapers of 
 the municipality, and such other notice given as 
 the Judge shall deem necessary. The election 
 shall be conducted as a general election and re- 
 turn thereof shall be made within five days to 
 the County Clerk. (Id., $5) Ballots shall be 
 " For 8 — license fee," and " Against & — license 
 fee," naming the amount stated in the petition 
 for the election. (Id., § 6) Thereafter no 
 license shall be granted for that place for less 
 fee than that fixed at such election. (Id., § 7.) 
 Such election shall not be oftener than once in 
 three years in the same place. (Id., £ 8.) 
 
 The Board of Councilmen of any incorporated 
 town in the State shall have power to pass ordi- 
 nances to license, regulate and prohibit the sale 
 of liquor ; to fix the terms of license not k ss than 
 now required by law, and to prescribe penal- 
 ties not exceeding $50 fine or 10 days' imprison- 
 ment for violating any ordinance hereby author- 
 ized. (Laws, 1888, c. 179, § 1 ) Such oidi- 
 nances shall receivefour-fifths voteof the whole 
 number of members of the Council, be laid 
 over to the next meeting and then receive such 
 four-fifths, and each ordinance shall be pub- 
 lished 10 days in a newspaper published in the 
 county, and shall be so posted in 20 places. 
 (Id.. S3.) 
 
 All fees for licenses granted by the Court of 
 Common Pleas shall be received by the County 
 Clerk and by him transmitted within 30 days to 
 the Treasuries of the respective municipalities 
 in which license is exercised. (Laws, 1889, 
 c. 59, 8 9.) 
 
 When the holder of a license shall unlawfully 
 sell or allow to be sold within his place any 
 liquor on Sunday, or to any minor or apprentice, 
 or to any person known in the neighborhood to 
 be of confirmed intemperate habits or who is 
 visibly under the influence of liquor, or shall 
 keep a disorderly house, or harbor drunken 
 persons, thieves, prostitutes or other disorderly 
 persons, or suffer gambling or unlawful games 
 of chance or other unlawful acts to be done 
 upon his premises, or violate any law respecting 
 intoxicating liquors, his license shall become 
 forfeited and void. And upon complaint of any 
 
Legislation]. 
 
 327 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 three voters of the municipality, upon oath, 
 presented to the licensing authority, alleging 
 such forfeiture and specifying the acts com- 
 plained of, such body shall endorse on such 
 complaint an order that the accused show cause 
 within 10 to 30 days why his license should not 
 be revoked. A copy of such complaint shall be 
 served personally or by leaving the same at the 
 residence, tavern or licensed place of the ac- 
 cused, at least five days before the return of the 
 order. All such complaints shall be heard in a 
 summary way, the burden of proof being upon 
 the complainants, and either party may be rep- 
 resented by counsel. If upon the hearing the 
 defendant is found guilty, his license shall be 
 revoked and he be disqualified to hold one for 
 a year ; if not guilty the order to show cause 
 shall be discharged. The Court making the 
 order to show cause may require the complain- 
 ants to file a stipulation for costs, which must 
 be paid by them if unsuccessful The remedy 
 provided by this section is in addition to other 
 penalties provided by law. (Id. , § 10.) 
 
 No license shall be granted in any store or place 
 where any grocery-store or other mercantile 
 business is carried on, except in a restaurant or 
 in a place selling tobacco and cigars by retail. 
 Any such person so selling contrary to this 
 section is guilty of keeping a disorderly house. 
 (Id , § 11.) Druggists may retail liquors if in 
 good faith compounded or sold, for" medicinal 
 purposes only, upon physicians' prescriptions 
 (not to be drunk on the premises'. Offending 
 herein is keeping a disorderly house. (Id., 
 §12) 
 
 Whenever upon any trial under this act it is 
 alleged that any spirituous, vinous, malt or 
 brewed liquor has been sold, it is not necessary 
 to prove the particular kind. (Id., § 13.) 
 
 If any person has been twice found guilty of 
 keeping a disorderly house, he shall be forever 
 thereafter disqualified from having a license. 
 (Id.. §14.) 
 
 It was enacted that if any part of the above 
 act should be declared unconstitutional, the 
 rest should stand unaffected. (Laws, 1889, 
 c. 227.) 
 
 Excise Boards in cities are authorized to 
 transfer or revoke any license granted by them, 
 at their discretion. In case of transfer on the 
 removal of the licensee, there shall be paid a fee 
 of $5. (Laws, 1889, c. 226. ) To prevent viola- 
 tion of the law, such Board in any city may 
 appoint a License Inspector at not exceeding 
 $1,000 per year. (Id., § 2.) 
 
 Boarding-house keepers are forbidden to sell 
 liquor to be drunk on the premises without a 
 liquor license, upon penalty of fine not exceed- 
 ing $1,000, or imprisonment not exceeding two 
 years, or both. (Laws, 1888 c, 30.) 
 
 Prosecutions under this act shall be before 
 the Recorder or other police magistrate of the 
 town. (Laws. 1888, c. 179, £ 3.) 
 
 No intoxicating liquor shall be sold or given 
 in any quantities to any minor under 18 years of 
 age by any dealer in such liquor, nor shall such 
 minor be allowed to lounge in or frequent such 
 premises. (Laws. 1888 c. 196 ) 
 
 Clerks of the Court of Common Pleas are re- 
 quired to keep records in the minutes of the 
 Court of licenses granted by such Courts, and 
 
 report to the Court the names of those who re- 
 fuse to take out and pay for their licenses, and 
 thereupon such licenses "shall be revoked. (Rev. 
 Supp., 1886. p. 384, § 5.) 
 
 Probably the only part of the former law not 
 inconsistent with or practically duplicated by 
 the above summarized laws of 1888 and 1S89. is 
 § 1 of Rev., 1807, p. 486, vesting the ordinary 
 licensing authority in the Court of Common 
 Pleas (except, of course, in cities and places that 
 have licensing boards of their own by charter). 
 Whatever provisions of the old law may upon 
 comparison be found to be operative, are not 
 of importance. 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by vote of a majority of the two 
 Houses; to be concurred in by a majority of 
 each House in the next Legislature; a majority 
 vole of the electors carries it. 
 
 New Mexico Territory. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in, 1889. — License 
 taxes, half of which shall be for Territorial and 
 half for county purposes, shall be imposed as 
 follows : On all wholesale dealers in intoxicat- 
 ing liquors in quantities of more than five gal- 
 lons, $100 ; on retail dealers, §40 ; brewers, £60; 
 distillers, $200. (C. L., 1884. § 2901.) 
 
 No officer of any prison shall deliver liquor 
 to any prisoner unless upon certificate of a 
 physician (Id., §471), upon penalty of $25 to 
 $50, and disqualification for his office on second 
 conviction. (Id., £472.) If any other person 
 so deliver liquor to a prisoner he shall be fined 
 $5 to $25. (Id, §841.) 
 
 If any person sell liquor to a minor without 
 consent of the parent or guardian, or to an in- 
 toxicated person, he shall be fined $5 to s50. 
 (Id., §841.) 
 
 Selling liquor without license is fined not ex- 
 ceeding $500. (Id., £842.) 
 
 Adulterating liquor or selling the same is 
 fined $5 to $50. (Id., § 843.) 
 
 Any saloon-keeper trusting any minor for 
 drinks does so at his own risk ; he has no action 
 therefor. (Id., §852.) Any saloon keeper per- 
 mitting minors to play billiards, cards or any 
 other game on his premises, shall be fined $10 
 to $100. (Id., § 853.) Selling or giving liquor 
 to minors under 18 years of age. by ODe not the 
 father or guardian, is punished by, fine of $10 to 
 $50, or imprisonment not exceeding 60 days. 
 (Id., § 855.) 
 
 Delivering liquor to Indians under charge of 
 agents is punished by fine of $20 to *100, or by 
 imprisonment not exceeding three months. 
 (Id.. §856.) 
 
 Selling on election day is illegal and punished 
 by fine of $25 to $100, or by imprisonment 20 to 
 30 days (half of the fine to the informer). (14, 
 §* 857-8 ) 
 
 Selling to any Indians excepting Pueblo 
 Indians is fined $5 to $200. (Id., § 859.) 
 
 Any saloon-keeper permitting games, cards 
 or dice upon his premises shall be fined $50 to 
 $300. (Id., §881.) 
 
 Municipal corporations have the right to 
 license regulate or prohibit the sale of liquor 
 and determine the amount of license, and to 
 grant permits to druggists to sell for medical 
 and similar purposes, and to punish sales to 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 328 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 minors, insane, idiotic or distracted persons, 
 habitual drunkards and intoxicated persons. 
 (Id., S 1622.) 
 
 Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, 
 employer or other peison, injured in person, 
 property or means or support by any intoxicated 
 person who is a habitual drunKard, or in conse- 
 quence of such intoxication, shall have action 
 against the sellers of the liquor causing the in- 
 toxication, if sucli plaintiff has before given the 
 seller notice not to soil to such habitual drunk- 
 ard. (Laws, 1887, c. 20.) 
 
 A~ew York. 
 
 Colonial Provisions. — The Duke of York's 
 Book of Laws, "digested into one volume, 
 for the public use of the territories in America 
 under the government of His Royal Highness, 
 collected out of the several laws now in force 
 in His Majesty's American colonies and planta- 
 tions, published March 1, 1664, at a general 
 meeting at Hempstead upon Lone Island," and 
 there on file, was introduced into Pennsylvania, 
 Sept. 22, 1676. It, with the laws from 1682 to 
 1700, is published in one volume (Harrisburg, 
 1879), to which reference is made below. 
 
 Brewers were required to be skilled in the 
 art, and if any one sold unfit or unwholesome 
 beer, damage might be recovered of him. (Id., 
 p. 13. ) No person should at any time under any 
 pretence or color whatsoever undertake to be a 
 common victualler, keeper of a cookshop or 
 house of common entertainment, or public 
 seller of wine, beer, ale or strong waters by re- 
 tail, or a less quantity than a quarter cask, 
 without certificate of good behavior from the 
 constable and two Overseers, at least, of the 
 parish wherein he dwelt, and license first ob- 
 tained under the hand of two Justices of the 
 Peace, in the sessions, upon pain of forfeiting 
 £5 for every such offense, or imprisonment at 
 the discretion of the Court. 
 
 ' ' Every person so licensed for common en- 
 tertainment shall have some ordinary sign ob- 
 vious for direction of strangers, within three 
 months after the license granted, under 
 the penalty of 20*. Every person licensed 
 to keep an ordinary shall always be provided 
 of strong and wholesome beer of four bushels 
 of malt, at the least, to a hogshead, which he shall 
 not sell at above %d the quart under the penalty 
 of 20s for the first offense, 40s for the second 
 and loss of his license. It is permitted to sell 
 beer out-of-doors at a penny the ale-quart or un- 
 der. No licensed person shall suffer any to drink 
 excessively or at unreasonable hours, after 9 of 
 the clock at night, in or about any of their 
 houses upon penalty of 2s 6d for every offense 
 if complaint and proof be made thereof. If 
 any quarrel or disorder doth arise from intem- 
 perate persons within their house, the person 
 so licensed, for not immediately signifying the 
 same to the constable or one Overseer at the 
 least, who are authorized to cause the peace to 
 be kept, shall for every such neglect forfeit 10s; 
 and every person found drunk in or about any 
 of their houses shall forfeit 2s M, due for 
 being the author or accessory of the breach of 
 the peace and disorders, or for tippling at un- 
 seasonable hours shall forfeit 10s, and for 
 want of payment, or in case they be servants 
 
 and neglect their masters' occasions, they shall 
 be sent to the stocks one hour at the least. It 
 shall be lawful, notwithstanding, for all 
 licensed persons to entertain land-travellers or 
 seafaring men in the night season when they 
 come on shore or from their journey, for their 
 necessary refreshment or toward their prepara- 
 tion for their voyage or journey; and also all 
 strangers, lodgers or other persons may freely 
 continue in such houses, when their lawful oc- 
 casions and business doth require, provided 
 there be no disorder amongst them. Every 
 person so licensed for the entertainment of 
 strangers with their horses, shall provide one 
 or more enclosure for summer, hay and pro- 
 vender for winter, with convenient stable room 
 and attendance, upon penalty of 2s tid for 
 every day's default, and double damage to the 
 party thereby wronged. No licensed person 
 shall unreasonably exact upon his guest for 
 any sort of entertainment, and no man shall be 
 compelled to pay above 8d a meal, with small 
 beer, only unless the guest shall make other 
 agreement with the person so licensed. 
 
 ' ' No license shall be granted by any two 
 Judges in sessions for above the term of one 
 year; but every person so licensed before the ex- 
 piration of the said term shall and are hereby 
 enjoined to repair to the sessions of that juris- 
 diction for renewing their several licenses, for 
 which they shall pay to the Clerk of the 
 sessions 2s 6d, or else they shall forfeit £5 as 
 unlicensed persons. All offenses committed 
 against this law shall be determined by the con- 
 stable with two or more of the Overseers, who 
 are empowered to collect and receive the several 
 fines or distrain in case of non-payment, ren- 
 dering account thereof as is elsewhere required." 
 (Id., p. 30.) 
 
 Selling or delivering strong liquor to Indians 
 was fined 40s a pint, and in proportion for 
 greater or lesser quantities (one-third to the in- 
 former); except that by way of relief or chanty 
 to any Indian in case of sudden sickness, faint- 
 ness or weariness, the quantity of two drams 
 might be sold or given, provided that the Gov- 
 ernor might license persons to sell such liquor 
 to Indians upon security for their good behav- 
 ior. (Id., p. 32.) No man was hindered from 
 buying for his own private use any quantity of 
 liquors, provided he did' not sell by retail with- 
 out a license. (Id., p. 59.) 
 
 In 1665 it was provided that inn-keepers 
 should not be obliged to put any particular 
 quantity of malt into their beer, but should not 
 sell it above 2d a quart, or any liquor above 12s 
 a gallon, under penalty of 20s a gallon so sold. 
 If any complaint were made to the officers of a 
 town against selling of liquors at too unreason- 
 able and extraordinary rates, by ordinary-keep- 
 ers or others, such officers had power to give 
 redress. (Id., p. 64.) 
 
 Selling liquor to Indians, as well as trading 
 with them, was prohibited throughout the gov- 
 ernment (New York), and the law was likewise 
 to be observed which prohibited selling strong 
 liquors to the Indians in Yorkshire on Long 
 Island and dependencies. (Id., p. 75.) 
 
 Thus far the Duke of York's laws, which were 
 in force from 1676 to 1682 as well in Pennsyl- 
 vania as in New York. 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 329 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 In 1697 frequenting tippling-houses was in- 
 cluded as a profanation of the Sabbath and fined 
 6s. (Baskett's Laws, p. 24.) In 1709 drunken- 
 ness was fined 3s. (Id., p. 89.; In the same 
 year selling liquors to Indians in Albany County 
 was prohibited. (Id., p. 110.) 
 
 In 1710 an excise was laid on liquor retailed. 
 (Id., p. 125.) An excise was laid of one-eighth 
 of an ounce of silver for each gallon of strong 
 liquors, and one-third of an ounce on every 
 barrel of beer and cider retailed throughout the 
 colony. The Justices or Mayor and Aldermen 
 might agree upon a sum equal to the excise to 
 be paid by the year, and license the retailer, or 
 make him enter into recognizance to pay the 
 excise. 
 
 In 1712 selling without license was fined £5; 
 to slaves, 40s. (Bradford's Laws, p. 89.) 
 
 In 1720 imported wine paid 7^ oz. of silver 
 per pipe, and distilled liquor 15 grains per gal- 
 lon. (Id., p. 186.) 
 
 In 1745 tavern-keepers were not to keep gam- 
 ing-tables, under penalty of £20, nor permit 
 youths, servants, apprentices or journeymen to 
 game, under penalty of £3, and such persons 
 were fined £6 for gaming. (Van Schaack's 
 Laws, vol. 1, p. 253.) Selling liquor to servants 
 and apprentices was fined 40s, and so was taking 
 from them clothes or pawns in payment. And 
 tavern-keepers were not to give credit for over 
 6s for liquors, except to travellers. (Id., 286 
 [1750].) 
 
 In 1772 a license, to be granted by Justices at 
 a cost of 5s, with a penalty of 20s for selling 
 without, was provided for Cumberland County 
 (2 Id., p. 645), extended to Gloucester County 
 (p. 805 [1773]). This was the territory now 
 Vermont. The Excise Commissioners appointed 
 in the act were to impose £1,000 upon the deal- 
 ers in New York City, and the other Commis- 
 sioners were to appoint the several retailers and 
 determine what each should pay, not less than 
 20s annually, except at the Court House, in Suf- 
 folk County, and not including those retailing 
 not to be drank on the premises. (Id., p. 741 
 [1773].) Tavern accommodations were pro- 
 vided for in nine counties, but the Justices 
 might make exemptions in places of little re- 
 sort, and forfeiture of license was provided for 
 selling to apprentices, servants or slaves without 
 consent. (Id., p. 798 [1773].) 
 
 Early State Provisions. — Supervisors of cities, 
 towns and districts, and the Mayor of Albany 
 were to act as Commissioners of Excise, and 
 were to grant licenses to retail liquor at rates of 
 $2 to $4 per month, to be assessed as excise 
 duty, with a charge in each case of 16s as a 
 fee of the Commissioners. The applicant was 
 required to have a certificate of character from 
 the two nearest Justices of the Peace and six 
 substantial freeholders of the place. Selling 
 without license forfeited £10. The Commis- 
 sioners were to determine the prices of liquors, 
 victuals and lodging, which were to be posted 
 conspicuously. (Laws, 1779, c. 17.) 
 
 Revolutionary Prohibition of Distillation. — In 
 the same year (1779), distillation from grain 
 was prohibited upon penalty of £200 fine. 
 (Id., c. 18.) 
 
 The Laws of 1780, c. 40, provided that li- 
 censes were to be granted oniy to such as had 
 
 sufficient ability to keep inns. A bond in £300 
 conditioned not to suffer cock-fighting or gam- 
 ing was required. Unlicensed selling was fined 
 £100 (half to the informer). A fee of $11 for 
 license and $5 for each recognizance was re- 
 quited to be paid the Commissioners. 
 
 The act of 1781, c. 27, made the license fee 
 £2 to £8, and reduced the penalty for selling 
 without license to £10 (half to the informer), 
 and the bond to £50. By the Laws of 1784, 
 c. 37, a Commissioner of Excise for New York 
 City and County was to be appointed by the 
 Mayor and Common Council, who was to grant 
 licenses at from £1 to £20.' 
 
 The act of 1788 (Laws, c. 48) codified and 
 extended the law, repeating former laws. Only 
 taverns necessary to the public were to be li- 
 censed, as before, half the penalties going to 
 the informer. 
 
 Sale of liquor on Sunday was prohibited, ex- 
 cept to lodgers and travellers. (Laws, 1798, 
 c. 82.) 
 
 Merchants licensed were not to allow the 
 liquor sold to be drunk where goods were sold, 
 and they were required to keep inns also. 
 (Laws, 1799, c. 78.) 
 
 The Laws of 1801. c. 164, taxed licenses at 
 $5 to $30, fined illegal sales $25, and made the 
 bond $125. 
 
 In 1820 Overseers of the Poor were given the 
 authority, and it was made their duty, to prose- 
 cute for penalties under the liquor laws for the 
 benefit of the poor. (Laws, 1820, c. 37.) 
 
 First Local Option (1845). — The electors of 
 each town or city were to determine the ques- 
 tion of license or no-license by ballot, which vote 
 was to stand until another was taken upon peti- 
 tion of one-fourth of the voters. New York 
 City was excepted. (Laws, 1845, c. 300.) By 
 the Laws of 1846, c. 14, this was changed to an 
 annual vote, at spring elections. These acts 
 were repealed by Laws of 1847, c. 274. 
 
 If the Overseers of the Poor neglected for 
 ten days to prosecute under the Excise laws, 
 any one might do so. (Laws, 1854, c. 285.) 
 
 Prohibitory Law a/1855. — Chapter 231 of the 
 Laws of 1855 was a law prohibiting the sale 
 and keeping of liquors for any purpose, except 
 as a medicine or for sacramental, chemical and 
 mechanical purposes. Violators forfeited their 
 liquors. The penalties for keeping liquors 
 were: first offense, $50 fine; second, $100 fine 
 and 30 days' imprisonment; third, $100 to $200 
 and three to six months. The penalty for sell- 
 ing was $100 fine, imprisonment for 30 days 
 and disqualification to sell afterward. In 
 Wynehamer v. People (13 N. Y., 378) this law 
 was declared unconstitutional, because liquor 
 possessed at the time of the enactment was not 
 excepted from its prohibition, and because jury 
 trials of offenses thereunder might be denied. 
 
 The Law of 1866. c. 578, was a complete 
 license code for the Metropolitan Police Dis- 
 
 1 The license rates given in this paragraph were subse- 
 quently reduced by revision. By the revision of 1828, the 
 license fee was placed at $5 to $30 (1 H. S., 1828, p. 678, 
 § 4), and the penalty for selling without license at $2S. 
 These fees and this penalty were the same in the 4th edi- 
 tion of the Eevised Statutes of 1852, and they remained 
 in force until the enactment of the Prohibitory law of 
 1855. 
 
Legislation. 
 
 330 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 trict, leaving out the requirement^ for tavern ac- 
 commodations. It was repealed in 1870. 
 
 The Law as it Existed in 1889.— The Law of 
 1857, c. 628, is still given as law in Burdsaye's 
 edition of the Revised Statutes, 1889, and in 
 Bank's 8th edition. I abstract what is given in 
 the latter at p. 2226, and following, taking the 
 last sections passed where there are conflicting 
 regulations therein. 
 
 There shall be a Board of three Excise Com- 
 missioners in each municipality. In incorpo- 
 rated villages it shall consist of the President of 
 the Board of Trustees, and two other Trustees, to 
 be designated by the Board itself. (Laws, 1870, 
 c. 175, § 1 ; 8th ed., p. 2235.) In cities the Mayor 
 and Aldermen shall appoint such Commissioners. 
 (Id. , § 2. ) But in New York City these are now, 
 as city otflcers, appointed by the Mayor without 
 confirmation. In Brooklyn the head of the 
 Department of Police and Excise is appointed 
 by the Mayor, with two other Commissioners of 
 Excise to serve with him. (Laws, Brooklyn, 
 p. 49, §§ 1,2.) At the annual town-meetings 
 shall be elected the Commissioners of Excise, 
 one each year. (Laws, 1874, c. 444; 8th ed., 
 p. 2239.) These Commissioners meet on the 
 first Monday of May in each year for the pur- 
 pose of granting licenses, and at no other time, 
 except upon application for license in any town 
 or village not oftener than once a month, and in 
 cities the first Monday of each month, or oftener, 
 if necessary. Licenses expire the first Mon- 
 day in May, except in New York, Brooklyn 
 and Rochester, where they expire a year after 
 their date. (Laws, 1870, c. 175, § 3; 8th ed., 
 p. 2237.) 
 
 Licenses may be granted for $30 to $150 in 
 towns and villages, and for $30 to $250 in cities. 
 The license must be conspicuously posted in the 
 place of sales. Persons not licensed may sell in 
 quantities not less than five gallons, not to be 
 drunk on the premises. (Id., $ 4.) 
 
 Licenses do not authorize sales between 1 and 
 5 o'clock in the morning, and saloons must be 
 closed then. (Id., § 5.) Violations of the 
 liquor laws forfeit licenses, and Excise Boards 
 after hearing shall revoke and cancel the same. 
 (Id., § 8.) 
 
 In cities of over 150,000 inhabitants, licenses 
 may be granted to those not keeping inns, and 
 those denied license by the Board may apply to 
 a Judge of a Court of record of the city for a 
 writ of mandamus to review the action of the 
 Excise Board, and if the application for li- 
 cense was arbitrarily rejected the Judge may 
 order the Board to issue it. (Laws, 1885, c. 340, 
 § 1; 8th ed., p. 2241.) Such Board may author- 
 ize the removal of the place of the licensed 
 business in such cities. (Id., § 2.) No licensed 
 persons or their agents in such cities may be 
 arrested without warrant, except between 1a.m. 
 and 12 p.m. on Sunday, for violations of the law 
 in the presence of any officer. And such officer 
 may so arrest those engaged in the unlicensed 
 sale of liquor in such cities. (Id , § 3.) Tavern 
 accommodations are required as under the very 
 old laws, except in such cities. (Laws, 1857, 
 c. 628, § 6 ; 8th ed., p. 2229.) 
 
 Bond in the penal sum of $250 shall be taken 
 that the licensee will not allow disorder or gam- 
 ing. (Id., §7.) 
 
 There shall be no recovery for liquor sold on 
 credit. (Id., § 10 ; 8th ed., p. 2230.) 
 
 Licenses to retailers, not to be drunk on the 
 premises, were provided for, with bond in $500 
 and a $50 penalty for allowing consumption on 
 the premises. (Id., §§ 11-14 ; 8th ed., p. 2230.) 
 Sales to apprentices, knowingly, or to minors 
 under 18 without consent of master or parent or 
 guardian, are fined $10, and sales to Indiana 
 or minors under 14, $25. (Id., § 15 ; 8th ed., 
 p. 2230.) 
 
 Any officer shall arrest any one violating th • 
 act and take him before a magistrate, who shall 
 tiy him if he so elect, or if the offense be drunk- 
 enness or otherwise shall bind the offender over 
 to the next sessions or to the Oyer and Ter- 
 miner. (Id., § 16 ; 8th ed., p. 2231.) 
 
 Those found intoxicated in a public place 
 shall be fined $3 to $10, or imprisoned 10 
 days to six months. (Id., ^5 17.) No one shall 
 sell liquor to an intoxicated person, under pen- 
 alty of $10 to $25. (Id., § 18 ; 8th ed., p. 2232.) 
 
 Magistrates and Overseers of the Poor, upon 
 complaint of a wife, husband, parent or child, 
 that the husband, wife, child or parent, respect- 
 ively, is a habitual drinker, shall notify dealers 
 not to sell liquor to them for six months, under 
 penalty of $50. (Id., §§ 19, 20.) 
 
 No one shall sell liquor on Sunday, or within 
 a quarter of a mile of any election on election 
 day, upon penalty of $30 to $200, or imprison- 
 ment five to 50 days, or both. (Id., § 21.) 
 
 Penalties shall be sued for by the Overseers of 
 the Poor, or where there are none, by the Board 
 of Excise. (Id., § 22 ; 8th ed., p. 2233.1 
 
 Every bond under this act shall be filed within 
 10 days in the Municipal Clerk's office. (Id., 
 § 23.) Whenever there is a breach of such 
 bond, the Excise Board, the Supervisor, Mayor 
 or Trustees of the municipality shall prosecute 
 the same. (Id., § 24.) Whenever any convic- 
 tion or judgment sjiali be obtained against any 
 licensed person, the Court shall transmit a 
 statement of the same to the next Court of ses- 
 sions. (Id., § 25.) The said Court shall on 
 notice proceed to revoke the license. (Id., §26.) 
 Persons whose licenses have been revoked can- 
 not again receive licenses for three years. (Id., 
 §27.) 
 
 Any person selling to a person to whom sales 
 are forbidden is liable for all damages to the 
 party injured. (Id., § 28.) Courts shall instruct 
 Grand Juries to inquire into violations of this 
 act, or adulterations of liquors, or selling such, 
 the latter being punished by imprisonment three 
 months and fine of $100. (Id., § 29.) 
 
 Private parties may prosecute under this act 
 after 10 days' notice to those whose duty it is 
 to so prosecute. (Id., § 30 ; 8th ed., p. 2234.) 
 
 Companies or persons carrying passengers 
 must not employ intemperate persons. (Id., 
 §31.) 
 
 "Every husband, wife, child, parent, guard- 
 ian, employer or other person who shall be 
 injured in person or means of support by any 
 intoxicated person, or in consequence of the 
 intoxication, habitual or otherwise, of any per- 
 son, shall have a right of action in his or her 
 name against any person or persons who shall, 
 by selling or giving away intoxicating liquors, 
 have caused the intoxication in whole or in part 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 331 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 of such person or persons ; and any person or 
 persons owning or renting or permitting the 
 occupation of any building or premises, and 
 having knowledge that intoxicating liquors are 
 to be sold therein, shall be liable, severally or 
 jointly, with the person or persons selling or 
 giving intoxicating liquors aforesaid, for all 
 damages sustained and for exemplary damages; 
 and all damages recovered by a minor under 
 this act shall be paid either to such minor or to 
 his or her parent, guardian or next friend as 
 the Court shall direct ; and the unlawful sale 
 or giving away of intoxicating liquors shall 
 work a forfeiture of all rights of the lessee or 
 tenant under any lease or contract of rent 
 upon the premises.'' (Laws, 1873, c. 646 ; 8th 
 ed., p. 2239.) 
 
 Introducing liquor into any poor-house, 
 juvenile reformatory, protectory, house of re- 
 fuge, jail, penitentiary or prison except upon 
 requisition of the medical officer thereof, or the 
 allowing the use of such liquor therein by any 
 officer thereof, except upon such prescription, is 
 a misdemeanor. (Laws, 1880, c. 429; 8th ed., 
 p. 2240.) 
 
 Selling liquor at State and county fairs, ex- 
 cept in cities of over 500,000 inhabitants, is 
 fined $50 to $500. (Laws, 1888, c. 35; 8th ed., 
 p. 2244.) 
 
 Allowing children under 16, unaccompanied 
 by parent or guardian, in any place where 
 liquors are sold, or permitting them to play 
 games therein, or selling or giving liquor to 
 such children, is a misdemeanor. (Laws, 1889, 
 c. 170.) 
 
 An elaborate act regulating wines, ' ' half 
 wines " and made wines, and prohibiting adult- 
 eration of wines, was passed in 1887. 
 (Laws, c. 603; 8th ed., p. 2242.) It does not 
 regulate the making and sale in a restrictive 
 way, but rather the contrary. 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (1 Burdsaye's 
 R. S., p. 596, § 287; passed 1887, Laws, c. 30.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by a majority vote of the two Houses, 
 to be concurred in by a majority of each House 
 in the next Legislature; a majority vote of the 
 electors carries it. 
 
 North Carolina. 
 
 Colonial Provisions. — An act concerning tip- 
 pling-houses was passed in 1715, and an addi- 
 tional one in 1770. A duty on liquors was laid 
 in 1734. Persons getting drunk on Sunday were 
 fined 5s; on any other day 2s Gd. 
 
 In 1741 it was provided that all persons retail- 
 ing liquors should sell the same by sealed meas- 
 ures, according to the act for regulating weights 
 and measures. Persons retailing liquors with- 
 out license were to forfeit £5. The County 
 Court was to judge whether a proposed house 
 was convenient and the keeper responsible, and 
 was to grant or reject the prayer for license. 
 The licensee was to give bond in £30 not to per- 
 mit gaming or suffer any one to tipple more 
 than necessary on the Sabbath. The license 
 cost 25s. Two Justices might suppress the 
 license for violations of law until the next Court, 
 which should continue the suppression or restore 
 the license. The Justices were to fix ordinary 
 
 rates, which were to be posted in the house, and 
 over-charging was punished by fine of 10s. 
 Keeping a tippling-house contrary to the act 
 was fined £5, or in default 30 lashes, and on the 
 second offense the same fine was imposed, or 39 
 lashes and imprisonment one month. This act 
 did not hinder merchants or persons from selling 
 not less than a quart to be drunk out of the 
 house. (Swann's Laws, p. 152 [1741].) 
 
 A revenue act of 1754 (Davis's Revisal, p. 155) 
 laid a duty of id per gallon on imported liquors. 
 
 The act of 1778 (2 Martin's Laws, p. 122) 
 provided in the same way as above for license 
 at a cost of 20s. Selling without license was 
 fined 48s and to slaves without permit £5. The 
 provision for suppression was omitted. 
 
 Early Stale Provisions. — By the act of 1798, 
 c. 18, licenses were granted for 40s. Retailing 
 without license was fined 48s. 
 
 By the last two acts the license was to be 
 granted if the person were not of gross im- 
 morality or of too small means, and it was 
 even provided that upon payment of the license 
 fee there should be no necessity for formal 
 license. 
 
 In 1825 this tax was fixed by the Revenue 
 act at $4 for retailers, as it was taken to be for 
 tavern-keepers. (R. S., 1857, p. 516, §§ 20, 21.) 
 
 By the act of 1844 (Laws, c. 86), no free 
 negro or mulatto might sell liquor in any way 
 to any person, under penalty of $10 for the first 
 offense and fine and imprisonment at discretion 
 for a second offense. 
 
 The Revenue law of 1854 (Laws, c. 37) tax- 
 ed retailers of liquor $20; that of 1856 (Laws, 
 c. 34), taxed them $30, while that of 1858 (Laws, 
 c. 25), taxed liquor brought into the State 10 
 per cent, ad valorem. In these last two years 
 were passed the first of the local Prohibitory 
 laws; there were but few of them enacted before 
 the Civil War, and none at all during the war; 
 but after the war their numbers increased rap- 
 idly at each session. 
 
 War Provisions. — An act was passed in 1862 
 (Laws, c. 10) prohibiting all distillation under 
 penalty of $500 and imprisonment 60 days. 
 This act referred to the ordinance of the Con- 
 vention prohibiting for a limited time the dis- 
 tillation of liquor from grain. It was extended 
 to malting or brewing by Laws of 1864, c. 30. 
 
 Since the War. — By the Revenue law of 1866 
 (Laws, c. 21, § 16), the license of retailers was 
 raised to $50. Selling liquor on election 
 days was prohibited by Laws of 1868, c. 26. 
 By Laws of 1881, c. 319, Prohibition of the 
 manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor was 
 submitted to the people and defeated. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — Every one 
 selling intoxicating liquors or medicated bitters 
 in quantifier of five gallons or less shall pay $50 
 for six months, to be collected by the Sheriff 
 for the benefit of the school fund of the 
 county ; in quantities of five gallons or more, 
 $100 ; for malt liquors exclusively, $10 for 
 said period. Nothing in this section prevents 
 any person selling spirits and wines of his own 
 manufacture at the place thereof in quantities 
 not less than a quart. Every one wishing to 
 sell liquors shall apply to the Board of County 
 Commissioners for an order to the Sheriff to 
 issue a license, stating the place at which it is 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 332 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 proposed to conduct the business. The Board, 
 upon satisfactory proof of good moral character, 
 shall issue such order except in territory where 
 the sale of liquors is prohibited. Counties may 
 levy not more than as much tax as the State 
 does hereunder. All persons licensed shall post 
 their licenses in some public part of their 
 places of business. The license shall be 
 printed as the Treasurer of the State shall pre- 
 scribe, and furnished by the Register of Deeds 
 to the Sheriff. Persons not posting their 
 licenses will be considered doing business with- 
 out license. Licenses taken out after Jan. and 
 July 1 will be subject to the full amount for 
 six months. (Laws, 1889, c. 216, § 32.) 
 
 Every person bringing liquor into the State to 
 sell shall, in addition to the ad valorem tax on 
 his stock, pay as a license tax one-half of 1 per 
 cent, of such purchases. (Id., § 23.) 
 
 For selling without license the seller shall 
 forfeit not exceeding $20 per day. (Code, 
 1883, S 3704.) 
 
 Any person giving or selling liquor on elec- 
 tion days within five miles of any polling-place 
 at any time within 12 hours next preceding or 
 succeeding any election, or during the holiday 
 thereof (except for medical purposes upon pre- 
 scription), shall be fined $100 to $1,000. (Id., 
 g 2740.) 
 
 Any person bringing into or selling liquor 
 within the Penitentiary enclosure, not author- 
 ized by the physician for the use of the hos- 
 pital, and the prison officer suffering it, shall 
 be fined not more than $50 or imprisoned not 
 more than 30 day s ; and if an officer, shall be 
 dismissed. (Id., § 3440.) 
 
 Selling liquor (except by licensed dealers at 
 their regular places of business) within a mile 
 of and during the progress of divine service, is 
 fined $20. (Id., § 3671.) 
 
 Liquor shall not be sold within four miles of 
 Chapel Hill. (Id., §§ 2640-3.) 
 
 All wines made from fruit raised in the State 
 may be sold in bottles corked up, in any quan- 
 tities, not to be drunk on the premises, but 
 must not be sold to minors ; nor may wines 
 mixed with spirituous liquor be so sold. (Id., 
 § 3110.) 
 
 Notice of all applications to the General As- 
 sembly to prohibit the sale of liquor or to re- 
 peal Prohibitory local laws within the limits 
 specified, shall be posted at four public places 
 within those limits for at least 30 days before 
 the application shall be forwarded to the 
 General Assembly. (Id., § 3111.) In all cases 
 where Prohibition is asked for a greater dis- 
 tance from a common center than two miles, the 
 question shall be decided by the votes accord- 
 ing to this chapter. (Id., § 3112.) 
 
 The County Commissioners, upon the petition 
 of one-fourth of the voters of any county, 
 town or township, shall order an election to be 
 held on the first Monday in June in any year to 
 ascertain whether spirituous liquors shall be 
 sold therein; but such election shall not be held 
 oftener than once in two years. (Id., § 3113; 
 amended by Laws of 1885, c. 336, and Laws of 
 1887, c. 215, § 1.) Such election shall be held 
 under the general election law. (Code, 1883, 
 § 3114; see Laws, 1887, c. 216, § 2.) At such 
 election ballots shall be "Prohibition" and 
 
 "License," respectively (Code, 1883, § 3115.) 
 If Prohibition carries, no license shall be grant- 
 ed in such limits until the vote is reversed, pro- 
 vided that liquor-dealers shall have six months 
 in which to close out their businesses, if their li- 
 censes shall remain so long in force. (Id., 
 § 3116; amended by Laws of 1887, c. 215, § 3.) 
 If in a county election the vote is in favor o£- 
 license, that result shall not operate to permit 
 sale in any township, city or town where it is 
 prohibited by law, unless that place cast a ma- 
 jority of votes for license. (Code, 1883, § 3117.) 
 
 No druggist shall sell or dispose of any in- 
 toxicating liquor except for medical purposes 
 upon prescription of a practicing physician 
 known to such druggist to be reputable, and no 
 physician shall give a prescription to a drug- 
 store in which he is financially interested. Any 
 druggist or physician violating this section shall 
 be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined or im- 
 prisoned at the discretion of the Court. (Laws, 
 1887, c. 215, § 4.) 
 
 If anyone adulterate liquor or sell such 
 liquor he shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, 
 at the discretion of the Court. (Code, 1883, 
 § 982.) Any citizen after purchasing liquor 
 may cause the same to be analyzed, and if 
 found to contain any foreign poisonous matter 
 it shall be prima facie evidence against the 
 party making the sale. (Id., § 983.) Any per- 
 son offering to sell any recipe for adulterating 
 liquor shall be punished as above at discretion. 
 But druggists, physicians and persons engaged 
 in the mechanical arts may adulterate liquor 
 for medical and mechanical purposes. (Id., 
 §984.) 
 
 If any person shall retail liquor in any other 
 manner than is prescribed by law, he shall be 
 guilty of a misdemeanor and punished at the dis- 
 cretion of the Court. (Id., § 1076.) 
 
 Dealers selling to unmarried minors know- 
 ingly are guilty of misdemeanors. (Id., §1077.) ' 
 The father or (if he be dead) the mother, guard- 
 ian or employer of such minor has a right to 
 a civil action against the seller for damages not 
 less than $25 and for exemplary damages. (Id., 
 § 1078.) 
 
 Selling liquor within two miles of public 
 political speaking is fined $10 to $20. (Id., 
 § 1079.) 
 
 If anyone sells liquor on Sunday except 
 upon a physician's prescription he is guilty of a 
 misdemeanor and may be punished at the dis- 
 cretion of the Court. (Id., § 1117.) 
 
 The Sheriff shall lay before the Grand Jury 
 as soon as it assembles a list of the persons 
 licensed to retail liquor within two years. (Id., 
 §1087.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by a three-fifths vote of the two 
 Houses, at one session ; popular vote to be taken 
 at the next general election for Representatives. 
 A majority vote carries it. 
 
 North Dakota. 
 
 Present Law (1890). — No person, association 
 or corporation shall within this State manufac- 
 ture for sale or gift any intoxicating liquor, 
 and no person, association or corporation shall 
 import any of the same for sale or gift, or keep 
 or sell or offer the same for sale or gift, barter 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 333 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 or trade, as a beverage. The Legislative As- 
 sembly shall by law "prescribe regulations for 
 the enforcement of the provisions of this article, 
 and shall thereby provide suitable penalties for 
 the violation thereof. (Const., art. 20, § 217.) 
 
 The Prohibitory law passed by the first Leg- 
 islature of the State, to go into effect July 1, 
 1890, is substantially as follows: 
 
 Any contravention of the Constitution as 
 above is punished for the first offense by fine 
 of $200 to $1,000 with imprisonment 90 days to 
 one year; for subsequent offenses by imprison- 
 ment one to two years, being a felony. 
 
 But registered pharmacists may sell intoxicat- 
 ing liquors for medicinal, mechanical and 
 scientific purposes, and wine for sacramental 
 purposes, as hereinafter provided. (§ 1.) Sell- 
 ing for such purposes is unlawful until a drug- 
 gist's permit therefor is procured from the 
 County Judge. This he may grant if the person 
 is of good character and can be entrusted with 
 the responsibility. The applicant must file 
 a petition signed by 25 reputable freeholders 
 (voters), and 25 reputable women over 21 years 
 old, residents of the town, village, township 
 or city. He gives bond in $1,000 to obey 
 the law. Any permit so granted must be re- 
 voked upon hearing the same as when granted, 
 and upon petition of the same number of per- 
 sons. If the County Judge wrongly issues such 
 a permit he shall be fined $500 to $1,000, and 
 if any signer of a petition for a permit knows 
 its statement to be false he is fined $50 to 
 $100. (Id., §2.) Any physician, when a pa- 
 tient is absolutely in need thereof, may give a 
 prescription for liquors for him, and giving it 
 otherwise is punished by fine of $300"to $800 
 with imprisonment 30 days to six months. 
 (§4.) Sales by permit-holders are made upon 
 printed affidavits minutely specifying the in- 
 tended uses (only one sale to be made upon one 
 affidavit), the affidavits themselves being offi- 
 cially furnished and duplicates kept, so as to 
 check sales. Persons making such affidavits 
 falsely are imprisoned as for perjury six months 
 to two years. And if one sign a false name he 
 is guilty of forgery in the fourth degree and 
 imprisoned one to two years. Re-selling liquors 
 obtained upon affidavit is punished by fine of 
 $100 to $500 with imprisonment 30 to *90 days. 
 Any druggist holding a permit who fails to make 
 the record of sales for inspection required, or 
 falsely sells an affidavit, or fails to return the 
 affidavits, or illegally sells, is fined $200 to 
 $1,000 and imprisoned 90 days to one year, 
 and disqualified to have a permit again for five 
 years. (§ 5.) 
 
 All spirituous, malt, vinous, fermented or 
 other intoxicating liquors or mixtures thereof 
 that will produce intoxication are held to be in- 
 toxicating liquors. (§ 6.) 
 
 It is the duty of all officers to notify the 
 State's Attorney of all violations of this law, 
 with names of witnesses; if they do not they 
 shall be fined $100 to $500 and forfeit office. 
 
 (§8.) 
 
 If the State's Attorney is so notified of or is 
 cognizant himself of any such violation, he 
 shall investigate the matter, calling witnesses, 
 and prosecute thereupon; and if the State's 
 Attorney fail therein any Justice may proceed 
 
 to so collect evidence and lay it before the' 
 State's Attorney, who shall thenprosecute. (§ 9.) 
 
 If it is disclosed that any liquor is kept any- 
 where for illegal sale, warrant shall issue for 
 search and seizure. (§ 10.) 
 
 Fines and forfeitures hereunder go to the 
 liquor prosecution fund. State's Attorneys fail- 
 ing in their duty hereunder shall be fined $100 
 to $500 and imprisoned 30 to 90 days, and for- 
 feit their offices ; and whenever any State's 
 Attorney fails or neglects his said duty, the 
 Attorney-General shall undertake the duty. 
 
 (§ 12-) 
 
 Places where liquors are sold or kept in viola- 
 tion of law are nuisances, and upon establish- 
 ment of the fact shall he abated. Injunction 
 may be granted at the beginning of the action. 
 Violating such injunction is punished as illegal 
 selling. On such contempt proceedings the 
 defendant may be required to make answer 
 to interrogatories and will not be necessarily dis- 
 charged upon his denial of the facts stated in 
 the moving papers. (§ 13.) 
 
 Pull civil damages are given. (§§ 14, 15.) 
 
 Members of clubs to use or distribute liquors 
 are punished about the same as those making 
 unlawful sales. (§ 16.) 
 
 Giving away liquor and evasions of the law 
 are deemed unlawful selling. (§ 17.) 
 
 Fines and costs are liens upon the property 
 upon which the unlawful traffic was conducted, 
 with the knowledge of the owner thereof. 
 (§ 18.) 
 
 Any person may employ an attorney to assist 
 the State's Attorney in his duty, and such em- 
 ployed attorney shall be recognized as associate 
 counsel. (§ 20.) 
 
 Suspension of judgment for reason as for per. 
 fecting appeals may be entered in the hand, 
 writing of the Judge. (§ 21.) 
 
 Pleading and evidence are simplified and ex- 
 tended in § 22. 
 
 The Grand Jury is to be charged with this 
 act specially. (§ 23.) 
 
 Druggists may be notified not to sell to 
 habitual drunkards. (§ 24.) 
 
 Treating or giving liquor to a minor, except 
 by his father, mother, guardian or physician, is 
 punished as unlawful selling. 
 
 Officers or agents of carriers are punished for 
 carrying liquor to be sold contrary to the act, 
 by fine of $100 to $500, with imprisonment 30 
 to 60 days. (§ 26.) 
 
 Persons arrested for violation of this act, 
 giving bond and forfeiting it, upon being sur- 
 rendered to Sheriff, shall be committed for de- 
 fault of costs not over six months. (§ 27.) 
 
 Payments for liquor may be recovered and 
 debts therefor are void. (§ 30.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by a majority vote of the two Houses; 
 to be concurred in by a majority of each House 
 in the next Legislature; upon submission to tha 
 people a majority vote of the electors carries it. 
 
 Ohio. 
 
 Early Provisions. — The sixth law of Ohio 
 Territory punished drunkenness by a fine of five 
 dimes, second offense $1 ; on default in either 
 case the penalty was an hour in the stocks. 
 (Chase's Statutes, c. 6, § 20 [1788].) 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 334 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 In 1790 the penalty for furnishing liquor to 
 Indians was $5 for every quart; for less than a 
 quart, $4 (half to the informer). (Id., c. 11.) 
 Selling liquor to United States soldiers, without 
 order from an officer, was fined $3. (Id., c. 13.) 
 Selling ardent spirits of any kind without 
 license was fined $5 (half to the informer). 
 Commissioners appointed by the Governor in 
 each county had power to establish public inns 
 and taverns, and also to grant licenses to retail- 
 ers of spirituous liquors, and they might license 
 such as the Justices in general quarter sessions 
 should recommend as personally qualified, and 
 having premises situated for the accommoda- 
 tion of travellers and citizens ; license fee, $16. 
 The Justices, upon complaint and hearing, 
 might annul a license for neglect of duty to 
 provide tavern accommodations or for allowing 
 gaming, unless the licensee gave bond in $100 
 to obey v the law and keep order. Licensees 
 could not collect bills for over $2 for liquors 
 retailed. (Id., c. 24 [1792].) 
 
 In 1795 licenses were to be granted by the 
 Governor on the same recommendation and 
 conditions, bond of $300 to be given to keep 
 order and observe the law ; and licensees were 
 not to harbor minors or servants, or sell to 
 slaves, upon penalty of $3. (Id., c. 51.) 
 
 In 1800 such licenses were to be grauted only 
 upon recommendation of 12 freeholders of the 
 county to the Justices of Sessions. The penalty 
 for selling without license was raised to $20. 
 The provision for revocation for disorder was 
 continued, and the license tax was to be $4, 
 $8 or $12, according to advantages of location. 
 (Id., c. 132.) 
 
 In 1804 licenses were granted by the Associate 
 Judges of the county, after advertisement 30 
 days, at prices to be fixed by them. The penalty 
 for not complying with the act was a fine not 
 exceeding $50. The only other prohibition was 
 against disorder and gaming, which was fined 
 not exceeding $20, with forfeiture of license 
 and disqualification one year. (Id., c. 59.) 
 
 In 1809 tavern-keepers selling liquor to In- 
 dians were fined $5 to $100 and forfeited what 
 they received for it, to be restored to the In- 
 dian. (Id., c. 194.) Tavern-keepers permitting 
 sporting, gaming, disorder, revelling or drunk- 
 enness were fined not exceeding $20, forfeited 
 their licenses and were disqualified to receive 
 new licenses for a year. The retailing of cider 
 and beer was made free. (Id., c. 196.) License 
 was to be granted by the Court of Common 
 Pleas, and the fine was to be fixed by the 
 County Commissioners. (Id., c. 222.) 
 
 In 1818 tavern license was to be granted 
 upon recommendation of 12 landholders of the 
 neighborhood, upon payment of $5 to $30. 
 The penalty for selling without license was a 
 fine not exceeding $20 ; for allowing disorder 
 and drunkenness, not exceeding $50, with sus- 
 pension of license four months. Tavern-keepers 
 could not collect bills for liquors retailed in 
 excess of 50 cents. (Id., c. 434.) 
 
 By Id., c. 487 (1819), the penalty for selling 
 without license was made not exceeding $100, 
 the other provisions being re-enacted. By Id., 
 c. 565 (1822), neither recommendation nor ad- 
 vertisement was needed to secure a renewal, 
 but both were necessary in applying for a new 
 
 license. The act of 1823 (Id., c. 631) made no 
 material change in the law which was, how- 
 ever, re-enacted. 
 
 In 1830 selling liquor on Sunday was fined 
 $5 ; selling in other places than licensed houses 
 within one mile of a religious gathering 
 was fined $20. (Id., c. 834, §§ 2-10.) 
 The recommendation of freeholders for li- 
 cense was dispensed with, but advertisement 
 of application was still required, such applica- 
 tion being necessary to obtain a renewal as well 
 as a new license ; but upon remonstrance of 10 
 freeholders the licensing Court was to decide. 
 The price of license was $5 to $50 ; the penalty 
 for selling without license $5 to $100. (Id., 
 c. 857.) 
 
 Partial Prohibition, of Spirits (1839). — " No 
 tavern license hereafter granted shall be con- 
 strued to authorize the sale of spirituous liquors 
 in any other than the common bar of the 
 tavern ; and any tavern-keeper who shall, 
 either in the basement of the building occupied 
 by him as a tavern, or in any shop or room at- 
 tached to the same, or in any other place than 
 the barroom attached to the same, or in any 
 other place than the barroom usually occupied 
 as such for the reception of travellers, sell 
 spirituous liquor by less quantity than one 
 quart, or to be drank at the place where sold, 
 shall be subject to the same penalties as though 
 he had no license whatever." (Laws, 1839, 
 p. 54, March 16.) 
 
 In 1841, (Laws, p. 53) each and every act con- 
 ferring power upon any municipal corporation 
 to license groceries or coffee-houses or in any 
 manner to authorize the sale of intoxicating 
 drinks, was repealed. 
 
 By Laws of 1844, p. 8, whenever any re- 
 monstrance against the granting of any license 
 was made, whether it should contain any state- 
 ment of facts other than general dissent of the 
 remonstrants or not, and whether any testimony 
 were offered by the remonstrants or not, the 
 Board might grant or refuse license at discre- 
 tion. 
 
 Township Local Option, Constitutional Anti- 
 License, and Prohibitum of Sales of Liquor for 
 Consumption on the Premises (1846-54). — Town- 
 ship Local Option was given to 10 counties by 
 Laws of 1846, p. 39. The submission clauses 
 were repealed in 1847. (Laws, p. 33.) 
 
 Retailing spirituous liquor to be drunk on the 
 premises was prohibited altogether by Laws of 
 
 1850, p. 87, upon penalty of $5 to $25 for the 
 first offense, $5 to $120 for the second, and $5 
 to $150 for the third. But this act excepted 
 selling for medicinal and pharmaceutical pur- 
 poses. 
 
 Section 18 of the schedule, Constitution of 
 
 1851, was submitted and adopted separately. 
 It is: "No license to traffic in intoxicating 
 liquors shall hereafter be granted in this State, 
 but the General Assembly may, by law, provide 
 against evils resulting therefrom." 
 
 The act of 1854 (Laws, p. 108) prohibited 
 adulteration of liquors under penalty of $100 
 to $500 and imprisonment 10 to 30 days. And 
 the laws of that year (p. 153) re-enacted with 
 amplifications the law against selling to be 
 drunk on the premises, adding prohibitions 
 against selling to minors and intoxicated per- 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 335 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 sons. It declared such places nuisances and 
 gave full civil damages. It made it unlawful 
 to become intoxicated. It made the penalty of 
 unlawful selling $20 to $50 and imprisonment 
 10 to 30 days, and provided somewhat fully for 
 legal procedure. This was the Adair law. 
 The Laws of 1859, p. 173, reduced the penalty 
 for selling to $5 to $50 or imprisonment 10 to 
 30 days, and excepted from the prohibition do- 
 mestic wine, beer, ale and cider. 
 
 Selling on election day was prohibited, and 
 the duty of enforcing the prohibition devolved 
 on the municipalities, by Laws of 1864, p. 24. 
 
 Sales to minors and intoxicated persons were 
 again prohibited under penalty of $10 to $100 
 or imprisonment 10 to 30 days, or both, by 
 Laws of 1866, p. 149. 
 
 The Laws of 1870 (p. 101), elaborated the civil 
 damage sections and made them include the 
 owner of the real estate used for the business. 
 
 The Law of 1875, p. 35, made provision for 
 previous notice not to sell to the person in ques- 
 tion, in order to obtain civil damages from the 
 seller, but provided very elaborately for such 
 notice. 
 
 Smith Sunday Law, Pond Law and Scott Law 
 (1881-3).— The celebrated Smith Sunday law, 
 as originally enacted in 1881 (Laws, p. 126) pro- 
 vided that anyone selling or bartering any 
 liquor on Sunday except upon a physician's 
 prescription should be fined not more than $50. 
 As amended in 1882 (Laws, p. 128) it provided 
 that all liquor places should be closed on Sun- 
 day under penalty of $100 fine and imprison- 
 ment not exceeding 30 days. It was weakened 
 by the Scott law of 1883, with the proviso that 
 municipal corporations might regulate the sale of 
 beer and native wines on Sunday by ordinance. 
 
 The Pond law (Laws, 1882, p. 66) imposed a 
 tax of $100 to $300 on every person engaged in 
 the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and provided 
 that every such person should give bond to 
 comply with the act. It was held in State v. 
 Hipp (38 O. St., 199) that this requirement of a 
 bond was a virtual license, contrary to the arti- 
 cle of the Constitution. 
 
 This law was re-enacted in the Scott law 
 (Laws, 1883, p. 164) without, the obnoxious pro- 
 vision, but providing that the tax was a lien on, 
 the premises occupied. This law was held con- 
 stitutional in State v. Frame (39 O. St., 399), but 
 in Butzman v. Whitbeck (42 O. St., 345) it also 
 was declared to amount to a virtual license pro- 
 vision by reason of the lien imposed. 
 
 Submission of Constitutional Amendments 
 (1883).— By Laws of 1883, p. 384, were submit- 
 ted two propositions to amend the no-license 
 article in the Constitution. One left the Legis- 
 lature free to pass license laws, the other sub- 
 stituted a regular Prohibition of the manufac- 
 ture and sale of intoxicating liquor to be used 
 as a beverage. It was provided that the sub- 
 mission should be at a general election, and if 
 either proposition received a majority of the 
 votes cast at the election it should be adopted. 
 Neither proposition received such majority. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889.— The Dow 
 law of 1886 (p. 157; amended by Laws of 1888, 
 p. 116), re-enacted the Scott and Pond laws, 
 with some changes designed to eliminate the 
 unconstitutional provisions above noticed. 
 
 Upon the business of trafficking in intoxi- 
 cating liquors shall be assessed yearly $250. 
 (R, S., 1890, § 8892.) Said assessment shall be 
 a lien on the property upon which the business 
 is conducted and shall be paid at the time of 
 paying other taxes. (Id., § 8893.) When 
 such business is commenced after the fourth 
 Monday of May, said assessment shall be pro- 
 portionate in amount to the remainder of the 
 year, but it shall not be less than $25 ; and 
 whenever business is discontinued during the 
 year a proportionate amount of the tax, if not 
 less than $50, shall be refunded. (Id., § 8894.) 
 In case of refusal or neglect to pay this tax the 
 amount shall be levied and made upon the 
 goods and chattels used in the business, and 
 what cannot be thus made shall be added to the 
 tax on the real estate occupied. (Id., § 8895.) 
 If any person refuse to give information of his 
 said business or to sign the Assessor's return of 
 the same, his assessment shall thereupon become 
 $400. (Id., § 8896.) The Auditor shall make 
 duplicates of such assessments and deliver a 
 copy to the County Treasurer (Id., § 8897), 
 who shall collect them and account to the 
 Auditor therefor. (Id., § 8898.) 
 
 The phrase "trafficking in intoxicating 
 liquors" means the buying, procuring and 
 selling of such liquors except upon physician's 
 prescription, or for mechanical, pharmaceutical 
 or sacramental purposes, but does not include 
 the manufacture of liquors from the raw 
 material and sale thereof at wholesale at the 
 manufactory. (Id., § 8899.) 
 
 Of the revenues and fines resulting under this 
 act, two-tenths shall go to the State, six-tenths 
 to the municipality and two-tenths to the county 
 poor fund. (Id., §8900.) 
 
 The sale of intoxicating liquor on Sunday, 
 except by a druggist upon prescription, is de- 
 clared unlawful; and all places where liquor is 
 sold, except regular drug-stores, shall be closed 
 on that day upon penalty of $25 to $100 and 
 imprisonment 10 to 30 days. In regular hotels 
 and eating-houses, the word "place" herein 
 used shall mean the room or part of a room 
 where liquors are sold. Any municipal corpor- 
 ation shall have full power to regulate, restrain 
 and prohibit ale, beer and porter-houses or 
 other places where intoxicating liquor is sold. 
 (Id., § 8902.) 
 
 Whoever sells liquor to a minor, except upon 
 written order of his parent, guardian or family 
 physician, or to a person intoxicated or in the 
 habit of getting so, shall be fined $25 to $100 
 and imprisoned from five to 30 days. (Id. , § 8903. ) 
 
 The abrogation or repeal of any section or 
 clause of this law shall not affect any other 
 section or clause thereof. (Id., § 8904.) 
 
 In the Dow law as enacted in 1886, after the 
 prohibition to sell on Sunday, it was provided 
 that nothing therein prohibited the Council of 
 any municipal corporation from regulating the 
 sale of beer and native wine on that day as it 
 saw fit. 
 
 The Dow law was upheld as constitutional 
 and not tantamount to a license in Adler v. 
 Whitbeck (44 O. St., 539). 
 
 Whenever one-fourth of the qualified electors 
 of any township, outside of any municipal cor- 
 poration, shall petition the Trustees therefor, 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 336 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 the Trustees shall order an election to deter- 
 mine whether the sale of liquor as a beverage 
 shall be prohibited therein. A record of the 
 result of such election shall be kept by the 
 Township Clerk in the record of the proceed- 
 ings of the Township Trustees, and shall be 
 evidence that selling after 30 days from the 
 election is unlawful. (R. S., 1890, § 8906.) 
 Ballots shall be "Against the sale" and " For 
 the sale." Selling after Prohibition is adopted 
 is punished by fine of $50 to $500 and impris- 
 onment not exceeding six months. This does 
 not apply to manufacturers and sellers of cider 
 and domestic wine not in a place where sold as 
 a beverage, or to druggists selling for the ex- 
 cepted purposes. (Id., §8907.) Another elec- 
 tion unJ;r tli2 act may be had after two years. 
 
 Liquor places shall be closed and no sales 
 made from 13 p. M. to 6 A. m. in Cincinnati, 
 upon penalty of not over $100 and imprison- 
 ment 30 days or both. (Id., § 8913.) 
 
 Instruction as to the effect of alcoholic drinks 
 and narcotics on the human system is required 
 in public schools, but may be by oral instruc- 
 tion only, and without the use of text-books. 
 (Id., § 8917.) No certificate to teach in the 
 common schools shall be granted to any person 
 who does not pass a satisfactory examination 
 as to the nature of such drinks and narcotics and 
 their effects upon the system. (Id., § 8918.) 
 Any teacher neglecting to give such instruction 
 Bhall be dismissed. (Id., § 8919.) 
 
 All cities and villages have power to regulate 
 ale, beer and porter-houses and shops. (Id., 
 § 1692.) 
 
 All incorporated villages having a college or 
 university within their limits may provide by 
 ordinance against the evils resulting from the 
 sale of liquor. (Id., § 1692, b.) 
 
 The Mayor of any city or village, shall, three 
 days previously to election day, issue a procla- 
 mation setting forth the law prohibiting the 
 sale of liquor on that day, and such Mayor shall 
 take proper measures to enforce the same. (Id., 
 § 1838.) 
 
 Any person disposing of liquor within one 
 mile of any parade-ground or encampment of 
 the militia may be put under guard by the 
 commandant and turned over to the local 
 officers. (Id., § 3079.) 
 
 Any officer shall, upon view or information, 
 apprehend any person selling liquor within two 
 miles of where agricultural fairs are held and 
 seize the booth, stand, or thing at or from which 
 the liquor is being sold, which articles shall be 
 bound for the payment of costs and fines. (Id., 
 §§ 3712-13.) 
 
 Inspection of liquor is provided for by Id., 
 §S 4277, 4327, 4333. 
 
 Whoever by the sale of liquor causes intoxi- 
 cation shall pay a reasonable compensation for 
 taking care of such intoxicated person and $1 
 per day besides. (Id., § 4356.) 
 
 Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, 
 employer or other person injured in person, 
 property or means of support by intoxication, 
 having given notice, has a right of action for 
 damages sustained, and exemplary damages 
 against those who, by selling the liquor, caused 
 such intoxication. (Id., § 4357.) Any person 
 liable to be injured by the intoxication of any 
 
 one, and desiring to prevent it, shall give a 
 notice to the sellers, either verbally or in writ- 
 ing, before a witness, or file with the Township 
 or Corporation Clerk notice to all liquor-deal- 
 ers not to sell liquor to a named person after 10 
 days. (Id., § 4358.) Such notice so filed shall 
 be entered in a book open to public inspection, 
 and may be erased by the person giving it. (Id., 
 § 4359.) It shall inure to the benefit of all per- 
 sons interested, the same as if a notice had been 
 served on each. (Id., § 4360.) The unlawful 
 sale of liquor works forfeiture of all rights of a 
 tenant upon premises where it takes place. (Id., 
 § 4361.) Any saloon-keeper who publishes the 
 t'act that any such notice has been given him 
 shall be fined $10 to $50. (Id., § 4361.) If a 
 person rent premises for the sale of liquor or 
 permit their use for such purpose, they shall be 
 held liable for all fines, costs or damages assessed 
 against the person occupying the same. (Id., 
 § 4364.) 
 
 Whoever is found in a state of intoxication 
 shall be fined $5. (Id., § 6940.) 
 
 A keeper of a place where intoxicating liquors 
 are sold in violation of law shall be fined $50 to 
 $100 or imprisoned 10 to 30 days, or both, and 
 the place shall be deemed a common nuisance 
 and be ordered abated. (Id., § 6942.) 
 
 Whoever buys liquor for an intoxicated person 
 or habitual diTinkard, or a minor unless given 
 by a physician, shall be fined $10 to $100 or 
 imprisoned 10 to 30 days, or both. (Id.. §6943.) 
 
 Selling liquor within four miles of any re- 
 ligious assemblage or harvest home festival, or 
 a Grand Army, Sons of Veterans' or Union 
 Veterans' celebration, shall be fined $10 to $100. 
 (Id., § 6945.) Selling liquor within 1,200 yards 
 of Columbus, Dayton, Athens or Toledo Asy- 
 lums for the Insane, Soldiers' and Sailors' Home, 
 or of the Institution for Feeble-Minded Youth, 
 or the Ohio Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans' 
 Home, or within two miles of the Boys' Indus- 
 trial School south of Lancaster, or within two 
 miles of an agricultural fair, or within one mile 
 of any county Children's Home situate within a 
 mile of any village or city in which selling is 
 prohibited by ordinance, shall be fined $25 to 
 $100 or punished by imprisonment not more 
 than 30 days, or both, and the place of sale shall 
 be abated as a nuisance. (Id., § 6946.) Selling 
 within one mile of the Soldiers' and Sailors' 
 Home near Sandusky is so punished. (Id., 
 § 6947.) 
 
 Whoever conveys liquor into a jail, or having 
 charge of a jail permits a prisoner to receive 
 liquor except as a medicine, shall be fined $10 
 to $100 or imprisoned 10 to 30 days. (Id.,§ 6947.) 
 
 No liquor shall be sold and saloons shall be 
 closed election days, upon penalty of a fine of 
 not more than $100 and imprisonment not more 
 than 10 days. (Id., § 6948.) 
 
 Adulterating liquor or selling such is punished 
 by fine of $100 to $500 and imprisonment 10 to 
 30 days. (Id., § 6950.) 
 
 Giving liquor to a female to induce illicit in- 
 tercourse is punished by imprisonment from 
 one to three years. (Id., § 7023 a.) 
 
 Treating with liquor to influence votes is fined 
 $100 to $2,000 or punished by confinement 
 not more than three years in the Penitentiary. 
 (Id., § 7065.) 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 337 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 •proposed by vote of three-fifths of the two 
 Houses, at one session; popular vote to be taken 
 at the next general election for Representatives, 
 six months' notice to be given; a majority vote 
 of all the electors voting at such election is 
 necessary to carry it. 
 
 Oklahoma Territory. 
 
 Lying wholly within Indian Territory, Okla- 
 homa, upon being opened to white settlers in 
 1889, was subject to the absolute and stringent 
 regulations of the Federal Government, prohib- 
 iting the liquor traffic in all its forms within the 
 "Indian country." 
 
 In March, 1890, Congress passed an act pro- 
 viding that the general statutes of the Stale of 
 Nebraska should be in force in Oklahoma until 
 the Legislative Assembly of that Territory 
 should meet and enact laws, except that the 
 Prohibitory regulations relating to the liquor 
 traffic should be retained and be operative dur- 
 ing the interval. 
 
 Oregon. 
 
 Territorial Prohibition (1844). — Oregon's first 
 liquor legislation, under her Territorial Govern- 
 ment, was Prohibitory. It was provided that 
 if any person should import or introduce any 
 ardent spirits, with intent to sell the same, he 
 should be fined $50. If any person should sell 
 such liquor, he had to pay a fine of $20. If 
 any person established a manufactory or distil- 
 lery of the same, he was to be indicted for a 
 nuisance and fined $100, and the apparatus was 
 to be destroyed. Sheriffs, Judges, Constables, 
 Justices of the Peace and other officers were to 
 give notice of any violation of this act to some 
 Justice or Judge, who was to issue warrant for 
 the arrest of the person, who, if guilty, was to 
 be bound over to the next Court. This was not 
 to prevent physicians from selling liquor for 
 medicine, not exceeding a gallon at a time. 
 {Comp. Laws, 1849, p. 94 [passed June 24, 1844, 
 by the Legislative Committee].) 
 
 The act of 1845 strengthened the above verb- 
 ally, provided for search and seizure for illicit 
 manufacture, allowed half of all fines to inform- 
 ers and reduced the quantity physicians might 
 sell to half a pint. (Id., p. 34.) 
 
 Selling liquor to Indians had previously, in 
 1843, been prohibited, under penalty of $100 to 
 $500. (Id., p. 167.) 
 
 An act of 1847 proposed that the word "reg- 
 ulate " in the organic law be stricken out, and 
 that where the same occurred in the passage "to 
 pass laws to regulate the introduction, manu- 
 facture and sale of ardent spirits," the word 
 "prohibit" be inserted. (Id., p. 44.) This was 
 not adopted. The "organic law" was practi- 
 cally the Constitution of the Territory. 
 
 License Act of 1849, and Subsequent Measures. 
 — Bv act of 1849, grocery licenses were to be 
 issued by the Probate Court for not less than 
 $200, upon bonds given in $800 to keep orderly 
 houses and not allow gaming, fines of $50 to 
 $500 being provided for offenses. This license 
 act did not authorize sales of less than a quart, 
 such sales being prohibited under penalty of 
 not exceeding $400. (G. S., 1850, pp. 157-8.) 
 
 In 1853 retailing liquor without license was 
 
 prohibited. The license fee was made $100 per 
 annum. The penalty for selling without license 
 was a fine of $50 to $200. And sales on Sun- 
 day were prohibited on penalty of $10 to $25. 
 (Laws, 1853, p. 500.) 
 
 In 1874 selling on election day was punished 
 by fine of $25 to $200 or imprisonment 10 to 
 30 days. (Laws, 1874, p. 72.) 
 
 Selling to a minor without consent in writing 
 of a parent or guardian was prohibited under 
 penalty of fine not exceeding $100 or imprison- 
 ment not exceeding six months, or both, with 
 forfeiture of license. (Laws, 1876, p. 4.) 
 
 In 1885 (Laws, p. 490) a Prohibitory Amend- 
 ment was proposed and provision for an elec- 
 tion thereon made by Laws of 1887, p. 70. The 
 Amendment was defeated. 
 
 By Laws of 1885, p. 25, and Special Sess., 
 1885, p. 38, a license law was passed in form like 
 the first above-named law and almost identical 
 with the existing law given below, except that 
 it applied to cities. That lav was declared 
 unconstitutional so far as it applied to cities 
 chartered, and doubt was expressed as to its 
 validity generally on account of irregularities 
 in its passage through the Legislature. (State 
 v. Wright, 14 Or., 365.) 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — No person 
 shall sell intoxicating liquors in less quantity 
 than one gallon without obtaining a license 
 from the County Court. (Laws, 1889, p. 9.) 
 Every person shall pay for such license $400 
 per year or $200 for malt liquors only, and in 
 the same proportion for a less period. (Id., 
 § 2.) • Any person applying for license shall exe- 
 cute a bond to the county in $1,000 to keep an 
 orderly house, permit no gaming, not to open 
 on Sunday, and not to give or sell liquor to 
 minors or habitual drunkards or persons in- 
 toxicated ; and in case of violating his bond he 
 shall be liable to be fined $50 to $200 and 
 to prosecution as prescribed. (Id., § 3.) 
 
 Applicants for license shall obtain the signa- 
 tures of an actual majority of the whole num- 
 ber of legal voters in the precinct in which they 
 wish to do business, to a petition to grant the 
 license. Such number of names must be equal to 
 a majority of all the votes cast at the last pre- 
 ceding general election, and shall be more than 
 the number signed to.any remonstrance against 
 granting the license. (Id., § 4.) The applicant 
 must at his own expense cause the petition, 
 together with notice of the day he will apply 
 for license, to be published four weeks in any 
 daily or weekly paper of the county, or if there 
 is none, he must post in three places in the pre- 
 cinct. (Id., § 5.) On the applicant's produc- 
 ing to the County Court the receipt of the 
 Treasurer for the fee and proof of compliance 
 with the preceding provisions, the County 
 Court may give him a license. (Id., § 6.) 
 
 It is the duty of the Prosecuting Attorney, 
 Sheriff, Constable and Justices of the Peace to 
 make complaint of violations of this act, and it 
 is also the duty of the County Clerk to prose- 
 cute the bonds given by licensees under this act 
 for violations of the conditions of the same. 
 (Id., § 7.) 
 
 Every County Clerk shall on the first day of 
 the term of the Circuit Court deliver to the 
 Grand Jury a list of licensed persons, showing 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 338 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 dates of obtainment and expiration of licenses. 
 (Id., § 8.) 
 
 If any person sell liquor without license he 
 shall he fined $200 to $400. (Id., § 9.) 
 
 It is the duty of the Grand Jury at every 
 term of the Circuit Court to make strict in- 
 quiry and return hills of indictment against 
 every person violating this act. (Id., § 10.) 
 
 Nothing in this act applies to incorporated 
 towns and cities, and nothing is to be construed 
 to affect the right of owners of vineyards to 
 sell their products in quantities not less than 
 a quart. (Id., § 11.) Selling or giving liquor 
 to minors, or permitting them to loiter about a 
 place where liquor is sold, is punished by fine 
 of $50 to $300 or imprisonment not exceeding 
 one year, or both, and forfeiture of license. 
 (Code, 1887, § 1913.) Selling to persons in- 
 toxicated or in the habit of becoming so forfeits 
 $100. (Id., § 1914.) Disposing of liquor 
 within half a mile of fair grounds is fined $10 
 to $100. (Id., §1915.) On repetition of the 
 offense double that penalty is charged. (Id., 
 § 1916.) These two sections do not apply to 
 persons regularly licensed in the business, and 
 the prohibition extends only for two days prior 
 and subsequent to the holding of the fair. 
 (Id., § 1917.) 
 
 No prison officer shall give or suffer to be de- 
 livered to any prisoner any liquor without a 
 physician's certificate, on pain of forfeiting $25. 
 (Id., § 3972.) Other persons so delivering are 
 fined $15. (Id., § 3973.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by majority vote of the two Houses ; 
 to be concurred m by a majority of each House 
 in the next Legislature ; a majority vote of the 
 electors carries it. 
 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 Colonial Provisions. — Under the Dutch ad- 
 ministration a small excise was laid on liquors 
 imported, and the sale of liquor to Indians was . 
 forbidden in 1655. (Laws, 1676 to 1700 ; Harris- 
 burg, 1873, p. 431.) The Duke of York's 
 "Book of Laws" (for which see New York) 
 was in force in Pennsylvania from 1664 to 1682 ; 
 in 1682 the " Great Law, or Body of Laws," 
 was enacted at Chester. 
 
 Drunkenness was fined. 5s ; second offense, 
 10s. (Id., p. Ill, c. 12.) Those permitting it at 
 their houses were fined the same. (Id., c. 13.) 
 Drinking healths was fined the same. (Id., c. 14.) 
 Selling to Indians was fined £5. (Id., c. 15.) 
 So was keeping an ordinary without license 
 from the Governor. (Id., p. 138, c. 97.) Ordi- 
 naries might be suppressed by the county ses- 
 sions for disorder. (Id., p. 172, c. 169.) 
 
 In 1710 licensees had to be recommended by 
 the Lieutenant-Governor, upon recommenda- 
 tion of County Courts, upon payment of £3 
 40s and 30s. Selling without license was fined 
 £5, and suffering disorder, drunkenness or 
 gaming was fined 40s, with suppression of 
 license for the second offense. (Bradford's Laws, 
 p. 95.) 
 
 Local Option in the Vicinity of Furnaces 
 (1725). — In 1725 licenses could be procured in 
 the vicinity of a furnace only by permit of a 
 majority of the owners of the furnace. (Id., 
 p. 325.) 
 
 Distillation of Grain Prohibited (1778). — In 
 1778 distillation from grain was prohibited 
 for a limited time. (McKean's Laws, p. 160.) 
 
 Early State Provisions. — In 1783 the rates of 
 tavern licenses were doubled. (Laws, 1783, 
 c. 61.) 
 
 By Laws of 1786, c. 297, the Justices of 
 Quarter Sessions were to meet and decide how 
 many licenses they would have, and then only 
 recommend that number to the Executive 
 Council for license. (Laws, 1786, o. 297.) 
 
 A general licensing act, in 1834, gave the 
 licensmg authority to Courts of Quarter Ses- 
 sions, which Courts were not to grant any, 
 however, that were not necessary to travellers 
 (and then only to fit persons) ; license fee, $10- 
 per $100 of the annual rental value of the place. 
 Keeping a tavern without license was fined $10- 
 to $100, and selling without license was fined 
 not exceeding $100. Licenses might be revoked 
 for disorder, allowing gaming or harboring; 
 minors. (Laws, 1833, No. 69.) 
 
 Act No. 63 of Laws of 1841 provided that 
 notice should be published of all applications- 
 for tavern licenses, and made the price of 
 license $10 for a house whose yearly rental 
 did not exceed $100, $15 for one not exceeding; 
 $200, and in all other cases $15 and 4 per cent, 
 additional on the rental above $100. Inns and 
 taverns were to be construed to be only houses, 
 where liquor was retailed. Persons convicted 
 of retailing without license were fined $20 to- 
 
 By an act of the same year (No. 117), to pro- 
 vide revenue, a tax on all vendors of goods,, 
 wares and merchandise of from $12.50 to $200, 
 according to the amount of sales, was imposed, 
 providing that those who sold liquor, with or 
 without other goods, should pay 50 per cent, 
 more. 
 
 By resolution No. 10, . p. 442 of Laws of 
 1841, the Clerk of Quarter Sessions of Phila- 
 delphia County was to publish lists of names of 
 persons licensed at all times when any licenses- 
 were granted. This requirement for publica- 
 tion of applications for license was repealed as- 
 to 24 counties in 1842. (Laws, pp. 216, 377, 
 459.) 
 
 Tavern licenses were not to be granted to» 
 Sheriffs. (Laws, 1842, p. 201.) 
 
 Local Prohibition (1843). — Licenses for sales- 
 of liquor were prohibited within four and three 
 miles, respectively, of iron works and furnaces- 
 in Armstrong and Clarion Counties, and the 
 license law was made more stringent for 
 Chester County by Laws of 1843, p. 383. 
 
 The question of license or no-license was- 
 submitted to the voters in Clearfield County by 
 Laws, 1845, No. 223. The same question was- 
 submitted to the people in 18 counties and two 
 boroughs, by Laws of 1846, No. 206, and in. 
 another county by No. 359. Such Local Option 
 was declared a delegation of legislative power, 
 and unconstitutional, by Parker v. Com., 6 Pa. 
 St., 507 ; but this decision was reversed by 
 Locke's Appeal, 72 Pa. St., 492. 
 
 By Laws of 1846, No. 359, § 4, on every 
 application for license the Court was required 
 to give remonstrances such consideration as the 
 facts set forth therein were entitled to. 
 
 Houses where beer, ale and other malt liquors 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 339 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 were kept, were required to obtain licenses of 
 the County Treasurer and pay $5 to $200 per 
 year, according to amount of sales. (Laws, 1849, 
 No. 369, §820-23.) Distillers and brewers were 
 also taxed $5 to $100, according to business 
 (§ 32). The changes in these revenue taxes 
 were frequent at and before this time. Many 
 1'aws were passed (some at every session), mod- 
 ifying the license laws in different localities. 
 A complete body of laws was thus formed for 
 Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties sepa- 
 rately, differing little essentially from each 
 other or from the law of the State at large. 
 But the prevailing tendency was not, as in the 
 South, toward Prohibition. 
 
 Furnishing drinks wilfully to minors, intoxi- 
 cated persons and those habitually becoming so, 
 was punished by fine of $10 to $50, with 
 imprisonment 10 to 60 days. Notice to dealers 
 might be given by any relative of any habitual 
 drunkard, not to sell to him, and upon disre- 
 garding such notice the offender was punished 
 as above. Civil damages for injuries to person 
 and property on account of unlawful selling 
 were provided. Adulteration was prohibited, 
 and the sale of such liquor, upon penalty of $50, 
 and for second offense $100 and imprisonment 
 not exceeding 60 days. Action for the value of 
 liquors unlawfully sold was refused, and prose- 
 cutors under this act were allowed not exceed- 
 ing $20, to be taxed as costs in the case. (Laws, 
 1854, No. 648.) 
 
 Liquor-selling on Sunday was prohibited upon 
 pain of forfeiting $50 (half to the prosecutor). 
 (Laws, 1855, No. 55.) Another act of 1855 
 (No. 239) made the license fee three times 
 the amount then required, and in no case less 
 than $30. It also refused to allow license 
 to be issued to any hotel, restaurant or place 
 of amusement or refreshment-keeper, and ab- 
 rogated City and County Treasurers' licenses. 
 This act, in certain provisions, reads like a Pro- 
 hibitory law, and in some of the lists of 
 early Prohibitory statutes it is included ; but it 
 was really a license law. The policy indicated 
 in the last above-named law was abandoned the 
 next year by Laws of 1856, No. 233, which was 
 a full license act, and remained the basis of the 
 law until the High License law of 1887 was 
 passed. It provided a license fee of twice the 
 amount required before the adoption of the act 
 of 1855, not to be less than $50 for beer, wine and 
 spirituous liquor- vendors ; $25 to $1,000 accord- 
 ing to rental value of property for taverns, ex- 
 cept that in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh the 
 minimum was $75. Brewers and distillers were 
 taxed as before, but not less than $50 for any 
 one. The Licensing Court was given power to 
 grant licenses after hearing by evidence, peti- 
 tion, remonstrance or counsel. Tavern and 
 eating-house licenses were to be granted only 
 when required for the convenience of the public. 
 Eating-houses could be licensed only to sell 
 malt liquor and domestic wines. The number of 
 licenses for taverns could not exceed one for 
 every 100 ratables in the cities and 150 in the 
 counties. The number of eating-house licenses 
 could not exceed one-fourth that number. The 
 penalty for violating the act was a fine of $10 
 to $100, and for a second offense imprisonment 
 one to three months in addition to such fine. 
 
 The license fees were reduced about half by the 
 act of 1858 (Laws, No. 405), and the denial of 
 licenses to theatres was changed to give them 
 and beer-houses and other places of amusement 
 licenses to sell domestic wines and malt liquors. 
 The Courts, upon hearing, were empowered to 
 refuse licenses if not necessary for the accom- 
 modation of the public, except in Philadelphia. 
 (Laws, 1859, No. 652.) 
 
 An act to prevent recovery of the price of 
 adulterated liquors sold, was passed in 1860. 
 (No. 345.) Hawking and peddling liquors in 
 Potter County were prohibited by No. 431 and 
 No. 585 of the laws of the same year. Con- 
 stables in Philadelphia were to make returns of 
 all persons vending liquors, and those without 
 license were to be fined not exceeding $200 and 
 imprisoned not more than two years. 
 
 By the act of 1862 (No. 484), the Mercantile 
 Appraisers were to personally visit each liquor- 
 store and give notice to the owner of his assess- 
 ment and its amount. 
 
 The use of deleterious drags in the manufac- 
 ture of liquor, and the sale of the same, was 
 made a misdemeanor and fined not exceeding 
 $500, with imprisonment not exceeding 12 
 months, or both, by Laws of 1863, No. 384. 
 
 To enable police officers to enforce order and 
 exterminate the unlicensed traffic, selling to 
 minors and apprentices without leave of parent 
 or guardian, to husband or child, against the 
 request of wife or parent, or keeping open and 
 selling between midnight and sunrise were pro- 
 hibited upon penalty of forfeiture of license. 
 Police officers were to enforce these prohibi- 
 tions and keep order in saloons upon request,, 
 and every person arrested for being drunk was 
 to be interrogated as to where he got his liquor. 
 And persons selling contrary to this act were 
 made liable for damages growing out of such 
 sales. (Laws, 1867, No. 70.) This act was re- 
 pealed by Laws of 1868, No. 33. 
 • Local Option Law of 1872-5.— In 1872 there 
 were several local liquor laws passed. Such 
 laws (many of them being of insignificant 
 character) had considerably multiplied. By 
 Laws of 1872, No. 41, the question of granting 
 licenses to sell liquor was to be submitted 
 at all the annual municipal elections in every 
 city and county, not oftener than once a year 
 for the same place. The act of 1873, No. 16, 
 amplified this act and made it more certain. 
 
 The Laws of 1875, No. 47, repealed the Local 
 Option law and re-enacted the license provi- 
 sions, with license fee at $50 up, according to 
 estimated amount of sales ; penalty for un- 
 licensed selling, $200 to $500, on second convic- 
 tion $500 to $1,000 and imprisonment three 
 months to one year. Notices not to sell to ex- 
 cessive drinkers were provided for, with civil 
 damages in case of violating the notice. Sales 
 on election days, Sundays, to minors and to 
 those visibly intoxicated, were prohibited with- 
 out specific penalty being provided. 
 
 Submission of Constitutional Prohibition (1889). 
 — An Amendment to the Constitution prohibit- 
 ing the manufacture and sale of intoxicating 
 liquor to be used as a beverage was submitted 
 (Laws, 1889, p. 439) and defeated. 
 
 Tlie Law as It Existed in 1889.— The law 
 whose features are here given is the Brooks law 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 340 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 of 1887, which is complete in itself. It probably 
 does not displace every provision of the former 
 statutes, but so little is left as to be of no use 
 for the purposes for which such statutes are 
 made. 
 
 It is unlawful to keep any place where any- 
 vinous, spirituous, malt or brewed liquors are 
 sold at retail without license. (Purd. Dig., 
 Supp., 1887, p. 2229, § 1.) Licenses to retail 
 such liquors in quantities not exceeding one 
 quart shall be granted only to citizens of the 
 "United States, of temperate habits and good 
 moral character. (Id., § 2.) Such licenses shall 
 be granted only by the Courts of Quarter Ses- 
 sions, and shall be for one year from a date 
 fixed by rule or standing order of the Court. 
 (Id., § 3.) The Court shall fix by standing 
 order the time at which applications for licenses 
 will be heard, at which time all persons apply- 
 ing or making objections to applications for 
 licenses may be heard by evidence, petition, 
 remonstrance or counsel. (Id., § 4.) Applicants 
 for licenses shall file their petitions three weeks 
 before the first day of the session at which they 
 are to be heard and shall pay $5 for expenses. 
 The Clerk shall cause publication three times 
 in two designated newspapers of list of the 
 names of all applicants, their residences and the 
 places for which applications are made. (Id., 
 
 § 5.) 
 
 No license shall be granted to sell in any room 
 where groceries are sold. (Id., § 6.) In cities 
 of the first class, in the month of January, the 
 Mercantile Appraiser must return with the list 
 of mercantile taxes all licensed and unlicensed 
 hotels, restaurants or saloons selling liquor. 
 (Id., § 7.) The petition for license shall contain 
 the name and residence of the applicant and 
 state how long he has lived there, shall indicate 
 the particular place for which license is desired, 
 shall state the place of birth of applicant and if 
 naturalized when, shall give the name of the 
 owner of the premises, shall state that the place- 
 is necessary to the accommodation of the public 
 and that the applicant is not interested in any 
 other place for which license is to be asked, nor 
 will be during the existence of the license, shall 
 state whether the applicant has had a license 
 revoked within a year, and shall give the names 
 of two freeholders of the ward or township, who 
 will go sureties on the bond required, each 
 person to be worth $2,000 and not to be engaged 
 in the manufacture of liquor. (Id.) His peti- 
 tion must be verified by affidavit. (Id., § 8.) 
 There shall be annexed to such petition a 
 certificate signed by 12 reputable electors of the 
 ward, borough or township, that they know the 
 applicant and have reason to believe the state- 
 ments of the petition are true, and praying that 
 the license issue. (Id., § 9.) 
 
 The Court of Quarter Sessions shall hear 
 petitions from residents of the ward, borough 
 or township in favor of or remonstrating against 
 the application, and in all cases shall refuse the 
 same whenever, in the opinion of the Court 
 (having due regard to the number and charac- 
 ter of the petitioners for and against the applica- 
 tion), such license is not necessary for the 
 accommodation of the public and entertainment 
 of strangers or travellers, or the applicant is not 
 a fit person. (Id., § 10.) Upon sufficient cause 
 
 shown or proof made to the said Licensing 
 Court that any licensee has violated any law 
 relating to the sale of liquor, the Court shall 
 upon notice to him revoke his license. (Id., 
 § 11.) 
 
 Persons licensed in cities of the first, second 
 and third classes shall pay $500 annually; those 
 in other cities, $300;' those in boroughs, $150; in 
 townships, $75. In cities of the first class four- 
 fifths shall go to the city and -county and one- 
 fifth to the State ; in cities of the second and third 
 classes, two-fifths shall go to city and county 
 respectively and one-fifth to the State ; in other 
 cities and boroughs three-fifths shall go to city or 
 borough, one-fifth to the county and one-fifth to 
 the State ; in townships one-half shall be paid to 
 the township, one-fourth to the county and one- 
 fourth to the State. Municipalities receiving 
 parts of said license moneys shall bear their pro- 
 portionate share of the cost of collection. (Id., 
 § 12.) If persons neglect to pay the license fee 
 within 15 days, no license shall issue to them, 
 but be revoked. (Id., § 13.) The license shall not 
 issue until the licensee executes a bond in $2,000 
 to observe the liquor laws, and pay all costs, fines 
 and penalties which may be imposed upon him. 
 (Id., § 14.) The constables of the respective 
 wards, boroughs or townships in each county 
 shall in the first week of Quarter Sessions make 
 returns of all places where liquor is sold, stating 
 which are licensed and which not, and on failure 
 shall be fined not exceeding $500 or imprison- 
 ed not more than two years, or both. (Id., 
 § 15.) Every constable must visit, at least once 
 a month, all places within his jurisdiction 
 where liquor is sold, to ascertain whether there 
 are violations of law, and shall make returns to 
 the Court of Quarter Sessions, with the names 
 of the witnesses thereto. (Id., § 16.) 
 
 Each licensee shall frame his license and hang 
 it conspicuously in his place of business. (Id., 
 § 17.) No licensee shall give credit for liquor 
 retailed, on penalty of losing the debt. (Id., 
 § 18.) Any person on conviction of selling with- 
 out license shall pay $500 to $5,000 and be 
 imprisoned three to 12 months. (Id., § 19.) 
 Licensees violating the license law shall be fined 
 $100 to $500 ; for second conviction, $300 to 
 $1,000, and for third, $500 to $5,000 or suffer 
 imprisonment three to 12 months, or both. (Id., 
 § 20.) Any person convicted of more than one 
 offense shall not again be licensed in the State. 
 (Id., § 21.) The license of any person permit- 
 ting the customary visitation of disreputable 
 persons or keeping a disorderly house, shall be 
 revoked, and the licensee shall not again be 
 licensed in the State. (Id., § 22.) 
 
 Druggists are not required to be licensed, but 
 they shall not sell liquor except upon physi- 
 cians' prescriptions ; alcohol, however, or any 
 preparations containing the same, may be sold 
 for scientific, mechanical or medicinal purposes. 
 Only one sale can be made on one prescription. 
 Any person wilfully prescribing liquor as a 
 beverage to persons of intemperate habits shall 
 be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Id., § 23.) 
 
 1 By a decision of the State Supreme Court it was 
 found that an act of the Legislature providing for 
 the classification of cities was defective in some respects, 
 and accordingly the license rate becomes 8600 uniformly in 
 all cities, pending the adoption of new legislation. 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 341 
 
 [Legislation, 
 
 No person with or without license may furnish 
 liquor on any election day, or on Sunday, or 
 to any minor or person of known intemperate 
 habits, or to a person visibly intoxicated, for 
 his own use or that of another, or furnish liquor 
 on a pass-book or store-order, or in exchange 
 for goods, wares, merchandise or provisions, 
 upon penalty of $50 to $500 and imprison- 
 ment 20 to 90 days. (Id., § 24.) 
 
 Any house, room or place where liquors are 
 sold in violation of law, is declared a nuisance, 
 and shall be abated by proceedings in law or 
 equity. (Id., § 25.) 
 
 All local laws fixing a license fee less than is 
 here required are repealed. None of the pro- 
 visions of this law shall authorize sales in 
 places having special Prohibitory laws. (Id., 
 §37.) 
 
 Any wholesale dealer, brewer, distiller, re- 
 finer or compounder dealing in liquor, shall pay 
 an annual license in cities of the first three 
 classes of $500 ; in other cities, $300 ; in 
 boroughs, $200, and in townships, $100, which 
 shall go to the State Treasury. (Id., § 28.) 
 Licenses to such persons shall be granted by 
 the Court of Quarter Sessions as for other 
 licenses. 1 Such wholesalers, etc., shall not sell 
 in less quantities than one gallon. (Id., § 29.) 
 Bottlers shall also procure licenses as above, 
 for which they shall pay $200 in cities of the 
 first three classes, and $100 elsewhere, but they 
 may not sell to be drunk on the premises. (Id., 
 §29.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (Laws, 1885, 
 No. 6.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by a majority vote of the two 
 Houses, to be concurred in by a majority of 
 each House in the next Legislature ; a majority 
 vote of the electors carries it. 
 
 Jtf-ode Island. 
 
 Colonial Provisions. — In 1647 taverns, ale- 
 houses and victualling-houses were not to be 
 kept without license, under penalty of 20s. 
 (1 R. I. Col. Rec, 185.) Each town might 
 allow such houses, and bind the keepers by 
 bond to keep good order, and not allow unlaw- 
 ful games, nor suffer any townsman to remain 
 tippling there for an hour, under penalty of 
 10s, the townsman forfeiting 3s 4<Z. (Id.) 
 Drunkenness was forbidden upon penalty of 
 5s, or six hours in the stocks on default ; for a 
 second offense, 10s and recognizance in £10 for 
 good behavior. (Id., p. 186.) Selling to In- 
 dians was forbidden under penalty of £5 (half 
 to the informer). (Id., p. 279.) Each town 
 was ordered to license one or two houses for 
 entertainment of strangers, and to encourage 
 them. No one else was to be licensed to sell 
 liquor. (Id., p. 280.) 
 
 In 1656 the constables and ordinary -keepers, 
 with warrant, might search any man's house 
 to see what quantity of liquor he had. (Id., 
 p. 331.) 
 
 i Bv a decision of the State Supreme Court, made in 
 1889 the power of the Courts of Quarter Sessions to re- 
 fuse applications for wholesale and brewers' licenses was 
 practically nullified. 
 
 In 1673 no liquor was to be sold Sunday 
 on pain of 6s. (Id., p. 503.) 
 
 In 1721, upon complaint, Town Councils 
 might post prohibitions against selling liquor to 
 persons named as drunkards ; penalty, 20s; 
 for second offense, 40s. (Laws of 1730, p. 114 
 [passed 1721].) 
 
 By the Laws of 1767, p. 169, the license-fee 
 was put at not exceeding £5. 
 
 Early State Provisions. — By the Laws of 
 1798, p. 391, Town Councils might grant license, 
 at discretion, for $20, and unlicensed selling 
 was fined $20. 
 
 In 1822 the license was $4 to $20, and the 
 penalty for selling without was $50. (P. L., 
 1822, p. 295.) 
 
 License was increased to $5 to $50 by Laws 
 of 1830, p. 726. 
 
 By Laws of 1834, p. 837, the Town Councils 
 might prohibit sales on Sunday and such other 
 days as they thought proper. 
 
 License was placed at $10 to $25 to those 
 having tavern accommodations only, by Laws 
 of 1837, p. 930. In 1838 (Laws, p. 1021) li- 
 censes to tavern-keepers as above were placed 
 at $10 to $50, with retail -license (not to be 
 drunk on the premises) at not exceeding $20. 
 
 Local Option by Towns and Wards (1838). — 
 The Laws of 1838 (p. 1033) also provided that , 
 towns and wards might by vote instruct that 
 no licenses be granted therein. 
 
 The last two laws were consolidated and 
 enacted, with several other prohibitions and 
 provisions for enforcement, by Laws of 1839, 
 p. 1073. 
 
 A new law in 1841 left out the Local Option 
 provision (Laws, p. 2038.) 
 
 The Town Councils had power to regulate 
 retailing by granting or refusing licenses. 
 Licenses were placed at $12 to $50 ; selling 
 without license was fined $50. Licensees were 
 to maintain good order, and were not to sell on 
 Sunday, or to any habitual drunkard or person 
 intoxicated, or suffer their places to be fre- 
 quented by such, or one who was wasting his 
 property or earnings, or by minors, or to suffer 
 games for liquor, upon penalty of $50. Li- 
 censees were to give bonds in $200 to obey the 
 law, and the Town Councils might annul a 
 license for conviction of disorder, and the cul- 
 prit would be disqualified to secure another for 
 two years. (P. L, 1844, p. 495.) 
 
 The Local Option provision was re-enacted in 
 1845. (Laws, p. 620.) 
 
 In no-license towns one or more persons 
 might be licensed to sell for medicinal and art 
 purposes. (Laws, 1848, p. 728.) 
 
 Penalties were reduced to $20 by Laws of 
 1848, p. 735. 
 
 Maine Law of 1852-63.— A law prohibiting 
 the manufacture and sale, or Maine law, was 
 enacted in 1852. (Laws, p. 3.) It provided for 
 Town Agents, and punished selling in violation 
 of the law by $20 fine. In 1853 a similar act, 
 but having a penalty of $20 and 10 days' im- 
 prisonment for the first offense, was enacted ; 
 and the question of its repeal was submitted to 
 vote of the people (Laws, 1853, p. 232) and not 
 concurred in. 
 
 The act was very much changed and ex- 
 tended by Laws of 1856, p, 48, 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 342 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 License Again (1863-74).— A license law was 
 substituted for the Prohibitory one in 1863. 
 (Laws, c. 444.) License was placed at $100, or 
 $30 if liquor were sold only in less quantities 
 than three gallons. The only formality neces- 
 sary to get a license was to file in the Town 
 'Clerk's office a notice of intention to sell 
 liquors, pay the fee, and give bond to the 
 "Town Council in $200 to keep good order, and 
 not sell Sunday, to minors, drunkards or those 
 ■drunk. The penalty for selling without license 
 was $20. 
 
 The Town Councils were given power to 
 limit the number of licenses granted, at dis- 
 cretion. (Laws, 1865, c. 553.) 
 
 Town Councils, at absolute discretion, were 
 to grant licenses, and charge therefor $200 to 
 $500, and they might revoke them upon viola- 
 tions of law. (Laws, 1867, c. 670.) 
 
 Special constables to enforce the law were 
 authorized to be appointed by Town Councils 
 (Laws, 1868, c. 757), and Sheriffs might 
 appoint deputies for the same purpose. (Laws, 
 1869, c. 823.) 
 
 No licenses were to be granted after a town 
 voted not to grant tjhem. (Laws, 1872, c. 990.) 
 
 An elaborate inspection-of-liquors act was 
 passed in 1877. (Laws, c. 973.) 
 
 Prohibition, License, and Adoption and Bepeal 
 of Constitutional Prohibition (1874-89).— In 1874 
 (Laws, c. 385); the shortest Prohibitory law on 
 record was passed. It repealed the license 
 clauses, and the words " licensed " and "unli- 
 censed." Sales for medicinal, art and mechan- 
 ical purposes were not interfered with. 
 
 A very extended license law, including Town 
 Local Option, was passed in 1875. (Laws, 
 ■c. 508.) It charged $150 to $300 for a license to 
 retail, required bond in $1,000 and punished 
 unlawful sales by $20 fine and imprisonment 
 10 days for first conviction. Cider and domes- 
 tic wines were excepted from the law. This law 
 was many times amended, and another general 
 act was passed in 1881 (Laws, c. 889), of the 
 same general character but with more extended 
 prohibitions and provisions for enforcement. 
 
 By Laws of 1886, c. 550, a Prohibitory 
 Amendment against "the manufacture and sale 
 of intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage," 
 was submitted to the people and passed. The 
 Laws of that year (c. 596) established a Pro- 
 hibitory law. It provided for a State Police. 
 There were search and seizure clauses but no 
 injunction clauses. Special prohibitions of 
 sales to minors and habitual drunkards, after 
 notice, were incorporated. Penalties : for 
 manufacturing and selling, $20 and 10 days for 
 the first offense, $50 and three months for the 
 second, and $100 and three to six months for 
 the third ; for common selling and manufac- 
 turing, $100 and 60 days for the first offense 
 and $200 and four months for subsequent ones. 
 
 The Prohibitory Amendment (art. 5 of the 
 Amendments to the Constitution) was sub- 
 mitted for annullment by Laws of 1889, May 
 session, c. 808, and being carried, the Prohibi- 
 tory law was repealed. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — No person 
 shall manufacture or sell, or keep or suffer the 
 same, any intoxicating liquor, except as pro- 
 vided. Intoxicating liquor includes ale, wine, 
 
 rum or other strong or malt liquors, or mixed 
 liquors, any part of which is said liquors, 
 or any mixture of liquors which contains 
 more than 2 per cent, by weight of alco- 
 hol. (Laws, Special Session, 1889, c. 816, § 1.) 
 The Town Councils and the Boards of Com- 
 missioners hereinafter provided may grant or 
 refuse licenses in their towns or cities as 
 they shall think proper. Such licenses shall 
 expire May 1, and shall cost a price in propor- 
 tion to the price for a year, if for less than that 
 period. They shall not authorize sales on 
 Sunday, to any woman (except as hereinafter 
 provided), to any minor, or person of notor- 
 iously intemperate habits, or to any person on 
 a pass-book or order on a store, or the ex- 
 change of goods, wares or merchandise for 
 liquors. 
 
 Before granting license the application shall 
 be advertised two weeks in some newspaper of 
 the town, or if there is none, some newspaper 
 of the county, giving notice of the name of the 
 applicant and the particular location of the 
 place ; and there shall be opportunity for re- 
 monstrants to be heard. No license shall be 
 granted when the owners or occupants of the' 
 greater part of the land within 200 feet of the 
 proposed place file their objection thereto. 
 Bond in the sum of $2,000 shall be first given 
 and the license fee paid, three-fourths thereof 
 being for the use of the town or cfty, and one- 
 fourth for the general Treasury of the State. 
 (Id., § 2.) The Mayors of the several cities 
 shall appoint three Commissioners, to hold 
 office until April, 1890, and then three to hold 
 one, two and three years respectively ; and 
 Town Councils may elect three such Com- 
 missioners in April of each year, to be com- 
 pensated as City and Town Councils respect- 
 ively shall provide, not exceeding $5 per day of 
 actual employment in the latter case. Such 
 Commissioners shall elect one of their number 
 Clerk, who shall keep records which shall be 
 evidence when certified by said Clerk. The 
 Commissioners shall annually, on or before 
 Feb. 1, make report of the licenses granted by 
 them. Members of the Town Councils are 
 ineligible to be such Commissioners. (Id., § 3.) 
 
 The electors of the cities and towns shall at 
 each election of general officers vote for or 
 against granting licenses, but no such vote shall 
 be taken unless electors equivalent in number 
 to 10 per cent, of the whole vote cast at the last 
 such election in cities, and 15 per cent, in towns, 
 petition the City or Town Clerk therefor 20 
 days prior to the election, when the proposition 
 shall be put in the warrant for the election. If 
 the vote be for no-license it shall stand until 
 another such vote be called. (Id., § 4.) 
 
 No license shall be issued for any place, ex- 
 cept a licensed tavern, where a dwelling-house 
 or place used as such is connected from within 
 such licensed place. And no entrance shall be 
 allowed other than directly from a public- 
 travelled way, except in taverns, on penalty of 
 forfeiting the license. (Id., § 5.) 
 
 Pees for license shall be : To manufacture or 
 sell at wholesale or retail (not to be drunk on 
 the premises), $500 to $1,000; to sell at retail 
 only, $400 for Providence, $350 for other 
 places of over 15,000 inhabitants, $300 for 
 
legislation.] 
 
 343 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 places down to 6,000 people, and $200 to $300 
 ior all other towns. A license to manufacture 
 carries with it the right to sell at wholesale at 
 the manufactory. Sales in less quantities than 
 two gallons are retail sales; in larger quantities, 
 -wholesale. (Id., § 6.) 
 
 No licensee shall sell liquors to any unlicensed 
 dealer, or to any keeper of any house of ill- 
 fame, having reason to believe the same are to 
 be resold, on penalty of $100 and 30 days' im- 
 prisonment and disqualification to hold license 
 for four years. (Id., § 7.) 
 
 Importers of liquors under United States law 
 may own or sell such liquors in original pack- 
 ages in quantities not less than such law re- 
 quires for importation, and such liquor shall be 
 as pure and unadulterated as when imported. 
 <Id., § 8.) 
 
 The Commissioners may permit a license to 
 "be transferred on notice (given as for a 
 new license), and on consent of sureties or a 
 new bond. In case of death of any licensee the 
 license is part of the personal estate of the de- 
 ceased. (Id., § 9.) All licenses shall state the 
 name of the person and place licensed, the class 
 .and the amount paid. They shall be signed as 
 the Commissioners direct and be posted con- 
 spicuously in the room of the sale and be ex- 
 lubited to all officers on demand. (Id., § 10.) 
 
 If any licensee is convicted of a violation of 
 this law, the Town or City Treasurer must put 
 lis bond in suit and recover the penal sum 
 thereof. If a licensee permit his place to be- 
 come disorderly to the disturbance of the 
 neighborhood, or shall permit gaming or the 
 "violation of any laws of the State therein, he 
 may be summoned before the Commissioners 
 and witnesses may be heard and his license be 
 revoked, and he disqualified for license for five 
 years. (Id., § 11.) 
 
 Every person selling liquor to be sold to any 
 "woman (to be drunk on the premises), or to any 
 minor, shall be fined $100 and imprisoned 90 
 days to one year, and be disqualified for license 
 ior five years. (Id., § 12.) 
 
 Every person who shall forcibly eject from 
 nis premises any intoxicated person to whom he 
 has sold liquor, shall be fined $20 and be dis- 
 qualified one year. (Id., § 13.) 
 
 The Town Councils shall appoint special 
 constables to enforce the liquor laws. (Id., 
 § 14.) They shall have the powers of the State 
 Police and Chiefs of Police of cities. (Id., 
 § 15.) The Sheriffs, their deputies, the town 
 .Sergeants and Constables, and the Chiefs of 
 Police of cities, shall constitute a State Police ; 
 and it shall be their duty to see that the laws 
 are enforced and their special duty to prevent 
 and repress crime by the suppression of all un- 
 licensed liquor-shops, etc., and they shall do so 
 upon the request of any tax-payer of the town 
 or city. Any member of such police neglecting 
 or refusing to perform such duties, shall be 
 fined not exceeding $500 and be rendered in- 
 eligible to be again appointed to any such posi- 
 tion. (Id., § 16.) The Sheriff shall appoint or 
 designate one deputy to discharge the duty 
 under this law. (Id., § 18.) 
 
 Any person selling or offering for sale, by 
 sample or otherwise, liquors in violation of this 
 chapter, shall be sentenced to pay a fine of $20 
 
 and to be imprisoned 10 days, and for the 
 second conviction $50 and three months ; third, 
 $100 and three to six months. (Id., §19.) The 
 penalty for unlawfully keeping liquor for sale 
 is $20 and 10 days in jail. (Id., § 20.) Section 
 821 gives forms to be used in prosecutions 
 under the last two sections. 
 
 No negative allegations of any kind need be 
 averred or proved in any complaint hereunder, 
 and evidence of the sale or keeping for sale of 
 any liquor enumerated herein shall be evidence 
 of unlawful sale or keeping, but the respondent 
 may show his license or authority by way of 
 defense. (Id., § 22.) 
 
 No sales shall be made on Sunday except by 
 pharmacists upon physicians' prescriptions, and 
 Town Councils or City Boards of Aldermen 
 may prohibit sales during specific hours, on 
 election days or holidays, giving public notice 
 thereof for 24 hours. Any person selling on 
 Sunday or during such prohibited hours shall be 
 fined $20 and imprisoned 10 days for first con- 
 viction, $50 and three months for second, and 
 shall forfeit license and be disqualified for five 
 years. (Id., § 24.) 
 
 Common carriers receiving liquor which has 
 been sold or is intended to be sold in violation 
 of law, having reasonable cause to believe the 
 same, shall be fined $20 and may be prosecuted 
 in the town where received or any town into 
 which it has been carried. (Id., § 26.) Persons 
 having authority from railroads so receiving 
 such liquors shall be fined $20. (Id., § 27.) 
 
 If any person shall make complaint under 
 oath before any Justice or Clerk of a District 
 Court that liquors are kept in any place for un- 
 lawful sale, such Justice or Clerk shall issue a 
 search-warrant therefor. (Id., § 28.) Such 
 warrant shall describe the place and liquors as 
 nearly as may be and state the name of the 
 owner, if known ; and such liquor shall be 
 seized and held by the officer, who shall sum- 
 mon the owner, if to be found by him. (Id., 
 § 29.) If such place be a dwelling-house, the 
 complaint must state a belief that liquors have 
 been sold unlawfully therein within 30 days, 
 and are then kept therefor therein, and state the 
 facts upon which that belief is founded. (Id., 
 § 30.) If the owner be not found, notice of 
 such seizure shall be posted in three places, and 
 such other notice as the Court deems necessary. 
 (Id., § 31.) Liquors so seized, if so kept, shall 
 be forfeited, and an officer shall be designated 
 by the Court to prosecute for the forfeiture 
 thereof. (Id., § 32.) If the cause of forfeit- 
 ure be not proved, the liquor shall be returned. 
 (Id., § 33.) If proved the Court shall issue 
 warrant for destruction of such liquor. (Id., 
 § 34.) Any irregularity in notice for seizure or 
 forfeiture may be permitted to be amended, 
 and further notice, to secure personal notice to 
 the owner, may be directed. (Id., § 35.) The 
 officer shall be allowed $5 for service and $2 for 
 days additionally employed thereabout, and 10 
 cents per mile travelled, and a reasonable sum 
 for storage and care, all of which shall be taxed 
 as costs and paid by the State Auditor. (Id., 
 §36.) 
 
 Fines recovered under §§ 19 and 20 shall be 
 half to the complainant, and judgment ren- 
 dered upon a subsequent complaint for the same 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 344 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 offense shall be no bar to any prior com- 
 plaint ; but the pendency of the former com- 
 plaint may be pleaded in bar of the second. 
 (Id., § 37.) 
 
 Any person convicted under this chapter in 
 the District Court, may appeal within five days 
 to the next Court of Common Pleas. (Id., 
 § 38.) On appeal the appellant must give bond 
 in $100 for his appearance, and that he will not 
 during the pendency of the appeal violate this 
 chapter. (Id., § 39.) Upon neglecting to give 
 such bond the appellant shall be committed. 
 (Id., § 40.) On such appeal any witness sworn 
 may be required to give bond in $50 to testify 
 on the appeal. (Id., § 41.) 
 
 Every person manufacturing unlawfully, or 
 who shall become a common seller, shall be 
 punished by fine of $100 and 90 days' imprison- 
 ment for the first conviction, and $200 and six 
 months for second and subsequent ones. 
 Several sales to the same or different persons 
 constitute one a common seller, and being twice 
 convicted under § 19, and convicted of another 
 violation thereof within six months succeeding 
 the last, sustains an allegation of being a com- 
 mon seller. (Id., § 43.) 
 
 Nothing herein shall prohibit the manufac- 
 ture or sale of cider, or the manufacture of 
 wine or malt liquor for domestic use, or the 
 manufacture of alcohol for exportation out of 
 the State. (Id., § 44.) Nor shall anything 
 herein apply to the domestic manufacture of 
 wine from currants, grapes or other fruits or 
 berries grown in the State, or to the sale thereof 
 in quantities not less than a gallon. (Id., §45.) 
 
 No officer complaining of a violation of this 
 chapter shall be required to become liable for 
 costs. (Id., §46.) 
 
 If any person in a state of intoxication from 
 liquor furnished him in violation of law, injure 
 any person, the seller of the liquor is liable 
 therefor, jointly with the person intoxicated, or 
 separately. (Id., §47.) 
 
 Selling to women (to be drunk on the 
 premises), or to a minor, or allowing either to 
 loiter upon the premises, forfeits $100, to be re- 
 covered by the husband of the woman or parent 
 or guardian of the minor. (Id., § 48.) The 
 husband, wife, parent, child, guardian or em- 
 ployer of any habitual drunkard may give 
 notice requesting no sales to such person, and 
 if sales be made to such person or he be allowed 
 to loiter upon the premises, the person notified 
 is liable to the giver of the notice in damages. 
 (Id., §49.) 
 
 The Mayor and Aldermen of any city, or the 
 Town Council or any member thereof, or the 
 Chief of Police or any police officer, or any 
 constable specially authorized, or any of the 
 State Police may enter upon the premises of a 
 licensed person to ascertain his method of doing 
 business or to preserve order, and may arrest 
 without warrant anyone therein violating the 
 law and keep him in custody not over 24 hours, 
 till he can be brought before a magistrate. 
 Whenever any person is seen to drink on any 
 such premises on Sunday, or prohibited days or 
 hours, it shall be evidence that the liquors were 
 sold by the occupant. (Id., § 50.) 
 
 On a conviction carrying revocation of license, 
 the Clerk of the Court shall give notice to the 
 
 Board of Commissioners, on penalty of $50. 
 (Id., § 51.) 
 
 Pharmacists may sell liquor not exceeding; 
 one pint for medical purposes, once only, upon 
 a physician's prescription, which shall be filed. 
 Persons making false statements to so procure- 
 liquor shall be fined $50 to $100. The sale of 
 pure alcohol for mechanical or art purposes is- 
 not prohibited. (Id., § 52.) 
 
 In any complaint or warrant it shall not be 
 necessary to set forth the kind or quantity of 
 liquor sold or the time of sale or manufacture %. 
 but proof of any violation set forth in substance 
 is sufficient. The record of previous convic- 
 tions shall be set forth, with the date thereof. 
 (Id., § 53.) 
 
 Defects of form in any action may be- 
 amended. (Id., § 54.) 
 
 In all appeals the Attorney-General shall 
 conduct the case for the State. (Id., § 55.) 
 
 Payments for liquor sold unlawfully shall be 
 held without consideration (Id., § 56), and no 
 action shall be maintained for the value of 
 liquor drunk on the premises or unlawfully sold. 
 (Id., §57.) 
 
 Obstructions preventing a clear view of the 
 interior of licensed premises by the passer-by 
 shall be removed all day Sunday, on penalty of 
 $20. (Id., § 58.) 
 
 The Treasurer of a town or city shall, on 
 June and Dec. 10, make returns to the Statff 
 Treasurer of all moneys for licenses belonging- 
 to the State. (Id., § 60.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be- 
 proposed by majority vote of the two Houses ; 
 to be concurred in by a majority of each House 
 in the next Legislature ; an affirmative vote of 
 three-fifths of the electors voting on the ques- 
 tion is necessary to adoption. 
 
 South Carolina. 
 
 Cofonial Provisions. — There was an act passed 
 in 1683 to prevent unlicensed taverns and punch- 
 houses, and for ascertaining the rates and prices- 
 of wine and other liquors. It is not now to be. 
 found. 
 
 The act of 1686 (2 Stats, at Large, 18) pro- 
 vided that no one should retail liquor with- 
 out obtaining license of the Governor, upon 
 penalty of £10. Those selling under one gal- 
 lon were retailers. The license fee to retail 
 wine was £5, to retail punch £3. This act did. 
 not extend to any inhabitants of the country 
 who sold rum or other liquors to their servants 
 or workmen, or who supplied their neighbors- 
 out of their houses. This was to provide rev- 
 enue to support the Governor. 
 
 The act of 1694 (Id., 85) for regulating public 
 houses commenced with these words : ' 'Where- 
 as, The unlimited number of taverns, tap- 
 houses and punch-houses, and the want of 
 sobriety, honesty and discretion in the owners 
 and masters of such houses have and will en- 
 courage all such vices as are the productions of 
 drunkenness." This act substantially repeated 
 former laws. 
 
 The act of 1695 (Id., 113) adopted and en- 
 acted the statutes and common law of England 
 for the government of public houses. Peddling 
 liquor was prohibited in 1703. (Id., 199.) 
 
 Sales by planters excepted by former acts were 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 by act of 1709 (Id., 337) limited to sales not to 
 be drunk on the premises. Up to this time 
 these laws were re-enacted for the term of each 
 Governor, but in 1711 (Id., 363) the act was 
 made permanent. 
 
 Early State Provisions. — By the act of 1783 
 (4 Id., 565) licenses were put at 50s, and in 
 Charleston at £5 more, and the penalty of sell- 
 ing without license was put at £50. By another 
 act of the same year (Id., 576), such licenses 
 were placed at £10 and £3 respectively. By 
 the first of these acts an import duty of 4d was 
 levied on every gallon of liquor imported, 
 which duty was by the latter act differentiated 
 as to each kind of liquor, the average being 
 reduced. 
 
 The act of 1791 (7 Id., 268) gave the power 
 of granting licenses to the County Courts then 
 created. After their disestablishment by the 
 act of 1799 (Id., 299), that power was given the 
 Commissioners of Roads. 
 
 By act of 1801 (5 Id., 399) the power of licens- 
 ing liquor-selling was vested in the Commis- 
 sioners of Roads, at discretion, the proceeds to 
 be used on the roads. Tavern licenses cost $10 
 and licenses to retail not less than a quart (not 
 at a tavern) $15. Selling without license was 
 fined $100. 
 
 Sales of liquors within one mile of places of 
 worship during service, except by regular li- 
 censed dealers, were fined $50 by act of 1809. 
 (Id., 599.) 
 
 The Screen Law of 1839.— By act of 1835 (Id., 
 528) licensees were required to give bond in 
 $1,000 to observe the law, and were required to 
 keep their places without screens or obstruc- 
 tions, so the vending should be done openly, 
 upon penalty of $50 to $200. A $50 license 
 fee was required. 
 
 Delivering liquor to a slave, except upon the 
 written order of the master, was punished by 
 imprisonment not exceeding six months and fine 
 not exceeding $100 (Laws, 1834, 7 Id., 469), and 
 those licensed were first required to take oath 
 not to so sell ; and if a negro entered defend- 
 ant's place without the article and left with it, 
 that fact was sufficient evidence. 
 
 By the act of 1842 (Laws, p. 295), the Court 
 might imprison for not exceeding six months, 
 instead of the fine then imposed by law. 
 
 The act of 1849 (Laws, p. 557) granted retail 
 licenses to tavern-keepers only ; and upon rec- 
 ommendation of at least three respectable free- 
 holders of the neighborhood, or in incorporated 
 towns by six, they were strictly required to 
 have tavern accommodations for travellers. 
 Bond in $1,000 was required. It was made un- 
 lawful for anyone licensed to retail liquors to 
 sell such liquors in quantities less than one 
 quart, nor did' retail licenses authorize the 
 drinking such liquors at the place where sold. 
 
 War Provisions. — Distillation from grain was 
 prohibited and punished by forfeiture of appa- 
 ratus, imprisonment six months to two years, 
 and a fine of $1,000 to $5,000; but agents to 
 distil for medical purposes only, under the 
 Governor's direction, might be appointed by the 
 Governor. (Laws, 1862-3, p. 111.) This act 
 was extended to distillation from anything but 
 fruits in their season, and the permits before 
 granted by the Governor were revoked, and the 
 
 345 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 Governor was authorized to license only one or 
 more such agents for the same purposes, and 
 then only if liquor could not otherwise be pro- 
 cured. (Id., p. 113.) Such agents (not to ex- 
 ceed one in each judicial district) were subject 
 to strict limitations. (Laws, 1863, p. 198.) 
 
 Since the War.— Peddling spirits was pro- 
 hibited by Laws of 1870, No. 274. 
 _ A general license law (1872, No. 155) included 
 licenses to sell liquors. The tax on taverns and 
 saloons to retail was graded according to rental 
 value of the places, at from $37.50 to $375. By 
 Laws of 1874, No. 646, the provisions of the 
 general law relating to the granting of licenses 
 were declared to be applicable only to the in- 
 corporated limits of cities, towns and villages. 
 This law, with some additions, is now in force. 
 
 Considerable numbers of local Prohibitory 
 laws have been passed within the last few years 
 in South Carolina. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — No license 
 for the sale of intoxicating liquor shall be 
 granted outside of the incorporated cities, towns 
 and villages, and it shall be unlawful for any 
 person to sell such liquors without license. (G. 
 S„ 1882, § 1731.) 
 
 No license shall be granted by any municipal 
 authorities, except upon payment to the Treas- 
 urer of the county of $100. (Id., § 1732.) 
 
 The sale of all wines, fruits prepared with 
 spirituous liquors, or other beverages, of which, 
 spirituous liquor forms an ingredient, is hereby 
 prohibited except in incorporated places. (Id., 
 § 1733.) 
 
 Domestic wine made from grapes or berries 
 grown within the State may be sold by the 
 makers in quantities not less than a quart, put 
 up in bottles, casks or demijohns containing not 
 less than a quart, labelled with the name of the 
 said maker. (Laws, 1885, p. 359.) 
 
 Any person violating the general law, or any 
 special law regarding the sale of liquors, shall be 
 fined not over $200, or imprisoned not exceeding 
 six months, or both (half of the fines going to 
 the informer.) (Laws, 1885, p. 415, amending 
 G. S., 1882, § 1734.) 
 
 No license may issue in any city, town or 
 village where the sale is prohibited by act of 
 the Legislature or by ordinance of the munic- 
 ipality. (Id., §1735.) 
 
 Nothing herein prohibits sale by licensed dis- 
 tillers in the original packages of not less than 
 10 gallons upon the premises of manufacture. 
 (Id.) 
 
 Municipal authorities may grant license to 
 retail to keepers of drinking-saloons and eating- 
 houses, apart from taverns, and fix the price of 
 the same at not less than $75, the person to be 
 first recommended by six respectable tax- 
 payers of the neighborhood, and to give bond 
 in $1,000 for the keeping of an orderly house 
 and the observance of the law. (Id., § 1736.) 
 
 Municipal authorities may grant licenses for 
 retailing wine, cider, brewed or malt liquors, 
 upon payment of $25, and recommendation as 
 above, and bond in $500 as above, on condition 
 that such licensees shall not keep spirituous 
 liquors or any mixture thereof. (Id., §'1737.) 
 
 "Wilfully furnishing intoxicating drink to any 
 person of known intemperate habits, or person 
 when drunk, or to a minor or insane person,. 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 346 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 for use as a beverage, shall be deemed a misde- 
 meanor, and it shall be lawful for any relative 
 or guardian of such intemperate person or 
 minor, or the committee of such insane person, 
 ■or for any trial Justice of the township, to give 
 notice to any seller not to furnish liquor to such 
 person ; and if he do so within three months he 
 .shall be responsible for injury to person or 
 property resulting, and a wife may recover for 
 loss of means of support. (Id., § 1738.) 
 
 Any person found drunk in any public place 
 ■shall be fined not exceeding $5, and the person 
 who sold the liquor to be drunk on the premises 
 which caused the intoxication shall be liable in 
 .$5 to the wife, parent, child or guardian of such 
 person found intoxicated. (Id., § 1739.) 
 
 "Whenever any riot or breach of , the peace 
 occurs in any drinking -place the keeper shall be 
 •deemed an aider and abettor thereof, and shall 
 be liable as such unless he can show it was not 
 •caused by persons becoming intoxicated on his 
 premises. (Id., § 1740.) 
 
 No person shall trade in liquors on Sunday. 
 <Id., § 1741.) 
 
 The municipal authorities of incorporated 
 •cities, towns and villages have power to grant 
 licenses to sell by the quart, and any person so 
 licensed, who shall permit the liquor so sold to 
 be drunk on the premises, shall forfeit his 
 license, and it shall not be renewed for a year. 
 No license shall be issued until the receipt of 
 the County Treasurer for the license fee is pre- 
 sented. (Id., §1743.) 
 
 No druggists shall, except upon prescriptions, 
 •sell any bitters of which spirituous or malt 
 liquor is an ingredient, or any medicated liquors 
 by the bottle or drink, unless licensed, when 
 -they may sell as in cases of those licensed to sell 
 by the quart. (Id., § 1743; amended by Laws 
 of 1884, No. 495.) 
 
 In all cases the Court before which any fine 
 is recovered under this chapter shall award to 
 the prosecutor a reasonable share thereof for his 
 trouble, not exceeding one-third. (G. S., 1882, 
 § 1744.) 
 
 All licensed persons shall expose their licenses 
 to public view in their chief places of business. 
 Any person convicted of retailing without 
 license, or on the Sabbath, shall not be entitled 
 to license for two years. And every licensee 
 shall sell in a room fronting the public street, 
 without any screen or device for preventing the 
 passing public from fully viewing what may be 
 transpiring within. (§ 1745. ) 
 
 Whenever one-third of the number of voters 
 at the preceding municipal election shall peti- 
 tion (before the 15th of November in any year) 
 for an election upon the question of license, the 
 Council shall submit the question at a special 
 election, on or about Dec. 1 following, and if a 
 majority voting is in favor of no-license, none 
 shall be granted then for the ensuing two years. 
 (Id., § 1747; amended by Laws of 1884, No. 
 246.) 
 
 All licenses shall be so granted as to end on 
 the 31st day of December. (Id., § 1747.) 
 
 Whenever a vote has been taken as above, the 
 ■decision shall stand until reversed by another 
 Tote. 
 
 Sections 1746, 1747 and 1748 do not apply 
 to any city, town or village in which the sale of 
 
 liquor is prohibited by legislative enactment. 
 (Id. , § 1749 ; amended by Laws of 1884, No. 419. ) 
 
 Whenever at any such election as above, the 
 vote is in favor of no-license, no druggist may 
 sell liquor except upon a physician's prescrip- 
 tion, which shall be filed one year by the drag- 
 gist. (G. S., 1882, §1750.) No physician shall 
 give such a prescription except when actually in 
 bona fide attendance upon a patient. (Id., § 1751.) 
 
 Saloons must be closed from 6 o'clock of the 
 evening preceeding the day of election until 6 
 o'clock of the morning of the day after, and the 
 sale of liquor is prohibited during that time, 
 upon penalty of fine not exceeding $50 or im- 
 prisonment not exceeding six months, or both. 
 (Id., § 114.) 
 
 No trial Justice shall retail liquor, upon pen- 
 alty of $250 and disqualification for the office. 
 (Id., § 801.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by a two-thirds vote of all the mem- 
 bers of both Houses ; to be concurred in by a 
 majority of the electors voting at the next 
 general election ; and then, in order to be 
 adopted, must be ratified by two-thirds of each 
 House in the next Legislature. 
 
 South Dakota. 
 
 No person or corporation shall manufacture 
 or aid in the manufacture for sale, any intoxi- 
 cating liquor ; no person shall sell or keep for 
 sale, as a beverage, any intoxicating liquor. 
 The Legislature shall by law prescribe regula- 
 tions for the enforcement of the provisions of 
 this section, and provide suitable and adequate 
 penalties for the violation thereof. (Const., art. 
 24.) 
 
 The Legislature of 1890 passed an elaborate 
 Prohibitory statute in compliance with this 
 article. Not being available at the time that 
 this is prepared for the press, the provisions of 
 the act cannot be stated here ; but they will be 
 found summarized on p.614. 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by majority vote of all the members 
 of the two Houses, at one session ; popular vote 
 to be taken at the next general election for Rep- 
 resentatives, 12 weeks' notice to be given. A 
 majority carries it. 
 
 Early Provisions. — Tavern-keepers encourag- 
 ing gaming or horse-racing, or furnishing liquor 
 in connection with gambling or horse-racing, 
 were fined $10, with forfeiture of license and 
 disqualification to receive another one for one 
 year. (Laws, 1799, c. 8.) Ordinary licenses 
 were taxed $5. (Id., c. 30.) 
 
 In 1811 licenses were to be. granted by the 
 Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions, to those 
 not of gross immorality, for $3 ; and selling 
 without license was fined $1 to $3, and con- 
 stables were to give information against offend- 
 ers. (Laws, 1811, c. 113.) 
 
 In 1813 persons selling drink capable of pro- 
 ducing intoxication to slaves, without permits 
 in writing, were to be fined $5 to $10. (Laws, 
 1813, c. 135.) 
 
 In 1817 ordinary-keepers, before receiving 
 license, were to be sworn not to permit gaming 
 of any kind. (Laws, 1817, c. 61, § 5.) 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 347 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 In 1821 all laws prohibiting the sale of ale, 
 "beer, cider and methylin by retail, were re- 
 pealed. (Laws, 1821, c. 18.) 
 
 No Licenses to be Granted to Persons Whose 
 Principal Object was the Retailing of Liguors 
 <1823). — In 1823 no license was to be granted un- 
 less the applicant proved in open Court his good 
 character, and that he had adequate tavern 
 accommodations ; and no license was to be 
 ^granted if the principal object was the retailing 
 ■of liquors. (Laws, 1823, c. 33.) 
 
 Those at whose houses elections or musters 
 were held might sell liquor on such davs. 
 (Laws, 1827, c. 15.) 
 
 In 1831 the Clerk of the County Court was 
 required to grant licenses, upon payment of $25. 
 (Laws, 1831, c. 80.) 
 
 In 1835 an oath not to sell to slaves was re- 
 quired before license could be obtained . (Laws, 
 1835, c. 34.) An additional oath not to allow 
 gaming was required. (Laws, 1835, c. 25.) 
 
 Repeal of all License Laws (1838). — The act of 
 1838 (Laws, c. 122) repealed the acts authoriz- 
 ing the granting of licenses, and provided that 
 all persons convicted of the offense of retailing 
 spirituous liquors should be fined at the discre- 
 tion of the Court. (Passed Jan. 26, 1838.) 
 
 In 1841 (Laws, c. 141), selling liquor to free 
 persons of color, or to slaves (to he drunk on 
 the premises) was forbidden as a misdemeanor, 
 and so was any sale to a slave without permis- 
 sion of his master, even though the liquor were 
 not drunk on the premises. 
 
 By act of 1845 (Laws, c. 90) tippling-houses 
 were taxed $25 if the stock of the establish- 
 ment did not exceed $250, and $10 for each 
 $100 of stock. Incorporated towns and coun- 
 ties might each exact an equal tax. A similar 
 tax on all purchases of»stock was imposed. It 
 was made a misdemeanor to sell without license. 
 An oath was required, before license issued, not 
 to sell to slaves, permit gaming or sell on 
 Sunday. Buying liquor for negroes was made 
 a misdemeanor by Laws of 1851, c. 174. 
 
 Licenses were placed at $50 in country places, 
 $70 in towns of 1,000 to 5,000 inhabitants and 
 $100 in larger places, with the privilege ac- 
 corded to incorporated places and counties to 
 ■duplicate such fees. (Laws, 1869, c. 38. ) 
 
 The Four Mile law, which is the most im- 
 portant later act, was passed in 1877. 
 
 Submission of Constitutional Prohibition 
 (1887). — A Constitutional Amendment, pro- 
 hibiting the manufacture and sale as a beverage 
 of intoxicating liquors, was by Laws of 1885, 
 p. 349, proposed, concurred in, voted upon and 
 defeated in 1887. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889.— The right to 
 sell spirituous, vinous or fermented liquors in 
 quantities less than a quart, or in larger quan- 
 tities (to be drunk at the place of sale), is a tax- 
 able privilege in the sense of § 28, art. 2, of the 
 Constitution. (Id., § 857.) This privilege 
 shall not be exercised without license from the 
 Clerk of the County Court. (Id., §858.) No 
 license shall be granted to a person incompetent 
 .as a witness, to a person convicted of keeping 
 -disorderly house or permitting gaming under 
 former license, or to one twice convicted of un- 
 lawfully selling to minors or habitual drunkards 
 or within a year from his first conviction thereof. 
 
 (Id., § 859.) License shall be granted upon 
 condition that the applicant deliver the Clerk a 
 sworn statement of the value of his stock of 
 liquors; that he execute bond in $500 to obey 
 the law, and within 12 months state to the 
 Clerk the amount of purchases since the license 
 was issued and pay the taxes thereon for the 
 use of the State, town or county, and that he 
 will take oath not to permit gaming. (Id., 
 § 860. ) No person shall sell any liquor until he 
 has taken oath and given bond in $500 not to 
 adulterate the liquor he sells. (Id., § 861.) 
 At the end of a year the license may be re- 
 newed if the applicant has complied with the 
 law, gives new bonds and takes the oath again. 
 (Id., § 862.) Licenses without the oath en- 
 dorsed and subscribed by the licensees are 
 void. (Id., § 863.) 
 
 No person shall be a clerk in a liquor place 
 who is not a competent witness in Court. (Id., 
 § 864. ) Such clerk shall take oath not to sell 
 to minors or permit gaming. (Id., § 865.) 
 
 Each liquor-dealer pays a tax of $150; in 
 towns of 5,000 inhabitants or over, $200; and 
 this applies to druggists. (Id., § 617.) Whole- 
 salers pay $150. (Id.) They also pay an ad 
 valorem tax upon their capital at tax levy 
 rates. (Id., § 614.) 
 
 It is a misdemeanor to sell spirituous or 
 vinous liquors in less quantity than a 
 quart, or in larger quantity, to be drunk on the 
 premises without a license. (Code, 1884, § 5667. ) 
 Any person who after having taken out a 
 license violates the oath taken is guilty of 
 perjury. (Id., § 5668.) If any licensed per- 
 son violate any law regulating license, he is 
 guilty of a misdemeanor. (Id., §5669.) The 
 provisions of this article are to be construed 
 liberally, so as to prevent evasions and subter- 
 fuges and to effectuate the objects thereof. (Id., 
 § 5670.) 
 
 No licensed grocer or other person shall sell 
 liquor on Sunday, the punishment to be at the 
 discretion of the Court. (Id., § 5671.) 
 
 Any person who sells any student liquor, or 
 anyone for him, without consent of parent 
 or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Id., 
 § 5672. ) It is unlawful for persons to sell to or 
 procure liquors for minors without the written 
 consent of the parents or mother and guardian 
 of such minor, or the principal of any school 
 he attends; also to sell to any husband who is 
 a habitual drunkard after notice prohibitory 
 thereof from the wife, upon penalty of $10 to 
 $200, and persons so selling shall forfeit their 
 licenses and be disqualified 12 months to re- 
 ceive new ones, and on second offenses shall be 
 forever disqualified. (Id. , §§ 5673-7. ) 
 
 It is unlawful to sell any intoxicating bever- 
 age within four miles of an incorporated insti- 
 tution of learning, upon penalty of $100 to 
 $250 and imprisonment one to six months. 
 This does not apply to incorporated towns. 
 (Id., §§ 5679-80.) It is not lawful to sell li- 
 quor within four miles of any school-house, 
 public or private, whether the school is in ses- 
 sion or not, upon penalty of $10 to $100 and 
 imprisonment not more than six months, this 
 not applying to incorporated towns. (Laws, 
 1887, c. 167. ) No person shall keep for sale or 
 sell any liquor within two miles of any hospital 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 348 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 for the insane, on penalty of not over $50 
 and imprisonment at discretion. (Code, 1884, 
 § 5681.) It is an indictable offense to enter the 
 premises of such hospital drunk; penalty, $25 
 and imprisonment at discretion. (Id., § 5682.) 
 
 It is a misdemeanor to adulterate for sale any 
 wine, spirituous or malt liquors, or knowingly 
 sell the same, and a felony to so adulterate 
 them with poisons. (Id., §§ 5632-3.) 
 
 Selling liquor (except in incorporated towns) 
 within five miles of any furnace or factory of 
 any kind, established by any foreign corpora- 
 tion (Id., § 2002), or selling within one mile 
 of any place of public worship, except at a 
 regular place of such business, is punishable by 
 fine of $10. (Id., §§ 2011-2.) 
 
 Being drunk on Sunday is punished the 
 same as working on that day. (Id., § 2290.) 
 
 In theatres no liquor shall be sold, or in any 
 connecting room, upon penalty of $50, and for 
 second offense $50 and forfeiture of license. 
 (Id., § 2295.) 
 
 It is unlawful for any person to sell liquor 
 within one-half mile of any fair-grounds during 
 the time of holding the fair, without consent 
 of the directors, upon penalty of $50 to $200 
 and imprisonment one to three months; but 
 this does not apply to a regular business. (Id., 
 §§ 2296-8.) 
 
 No jailer shall permit any prisoner to have 
 more than half a pint of spirits in any 24 
 hours, under penalty of $50. (Id., § 6293.) 
 No spirituous liquor shall be introduced into 
 the Penitentiary, except for the families of the 
 officers or for the hospital under the directions 
 of the physician. (Id., § 6388.) 
 
 The notice by a wife not to sell to her hus- 
 band (if he is a habitual drunkard) shall be 
 served and a due return made thereon to the 
 Clerk of the County Court by the Sheriff or 
 any constable of the county. Persons disre- 
 garding the notice shall be fined $10 to $200. 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed (not oftener than once in six years) 
 by a majority vote of all the members of the 
 two Houses ; to be concurred in by two-thirds 
 of each House in the next Legislature ; a popu- 
 lar vote equal to a majority of those voting for 
 Representatives is requisite for its adoption. 
 
 Texas. 
 
 Early Provisions. — The Republic of Texas by 
 its 6th Congress taxed liquor-selling in quan- 
 tities of a quart or over $25 ; retailing, $100. 
 (Laws, 1842, p. 107.) Introducing liquor 
 among the Indians was prohibited by Laws of 
 1843, p. 24. 
 
 The retail license tax was made $50 by the 
 first Legislature of the State. (Laws, 1846, 
 p. 147.) 
 
 County Local Option (1854).— The question of 
 the abolition of the sale of liquor was submitted 
 to the counties ; in any county voting in favor 
 of license, if 50 voters should petition for 
 another election within a year it should be 
 taken. Selling contrary to the act was fined 
 $10 to $20. (Laws, 1854, c. 88.) 
 
 That act was repealed and license was substi- 
 tuted, the fee being $250, with bond in $1,000 
 and restrictions of sales to minors and slaves, 
 and of gaming ; penalty for selling without 
 
 license, $50 to $200. (Laws, 1856, c. 66.) 
 Local prohibitions were enacted both in 1854 
 and 1856. 
 
 War Provisions. — County Courts were given 
 power to prohibit distillation when prejudicial 
 to public subsistence, but not to deprive dis- 
 tillers of legal licenses without adequate compen- 
 sation. (Laws, 1863, c. 65.) By the act of 1864 
 (Laws, c. 11), the occupation of distilling was 
 charged with a license fee of $1,000 ; that of 
 retailing liquor, $250. 
 
 In 1866 license was put at $300, and the 
 penalty of selling without license was $100 to 
 $200 and imprisonment 30 days. (Laws, 1866, 
 c. 70.) 
 
 By the Constitution of 1869 (art. 12, § 48), 
 the Legislature might prohibit the sale of liquor 
 in the immediate vicinity of any college or 
 seminary of learning, if not at the capital or at 
 a county-seat. 
 
 The Bell-Punch law for collecting a tax on 
 each drink sold was enacted in 1879 (Laws, 
 c. 66); repealed the next session. 
 
 The Laws of 1887, p. 155, submitted a Pro- 
 hibitory Constitutional Amendment, which was 
 lost. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — " The Legis- 
 lature shall enact a law whereby the qualified 
 voters of any county, Justice's precinct, town 
 or city, by a majority vote from time to time, 
 may determine whether the sale of intoxicating 
 liquors shall be prohibited within the pre- 
 scribed limits." (Const., art. 16, § 20.) 
 
 The Commissioners' Court of each county in 
 the State may order an election by the voters 
 of said county or of any Justice's precinct, 
 town or city therein, to determine whether 
 or not the sale of liquor shall be permitted 
 therein. It is the duty of said Court to order 
 such election when petitioned for by 200 voters 
 in any county, or 50 in precincts, towns or 
 cities. (R. S., 1888, art. 3227.) The preceding 
 article shall not prohibit the sale of wines for 
 sacramental purposes, or alcoholic stimulants 
 as medicines in cases of actual sickness, when 
 sold upon prescription of a regular practicing 
 physician with his certificate. One sale only 
 shall be made on each prescription, which shall 
 be stamped, cancelled and filed. (Id., art. 
 3228.) When the Court shall order the elec- 
 tion, it shall be at the regular polling-places 
 from 15 to 30 days from the date of the order, 
 which shall be prima facie evidence of regular- 
 ity. (Id., art. 3229.) Notice of the election 
 shall be posted 20 days in five places. (Id., 
 art. 3230.) Ballots shall be "For Prohibi- 
 tion," and "Against Prohibition." (Id., art. 
 3231.) The election shall be conducted under 
 general election laws, and returns made to the 
 Court ordering it. (Id., art. 3232.) 
 
 The Court shall hold a special session t» 
 count the votes, and if the majority be " For 
 Prohibition" the Court shall issue an order 
 declaring the result and absolutely prohibiting 
 the sale within the prescribed limits, except for 
 the above excepted purposes, until a contrary 
 vote. (Id., art. 3233.) The order of the. 
 Court shall be published four weeks, in a news- 
 paper of the county, or if there is none, posted 
 in three places within the limits prescribed. 
 (Id., art. 3234.) If a majority vote against 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 349 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 Prohibition the Court shall make an order de- 
 claring that result. (Id., art. 3235.) No elec- 
 tion shall again be held for two years, and then 
 as before. (Id., art. 3236.) The failure to 
 cany Prohibition in a county shall not prevent 
 an election from being immediately held in a 
 precinct, town or city thereof, nor shall such 
 failure in a town or city prevent an election 
 immediately thereafter in the precinct or county 
 wherein it is situated. But when Prohibition 
 carries in any county no election in any pre- 
 cinct, city or town thereof, shall be ordered 
 until Prohibition is defeated in the entire 
 county and so for a precinct. (Id., art. 3238.) 
 Selling liquor or giving it away to evade the 
 law after the above order of Prohibition is 
 punished by the Penal Code. (Id., art. 3239.) 
 "Within 30 days any citizen may contest the 
 election in any Court of competent jurisdiction, 
 and the Court may declare the election void 
 and order another. (Id., art. 3239 as.) "Where 
 anyone has a license cut off by the order of 
 Prohibition, he shall have refunded to him an 
 amount proportionate to his unexpired term. 
 (Id., art. 3239 b.) 
 
 District Judges shall give the Local Option 
 law in charge to the Grand Juries. Where any 
 hidden device is resorted to a Justice of the 
 Peace may issue a warrant to search the place 
 and force it open, if necessary, and arrest the 
 person violating the law. (Id., art. 3239 c.) 
 
 There shall be levied upon the business of 
 selling spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, or 
 medicated bitters in quantities less than a quart, 
 $300 ; between one quart and five gallons, 
 $200 ; over five gallons, $300 ; for malt liquors 
 exclusively, $50. But wholesale dealers and 
 merchants may sell in unbroken packages con- 
 taining less than five gallons without licenses as 
 quart dealers. (Id., art. 3226 a, 8 1.) 
 
 The Commissioners' Courts of the Counties 
 may levy taxes equal to one-half the State 
 taxes, and any city or incorporated town may 
 in addition levy another tax equal to that levied 
 by the Commissioners. (Id., art. 3226 a, § 2.) 
 All these taxes must be paid in advance. (Id., 
 
 §B.) 
 
 Anyone desiring to engage in such business 
 must give bond in $5,000 to keep an open, 
 quiet and orderly house, and to obey all the law 
 -whose prohibitions are enumerated in the bond ; 
 which said bond may be sued on at the instance 
 of any person aggrieved by the violation of any 
 of its provisions, and such person shall recover 
 $500 as liquidated damages, and said bond 
 shall not be void on the first recovery but may 
 be sued on until the full penal sum is ex- 
 hausted. It is also the duty of the County and 
 District Attorneys to sue such bonds in cases of 
 violation of law and recover $500. Whenever 
 a bond is exhausted by suits, a new one must 
 be provided, or whenever a bond promises to be 
 exhausted by a suit brought, and if on notice 
 the new bond is not given, the right to sell 
 ceases. This section does not repeal the penal 
 laws concerning the sale of liquor. An open 
 house is one in which no screen or other device 
 is used or placed so as to obstruct the view 
 through the open door or place of entrance into 
 such house. A quiet house is one in which no 
 music, loud talking, yelling or indecent lan- 
 
 guage is allowed, or any noise to disturb neigh- 
 bors or passers-by. An orderly house is one in 
 which no prostitute or lewd woman is allowed 
 to enter or remain, which house must contain 
 no obscene pictures. (Id., § 4.) 
 
 The County Clerk shall issue license upon 
 receipt for the above taxes and bond required. 
 (Id., § 5.) A Collector of Taxes knowingly per- 
 mitting anyone to pursue such business without 
 paying the tax shall be fined $25 to $200, but it 
 is a defense for him if he has reported the 
 matter to the District Attorney. (Id., § 6.) 
 
 The Comptroller shall furnish blank forms of 
 licenses and bonds and receipts for taxes herein. 
 (W., § 7.) 
 
 The license shall be posted in some con- 
 spicuous place where the business is done, upon 
 penalty of not exceeding $25 per day or the 
 amount of the tax. (Id., §§ 8-12.) 
 
 City Councils have power to restrain, regu- 
 late and prohibit the sale of liquor, except by 
 licensed persons, and selling to minors and 
 drunkards, to close saloons on Sunday and pre- 
 scribe hours for closing them, and to prevent 
 sales of liquor where theatrical representations 
 are given. (Id., arts. 390-3.) 
 
 Selling liquor to Indians is fined $10 to $100. 
 (Pen. Code, 1888, §§ 611-12.) Selling to minors 
 knowingly without written consent of parent or 
 guardian is fined $25 to $100. (Id., § 613.) 
 Selling by the quart or more, and permitting 
 the same drunk on the premises, is fined $50 to 
 $200. (Id., § 616.) Selling in prohibited dis- 
 tricts is punished by fine of $25 to $100, and by 
 imprisonment 20 to 60 days. (Id., § 618. ) 
 
 Failure to cancel prescriptions used to procure 
 liquors, and permitting liquor bought upon pre- 
 scription to be drunk on the premises, are fined 
 $25 to $100. (Id., § 620.) Anyone giving a 
 prescription when not a physician, or being such 
 and interested in the sale of the liquor, or for 
 one not sick or actually examined, shall be 
 fined $25 to $100 and imprisoned 20 to 60 days. 
 (Id., § 62.) 
 
 If anyone shall keep or run a "blind tiger " 
 or other device whereby the party selling or 
 delivering is concealed from the buyer, he shall 
 be imprisoned two to 12 months and fined $100 
 to $500, and upon complaint describing the 
 place where any " blind tiger " is run a warrant 
 shall issue to search the place and arrest the 
 persons violating the law, by force if necessary. 
 A United States "license" posted in a place 
 where a "blind tiger" is kept is prima facie 
 proof that the person named therein is running 
 such "blind tiger." (Id., § 622.) 
 
 The subsequent reversal of a local Prohibition 
 does not exempt an offender against it while in 
 force. (Id., §623.) 
 
 Where persons are jointly indicted for selling 
 it is sufficient to show they were reputed to be 
 in partnership. (Id., § 626.) Any member of 
 a firm is separately liable for selling by the firm. 
 (Id., § 627.) Where any establishment is con- 
 ducted, without the name of the owner being 
 known, all persons found selling therein are 
 subject to separate prosecution. (Id., § 628.) 
 
 A disorderly house is one where liquors are 
 sold and prostitutes and lewd women are em- 
 ployed or permitted to display themselves. And 
 the keeper thereof is liable in $200 per day; and 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 350 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 the owner of the property, with knowledge, is 
 also liable. (Laws, 1889, c. 38, amending Pen. 
 Code, arts. 339 and 341.) 
 
 Keeping open saloons or selling or giving 
 liquor within three miles of any voting pre- 
 cinct is fined $100 to $500. (Pen. Code, 1888, 
 §§ 178-9.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may he 
 proposed by a two-thirds vote of all the mem- 
 bers of each House, at one session; popular vote 
 to be taken at any date fixed by the Legislature, 
 three months' notice to be given. A majority 
 vote carries it. 
 
 Utah Territory. 
 
 Early Provisions. — An inspection law for 
 liquors was passed in 1852. (Laws, c. 58 of 
 Laws, 1851-70.) 
 
 The County Courts were authorized to grant 
 licenses to manufacture and sell liquor and to 
 fix the price of the same. The penalty for 
 violating the act was a fine not exceeding $100. 
 
 Sales on Sunday were forbidden upon penalty 
 not to exceed $25. (Laws, 1860, c. 69, Id.) 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — There shall 
 be a Territorial Inspector of spirituous liquors 
 (C. L., 1888, §§ 2149-50.) All spirituous 
 liquors manufactured or imported into this 
 Territory before being offered for sale shall be 
 inspected. (Id., §§2151-2.) Any person sell- 
 ing liquor not inspected shall forfeit not ex- 
 ceeding $500. (Id., §2155.) No person shall 
 manufacture or sell intoxicating liquors without 
 obtaining license from the County Court or City 
 Council. (Id., § 2156.) Such authorities are 
 authorized to grant license upon application 
 signed, and stating the place of business pro- 
 posed. Before license the applicant must give 
 bond in $100 to $1,000 to keep an orderly 
 house, permit no gaming and pay all damages, 
 fines and forfeitures adjudged against him. 
 (Id., § 2157.) The said licensing authorities 
 shall, upon each petition, determine the amount 
 to he paid for the license, not less than $600 
 nor more than $1,200 per year; but licensees of 
 the same class shall pay a uniform amount in 
 the city or county. No license shall be for less 
 than three months. (Id., § 2158.) Upon pay- 
 ment of the amount so determined, the Clerk of 
 the County Court or City Recorder shall issue 
 the license, which is not transferable. (Id., 
 § 2159.) 
 
 Any person licensed, who shall knowingly 
 dispose of liquor to an Indian, insane or idiotic 
 person, or to any minor, apprentice or employee 
 under 21, or permit any of said persons to re- 
 main in his place of business without consent 
 of the parents, guardians or employer, shall be 
 fined $10 to $100. (Id., § 2160.) 
 
 Any person selling liquor on Sunday, except 
 for medical purposes upon prescription, or who 
 shall permit gaming on his premises where 
 liquor is sold, or shall permit dancing, drunken- 
 ness or disorderly conduct in his saloon, shall 
 be fined not less than $300, or imprisoned not 
 exceeding six months, or both. (Id., § 2161.) 
 Any married woman may maintain a suit on the 
 seller's bond for any damages sustained by her- 
 self or her children on account of the traffic. 
 (Id., § 2162.) 
 
 Liquor bills for quantities less than five gal- 
 
 lons at a time, not for medical, mechanical or 
 sacramental purposes, are not collectible. (Id., 
 § 2164.) 
 
 Persons selling liquor without license shall be 
 fined not more than $300, or be imprisoned not 
 exceeding six months, or both, and shall be 
 liable as though licensed. (Id., § 2165.) 
 
 Suits for damages under $300 may be before 
 Justices of the Peace, and different persons, 
 may sue on the bond until it is exhausted. (Id., 
 § 2166.) 
 
 This does not authorize County Courts to in- 
 terfere with the charter rights of municipalities, 
 to tax, regulate, restrain and prohibit the 
 manufacture and sale of liquor, or to prohibit 
 wine-growers from expressing and selling on 
 the same premises the pure juice of the grape 
 in quantities not less than five gallons at a time ; 
 and nothing herein impairs any municipal 
 right to prohibit manufacture and sale. (Id., 
 § 2168.) 
 
 Furnishing liquor on election day is pro- 
 hibited. (Id., §§ 2169-70.) 
 
 Amusements and theatricals at a saloon on. 
 Sunday are prohibited. (Id., § 4514.) So is- 
 keeping open Sunday, upon penalty of $5 to 
 $100. (Id., § 4515.) • 
 
 Sale of liquors at theaters, and employing 
 women for that purpose, are prohibited. (Id., 
 § 4518.) 
 
 Selling liquor within one mile of camp and 
 field meetings, except by one carrying on his 
 regular business, is fined $5 to $500. (Id., 
 §§ 4522-3.) 
 
 Employing a female to play any musical in- 
 strument, dance or exhibit herself in any 
 drinking-saloon, is fined not exceeding $300, or 
 punished by imprisonment not exceeding three 
 months, or both. (Id., §§ 4524-5.) 
 
 Selling liquor to a minor under 16 years of 
 age is punishable by fine not exceeding $100, 
 or imprisonment not exceeding three months. 
 (Id., § 4526.) 
 
 Selling liquor to an Indian is a misdemeanor 
 (Id., § 4586) ; so is adulterating liquor for sale. 
 (Id., | 4574.) 
 
 Vermont. 
 
 Early Provisions. — A law of 1779 (Laws of 
 Vermont, 1779-86, p. 331) provided that if 
 any person were found drunken, so that he was 
 thereby bereaved and disabled in the use of his 
 reason, appearing either in his speech, gesture 
 or behavior, he should forfeit 8s. A law of the 
 same year (Id.-, p. 370) provided that the magis- 
 trates, Selectmen, constables and Grand Jury- 
 men of the towns might in March annually 
 nominate for license a suitable person or per- 
 sons to keep houses of public entertainment, to 
 the next County Court, which Court might 
 lessen the number or refuse license to unfit per- 
 sons. The persons licensed were to give bonds 
 in £100 to obey the law. Persons idly haunt- 
 ing taverns were to be posted therein, and no 
 liquors were to be sold them under penalty of 
 £3. And if any such person did not leave off his 
 evil practices, he was to find surety for his 
 good behavior, or pay a fine of 20s, or sit in 
 the stocks two hours. Selling without license 
 was fined £3, the amount to be doubled with 
 each subsequent offense, half to the informer. 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 351 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 Licensed persons were recommended to prose- 
 cute under the provisons of the law, and Grand 
 Jurymen were to search for and make present- 
 ments against those so selling, who might be 
 caused to give bond in £10 not to sell without 
 license. 
 
 In 1787 tavern-keepers were not allowed to 
 surfer gaming about their places, upon penalty 
 of £5 (half to the informer). (R. 8., Bennine- 
 ton, 1791, p. 50.) 
 
 The law of Nov. 2, 1798 (Laws, 1824, 
 p. 486), revised this law (a revision in 1787 not 
 having changed it), and imposed a license fee 
 of $1 to $30, according to profits. Provisions 
 for tavern accommodations for travellers were 
 added, but the provision for posting frequenters 
 was not repeated. Revocation of license for 
 not obeying the law, and not keeping an 
 orderly house, was also provided, and the 
 penalty for selling without license was made 
 $10, to be doubled with each offense. The 
 Selectmen were empowered to grant licenses for 
 musters and public occasions. 
 
 In 1802 (Laws, c. 105), licenses to retail 
 wines and foreign spirits were authorized to be 
 given by the County Courts, on payment of 
 $1.50 to $15. This was repealed as to wines 
 by Laws of 1817, c. 141. The law of 1804, c. 45, 
 authorized the County Courts to grant tavern 
 licenses without nomination by the civil authori- 
 ties of the town, as well as upon such nomina- 
 tion, and the penalty for selling without license 
 was placed at $10 for every offense. The re- 
 strictions on selling metheglin, strong beer, ale 
 and cider, in quantities not less than one gallon, 
 were repealed by Laws of 1814, c. 102. The 
 provision for posting in taverns the names of 
 tipplers with prohibitions to sell to them was 
 revived, with a fine of $7, by Laws of 1821, 
 c. 18. 
 
 By Laws of 1829, No. 14, license to sell do- 
 mestic spirits as well as foreign was required, 
 but one license covered both privileges. 
 
 By Laws of 1830, No. 16, licenses were re- 
 quired for keeping victualling-houses and selling 
 beer, ale and cider, but without fee. The former 
 laws were all repealed by Laws of 1833, No. 22. 
 This act provided for licenses to keep taverns or 
 retail liquors, such licenses to be granted by the 
 civil authorities of towns, as before mentioned, 
 for $3 to $50 for inn-keepers, and $10 to $100 
 for retailers. All the former special provisions 
 were included, and the penalty for selling with- 
 out license was $10, to be doubled for each subse- 
 quent offense. By the Laws of 1834, No. 14, 
 this act was repealed and none was substituted 
 therefor. It would seem that this repeal was 
 held to revive the former law, for that law was 
 revised in 1840 as still in force. 
 
 The act of 1838, No. 26, enacted that no 
 County Court or Judge thereof should grant a 
 license to retail spirits, except as provided by 
 the law of 1798. 
 
 The provisions as to granting licenses to re- 
 tailers of foreign and domestic spirits, by the 
 County Courts directly, as revived, were re- 
 pealed by Laws of 1843, No. 23. 
 
 The act of 1844 (Laws, No. 15) repealed c. 83, 
 R. S., relating to licenses, and provided for 
 licenses to be granted by_ an elective County 
 Board of three Commissioners. The license 
 
 fees were nominal, $2 to $6 for retailers and $20* 
 for wholesalers. Provision was made also for 
 the licensing of one or more persons in each 
 town to sell for medicinal, chemical or mechani- 
 cal purposes only. The penalties imposed by 
 the act were generally $10. 
 Local Option (1846) and Prohibition (1850, 1852). 
 — The act of 1846, No. 24, contained a section 
 providing for an annual vote on the question of 
 license or no-license for the entire State, licenses 
 to issue to anyone of good moral character 
 applying, or to designated persons in each 
 town, to sell for the excepted purposes only, as 
 the vote should determine. 
 
 In 1850 (Laws, No. 30), former acts were re- 
 pealed and a short Prohibitory act, authorizing 
 one or two licenses in each town, to sell for the 
 excepted purposes only, was passed. The pen- 
 alties were $10 and $20. 
 
 A regular Prohibitory or Maine law was 
 enacted in 1852, which has been retained to this- 
 day, though it has been considerably amended. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — A County 
 Commissioner shall be chosen annually upon the 
 general county ticket. (R. L., 1880, § 3787; 
 amended by Laws of 1886, No. 35.) Such 
 Commissioner shall hold office two years from 
 the 1st day of December following his election, 
 and shall receive for his services $3 per day and 
 his expense account, not exceeding $50 annu- 
 ally. (R. L., 1880, J 3790; amended by Laws 
 of 1886, No. 35 and Laws of 1888, No. 40.) If 
 such Commissioner^ receive any reward for 
 appointing anyone Agent to sell liquors, he 
 shall forfeit $100 to $1,000 and be imprisoned 
 six months, and the person offering the same 
 shall be punished likewise. (R. L., 1880, 
 § 3791.) The County Commissioner may ap- 
 point an Agent for any town in his county, to 
 sell intoxicating liquor to be used for medic- 
 inal, chemical and mechanical purposes only. 
 No inn-keeper or keeper of a house of public 
 entertainment shall be appointed such Agent. 
 (R. L., 1880, § 3792; amended by Laws of 
 1886, No. 35.) Such Agent shall receive a cer- 
 tificate from the Commissioner authorizing 
 him as the Agent of the town, to sell liquor for 
 such excepted purposes, but only after he has 
 given bond in $600 to observe the law. (R. L., 
 1880, § 3793.) The Selectmen of the town 
 shall furnish the Agent liquor and fix the price 
 at which it is to be sold, as near as may be the 
 actual cost and expenses of sale, the money re- 
 ceived to go to the town. (R. L., 1880, 
 § 3794; amended by Laws of 1882, No. 46.) 
 The Selectmen in- fixing the compensation of 
 the Agent shall not make an inducement 
 to him to increase his sales, upon penalty 
 of $100 to $500. (R. L., 1880, § 3795.) If 
 the Town Agent procures liquor and sells it 
 without making a contract with the Selectmen 
 as to compensation, he shall be liable as a com- 
 mon seller. (R. L., 1880, § 3796.) If the 
 Agent sells at an exorbitant profit, the Commis- 
 sioner, on application of three voters of such 
 town, shall annul his license. (Id., § 3797.) 
 When complaint is made to the Commissioner 
 that an Agent has violated the terms of his 
 license, he shall notify such Agent, and on hear- 
 ing, revoke his appointment and cause his bond 
 to be prosecuted, (Id,, § 3798,) If anyone 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 352 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 procures or attempts to procure any liquor of an 
 Agent by false representations, or by any deceit, 
 he shall forfeit $10. (Id., § 3799; amended by 
 Laws of 1888, No. 39.) 
 
 No person shall, except as specially provided, 
 manufacture, sell, furnish or give away spiritu- 
 ous or intoxicating liquor or mixed liquor of 
 which a part is spirituous, or intoxicating or 
 malt liquors or lager beer; and the phrase "in- 
 toxicating liquor " shall include such liquors 
 and beer and fermented cider. The word 
 *' furnish " shall apply to cases where a person 
 knowingly brings into and transports within the 
 State for another person liquor intended to be 
 sold contrary to law, or to be divided among 
 others. The words "give away " do not apply 
 to the giving away of liquor by a person in his 
 own private dwelling, unless given to a minor 
 other than a member of his own private family, 
 or to a habitual drunkard, or unless such dwell- 
 ing becomes a place of public resort. No one 
 ahall furnish liquor at a raising, removal of a 
 building or a public gathering for amusement. 
 Nothing shall prevent the manufacture, sale and 
 use of wine for the sacrament, or of cider, or of 
 liquors for medical purposes only, or of wine 
 from grapes and fruits of the State not mixed 
 with alcohol or spirituous liquor, or the manu- 
 facture by anyone for his own use of fermented 
 liquor; but no one shall sell fermented cider at 
 any place of public resort or to a habitual 
 drunkard. (R. L., 1880, § 3800; amended by 
 Laws of 1882, No. 41.) 
 
 Payments for liquor sold unlawfully may be 
 recovered, and no action shall be had for the 
 recovery of liquor except as sold or purchased 
 in accordance with this chapter. (R. L., 1880, 
 § 3801.) 
 
 If anyone sells liquor in violation of law he 
 shall forfeit $10; on second conviction $20 and 
 be imprisoned one month, and on third $20 and 
 be imprisoned three to six months. (Id., 
 ■§ 3802.) Justices have concurrent jurisdiction 
 with the County Court under the above section, 
 and the Grand Juror of the town or the State's 
 Attorney may make complaint. (Id., § 3803.) 
 The prosecuting officer shall allege prior con- 
 victions in his complaint and make proof of the 
 same at the trial, upon penalty of $300 to $500. 
 ad., § 3804.) On plea of guilty the defendant 
 may specify the number and dates of offenses, 
 and such plea and judgment thereon is no bar 
 to prosecution for other offenses before or after 
 that time. (Id., §§ 3805-7.) 
 
 If any person sells adulterated liquor he shall 
 forfeit $10 to $300. (Id., § 3809. ) 
 
 A person who is a common seller of liquor, 
 not being an Agent as above provided for, shall 
 forfeit $100; for other convictions, $200, and on 
 the third and subsequent convictions he shall 
 also be imprisoned four to 12 months. (Id., 
 § 3810.) No person shall be convicted as a 
 common seller unless the number of sales ex- 
 ceeds five, or when the number of offenses 
 proved exceeds 10, but in such cases the re- 
 spondent shall be fined for each act of selling. 
 (Id., §3811.) 
 
 If a person is found intoxicated he shall pay 
 $5, and on second conviction $10, and on third 
 conviction $20 with imprisonment two months. 
 (Id., § 3812; amended by Laws of 1888, No. 36.) 
 
 When a person is so convicted the Court may 
 put the respondent on his good behavior and 
 delay committing him if for his and the public's 
 best good. (R. L., 1880, § 3813.) 
 
 When a person is so intoxicated as to disturb 
 the public or domestic peace, any officer may 
 apprehend him without warrant and keep him 
 in custody until he is capable of testifying. 
 (Id., § 3814.) The officer shall give notice of 
 such arrest, and of taking disclosure to the 
 State's Attorney or Grand juror. (Id., § 3815.) 
 
 The person arrested shall disclose the place 
 where and person from whom the liquor was 
 obtained, or be committed until he does, and 
 the Grand Juror or State's Attorney shall prose- 
 cute the person accused. (Id., § 3816.) Upon 
 disclosure, if the person intoxicated has been 
 before convicted, he shall be sentenced as for 
 the appropriate conviction. (Id., §3817.) On 
 such disclosure the costs thereof shall be taxed, 
 but on conviction of the person accused the said 
 costs shall be taxed against him. (Laws, 1888, 
 No. 37.) 
 
 If any voter in a town make complaint that 
 he has reason to believe liquor is kept anywhere 
 for unlawful sale, the Justice shall issue a 
 warrant to search the premises described and 
 seize liquor found therein (R. L., 1880, § 3818; 
 amended by Laws of 1882, No. 43), or any 
 officer may seize without warrant and hold until 
 he can get one. (Id.) The officer shall summon 
 the owner of the liquor to appear forthwith he- 
 fore the Justice, and if the liquor is adjudged 
 so unlawfully kept, it shall be forfeited to the 
 town, or if unfit to be sold by the Agent for the 
 excepted purposes, it shall be destroyed. (R. 
 L., 1880, § 3819.) Costs shall be paid by the 
 town if it accepts the liquor. (Laws, 1888, No. 
 37, § 5.) If the owner or keeper of such liquor 
 is unknown to the officer it shall, upon being 
 adjudged forfeited, be advertised two weeks. 
 (Id., § 3820.) An officer upon information that 
 liquor is kept for unlawful sale in any shanty 
 or place on or near the ground of a cattle-show, 
 muster or public occasion of any kind, may 
 seize the liquor and apprehend the keeper and 
 take both before a magistrate, and there make 
 written complaint, and upon proof of guilt the 
 defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment 
 30 days and the liquor be forfeited. The claimant 
 of seized liquors may file his claim and shall 
 give bond to prosecute his claim, and he may 
 appeal on bond to prosecute his appeal. (Id., 
 §§ 3822-4.) If judgment is against the claim- 
 ant he shall pay costs and the liquor be for- 
 feited. (Id., § 3825. ) So on appeal. (Id., § 3826.) 
 
 When liquor seized by an officer is taken 
 from his possession by a writ of replevin, it 
 shall not be delivered to the claimant, but be held 
 by the replevying officer until replevin suit is 
 determined. (Id., § 3827.) No proceedings 
 except final execution shall be delayed by a 
 replevin suit. (Id., § 3828.) 
 
 Nothing shall prevent a chemist, artist or 
 manufacturer from keeping in his place all the 
 distilled liquor he has occasion to use. (Id., 
 § 3829.) 
 
 In all cases for the condemnation of liquor 
 which result in the prosecution and conviction 
 of the owner, the full cost shall be taxed against 
 the owner. (Laws, 1888, No. 37.) 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 353 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 If anyone brings within the State liquor ex- 
 cept for Town Agents he shall forfeit $20 and 
 on second conviction $50 and be imprisoned 
 three to 10 months. (R. L., 1880, § 3830.) If 
 a railroad employee or any common carrier 
 bring liquor into the State, unless the liquor is 
 legibly marked with the name of the person to 
 whom it is sent, he shall be fined $25. (Id., 
 § 3831.) 
 
 Persons acting as agerits, selling liquor for 
 another, or who get orders for another, shall 
 forfeit $100, on second conviction $300, and on 
 third $500 and be imprisoned not more than six 
 months. (Id., § 3832.) 
 
 Under these three last sections it shall not be 
 necessary to state the names of principals, or 
 from whom defendant took orders, or whom or 
 how he assisted in the sale, but complaint may 
 be in the terms of the statute. (Laws, 1882, 
 No. 42.) 
 
 When a person by means of intoxication in- 
 jures the person or property of another, the 
 person who sold the liquor causing the intoxi- 
 cation is liable in damages therefor. Loss of 
 means of support is included. (Id., § 3833.) 
 "When any person is imprisoned for intoxica- 
 tion, his wife or children may recover $2 a day 
 of the seller of the liquor or the owner of the 
 premises, if the latter knew of the traffic in 
 liquor upon his premises. (Id., § 3834; 
 amended by Laws of 1886, No. 36.) When 
 any judgment is rendered on § 3834 the Judge 
 shall order that the defendant be confined in 
 close jail upon a close jail execution. (R. L., 
 1880, § 3835.) 
 
 Every drinking-place used as a place of resort 
 shall be held a common nuisance. (Id., § 3836.) 
 When it is proved liquor is kept or sold unlaw- 
 fully in such a place, the Court shall adjudge 
 it a nuisance, and that it be shut up and abated 
 and the keeper be fined $20 to $200 or fined 
 not exceeding $20 and imprisoned one to three 
 months (Id., § 3837), and the Judge shall issue 
 order for abatement (Id., § 3838), and the same 
 place may again be abated on any subsequent 
 conviction. (Id., § 3839.) The place so closed 
 shall not be opened except upon bond in $300 
 to $500, conditioned not to so unlawfully sell, 
 upon penalty of $10 per day.^ (Id., § 3840.) 
 Any person may prosecute said bond if the 
 State's Attorney neglects to do so six months 
 after being notified to do so. (Id., § 3841.) 
 
 A tenant unlawfully selling liquor on the 
 premises forfeits his rights thereto. (Id., 
 •8 3842.) A lessor knowingly permitting such 
 use shall be fined $20 to $200. (Id., 8 3843.) _ 
 
 No person engaged in the unlawful traffic in 
 liquor shall sit on a jury in any case under this 
 chapter. (Id., § 3844.) 
 
 Cases under this chapter shall have prece- 
 dence of trial. (Id., § 3845.) 
 
 Where previous convictions are alleged they 
 may be alleged in substance only. (Id., 
 § 3846.) 
 
 When an officer whose duty it is to prosecute 
 under this chapter neglects to do so, he shall be 
 fined $20 to $100. (Id., ■§ 3851.) A State's 
 Attorney who settles a case hereunder forfeits 
 $300 to $500. (Id., § 3852.) If a town re- 
 funds a fine for violation of this chapter it 
 shall forfeit $100. (Id., § 3853.) One-fourth 
 
 of the fines under this chapter go to the com- 
 plainant or to the prosecuting officer. (Id., 
 § 3854; amended by Laws of 1886, No. 41.) 
 
 No person other than the respondent shall be 
 excused from testifying on the ground of in- 
 crimination, but the evidence shall not be used 
 against him. (R. L., 1880, § 3856.) 
 
 The payment of the United States special 
 tax is prima facie evidence of being a common 
 seller and that the premises are a nuisance. 
 (Laws, 1888, No. 35.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (Laws, 1886, 
 No. 33.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by vote of two-thirds of the Senate, 
 in any decennial year, to be concurred in by a 
 majority of the House in the same year and 
 also to be approved by a majority of each 
 House in the next Legislature; a majority of 
 the electors voting thereon is necessary to 
 adoption. 
 
 Virginia. 
 
 Colonial Provisions. — The law of England 
 against drunkenness was enacted in 1632. (1 
 Hennings Stats, at Large, p. 167.) 
 
 In 1644 rates charged by ordinaries were 
 limited. (Id., p. 287.) 
 
 In 1655 the Commissioners of each county 
 were authorized to license ordinaries. (Id., 
 p. 411.) 
 
 In 1658 those guilty of drunkenness were 
 made incapable of being witnesses or holding 
 office. One convicted three times was ac- 
 counted a common drunkard. (Id., p. 433.) 
 
 In 1668, only two ordinaries were to be li- 
 censed in each county. (2 Id., p. 268.) None 
 were to be allowed except at James City, with 
 two at ferries of York River, which could sell 
 only beer and cider. Those selling contrary to 
 law were fined 1,000 lbs. of tobacco. (Id., 
 p. 361 [1676].) 
 
 In 1677 the County Courts were to grant but 
 two licenses in each county, and those to 
 taverns. (Id., p. 363.) 
 
 In 1734 licensees were to give bond in 10,000 
 lbs. of tobacco not to suffer gaming or anyone to 
 tipple longer than necessary on Sunday, and 
 selling without license was fined 2,000 lbs. of 
 tobacco, or in default punished with 21 .lashes 
 well laid on. Each license cost 35s and was 
 revoked for allowing such tippling or entertain- 
 ing seamen or servants. (4 Id., p. 428.) 
 
 In 1779 £50 was added to the penalties then 
 inflicted for keeping a tippling-house contrary 
 to law (half to the informer) ; for a second of- 
 fense six months' imprisonment was provided. 
 (10 Id., p. 145.) 
 
 Early State Provisions. — In 1792 a general 
 license law was passed, including the former 
 regulations, requiring a bond in $150 and mak- 
 ing the penalty for selling without license $30, 
 and six months' imprisonment for second of- 
 fense (half of the penalties to go to the informer). 
 (1 Stats, at Large, N. S., p. 142.) 
 
 In 1831 no license was to be granted to retail 
 liquors, except in incorporated towns, without 
 certificate from the Court that the place was fit 
 and convenient; and the Licensing Court might 
 revoke license upon good cause shown, on 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 354 : 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 notice to the accused. Selling to slaves was 
 fined $50. (Laws, 1831, c. 24, amending Laws 
 of 1830, c. 59.) 
 
 In 1840 the Revenue act taxed ordinaries $18 
 and 7 per cent, of the annual value above $200. 
 (Laws, 1839-40, c. 1.) This amount was gener- 
 ally increased in each annual Revenue law until 
 in 1861 it was $40 for all values less than $100, 
 $50 from that to $200 and 15 per cent, of the 
 excess in valuation. (Laws, 1861, c. 1.) 
 
 In 1842 (Laws, c. 6), a merchant who wished 
 to retail liquor was required to get a certificate 
 of good character from the Court of the cor- 
 poration or county. 
 
 In 1847 (Laws, c. 10, § 32), selling liquor to a 
 slave without the consent in writing of the 
 master was fined $50, and a second offense 
 $100 with forfeiture of license. Any master 
 giving consent in such form that the slave 
 might obtain liquor to sell for his own use was 
 punished by fine not exceeding $50. (Id., § 33.) 
 
 By Acts of 1857 (Laws, cc. 62 and 63), liquor- 
 dealers were required to give bonds not to sell 
 to slaves or free negroes. 
 
 War Provisions. — Making spirituous or malt 
 liquor out of grain was prohibited and punished 
 by fine of $100 to $5,000 and imprisonment not 
 exceeding 12 months, and the distillery and 
 grain intended for such use were forfeited. 
 (Laws, 1861-2, c. 84.) This act was amended 
 so as to except liquor for medical and hospital 
 purposes. (Laws, 1862, c. 12.) The act next 
 preceding (c. 11) legalized the distillation of 
 alcohol not less than 90 per cent, pure, for 
 medical, chemical and manufacturing purposes 
 only, the amount of the product to be reported 
 to the Governor. This act was repealed by 
 Laws of 1863, c. 55. 
 
 By Laws of 1863, c. 54, the act against distil- 
 lation of grain was extended to potatoes, mo- 
 lasses and sugar ; and by Laws of the called 
 session (1863, c. 35) all contracts with the Con- 
 federate Government for the making of liquor 
 were not allowed to be executed. 
 
 Licenses were not allowed to be granted 
 within any city or town, or within five miles 
 thereof, or at any depot station or point on any 
 railroad. And sales without license were 
 punished by forfeiture of the stock of liquors 
 and personal property used in the conduct of 
 the business, besides former penalties. (Laws, 
 1863-4, c. 48.) 
 
 Since the War. — After the war the license to 
 sell liquor by wholesale and retail both was put 
 at $100 ; by retail only, $40. (Laws, 1865-6, 
 c. 3, § 24.) 
 
 The famous Bell-Punch or Moffatt Register 
 law was first enacted in Virginia in 1877. 
 (Laws, c. 253.) It dispensed with a general tax 
 or license fee and provided for an instrument 
 to register each drink sold, and for a tax of 2J^ 
 cents per drink for spirituous and % cent for 
 malt liquors, and at these rates per half -pint for 
 liquor sold in larger quantities up to one gallon. 
 Failure to comply with the law was fined $20 
 to $100 (one-third to the informer). 
 
 By Laws of 1879, c. 59, the tax per drink on 
 spirituous liquor was reduced one cent, and a 
 specific tax of $30 on each license in places of 
 less than 2,000 inhabitants and $60 in larger 
 towns, or $25 and $50 for malt liquors alone, 
 
 was imposed. The penalty of this act was $50* 
 to $100, as above. Both laws provided taxes-- 
 on wholesale and other licenses. These were- 
 superseded by Laws of 1880, c. 155. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — No person 
 or club shall sell intoxicating liquors or any 
 mixture thereof, alcoholic bitters, bitters con- 
 taining alcohol, or fruits preserved in spirits 
 without first obtaining license. A wholesale 
 license shall authorize sales of five gallons or- 
 more, or one dozen jugs or bottles. A retail 
 license authorizes sale in any quantity not ex- 
 ceeding five gallons (not to be drunk on the- 
 premises). A barroom license authorizes sales- 
 of liquor to be drunk on the premises. Ordin- 
 aries and malt liquor-saloons may so sell, but. 
 not to be taken away. 
 
 Violations of this section are punished by 
 fine of $100 to $500 and at the discretion of the 
 Court imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. 
 
 Nothing herein prevents wholesale confec- 
 tioners from selling fruits preserved in ardent 
 spirits. (Laws, 1883-4, p. 604, § 1.) 
 
 Applications to sell by retail or keep a bar- 
 room shall be made to the Commissioner of 
 Revenue for the city or countv, who shall give- 
 the applicant a certificate of the same, and he 
 shall deposit the amount with the Treasurer 
 and may then present such certificate with the 
 receipt of the Treasurer indorsed thereon to- 
 the Judge of the county or corporation, who 
 shall hear evidence for and against granting the 
 license and determine. Anyone may have 
 himself entered a defendant and contest the- 
 license. If the Judge is satisfied the applicant. 
 is a fit person and has a suitable place, he may 
 grant the license upon bond given in $250 to 
 $500 to abide by the law, and thereupon the-- 
 Commissioner of Revenue shall issue the license. 
 Either party may appeal to the Judge of the- 
 Circuit Court. After license is granted the^ 
 Commissioner shall make return thereof to the 
 Treasurer of the city or county and to- the- 
 Auditor of Public Accounts. The Treasurer 
 shall pay the amount over to said Auditor with- 
 in 20 days, to the credit of the State. If th& 
 application is finally refused the deposit shall 
 be refunded. (Id.. § 2.) The amount of tax 
 for selling at wholesale is $350, or if malt, 
 liquors only are sold, $150. The person desir- 
 ing this license will pay the amount to the City 
 or County Treasurer and take his receipt, upon 
 presentation of which to 'the Commissioner of" 
 Revenue license shall be issued. (Id., § 3.) 
 The sum to be paid for retail license shall be 
 $75 in places of 1,000 inhabitants or less, and 
 $175 in larger places ; but if licensee sells under 
 retail or barroom license, malt liquors only, in 
 places of less than 5,000 inhabitants, $30. (Id., 
 § 4.) For keeping a barroom shall be paid $75. 
 in places of under 1,000 inhabitants and $125 
 in larger ones, and 15 per cent, of the rental 
 value of the places in each case. (Id., § 5.) 
 For keeping an ordinary for selling liquor to 
 be drunk on the premises only, $75 in places 
 of less than 2,000 inhabitants and $125 in places 
 larger, and in addition in both cases 8, 5 and 
 3 per cent, of the rental value of the house and 
 furniture, according as that value is less than 
 $1,000 or $2,000 or more than $2,000. (Id., 
 §§ 6, 7,) Any licensed wholesale dealer may 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 355 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 obtain a retail license for half the regular fee, 
 provided he comply with the requirements to 
 obtain it. So a retail dealer may have a bar- 
 room license at half price, and a barroom or 
 ordinary licensee may have a retail license at 
 half price in addition to the first license. (Id., 
 § 8.) The amount to be paid by each keeper of 
 a malt liquor-saloon shall be $40 in places of 
 1,000 inhabitants or less, and $60 in larger 
 places. (Id., § 9.) Thebond under § 2 above 
 shall be deemed forfeited for failure to pay the 
 license fee required, and at the discretion of the 
 Court the license will be forfeited. (Id., § 10.) 
 The amounts herein required are in lieu of 
 taxes upon the capital employed. (Id., §11.) 
 Rectifiers shall pay $150, but manufacturers 
 may rectify their own product without addi- 
 tional license. (Id., § 12.) Druggists desiring 
 to sell liquor shall take out retail dealers' 
 licenses, but this does not apply to liquor used 
 in preparation of medicines, although it does 
 apply to alcoholic bitters. (Id., § 13.) Manu- 
 facturers or distillers who distil 10 bushels or 
 less per day shall pay $30 up to $500 ; up to 
 300 bushels per day at the rate of $200 for each 
 additional 100 bushels mashed a day ; and they 
 may sell at wholesale at the manufactory. 
 Distillers of brandy from pomace or from cider 
 or fruits, up to 40 gallons, are not required to 
 pay anything. Those distilling more than 40 
 gallons, if they run their distilleries less than 
 three months, must pay $10 ; if they run 
 less than six months, $20 ; more than six 
 months, $50. Manufacturers of malt liquor 
 shall pay $50. Any resident manufacturer of 
 wine may sell his wine in quantities not less 
 than one gallon without license. (Id., § 14.) 
 
 The license shall be conspicuously posted in 
 the place licensed, on penalty of not exceeding 
 $100. (Id., § 15.) 
 
 This law shall be given in charge to the 
 Grand Jury at each term. (Id., § 16.) 
 
 In order to sell liquor upon water-craft, 
 except steamships plying the Atlantic Ocean, 
 licenses must be obtained, but at the lowest 
 rates provided herein. (Id., § 16.) 
 
 Violations of this law, except as otherwise 
 provided for, shall be punished by fine of $50 
 to $100. (Id., § 21.) 
 
 Manufacturers, like wholesalers, are licensed 
 by the Commissioners of Revenue upon receipt 
 by the Treasurer. (See Code, 1887, §§ 533-566. ) 
 
 Whenever one-fourth of the number voting 
 at the previous November election in any mag- 
 isterial district of a county or in any such dis- 
 trict or in a city petition for a special election 
 therein on the question of licenses, the Judge of 
 the county or corporation shall within 10 days 
 order such election to be held, and notices 
 thereof shall be posted in every voting precinct. 
 No other such election shall be held there for 
 two years. (Code, 1887, § 581.) Notwithstand- 
 ing the election is held for the whole county, 
 the vote shall be by districts, and if against 
 license in any district no license shall be issued 
 there, and if for license, the contrary. (Id., 
 § 584.) Any town constituting a separate election 
 district may in the same manner procure an 
 election. (Id., § 585.) No election hereunder 
 shall be within 30 days of any county, corpora- 
 tion, State or national election. (Id., § 586.) 
 
 Selling; in districts voting no-license is punished 
 as selling without license. But this does not 
 apply to manufacturers. (Id., § 587.) 
 
 A liquor license may be revoked by the Court 
 giving it. (Id., § 560.) 
 
 Getting drunk is fined $1. (Id., § 3798.) 
 
 Opening a saloon or selling liquor therein on 
 Sunday is fined $10 to $500, with forfeiture of 
 license; but this does not apply to cities having 
 police regulations providing equal penalties. 
 (Id., §3804.) 
 
 Selling liquor within three miles of any camp- 
 meeting or other place of worship during service 
 is fined $10 to $20; for second offense, the same 
 fine and added imprisonment 10 to 30 days (Id., 
 § 3807), with forfeiture of liquor and vessels 
 and structure containing it (Id., § 3808); but 
 this doesn't apply to licensed dealers. (Id., 
 §3809.) J 
 
 Selling knowingly to minors without written 
 authority of parent is fined $10 to $200. (Id., 
 §3828.) 
 
 Barrooms shall be closed election day from 
 sunset before to sunrise after the election. 
 During that time no person shall dispose of 
 liquors, upon penalty of not exceeding $1,000 
 and imprisonment not over one year. (Id., 
 §§ 3846-7. ) Officers shall arrest persons commit- 
 ting or suspected of intending to commit such 
 offenses, and hold them for examination. (Id., 
 §3848.) 
 
 If any Justice suspect any person of unlaw- 
 fully selling liquor he shall summon the person 
 and witnesses to appear before him, and upon 
 finding sufficient cause he shall cause the State's 
 Attorney to institute proceedings and shall bind 
 the offender to be of good behavior for one 
 year. (Id., § 3921.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by majority vote of all the members 
 of each House; to be concurred in by a majority 
 of each House in the next Legislature; upon 
 submission to the people a majority carries it. 
 
 Washington. 
 
 Early Provisions. — The first Legislature pro- 
 hibited retailing of intoxicating liquor without 
 license from the County Commissioners, upon 
 penalty of $50. It prescribed a license fee to be 
 fixed at the discretion of the Commissioners. 
 (Laws, 1854, p. 339.) 
 
 In 1855 selling liquor to Indians was pro- 
 hibited under penalty of $25 to $500, and on 
 Sunday on pain of a fine of $75. (Laws, 1855, 
 pp. 30-1.) The same year, on p. 26 of the 
 Laws, was submitted a short act prohibiting the 
 manufacture and sale of liquor, except by 
 Agents appointed to sell for medicinal, mechani- 
 cal or sacramental purposes. 
 
 A License Fee of $300 (1857).— In 1857 (Laws, 
 p. 31), applicants for license were required to 
 present petitions signed by a majority of the 
 adult white male inhabitants of the precinct and 
 to pay $300 license fee. 
 
 Selling to minors after being requested not to 
 do so by parents or guardians was punished by 
 fine not over $1,000 and imprisonment not ex- 
 ceeding six months, with revocation of license. 
 (Laws of 1859, p. 128.) And to prevent the sale 
 of adulterated liquor, inspection was provided 
 for by Laws of 1859, p. 332, and the selling of 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 356 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 such liquor was punished by imprisonment not 
 more than six months and fine of not over $500. 
 (Id.) 
 
 In 1871 the County Commissioners were 
 authorized to grant licenses in places where 
 there was little business for less than $300 and 
 not less than $100. And the penalty for selling 
 without license was made $50 to $500 and im- 
 prisonment 10 to 90 days. (Laws, 1871, p. 58.) 
 
 For a few counties the license law was relaxed 
 and the same law was also somewhat fortified by 
 scattered prohibitions of sales on election days 
 and to drunkards. 
 
 In 1885 (Laws, p. 31) was enacted a general 
 Local Option law, applicable to election pre- 
 cincts, upon petition of 15 voters thereof. This 
 law was declared unconstitutional because such 
 precincts were municipal corporations, to which 
 such power could be delegated. 
 
 Submission of Constitutional Prohibition (1889). 
 — A separate article prohibiting the manufacture 
 and sale of liquor was submitted for adoption 
 with the State Constitution, but not adopted. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889. — The Board 
 of County Commissioners shall have the sole 
 and exclusive authority and power to regulate, 
 restrain, license or prohibit the sale of liquor in 
 counties outside of incorporated places, licenses 
 in no case to be granted for less than $300 or 
 more than $1,000, 10 per cent. to_ go to the 
 State, 35 per cent, to the county school fund 
 and 55 per cent, to the county general fund. 
 No license to be granted within one mile of the 
 limits of any incorporated place. (Laws, 1887-8, 
 p. 124, § 1.) The governing bodies of cities, 
 towns and villages incorporated have authority 
 to grant licenses within the limits of such places, 
 and if they grant licenses the same shall be for 
 the above amounts, to be divided as above, 
 except that no school fund is mentioned. (Id., 
 § 2.) In granting the license authorized, the 
 proper authorities shall exact of the applicant a 
 bond in $1,000 to keep an orderly house and not 
 sell to minors. In case of violating the terms 
 of license he shall forfeit it and be subject to the 
 penalties for illegal selling. The authorities 
 granting a license have full power to declare it 
 forfeited for such violations. (Id., § 3.) Any 
 person selling liquor without license shall be 
 fined not exceeding $1,000 or imprisoned not 
 more than six months, or both. (Id., § 4.) 
 Nothing herein allows anyone to dispose of 
 liquor without license, except by the next sec- 
 tion. (Id., § 5.) This act does not apply to 
 druggists who may dispense liquors upon 
 physicians' prescriptions or may sell pure alcohol 
 for scientific or mechanical purposes upon the 
 written certificate of any reputable mechanic or 
 scientist that he wants it for specified purposes 
 and no others; and they may" sell pure grape 
 wine to any church officers upon certificate that 
 it is to be used for sacramental purposes. (Id., 
 § 6.) Any druggist selling otherwise is liable 
 as for selling without license. (Id., § 7.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the common schools. (Laws, 
 1889-90, p. 372, § 45.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by a two-thirds vote of all the mem- 
 bers of the two Houses, at one session; popular 
 vote to be taken at the next general election for 
 
 Representatives, three months' notice to be given. 
 A majority vote carries it. 
 
 West Virginia. 
 
 Early Provisions. — The first Legislature of 
 the State enacted a license law punishing sales 
 of liquor without license by fine of $10 to $100. 
 The license fee was determined by the yearly 
 value of the premises upon which the business 
 was conducted. The tax on licenses was placed 
 in classes, amounting practically to 5 per cent, 
 of the rental value aforesaid, no license being 
 less than $5. (Laws, 1863, cc. 113, 123.) 
 This is the basis of the law as it now stands. 
 The civil damage and nuisance provisions were 
 enacted in 1872, and the High License ones in 
 1885 and 1887. The form of the law is that of 
 a tax law, all taxes being now imposed in the 
 same chapter. 
 
 Submission of Constitutional Prohibition 
 (1888). — A Prohibitory Constitutional Amend- 
 ment was submitted to the people in 1888 by 
 Laws of 1887, pp. 230, 179, and defeated. 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889.— Laws may be 
 passed regulating or prohibiting the sale of in- 
 toxicating liquors within the State. (Const., 
 art. 6, § 46.) 
 
 No person without a State license shall keep 
 a hotel, eating-house or restaurant, or furnish 
 intoxicating drinks at a theatre, or sell or keep 
 for sale spirituous liquors, wine, porter, ale or 
 beer. All mixtures, preparations or liquids that 
 will produce intoxication, whether patented or 
 not, shall be deemed spirituous liquors. (Laws, 
 1889, c. 29, § 1, amending Code, 1887, cc. 32 
 and 33. Violations hereof, except where other- 
 wise provided, are punished by fine of $10 to 
 $100, and at discretion, by imprisonment not 
 exceeding three months. (Laws, 1889, c. 29, 
 § 3.) This does not require a license to sell 
 malt liquors in addition to one to sell spirituous, 
 nor prohibit a druggist without license from 
 selling spirituous liquor and wine for medicinal 
 purposes or alcohol for medicinal, scientific or 
 mechanical purposes. (Id., § 4.) If a druggist 
 sell such liquor otherwise, he shall be fined $10 
 to $100 ; and if any person not a druggist sell 
 liquor without license upon or along any of the 
 boundary rivers of the State, he shall be fined as 
 above and imprisoned 30 to 60 days. (Id., § 5.) 
 In any prosecution against a druggist, if the 
 sale is proven, it is presumed unlawful sale 
 without contrary proof: No sale by a druggist, 
 except of alcohol for mechanical or scientific pur- 
 poses, shall be made except upon prescription 
 in writing of a physician in good standing and 
 not of intemperate habits, specifying the name 
 of the person and the liquor to be supplied him, 
 and that the same is absolutely necessary as a 
 medicine for such person, and is not to be used 
 as a beverage. Not more than one sale shall be 
 made on a prescription. The production of 
 such a prescription rebuts the presumption aris- 
 ing from proof of sale, if the jury believe the sale 
 was made in good faith, believing the prescrip- 
 tion true. (Id., § 7.) If a physician give such 
 a prescription falsely, he shall be fined $50 to 
 $200. Every prescription shall be filed and be 
 subject to the inspection of the Prosecuting 
 Attorney, any Grand Juror and any relative of 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 357 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 any person sold to, on penalty of $10 to t 
 (W., § 7.) 
 
 A hotel or tavern license shall always be re- 
 voked if it appear that the principal object in 
 obtaining the same was not to provide lodgings 
 and diet for travellers, but to facilitate selling 
 liquor. (Id.,§ 8.) Hotel licenses are taxed ac- 
 cording to the yearly rental value of the prem- 
 ises occupied. (Id., § 9.) 
 
 State licenses shall be issued only when 
 authorized by the County Court, or within an 
 incorporated place only as authorized by the 
 Council thereof under the charter ; provided 
 that no license to sell liquor shall be issued for 
 a place within two miles of such an incorporated 
 place in which there is no license, without con- 
 sent of the Council thereof. (Id., § 10.) Per- 
 sons desiring licenses shall apply for certificates 
 to the Assessor of the proper district, and if the 
 business is to be in an incorporated place a 
 resolution of the Council authorizing the license 
 must be delivered to the Assessor ; if not in an in- 
 corporated place a copy of such an order from 
 the County Court must be delivered. The 
 Assessor shall thereupon deliver the applicant a 
 certificate of the license, and the amount to be 
 paid, which certificate, with the receipt of the 
 proper officer for the State tax written thereon, 
 shall be sufficient license. (Id., § 11.) An 
 Assessor may obtain a license in the same way 
 from the Clerk of the County Court. (Id., 
 § 12.) Where the Council of a city, village or 
 town is authorized by charter to forbid the 
 liquor business, a State license will not author- 
 ize a person to engage in it. (Id., § 13.) 
 Neither the County Court nor municipal 
 authorities may grant a license without being 
 satisfied the licensee is not of intemperate habits. 
 (Id., § 14.) 
 
 If any person having a State license to sell 
 liquor sells to any minor, person of unsound mind 
 or one intoxicated or in the habit of becoming 
 so, or permits any such persons to drink to in- 
 toxication on his premises, or sells on Sunday, 
 he shall be fined $20 to $100. (Id., § 16.) A 
 sale of such liquors by one person for another 
 is a sale by both, and both may be indicted 
 jointly or separately. (Id., § 17.) 
 
 All houses or places where liquors are sold 
 illegally are public nuisances and may be 
 abated upon conviction of the owner, and any 
 Court of Equity may by injunction restrain or 
 abate the same upon bill filed by any citizen. 
 (Id., § 18.) The owner of such house or place 
 "who sells or permits knowingly any liquor to be 
 sold therein unlawfully, may be indicted for 
 keeping a nuisance, and upon conviction he shall 
 be fined $20 to $100 and at discretion imprisoned 
 10 to 30 days, and judgment shall be given 
 that the place be abated and closed. (Id., 
 
 §19-) 
 
 Every husband, wife, child, parent, guard- 
 ian, employer or any other person injured in 
 person or property or means of support by any 
 intoxicated person or in consequence of the intox- 
 ication of any person, shall have a right of action 
 againt the person or persons selling the liquor 
 that caused intoxication and the owner of the 
 premises on which liquor was sold to his 
 knowledge. The unlawful sale of liquor on 
 leased premises forfeits the lease. Landlords 
 
 have their action against tenants for all 
 losses under this section. (Id., § 20.) 
 
 If the sale of liquor is carried on in such 
 manner that the person so selling cannot be 
 identified, the officer charged with the execu- 
 tion of a warrant under the 23d section may 
 break open the place to arrest or identify the 
 person. (Id., § 21.) 
 
 No license shall issue to sell liquor without 
 bond in $3,500 to obey the law and pay 
 all damages and costs recovered against the 
 licensee under this chapter, until the penalty of 
 the bond is exhausted. (Id., §22.) 
 
 Every Justice of the Peace, upon information 
 under oath that liquors are unlawfully sold in 
 any named place, shall issue his warrant re- 
 quiring the person suspected to be brought be- 
 fore him for examination, or the place to be 
 searched and the parties found therein to be so 
 brought before him, and requiring that the wit- 
 nesses named be summoned; and if there is prob- 
 able cause, the accused and the material wit- 
 nesses shall be bound over to the next Circuit 
 Court, and the accused be bound not to break 
 the law in the meantime. (Id., § 23.) 
 
 The licensing authority, for good cause 
 shown, may revoke a license upon petition in 
 writing of any inhabitant, given upon reasona- 
 ble notice to and in the hearing of the accused. 
 (Id., §24.) 
 
 Every license shall specify the place of busi- 
 ness, and business may be conducted at no 
 other place. (Id., § 25.) The licensing au- 
 thority may authorize the transfer of license to 
 another place by endorsement thereon. (Id., 
 § 26. ) No person may assign his license to 
 another without assent of the 'licensing au- 
 thority and a' new bond by the transferee. (Id., 
 § 27.) Each license shall expire April 30, and 
 if granted for less than a year the tax shall be 
 proportionate to the time it has to run. (Id., 
 § 29.) Every person claiming to hold a State 
 license shall produce the same for inspection 
 whenever required to do so by the Prosecuting 
 Attorney, Sheriff, Justice, Collector or Assessor, 
 upon penalty of $10. (Id., § 33.) 
 
 Every hotel, eating-house or restaurant shall 
 pay 3 per cent, of the yearly value of the 
 premises. (Id., § 53.) Distillers and brewers 
 shall pay $125 to $550 according to volume of 
 product. (Id., §§ 54-59.) Licenses to sell 
 liquor at theatre cost $150 (Id., § 60) ; licenses 
 to retail all liquors, $350 (Id., § 61); licenses to 
 wholesale all liquors, $350, in addition to all 
 other taxes. (Id., § 62.) These State license 
 rates may be increased at the pleasure of 
 cities, towns or villages, which are empowered 
 to impose taxes in every case in which a State 
 license is required. (Code, 1887, c. 47, § 33; 
 passed 1882, c. 92.) 
 
 No retailer shall sell more than five gallons 
 at a time (Id., § 63), and no wholesaler shall 
 sell less. (Id., § 64.) 
 
 Apple and peach brandy distilled in the State 
 from fruit grown therein may be sold by the 
 distiller in quantities of five gallons or over by 
 paying a license tax of $100. (Id., §65.) Li- 
 censes to sell at retail domestic wines, ale, beer 
 and drinks of like nature only cost $100. (Id., 
 § 66.) 
 
 Treating with liquor on election day is fined 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 358 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 $10 to $50, and if by a candidate he forfeits office 
 if elected. (Code, 1887, c. 5, § 10.) Liquor 
 places shall be closed and no one shall sell 
 liquor on election day, upon penalty of $50 
 to $100. (Id., § 11.) If any person be drunk 
 at or near an election place, he shall be fined 
 $10 to $50 and shall give security for his good 
 behavior six months, or be imprisoned five to 
 20 days. (Id., § 12.) Selling liquor within 
 two miles of a camp-meeting or within half a 
 mile of any other religious meeting, except by 
 persons engaged in regular business, is fined $10 
 to $50. (Id., c. 149, §§20, 21.) 
 
 If any person get drunk he shall be fined $1. 
 
 '(H., § 15.) 
 
 The nature of alcoholic drinks and narcotics, 
 and their effects upon the human system in 
 connection with physiology and hygiene, shall 
 be taught in the common schools, and no certi- 
 ficate shall be granted to any teacher not quali- 
 fied. (Laws, 1889, c. 3.) 
 
 Wisconsin. 
 
 Early Provisions. — By the laws of 1838, p. 
 384 (republished in 1867), there was laid .on 
 tavern license a tax of $5 to $50, and on retail- 
 ing liquors a tax not less than $100; and it 
 seems that the County Commissioners might 
 grant licenses, but there were no rules in the 
 matter. 
 
 By Laws of 1850, c. 139, no person was al- 
 lowed to retail liquor until he had executed a 
 bond in $1,000 to pay all damages that the 
 community or individuals might sustain by 
 leason of his vending liquors, to support all 
 paupers, widows and orphans made or helped to 
 be made by said traffic, and to pay the ex- 
 penses of all prosecutions growing out of or 
 justly attributable to his selling. Married 
 -women might sue in their own names for dam- 
 ages to themselves and children. No suit could 
 be maintained for bills for liquor sold at retail, 
 or on notes or evidences of debt for the same. 
 On trial of a suit hereunder for anything grow- 
 ing out of intoxication it was necessary only to 
 prove that defendant had sold or given liquor 
 that day or the day before to the person intoxi- 
 cated. The authorities of a county or place 
 where any habitual drunkard was a public 
 charge might sue anyone who had been in the 
 habit of selling such person liquor within six 
 months. Any liquor-dealers against whom 
 judgments were obtained hereunder might 
 compel contributions from all dealers who had 
 sold liquors to the person in question. Those 
 selling liquor without giving bonds were fined 
 $50 to $500 and imprisoned 10 days to six 
 months. All charter powers to grant license 
 were repealed, as well as the chapter of the 
 laws providing therefor. 
 
 This law was repealed by Laws of 1851, 
 c. 162, which gave County Supervisors and 
 municipal authorities the right to grant license 
 for $100 upon bond in $500 to keep an orderly 
 house and obey the law. The penalty for sell- 
 ing without license was $100. Any member of 
 a Municipal Board might notify all licensed 
 persons not to sell to spendthrifts who were ex- 
 cessive drinkers, or to habitual drunkards. 
 
 In 1853 (Laws, c. 101) the question of a Pro- 
 hibitory liquor law was submitted to the peo- 
 
 ple. A draft of such law was not proposed, 
 and no such law was enacted. 
 
 In 1859 selling liquor on Sunday and election 
 day was prohibited by fine of not exceeding $5. 
 (Laws, 1859, c. 115.) 
 
 It was provided by Laws of 1862, c. 275, 
 that an Indian found drunk should be held 
 until he informed against the seller. 
 
 Selling to minors was fined $20 to $100 by 
 laws of 1866, c. 36. 
 
 Liquor-sellers were disqualified to be Jus- 
 tices of the Peace by Laws of 1867, c. 105. 
 
 Making or selling adulterated liquor was 
 punished by fine of $100 or imprisonment one 
 year, or both. (Laws, 1867, c. 162.) 
 
 In 1872 a short license law, with civil damage 
 provisions, made the penalty for selling unlaw- 
 fully $50 to $100 and imprisonment 20 to 50 
 days. (Laws, 1872, c. 127.) 
 
 The liquor laws were codified by the act of 
 1874, c. 179. The penalty, however, was re- 
 duced to a fine of $10 to $40 or imprisonment 
 20 to 60 days. This law remains the basis of 
 the law as it now stands though acts of 1885, 
 1887 and 1889 have much amplified many 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889.— The Town 
 Boards, Village Boards and Common Councils 
 of the respective towns, villages and cities may 
 grant licenses under this chapter to sell liquor 
 in quantities less than one gallon (to be drunk 
 on the premises), on payment of $100 in a town 
 having within its boundaries no village with a 
 population of 500 or more ; in other towns 
 $200, and for such license to sell liquor not to 
 be drunk on the premises (except for pharma- 
 cists), $200. 
 
 Application for license shall state the kind of 
 license wanted and give a designation of the 
 premises. Such licenses shall be in force until 
 the first Tuesday in May unless sooner revoked 
 by the licensing authority. The above-men- 
 tioned bodies shall meet on the third Tuesday 
 of April to act upon such application. (R. S., 
 1889, § 1548.) The said Boards may grant to 
 any registered pharmacist a permit to retail 
 liquors for medicinal, mechanical or scientific 
 purposes only (not to be drunk on the premises) 
 for $10. Such pharmacist shall keep a book in 
 which to enter the details of every sale, which 
 book shall be open to the inspection of the 
 Board, and a copy thereof must be filed with 
 the Municipal Clerk each third Tuesday in 
 April. (Id., § 1548a.) 
 
 On applications of 12 citizens to the Muni- 
 cipal Clerk, he shall order an election for the 
 third Tuesday in September to ascertain 
 whether licenses shall be raised from $100 to 
 $250 or $400, or from $200 to $350 or $500 re- 
 spectively, the ballots to be : "To be paid for 
 license, $ ." The sum favored by the high- 
 est number of voters shall be the sum to be re- 
 quired the next license year. (Id., § 1548J.) 
 That sum shall remain fixed until the next 
 election. (Id., § 1548c.) 
 
 Every applicant for license shall file a bond 
 in $500 to keep an orderly house, allow no 
 gaming, not sell to a minor except upon 
 order of parent or guardian, or to persons in- 
 toxicated, or to habitual drunkards, to observe 
 the law and to pay damages recovered under 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 359 
 
 [Legislation. 
 
 ••§ 1560. (Id., § 1549.) Any person selling 
 -without license or permit shall be fined $50 to 
 $100 or be imprisoned three to six months, and 
 •on second conviction shall be punished by both 
 :fine and imprisonment. (Id., § 1550.) ' 
 
 Any person making a false statement to a 
 pharmacist to obtain liquor, or any such phar- 
 macist not complying with this chapter, 
 .shall be fined $10 to $40, and on second con- 
 viction $40 to $100 or be imprisoned 30 days to 
 three months. (Id., § 1550a.) 
 
 Upon complaint to any Justice of the Peace 
 by any person that he has reason to believe any 
 offense has been committed against this law, 
 the Justice shall issue a warrant to arrest the 
 accused and summon witnesses to appear at the 
 -trial. (Id., § 1551.) The District Attorney on 
 notice shall appear and prosecute. (Id., § 1552.) 
 Every Supervisor, Trustee, Alderman, Justice 
 or police officer who shall know of an offense 
 shall make complaint against the offender, 
 upon penalty of $25. (Id., § 1553.) 
 
 If any person by excessive drinking misspends 
 -or wastes his estate or injures his health or safety 
 ■or that of his family, his wife, the Supervisor, 
 Aldermen, Trustees, or County Superinten- 
 dent of the Poor may in writing forbid all li- 
 censed persons selling to him for a year; and 
 similar notice not to sell to any habitual drunk- 
 ard may be given by the above-named persons, 
 except the first and last. (Id., § 1554.) Such 
 authorities may renew such prohibition at the 
 end of the year, and those disregarding any 
 such prohibition shall be fined $50. (Id., 
 §§ 1555, 1556.) The person to whom such sales 
 have been prohibited may be arrested on com- 
 plaint of above officers and brought before a 
 Justice to testify from whom and how he ob- 
 tained liquor, and he may be committed 
 until he so testifies. It shall not be necessary 
 to allege any facts showing that the person to 
 whom the liquor was sold was one to whom 
 sales might be forbidden. (Id., § 1556.) _ Any 
 person sealing or dealing in liquor in evasion of 
 the law, or selling to minors or intoxicated per- 
 sons, or selling within one mile of an insane 
 hospital, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Id., 
 § 1557.) 
 
 Upon complaint of any resident that any 
 licensed person violates the law, the proper 
 Board shall issue a summons to such accused 
 person to appear some day within 10 days to 
 show cause why his license shall not be 
 Tevoked. (Id., § 1558.) If the accused do not 
 appear he shall be considered guilty, or if found 
 guilty on hearing, his license shall be revoked 
 and he be disqualified for license one year. 
 (Id., § 1559.) On certiorari of such revocation 
 to the Circuit Court or on appeal from such 
 Court, there shall be no suspension of the order 
 of revocation during pendency. But in any 
 such case on 10 days' notice to the other party, 
 the licensee may have the Circuit Court hear 
 the matter at any Court in its circuit, or have a 
 Judge hear the same at chambers. (Id., 
 % 1559a.) 
 
 Any person injured in person, property or 
 means of support in consequence of the intoxi- 
 •cation of a minor or habitual drunkard, shall 
 have an action for all damages against any per- 
 son who has been notified by the municipal 
 
 authorities or by the husband, wife, parent, 
 relative, guardians or persons in care of such 
 minor or habitual drunkard not to sell to him. 
 (Id., § 1560.) 
 
 Any person found in a public place drunk so 
 as to disturb others or not to be able to care for 
 himself, shall be fined not exceeding $10 or be 
 imprisoned not more than five days; but cities 
 and villages may provide a different punish- 
 ment. (Id., § 1561.) 
 
 Moneys derived from licenses shall go to the 
 support of the poor. (Id., § 1562.) In any 
 action by any town against a village for license 
 moneys, it is sufficient defense that the village 
 has spent the rnonej' for support of the poor. 
 (Id., § 1562a.) 
 
 All places where liquor is sold unlawfully are 
 nuisances and on conviction of the keeper shall 
 be shut up and abated. (Id., § 1563.) 
 
 Nothing herein shall permit any city or vil- 
 lage to reduce the license fees below the statu- 
 tory limit. (Id., § 1563a.) 
 
 If anyone sell liquor on Sunday or election 
 day, he shall be fined $5 to $25 or imprisoned 
 not exceeding 30 days, or both. (Id., § 1564.) 
 
 Giving away liquor, or any other device to 
 evade the law, is unlawful selling. Any person 
 convicted of a misdemeanor under this chapter, 
 not otherwise provided for, shall be fined $50. 
 In any prosecution hereunder it is not necessary 
 to state the kind or quantity of liquor sold, or 
 the person to whom sold. (Id., § 1565.) 
 
 Whenever 10 per cent, of the voters in any 
 municipality at the last general election for 
 Governor present to the Clerk a petition praying 
 therefor, said Clerk shall order an election on 
 the first Tuesday of April next to submit the 
 question of license. Notice shall be given as 
 for judicial elections, and the result shall stand 
 until another election. (Id., § 1565a.) The 
 ballot shall be "For License" or "Against 
 License," and no license shall be granted in that 
 municipality contrary to the vote, but in no 
 case shall license be granted to a keeper of a 
 house of ill- fame. (Id., § 1565ic.) The elec- 
 tion shall be held and votes canvassed as pro- 
 vided for by the general election law, and re- 
 sult shall be certified and entered upon the 
 books of the town, village or city as required 
 by law. (Id., § 1565a\) If after vote against 
 license an3 r one shall deal in liquor in such 
 place, he shall be fined $50 to $100 or be im- 
 prisoned three to six months, and for second 
 conviction both. (Id., § 1565«.) 
 
 Nothing in this act shall affect the sale of 
 liquor for the above-excepted purposes by phar- 
 macists. (Id., § 1565/.) 
 
 Selling liquor to Indians is forbidden by 
 §§ 1566-9. 
 
 No election shall be held in a liquor-selling 
 place or place adjoining thereto. (Id., § 15a.) 
 
 Any jailer or person who shall give a prisoner 
 liquor, except upon the certificate of a physi- 
 cian, or who shall have liquor in a prison for 
 such purpose, shall be fined not exceeding 
 $100. (Id., § 4497.) 
 
 Selling liquor within two miles of any camp 
 or other religious meeting (except at a regularly 
 licensed place), without permission, is fined $5 
 to $50, and the liquor is forfeited. (Id. , § 4598. ) 
 
 Adulterating liquor is fined not exceeding 
 
Legislation.] 
 
 360 
 
 [License. 
 
 $100 or punished by imprisonment not exceed- 
 ing six months, and the liquor is forfeited. (Id., 
 § 4600.) 
 
 No Justice's Court shall be held in a saloon, 
 upon penalty of $25. (Id., § 3570. ) 
 
 Claims for liquor are not allowed in the 
 Probate Court. (Id., § 3841.) 
 
 There is a law requiring scientific temperance 
 instruction in the public schools. (R. S., 1889, 
 § 447«, passed 1885, Laws, c. 327.) 
 
 An Amendment to the Constitution may be 
 proposed by majority vote of the two Houses ; 
 to be concurred in by a majority of each House 
 in the next Legislature. A majority vote of 
 the people carries it. 
 
 Wyoming. 
 
 The first session of the Legislature, in 1869 
 (Laws, c. 18), regulated licenses in the same 
 form as now, but the license fee required was 
 $100, or $50 at any point 10 miles from any 
 city, town or railway station ; and selling unlaw- 
 fully was punished by a fine of double the 
 amount of license and imprisonment for three 
 months (half to the informer). 
 
 The Law as It Existed in 1889.— Licenses 
 shall be furnished and the moneys for the same 
 collected by the Sheriff, who shall not know- 
 ingly permit any one to transact any business 
 requiring license without one. (R. S., 1887, 
 § 1433.) 
 
 No one shall sell spirituous, malt or fermented 
 liquors, or wines in less quantities than five 
 gallons without license, upon penalty of $150 
 (half to the informer). All persons engaged in 
 selling liquor by the barrel, case or original 
 package, and selling in quantities not less than 
 five gallons, shall pay a license fee of $175. 
 This does not apply to the manufacture of ale 
 and beer or to the sale at the manufactory in 
 quantities of one keg or upwards. (Id., §1442.) 
 Such license shall not authorize sales in more 
 than one place, except upon license for all such 
 places. (Id., § 1443.) 
 
 Whenever any person with a retail liquor 
 license permits any disorder, drunkenness or 
 unlawful games or violations of law in his 
 place, he shall forfeit his license, which cannot 
 be renewed for three months. (Id., § 1444.) 
 
 Retail liquor licenses shall pay, at or within 
 five miles of any railway station, or town, city, 
 village or place within five miles of a rail- 
 way, $300; in other places, $100. (Id., § 1453.) 
 
 Any person selling liquor without license 
 shall be fined not exceeding $1,000 or imprisoned 
 not exceeding six months, or both. (Id., 
 § 1455.) 
 
 Keeping a liquor place open or selling liquor 
 on Sunday or election day shall be punished by 
 fine of $25 to $100, or imprisonment not exceed- 
 ing three months, or both. (Id., § 1034; 
 amended by Laws of 1888, c. 86.) 
 
 Liquors shall not be sold in any jail, or con- 
 veyed to any person confined therein, or fur- 
 nished to any prisoner, except upon prescrip- 
 tion of a physician. (R. S., 1887, § 1373.) 
 
 [The law above summarized was the Terri- 
 torial law, as it existed at the time [1890] of the 
 admission of Wyoming into the Union.] 
 
 Wilbur Aldrich. 
 
 License. — License always implies the 
 legalization of a portion of the liquor 
 traffic. 1 It aims also to repress a portion 
 of that traffic. It contains thus both a 
 sanction and a condemnation of the 
 saloon. It is a statutory authorization of 
 a part of the traffic. It is also in theory 
 a statutory limitation of another part of 
 the traffic. It is this double character of 
 license which causes, even among intelli- 
 gent voters, so much confusion of thought 
 concerning it. But it is highly import- 
 ant to emphasize the fact that license 
 represses one portion of the traffic only 
 at the expense of sanctioning another 
 portion of it. 
 
 This simple analysis of the definition 
 of license answers most of the argu- 
 ments in defense of it. The question is 
 asked whether 10 saloons are not better 
 than 15. The reply is that they are not! 
 if the 15 can be reduced to 10 only by def- 
 initely giving the sanction of Government 
 to the 10. Are not 10 murders better 
 than 20? No, if the 20 can be re- 
 duced to 10 only by a statutory au- 
 thorization of the 10. Is not half a 
 loaf better than no bread ? No, if the 
 half-loaf can be had only on condition 
 that it be first saturated with poison, 
 and this by the authority of the whole 
 community. Did not Moses license polyg- 
 amy and so attempt to limit its range ? 
 Yes, but not at the expense of assuming 
 that the divine sanction was given to 
 polygamy within the actual range to 
 which it was limited. Of two evils must 
 we not choose the less ? No, if in choos- 
 ing the less we are required to do evil 
 ourselves. Of two evils choose neither. 
 License makes the community itself a 
 rumseller. It has now become disrepu- 
 table for the individual to be a rumseller. 
 Comparatively few native Americans en- 
 gage in the retail liquor traffic. The 
 foremost Christian denominations, such 
 as the Methodist and Presbyterian, ex- 
 clude liquor-sellers from church mem- 
 bership. But license, high or low, 
 
 1 Bouvier, in his Law Dictionary, defines license as "a 
 right given by some competent authority to do an act which 
 without such authority would be illegal." The text of 
 the document giving a license usually reads : u License is 
 
 hereby given by authority of the city of to A. B. 
 
 to keep a saloon and to sell," etc. All this shows that 
 license means legalization of a portion of the liquor traffic. 
 A tax, on the contrary, confers no authority on him who 
 pays it. Bouvier defines a tax as "a contribution im- 
 posed by Government on individuals for the service of the 
 State." It is futile, therefore, to contend that license is 
 simply a tax upon the traffic and only a limitation of it 
 and not an authorization of a portion of it. 
 
License.] 
 
 361 
 
 [License. 
 
 makes the State a liquor-seller. As Hor- 
 ace Greeley was accustomed to say, it is 
 disreputable enough for the individual, 
 under the pressure of personal wants, to 
 become a liquor-seller; but for the whole 
 State to become such and this with no 
 necessity, but from pure greed and cow- 
 ardice, is infamous. 
 
 The actual saloon of our day is noto- 
 riously a school of crime, an ally of anar- 
 chy, a fountain of social misery, a source 
 of heavy taxation, a cesspool of political 
 corruption. License makes the whole 
 community a partner in the business of 
 the actual saloon. To that business, with 
 these results, license gives governmental 
 sanction, and so a legal respectability. 
 But the actual saloon in most cases has 
 infamous allies. The gambling-hell and 
 the brothel and the gilded High License 
 saloon usually go together in great 
 cities. As Prof. Herrick Johnson has 
 said in an epigram not soon to be for- 
 gotten : " Low license asks for your son ; 
 High License for your daughter also." 
 High License tempts the saloon to make 
 alliance with the gambling-hell and the 
 brothel so as to raise funds to pay the 
 High License fees. This temptation is 
 rarely resisted. License of the saloon, 
 therefore, may easily amount in effect to 
 a license of gambling and harlotry. It is 
 assumed in this discussion that the wick- 
 edness of licensing these allies of the 
 saloon is admitted. But the community 
 that fosters the liquor traffic by giving 
 it legalization does practically make it- 
 self largely responsible for the usual 
 allies of the traffic. 
 
 Liquor-selling, it is sometimes said, is 
 not a sin in itself. But the business of the 
 actual saloon is what is in question. We 
 think that this is a sin in itself, fully 
 justifying the exclusion of the liquor- 
 seller from church membership, as it now 
 does in the leading evangelical denomi- 
 nations. But certainly the business, even 
 if it were not a sin in itself, is a sin in 
 its circumstances. The wickedness of all 
 forms of license is proved by the wicked- 
 ness notoriously resulting from the busi- 
 ness of the actual saloon of our day. To 
 make the community a partner in that 
 business and its results by license, high or 
 low, is not only the worst social economy 
 but also ethical wickedness. The actual 
 liquor traffic, as the Methodist Church 
 officially declares, ''can never be legal- 
 
 ized without sin." It may not be a sin 
 in itself to light a match, but it is a sin 
 in its circumstances to light a match 
 carelessly in a powder magazine. The 
 actual saloon manufactures paupers, 
 criminals, widows, orphans, madmen and 
 lost souls, and license of the actual saloon 
 makes the community itself a partici- 
 pator in this wickedness. 
 
 License proceeds upon self-contradict- 
 ory principles. It sanctions the traffic 
 with one hand and condemns it with the 
 other. In the days of the American con- 
 flict with slavery, Government treated 
 slave-holding as a crime north of Mason 
 and Dixon's line. All the power of the 
 Government was to be brought to bear 
 against it there. One hair's-breadth 
 south of that line, however, slavery 
 changed its character and was to be per- 
 mitted. All the powers of the Govern- 
 ment were to be exercised to defend it 
 there. History has now proved that a 
 policy thus divided against itself could 
 not prosper. Under a license system Gov- 
 ernment treats the liquor traffic as it 
 once did slavery. The license fee is 
 Mason and Dixon's line. On one side of 
 that line Government condemns the 
 traffic. A hair's-breadth across the line, 
 on the other side, Government defends it. 
 These principles are self-contradictory. 
 A house divided against itself cannot 
 stand. 
 
 License forces the saloon into politics, 
 disciplines the enemy and so is the 
 source of untold political corruption. 
 The licensed liquor traffic corrupts the 
 police force and the lower Courts and is 
 the chief source of municipal misrule, 
 which is the principal peril of free insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 License apparently brings a revenue 
 to the State and so entrenches the traffic 
 behind the cupidity of short-sighted tax- 
 payers. It is true that it robs Peter to 
 pay Paul, but it does not pay Paul. The 
 expenses which the traffic brings upon 
 the community greatly exceed any profit 
 arising from license fees. But this fact 
 is overlooked by average voters. The 
 money there appears to be in license is 
 a temptation to the State and a chief 
 source of the political power of the 
 saloon. 
 
 License does not for any length of 
 time diminish the amount of sales of 
 liquor, although for a while it may dim- 
 
License.] 
 
 362 
 
 [Light Liquors. 
 
 inish the number of places in which 
 liquor is sold. But the large establish- 
 ments often own the small ones and foster 
 the illegal trade of the latter. The gilded 
 .saloons want the low dives kept open to 
 receive the refuse constituency of the 
 former. When the drunkard becomes a 
 noisy and loathsome sot he is turned 
 out of this upper into the lower grade of 
 saloons. 
 
 License gives the traffic legal, indus- 
 trial, political and social respectability 
 and so increases the power of the Saloon 
 to tempt the respectable classes and low- 
 ers and corrupts the temperance senti- 
 ment of the community at large. The 
 city Government of Omaha, under High 
 License of the saloons, has sunk to so 
 low a level that it now derives a large 
 revenue from arrangements nearly ap- 
 proaching the licensing of houses of un- 
 reportable infamy. 
 
 License prohibits Prohibition, for it 
 .always provides for the continuance of 
 the traffic. The revenue which the mis- 
 led voter suffers the State to obtain from 
 High License, although it by no means 
 ■covers the damages inflicted by the traffic 
 and is collected from the victims of the 
 saloons and their families, operates as a 
 golden bar to Prohibition. The higher 
 the license fee the higher and stronger 
 is this bar. It is notorious that the policy 
 of license is favored by politicians as a 
 meaus of defeating Prohibition. The 
 Chicago Tribune very justly says: "High 
 License, reasonably and pro]}erly enforc- 
 ed, is the only barrier against Prohibi- 
 tion in the present temper of the people 
 in almost every State of the Union." In 
 January, 1889, the Omaha Bee said: 
 " The only effective way to block Prohib- 
 ition is to enforce rigidly High License." 
 
 License is generally approved by the 
 liquor traffic itself. 
 
 License, so far as it produces appa- 
 rently good results, owes its seeming 
 success to its restrictive features. The 
 Brooks law in Pennsylvania, for exam- 
 ple, transferred the power to grant li- 
 censes in Philadelphia and Allegheny 
 from corrupt political Boards to the 
 Judges of reputable Courts. The Judges 
 granted licenses much more cautiously 
 than the politicians had done, and gave 
 full force to the prohibitive elements of 
 the law. 
 
 License has been weighed in the scales 
 
 of practical experience for hundreds of 
 years and found wanting. The present 
 power of the liquor traffic and the cur- 
 rent intemperance of our time have 
 grown up under it. Over against this 
 indisputable fact is to be placed the fact 
 which is equally indisputable, that no- 
 license and Prohibition, whenever fairly 
 weighed in the balances, have been most 
 significantly approved by their practical 
 results. 
 
 License is condemned as wickedness 
 by the chief Christian denominations of 
 our time. The celebrated declaration of 
 the Methodist Church in its General 
 Conference of 1888 may now fairly be 
 said to represent the opinion of the 
 most enlightened and religiously earnest 
 portions of Christendom at large, so that 
 in citing it here we summarize scores of 
 equivalent declarations from other re- 
 ligious bodies : " The liquor traffic can 
 never be legalized without sin. License, 
 high or low, is vicious in principle and 
 powerless as a remedy." It is gross in- 
 consistency for church members to vote 
 for license and then exclude licensed 
 rumsellers from church membership. 
 Joseph Cook. 
 
 [For the provisions of various license acts, 
 see Legislation. For comparative results un- 
 der license and Prohibition, see High License 
 and Prohibition, Benefits op.] 
 
 Light Liquors. — A term applied, in 
 general, to all the fermented beverages, 
 and particularly to the weaker ones. 
 Practically all the ordinary beers, wines 
 and ciders consumed by the common peo- 
 ple in the United States, varying in alco- 
 holic strength from 3 to 15 or 18 per 
 cent., are regarded as " light liquors." 
 
 Since the use of distilled spirits be- 
 came widespread, there has been a dis- 
 position among many persons to look 
 upon these milder beverages as relatively 
 less harmful, and to discriminate in 
 favor of them and even encourage their 
 consumption by precept and legislation. 
 In the American colonial period the 
 dangers of whiskey, gin and rum were 
 clearly recognized, and numerous stat- 
 utes were enacted restricting or pro- 
 hibiting their sale to Indians and others. 
 Although it sometimes happened that 
 these statutes applied nominally or in- 
 directly to beer and wine also, there 
 seems to have been* little perception of 
 
liight Liquors.] 
 
 363 
 
 [Light Liquors. 
 
 the evils of the lighter drinks. The Pro- 
 hibitory law of Oglethorpe in Georgia 
 (1733-42) was directed against distilled 
 liquors entirely ; and under this philan- 
 thropic measure the beer and wine 
 traffic was actually favored. At the out- 
 set of the temperance reform there were 
 a few far-seeing men who understood 
 that ultimately no exceptions in behalf 
 of particular alcoholic beverages could 
 be made consistently ; but spirits were 
 first attacked, and in most of the earliest 
 temperance societies the members were 
 under no obligation to abstain from beer 
 and wine. The history of the move- 
 ment in the British Isles shows that a 
 similar tendency prevailed there ; even 
 the expediency and value of Father 
 Mathew's total abstinence work were 
 questioned by many who had been en- 
 gaged for years in efforts to reclaim 
 drunkards, and who sincerely believed 
 that indiscriminate warfare against all 
 kinds of liquors would be injudicious if 
 not illogical. (See Edgar, John.) In 
 nearly all the countries of Continental 
 Europe, where the temperance agitation 
 is still in its primitive stages, opposition 
 to malt and vinous drinks seems not to 
 be suggested or contemplated, even by 
 the men specially anxious for reform; 
 although where Good Templar and 
 other radical organizations have been in- 
 troduced (notably in the Scandinavian 
 nations) there is a growing sentiment 
 -against every species of intoxicants. 
 
 This preference for beer and wine is 
 one of the manifestations of the " mod- 
 eration" theory. .Conservative persons 
 hesitate to sweep away the institutions 
 and customs of ages, yet perceiving the 
 necessity of improvement seek refuge 
 in alluring compromises. Their general 
 acceptance of the " light liquors " argu- 
 ment has given to the liquor legislation 
 of the 19th Century one of its most 
 .striking features. Discriminations in 
 favor of the manufacturers and sellers 
 of beer, wine and cider have been pro- 
 vided for in most of the license laws of 
 the United States, and have been in- 
 serted in a number of Prohibitory 
 statutes. The scope and effectiveness of 
 Prohibition in Michigan, Iowa, Massa- 
 chusetts and other States have at differ- 
 ent times been modified by provisions 
 for licensing those persons dealing in 
 malt liquors, or malt and vinous liquors, 
 
 exclusively. At present (1890) none of 
 the State Prohibitory laws exempt the 
 common retail sale of any of the light 
 liquors ; but the New Hampshire law is 
 built partly upon the old model, since it 
 permits the manufacture. In some of 
 the States (especially those of the South) 
 where Local Option is the prevailing 
 policy, there are express exceptions of 
 native wines. An enumeration of the 
 license acts in which comparatively easy 
 terms are or have been made for beer 
 and wine-sellers, would necessitate cita- 
 tions from the statutes of almost every 
 State of the Union. The existing law 
 of Massachusetts fixes a license rate of 
 only $250 a year for the sale of " malt 
 liquors, cider and light wines containing 
 less than 15 per cent, of alcohol, to be 
 drunk on the premises," but requires the 
 payment of $1,000 a year by those who 
 sell " liquors of any kind, to be drunk 
 on the premises ; " the Illinois law, 
 while establishing a minimum annual 
 rate of $500 for retailers of all liquors, 
 permits the retailing of malt liquors for 
 $150,— etc. 
 
 But the tendency of recent legislation 
 has been steadily toward abandoning 
 these discriminations. States like Michi- 
 gan and Ohio have abolished the special 
 low beer-license rate. In most of the 
 High License States— Minnesota, Ne- 
 braska, Pennsylvania, Missouri and 
 others, — beer and wine are compelled 
 to stand on the same footing with 
 whiskey. And with each year the 
 advocacy of "light liquors" is re- 
 garded with increasing impatience by 
 the temperance people. A few veteran 
 conservatives, whose disinterestedness is 
 not questioned and whose sincerity is 
 respected, still adhere to the old opinions. 
 But it is well understood that in the 
 organized temperance work as now con- 
 ducted there is no toleration for the 
 claims made by the champions of beer 
 and wine. The hostility with which the 
 recent efforts of Miss Kate Field to 
 popularize California wines have been 
 met, is evidence of the strength of feel- 
 ing; and the discovery that Miss Field's 
 labors were liberally rewarded by the 
 California Viticultural Commission was 
 not reassuring. 1 
 
 The refusal to except beer and wine 
 
 > See the Voice for Dec. 6, 1888, Jan. 3, Jan. 34, July 4, 
 Aug. 1 and Aug. 39, 1889. 
 
Light Liquors.] 
 
 364 
 
 [Light Liquors. 
 
 from the general condemnation pro- 
 nounced against alcoholic stimulants is 
 based on extended and varied experience. 
 A study of history does not encourage 
 the belief that intemperance will dis- 
 appear or play no important part where 
 these lighter drinks are the only intoxi- 
 cating beverages available. In the nations 
 of antiquity (excepting, probably, China, 
 and possibly one or two other remote 
 Oriental countries), distillation was un- 
 known; yet drink seduced and wrecked 
 rulers and people alike, was a prominent 
 subject for sages, historians and poets 
 (see Historical akd Philosophical) 
 and was a chief contributor to the cor- 
 ruption, decay and ruin of the most 
 glorious and admirable types of civiliza- 
 tion. Neither were distilled liquors in 
 use in mediaeval times; but the accounts 
 of the drunkenness that prevailed in those 
 ages are abundant and appalling. 
 
 It is claimed by the persons who recom- 
 mend light liquors that in the great wine 
 and beer-drinking nations of the present 
 day the evils of intemperance are com- 
 paratively slight. The grounds for this 
 claim are not stated with definiteness ; 
 and those who seek the truth will dis- 
 cover many satisfactory reasons for hold- 
 ing the contrary view. From the stand- 
 point of the beer and wine advocates, the 
 most temperate nations are those in 
 which the per capita consumption of 
 spirits is smallest. Applying this test to 
 France, the principal wine-producing 
 country, we find from estimates made by 
 the Chief of the United States Bureau of 
 Statistics (based on original official data 
 exclusively) that the consumption of 
 spirits per capita in France in 1885 
 was 1.24 gallon, while in the United 
 States the per capita consumption of 
 spirits was 1.18 gallon in 1887 (see p. 
 135) ; a statistical volume issued by 
 the French Government, ("Annuaire 
 Statistique de la France" for 1888) 
 shows that in the period from 1850 to 
 1885 the annual per capita consumption 
 of spirits in France increased more than 
 200 per cent. (See p. 184.) Applying 
 the same test to the United Kingdom and 
 Germany, the leading beer nations, it is 
 seen from the same estimates of the 
 Chief of our Bureau of Statistics that the 
 consumption of distilled liquors per 
 capita is not very much less in these 
 countries than in the United States. On 
 
 the other hand the Dominion of Canada, 
 which consumes less beer and wine than 
 any other country for which statistics are 
 given, shows a smaller per capita con- 
 sumption of spirits than France, Eng- 
 land or Germany ; x and it is worthy of 
 remark in this connection that Canada is 
 a northern country, lying in latitudes 
 where spirits are supposed to be in 
 greatest request. 
 
 There is much direct evidence of the 
 great and growing popularity of spirits 
 in all the countries where malt and vinous 
 liquors are plentiful and cheap. The fre- 
 quent discussions of this subject by med- 
 ical and other writers seem to leave no 
 ground for controversy. The attention 
 given to it at the recent " International 
 Conferences Against the Abuse of Alco- 
 holic liquors," held in various Conti- 
 nental cities, also shows the magnitude of 
 the evil. The development of the spirit 
 traffic goes on steadily in every nation of 
 beer and wine-drinkers. This fact cer- 
 tainly discourages belief in the practica- 
 bility of efforts to popularize the lighter 
 liquors. 
 
 But the question whether a national 
 taste for beer and wine tends to hold the 
 appetite for spirits in check is not the. 
 essential one. Where the mild drinks 
 are distinctly preferred by the people, is 
 drunkenness a comparatively rare vice, 
 and are the evils springing from the use 
 of alcoholic beverages comparatively in- 
 significant ? The dogmatic affirmative 
 answers given by some American platform 
 speakers are not justified by the delib- 
 erate testimony presented by competent 
 observers in beer nations like England, 
 Germany and Austria, and wine countries 
 like France, Italy and Spain. Undoubt- 
 edly there is a large element of the pop- 
 ulation in each of these countries, no- 
 
 1 The official figures are as follows: 
 
 France 
 
 United Kingdom 
 
 Germany 
 
 Canada 
 
 Fob the Year 1887. 
 Per Capita Consumption. 
 
 Wine, 
 Gallons. 
 
 Beer, 
 Gallons. 
 
 Spirits, 
 Gallons. 
 
 26.74' 
 .38 
 (a) 
 .10 
 
 (a) 
 32.88 
 24.99 
 
 3.50 
 
 1.24 a 
 .98 
 
 1.09 
 .84 
 
 1 For 1886. 3 For 1885. (a) No data. 
 
 These figures are from the quarterly report of the 
 United States Bureau of Statistics for the three montha 
 ending March 31, 1889. 
 
Light Liquors.] 
 
 365 
 
 [Light Liquors. 
 
 tably among the peasantry, that cannot 
 be charged with gross intemperance ; but 
 a broad view is not cheering. Since the 
 dawn of her history, beer has been the 
 favorite drink of England; yet the fear- 
 ful prevalence and results of intemper- 
 ance there have been described in the 
 strongest language by the most eminent 
 Englishmen of all periods. More than 
 two centuries ago Sir Matthew Hale, 
 Lord Chief-Justice of England, declared 
 that from his careful observations as a 
 Judge, extending over 20 years, he had 
 come to the conclusion that four-fifths 
 of all the cases of offenses against the 
 law were "the issues and products of 
 excessive drinking." This was before 
 the traffic in distilled spirits had reached 
 alarming proportions. And Lord Chief- 
 Justice Coleridge, speaking in our own 
 day, when beer is still so esteemed by the 
 English that the annual per capita con- 
 sumption of this beverage is one-third 
 greater in the United Kingdom than in 
 Germany, said, in 1881, from the bench 
 of the Supreme Court, that "Judges 
 were weary with calling attention to 
 drink as the principal cause of crime, 
 but he could not refrain from saying 
 that if they could make England sober 
 they would shut up nine-tenths of the 
 prisons." (For a valuable summary of 
 notable facts and utterances concerning 
 intemperance in England, see the " Foun- 
 dation of Death," pp. 226-75.) In the 
 other European countries to which we 
 have particularly alluded, the reputation 
 of the masses for sobriety and for free- 
 dom from the various ills with which 
 intemperance is always associated is not 
 of a high order. In the cities of the 
 United States Americans have con- 
 stantly before their eyes the suggestive 
 fact that the freest drinkers as well as 
 the most wretched sufferers from in- 
 temperance, and the most frequent of- 
 fenders against law and order, are per- 
 sons of foreign birth; and that a very 
 considerable number of these persons are 
 immigrants from the leading wine and 
 beer nations. 
 
 In 1887 Mr. Albert Griffin made an 
 exhaustive analysis of arrests for six 
 years in New York City for 49 different 
 offenses. He divided these offenses into 
 two classes : (1) Those due to sudden 
 passion, mere impulse, etc., not attribu- 
 table specially to deliberation ; (2) Those 
 
 due to deliberation more than to sudden 
 passion or mere impulse. He then 
 selected and tabulated, under these 
 heads, all the offenses committed by 
 (1) persons of Irish birth, and (2) per- 
 sons of German birth. The results 
 derived were thus stated : l 
 
 
 Irish. 
 
 Germans. 
 
 
 198.595 
 91,548 
 
 1 to 13 
 
 87,390 
 
 1 to 13.6 
 4,158 
 
 1 to 286 
 
 163,482 
 26,349 
 
 1 to 37 
 20,407 
 
 lto48 
 5,492 
 
 1 to 165 
 
 Total offenses from 1881 to 1886 
 Average yearly offenses, ratio 
 
 Total unpremeditated offenses. 
 
 Average yearly unpremeditated 
 
 offenses, ratio to population . 
 
 Average yearly deliberate of- 
 fenses, ratio to population . . 
 
 Mr. Griffin also found that during 
 these six years there were 16 attempts at 
 suicide among the Irish and 31 among 
 the Germans. 
 
 The interest of this analysis is en- 
 hanced when it is remembered that of 
 all the citizens of the United States the 
 Irish-born, as a class, are the freest 
 whiskey-drinkers, and the German-born 
 are the greatest beer-drinkers. While 
 the whiskey-drinkers are shown to have 
 committed more unpremeditated offenses, 
 proportionately, than the beer-drinkers, 
 the latter were responsible for a larger 
 proportion of the deliberate crimes. 
 The following comment was made by 
 Mr. Griffin : 
 
 "The Irish have never been considered an 
 especially law-abiding people, but the Germans 
 have. The former have much to depress them, 
 and are proverbially reckless and improvident; 
 while the latter are equally noted for general 
 intelligence, prudence and thrift. Under these 
 circumstances the Germans ought to be especi- 
 ally strong. ... I do not believe that the 
 Germans, as a race, are naturally more crimin- 
 ally disposed and law-defying than others, and 
 I am strongly of the opinion that at least a part 
 of the reason for the facts cited is to be found 
 in the beverage they consume so much of. . . . 
 Careful observers assert that it is more brutal- 
 izing in its effects than either spirituous or 
 vinous liquors, in partial proof of which they 
 point to the disproportionately large number of 
 German names among the perpetrators of espec- 
 ially atrocious crimes published in the daily 
 papers. . . . This idea is still further sup- 
 ported by the undeniable fact that Anarchism 
 in this country is a German fungus, born and 
 nurtured in beer-saloons and nowhere else." 
 
 The results of legislative discrimi- 
 
 1 For the figures in detail, see " The Political Prohibi- 
 tionist for 1888," pp. 80-1. 
 
Light Liquors.] 
 
 366 
 
 [Light Liquors. 
 
 nations in favor of the light liquors 
 have uniformly been unsatisfactory. A 
 memorable experiment was instituted 
 in England in 1830, when the so-called 
 Beer act went into effect. This measure 
 permitted the sale of beer without li- 
 cense and without restrictions, provided 
 stronger liquors were not vended in 
 connection with beer : the retail trade 
 in beer was made practically free. The 
 consequences of this discrimination have 
 been thus related : 
 
 "'The idea entertained at that time,' says 
 the London Times, ' was that free trade in beer 
 would gradually wean men from the tempta- 
 tions of the regular tavern, would promote the 
 consumption of a wholesome national beverage 
 in place of ardent spirits, would break down 
 the monopoly of the old license-houses, and im- 
 part, in short, a better character to the whole 
 trade .... The results of this experiment did 
 not confirm the expectations of its promoters. 
 The sale of beer was increased ; but the sale 
 of spirituous liquors was not diminished.' 
 
 "It had been in operation but a few weeks 
 when Sidney Smith wrote : ' The new Beer bill 
 has begun its operations. Everybody is drunk. 
 Those who are not singing are sprawling. The 
 sovereign people are in a beastly state.' 
 
 "In one year the number of beer-shops in- 
 creased 30,000, without any diminution of the 
 spirit-stores. In a short time the quantity of 
 distilled liquors consumed was much larger 
 than the gain in the consumption of beer. The 
 official reports to Parliament show that 
 
 " ' During the 10 years preceding the passage 
 of the Beer-house act, the quantity of malt used 
 for brewing was 368,139,389 bushels; during 
 the 10 years immediately succeeding, the quan- 
 tity was 344,143,550 bushels, showing an in- 
 crease of 28 per cent. During the 10 years 
 1821-30, the quantity of British spirits con- 
 sumed was 57,970,963 gallons, and during the 
 next 10 years it rose to 76,797,365 gallons — an 
 increase of 32 per cent. 
 
 ' ' ' The licenses for the sale of spirits — of 
 which, in 1830, 48,904 were granted — numbered 
 in 1833, 50,828, being an increase of 1,924. 
 In Sheffield 300 beer-shops were added to the 
 old complement of public houses; and it is a 
 striking fact that before the second year had 
 transpired not less than 110 of the keepers of 
 these houses had applied for spirit licenses, to 
 satisfy the desire for ardent spirits. ' 
 
 ' ' There could be no more startling demonstra- 
 tion of the folly on which the Beer act was 
 based, — the expectation that 'free beer 'would 
 diminish the demand for ardent spirits. Con- 
 cerning these beer-houses Lord Brougham said 
 in 1839, in the House of Lords: 
 
 " 'To what good was it that the Legislature 
 should pass laws to punish crime, or that their 
 Lordships should occupy themselves in finding 
 out modes of improving the morals of the peo- 
 ple by giving them education ? What could be 
 the use of sowing a little seed here and plucking 
 up a weed there, if these beer-shops were to be 
 continued that they might go on to sow the 
 
 seeds of immorality broadcast over the land, 
 germinating the most frightful produce that 
 ever had been allowed to grow up in a civilized 
 country, and, he was ashamed to add, under 
 the fostering care of Parliament, and throwing; 
 its baleful influences over the whole com- 
 munity?'" 1 
 
 All the American attempts to reduce 
 drunkenness by encouraging the exclus- 
 ive sale of malt and vinous liquors have 
 been signal failures. By nearly all per- 
 sons except a few theorists it is recog- 
 nized that there is no possibility of 
 separating the beer and wine traffic from 
 the spirit traffic, or giving the former an 
 appearance of superior respectability and 
 decency. The vast majority of persons- 
 who frequent the saloons are not abstain- 
 ers from distilled spirits ; and as a rule 
 the saloon-keeper who has no whiskey 
 for sale must be content with but a small 
 patronage. Even under the discriminat- 
 ing law of Massachusetts, which permits 
 the retail sale of beer and wine for S250 
 per year but charges $1,000 per year for 
 the privilege of retailing whiskey, the 
 large inducement held out to beer and 
 wine-sellers is not taken advantage of to 
 any important extent. The beer-brewers 
 and not the whiskey-traders are respon- 
 sible for the systematic planting of 
 saloons in the great cities, and thus for 
 stimulating the whole retail business in 
 the most artful, painstaking and demoral- 
 izing way. (See Liquor Traffic.) The 
 shops which are essentially retail agencies 
 for the brewery are, with few exceptions, 
 the foulest and most dangerous dens 
 existing; and they are the favorite places 
 of rendezvous for harlots, blackguards, 
 gamblers and criminals. The wine inter- 
 est in America, wherever it is powerful 
 enough to dominate the retail liquor 
 trade, shows itself to be wholly offensive. 
 The advocates of "light wines" favor 
 High License, rigid restrictions, discrimi- 
 nation against spirits and an elegant 
 respectability; but in California, where 
 the wine men have full control, one of 
 the lowest license rates prevailing any- 
 where exists, the restrictions are feeble 
 (even sales on Sunday being permitted 
 by law — a permission conceded by only 
 one other important State]), no attempt is 
 made to limit the traffic in whiskey and 
 the wine-shops are without redeeming 
 features. 
 
 i Alcohol in History (New York, 1867), by Richard Eddy, 
 D.D., pp. 358-9. 
 
Light Liquors.] 
 
 367 
 
 [Lincoln, Abraham. 
 
 If a chief object of the present reform 
 movement is to diminish temptations it 
 seems needless to discuss seriously the 
 general proposition that wine and beer 
 are in themselves less harmful than 
 spirits. The merits of this proposition 
 depend upon the part practically played 
 by wine and beer in the alcoholic scheme. 
 It is undoubted that these beverages, and 
 not spirits, are the great tempters of the 
 young, the innocent and the ignorant. 
 The records of prisons, infirmaries and 
 other institutions show that the vast 
 majority of the inmates began their 
 careers of intemperance as beer or wine 
 drinkers. 
 
 But from a strictly scientific point of 
 view there is ample authority for ranking 
 beer and wine with the worst intoxicants. 
 The Scientific American, April 19, 1879, 
 printed an article credited to the Quar- 
 terly Journal of Inebriety, as follows : 1 
 
 ' ' For some years past a decided inclination 
 has been apparent all over the country to give 
 up the use of whiskey and other strong alcohols, 
 using as a subtitute beer and other compounds. 
 This is evidently founded on the idea that beer 
 is not harmful and contains a large amount of 
 nutriment ; also that bitters may have some med- 
 ical quality which will neutralize the alcohol it 
 conceals, etc. 
 
 ' ' These theories are without confirmation in the 
 observations of physicians and chemists. The use 
 of beer is found to produce a species of degene- 
 ration of all the organism, profound and decep- 
 tive. Patty deposits, diminished circulation, 
 conditions of congestion, perversion of func- 
 tional activities, local inflammations of both the 
 liver and the kidneys are constantly present. 
 Intellectually a stupor amounting almost to 
 paralysis, arrests the reason, changing all the 
 higher faculties into mere animalism, sensual, 
 selfish, sluggish, varied only with paroxysms of 
 anger that are senseless and brutal. In appear- 
 ance the beer-drinker may be the picture of 
 health, but in reality he is most incapable of 
 resisting disease. A slight injury, a severe cold, 
 or shock to the body or mind, will commonly 
 provoke acute disease, ending fatally. Com- 
 pared with inebriates who use different kinds of 
 alcohol he is more incurable, more generally 
 diseased. The constant use of beer every 
 day gives the system no recuperation but 
 steadily lowers the vital forces. It is our obser- 
 vation that beer-drinking in this country pro- 
 duces the very lowest form of inebriety, closely 
 allied to criminal insanity. The most danger- 
 ous class of ruffians in our large cities are beer- 
 drinkers. It is asserted by competent au- 
 thority that the evils of heredity are more posi- 
 tive in this class than from other alcoholics. 
 
 1 This article has been widely copied, and in some 
 books on the drink question (notably the " Foundation of 
 Death," p. 140), the Scientific American is named as the 
 journal in which it was originally published. This is 
 erroneous, as indicated above. 
 
 Recourse to beer as a substitute for other form3 
 of alcohol merely increases the danger and 
 fatality. Public sentiment and legislation 
 should comprehend that all forms of alcohol 
 are dangerous when used." 
 
 And Dr. Norman Kerr says in his 
 "Inebriety" (pp. 66-7) : 
 
 " Beer-drinkers are specially liable to struct- 
 ural alteration and enlargement of the liver, 
 often complicated with dropsy, and to rheuma- 
 tism, gout and rheumatic gout. Disordered 
 digestion and sluggish circulation are also fre- 
 quently present. So far from being innocent 
 and healthful articles of diet, beer, stout et hoe 
 genus omne, are noxious and unwholesome lux- 
 uries, with no practical food value, and by 
 their vitiation of the blood a fertile cause of de- 
 generation, disease and death. Among the 
 sequela? of beer-drinking are, an impeded and 
 loaded circulation, embarrassed respiration, 
 functional perversions, hepatic and renal con- 
 gestions, with a stupor tending toward paraly- 
 sis and a diminished as well as weighted vital- 
 ity which invites disease and easily succumbs- 
 to its ravages. Many beer inebriates are sub- 
 jects of this form of inebriety, though they 
 rarely if ever die boisterous in their cups. 
 They lead what may be called an ' intemperate * 
 life — drinkers to excess, albeit not what are- 
 commonly called 'drunkards.' They are beer- 
 soakers, human sponges with an enormous ca- 
 pacity for the absorption of malt liquor. Of 
 the cases which have been under my own ob- 
 servation, while one gallon a day has been a 
 moderate allowance, I have known eight gal- 
 lons consumed in one period of 24 hours. The 
 general average per day has been one-half gal- 
 lon. I have, however, seen intractable disease- 
 and premature death result from less than a 
 quarter of this quantity drunk daily over a term 
 of years. Psychologically, the beer habit has- 
 in the long run a depressing effect, even when 
 taken in fairly ' moderate' quantities. Lager beer, 
 which by many is declared to be a temperate, 
 safe and wholesome drink, is by no means so. 
 Its daily imbibition, long-continued, tends to- 
 melancholy, ending occasionally in self-destruc- 
 tion. There is also no small proportion of the 
 cases of the general paralysis of inebriety aris- 
 ing from beer. Such wines as port and sherry 
 are so fortified that they might fairly be classed 
 as spirits. Gout and dyspepsia are their respec- 
 tive concomitants. Champagnes are most truly 
 painful in the process of ' tapering off.' I know 
 of no distress and discomfort from any kind of 
 drink at all approaching the miseries of the day 
 after a debauch on champagne." 
 
 [See also Longevity.] 
 
 Lincoln, Abraham, sixteenth Pres- 
 ident of the United States ; born on a 
 farm near Hodgensville in La Rue (at 
 that time Hardin) County, Ky., Feb. 12, 
 1809; shot by an assassin in Ford's 
 Theatre at "Washington, D. C, April 14, 
 1865, and died the next day. 
 
 Throughout his career Lincoln was a 
 
Lincoln, Abraham.] 
 
 368 
 
 [Lincoln, Abraham. 
 
 total abstainer ; and his sympathy with 
 the most radical temperance ideas and 
 the demand for the severest legislation 
 was strong and apparently underwent no 
 change. This can be demonstrated as 
 satisfactorily as any other claim respect- 
 ing the tendency of his less conspicuous 
 non-official utterances and actions. But 
 since his total abstinence and Prohibi- 
 tion sentiments were delivered in local 
 and uninfhiential meetings, in the ob- 
 scurity of the West, during a period of 
 his life when no special significance at- 
 tached to his views; since the anti-liquor 
 work in which he took part was wholly 
 educative and had no political develop- 
 ments, and since the temperance cause 
 suffered almost complete eclipse in the 
 years of his national prominence, most 
 of his biographers have failed to give 
 special attention to this feature of his 
 record. It has always been known to 
 those particularly interested in total ab- 
 stinence that Lincoln was a supporter of 
 their principles ; but no effort was made 
 to ascertain the strength and extent of 
 his sympathy until recent bold forgeries 
 by the unscrupulous defenders of the 
 drink traffic led to investigation. 
 
 In the very exciting Local Option 
 contest in Atlanta, Ga., in 1887, the anti- 
 Prohibitionists, as a means of influenc- 
 ing the large negro vote, issued a flaming 
 circular picturing Lincoln in the act of 
 striking the chains from a slave, while 
 underneath were printed these words: 
 " Prohibition will work great injury to 
 the cause of temperance. ... A Pro- 
 hibitory law strikes a blow at the 
 very principles on which our Gov- 
 ernment was founded." ' Similar ut- 
 terances were attributed to him in 
 various newspapers (notably the Sioux 
 Falls Leader) in the North and South 
 Dakota Amendment campaigns of 1889/ 
 and in a pamphlet entitled "' Prosperity, 
 and How to Obtain It," which was cir- 
 culated by the so-called " State Business 
 Men's and Bankers' Association " in Ne- 
 braska in 1890. 3 These were submitted 
 by the Voice to Mr. John G. Nicolay, 
 Lincoln's private secretary and biograph- 
 er, and he pronounced them spurious. 4 
 
 The following facts and quotations 
 have been gathered from various sources, 
 and leave no room for doubt: 
 
 1 See the Voice, Jan. 19, 1888. 2 Ibid, Aug. 15, : 
 » Ibid, Sept. 4, 1890. * Ibid, Aug. 15, 1889, and Sept. 4, : 
 
 In his youth, when about 17 years old, 
 Lincoln prepared an article on "Tem- 
 perance," which was shown to Eev. Aaron 
 Farmer, a Baptist preacher, and by him 
 furnished to an Ohio newspaper for pub- 
 lication. 1 On Feb. 22, 1842, he deliver- 
 ed an address before the "Washingtonian 
 Temperance Society of Springfield, 111.," 
 in which he said : 
 
 " Whether or not the world would be vastly 
 benefited by a total and final banishment from 
 it of all intoxicating drinks, seems to me not 
 now an open question. Three-fourths of man- 
 kind confess the affirmative with their tongues ; 
 and, I believe, all the rest acknowledge it in 
 their hearts. Ought any, then, to refuse their 
 aid in doing what the good of the whole de- 
 mands ? . . . There seems ever to have been 
 a proneness in the brilliant and warm-blooded 
 to fall into this vice — the demon of intemper- 
 ance ever seems to have delighted in sucking 
 the blood of genius and generosity. What one 
 of us but can call to mind some relative, more 
 promising in youth than all his fellows, who 
 has fallen a victim to his rapacity ? He ever 
 seems to have gone forth like the Egyptian 
 angel of death, commissioned to slay, if not the 
 first, the fairest born of every family. Shall he 
 now be arrested in his desolating career ? . . . 
 If the relative grandeur of revolutions shall 
 be estimated by the great amount of human 
 misery they alleviate and the small amount they 
 inflict, then, indeed, will this be the grandest 
 the world shall ever have seen. Of our po- 
 litical revolution of '76 we are all justly proud. 
 . . . But ... it . . . had its evils too. . . . 
 Turn now to the temperance revolution. In it 
 we shall find a stronger bondage broken, a viler 
 slavery manumitted, a greater tyrant deposed — • 
 in it more of want supplied, more disease 
 healed, more sorrow assuaged ; by it no or- 
 phan's starving, no widow's weeping. . . . 
 And what a natural ally this to the cause of 
 political freedom ; with such an aid its march 
 cannot fail to be on and on, till every son of 
 earth shall drink in rich fruition the sorrow- 
 quenching draughts of perfect liberty. . . . 
 And when the victory shall be complete, when 
 there shall be neither a slave nor a drunkard on 
 the earth, how proud the title of that land 
 which may truly claim to be the birth-place and 
 the cradle of both those revolutions that shall 
 have ended in that victory I How nobly dis- 
 tinguished that people who shall have planted 
 and nurtured to maturity both the political and 
 moral freedom of their species ! " 
 
 W. H. Herndon, for many years Lin- 
 coln's law partner, writes of the circum- 
 stances attending the delivery of this 
 address : 
 
 "Early in 1842 he entered into the Washing- 
 
 1 Life of Lincoln, by William H. Herndon and Jesse 
 W. Weik (Chicago, 1889), vol. 1, p. 61. Also Ward H. 
 Lamon's " Life of Lincoln " (Boston, 1872), pp. 68-9. 
 
 2 It was originally printed in the Springfield Journal, 
 and is reprinted in the " Lincoln Memorial Volume " (pp. 
 84-97), edited by O. H. Oldroyd (Hew York, 1882). 
 
Lincoln, Abraham.] 
 
 369 
 
 [Lincoln, Abraham. 
 
 tonian movement organized to suppress the evils 
 of intemperance. At the request of the Society 
 he delivered an admirable address, on "Washing- 
 ton's Birthday, in the Presbyterian Church. . . . 
 I . . . remember well how one paragraph 
 of Lincoln's speech offended the church mem- 
 bers who were present. Speaking of certain 
 Christians who objected to the association of 
 drunkards, even with the chance of reforming 
 them, he said: 'If they [the Christians] believe 
 as they profess, that Omnipotence condescended 
 to take on himself the form of sinful man, and 
 as such to die an ignominious death for their 
 sakes, surely they will not refuse submission to 
 the infinitely lesser condescension, for the tem- 
 poral and perhaps eternal salvation of a large, 
 erring and unfortunate class of their fellow- 
 creatures. Nor is the condescension very great. 
 In my judgment such of us as have never fallen 
 victims have been spared more from the absence 
 of appetite than from any mental or moral 
 superiority over those who have. Indeed, I be- 
 lieve if we take habitual drunkards as a elass 
 their heads and their hearts will bear an advan- 
 tageous comparison with those of any other 
 class.' The avowal of these sentiments proved 
 to be an unfortunate thing for Lincoln. The 
 professing Christians regarded the suspicion 
 suggested in the first sentence as a reflection on 
 the sincerity of their belief, and the last one had 
 no better effect in reconciling them to his views. 
 I was at the door of the church as the people 
 passed out, and heard them discussing the 
 speech. Many of them were open in the ex- 
 pression of their displeasure. 'It's a shame,' I 
 heard one man say, ' that he should be permitted 
 to abuse us so in the house of the Lord.' The 
 truth was, the Society was composed mainly of 
 the roughs and drunkards of the town, who had 
 evinced a desire to reform. Many of them were 
 too fresh from the gutter to be taken at once 
 into the society of such people as worshipped at 
 the church where the speech was delivered. 
 Neither was there that concert of effort so uni- 
 versal to-day between the churches and temper- 
 ance societies to rescue the fallen. The whole 
 thing, I repeat, was damaging to Lincoln, and 
 gave rise to the opposition on the part of the 
 churches which confronted him several years 
 afterward when he became a candidate against 
 the noted Peter Cartwright for Congress. The 
 charge these bore, that in matters of religion he 
 was a skeptic, was not without its supporters, 
 especially when his opponent was himself a 
 preacher. But nothing daunted, Lincoln kept 
 on and labored zealously in the interests of the 
 temperance movement." ' 
 
 It is to this period in Lincoln's career 
 that Mr. Lamon refers in his "Life of 
 Lincoln" when he says (p. 480) that 
 "for many years he [Lincoln] was an 
 ardent agitator against the use of intoxi- 
 cating beverages, and made speeches far 
 and near in favor of total abstinence. 
 Some of them were printed, and of one 
 he was not a little proud." 
 
 In 1852 Lincoln joined an organization 
 
 1 Herndon's "Life of Lincoln," vol. 2, pp. 260-8. 
 
 of the Sons of Temperance, in Spring- 
 field, 111. In 1853 a lecture entitled "A 
 Discourse on the Bottle — Its Evils and 
 the Remedy" was delivered in Spring- 
 field by Eev. James Smith. A request 
 for the publication of this address, on 
 the ground that its general circulation 
 would be beneficial, was signed by a 
 number of persons, including Lincoln, 
 who thus endorsed such sentiments as 
 the following, which it contained : 
 
 "The liquor traffic is a cancer in society, eat- 
 ing out its vitals and threatening destruction ; 
 and all attempts to regulate it will not only 
 prove abortive but aggravate the evil. No, 
 there must be no more attempts to regulate the 
 cancer : it must be eradicated ; not a root must 
 be left behind, for, until this be done, all classes 
 must continue exposed to become the victims of 
 strong drink. . . . The most effectual [remedy] 
 would be the passage of a law altogether 
 abolishing the liquor traffic, except for me- 
 chanical, chemical, medicinal and sacramental 
 purposes, and so framed that no principle of 
 the Constitution of the State or of the United 
 States be violated." ' 
 
 Several accounts have been written of 
 Lincoln's refusal to furnish intoxicating 
 liquors to the Committee which visited 
 him at his home in Springfield, June 19, 
 1860, to formally notify him of his nomi- 
 nation for President by the Republican 
 Convention in Chicago the day before. 
 Dr. J. G. Holland says : 
 
 ' ' Mr. Ashmun, the President of the Conven- 
 tion, at the head of a Committee, visited Spring- 
 field to apprise Mr. Lincoln officially of his 
 nomination. In order that the ceremony might 
 be smoothly performed, the Committee had an 
 interview with Mr. Lincoln before the hour ap- 
 pointed for the formal call. They found him 
 at a loss to know how to treat a present he had 
 just received at the hands of some of his con- 
 siderate Springfield friends. Knowing Mr. 
 Lincoln's temperate or rather abstinent habits, 
 and laboring under the impression that the 
 visitors from Chicago would have wants beyond 
 the power of cold water to satisfy, these friends 
 had sent in sundry hampers of wines and 
 liquors. These strange fluids troubled Mr. Lin- 
 coln, and he frankly confessed as much to the 
 members of the Committee. The Chairman at 
 once advised him to return the gift and to offer 
 no stimulants to his guests, as many would be 
 present besides the Committee. Thus relieved, 
 he made ready for the reception of the com- 
 pany according to his own ideas of hospitality." 2 
 
 F. B. Carpenter, in his little book, 
 " Six Months at the White House with 
 Abraham Lincoln" (New York, 1866), 
 declares in the Introduction that he has 
 
 1 See the Voice, Aug. 29, 1889. 
 
 2 Holland's "Life of Lincoln" (Springfield, Mass., 
 1866), pp. 228-9. 
 
Lincoln, Abraham.] 
 
 370 
 
 [Lincoln, Abraham. 
 
 satisfied himself of the correctness of all 
 the statements to which he gives pub- 
 licity ; and on p. 125 he reprints the 
 following from the Portland Press : 
 
 "After this ceremony had passed [the notifi- 
 cation of nomination and Lincoln's reply], Mr. 
 Lincoln remarked to the company that as an 
 appropriate conclusion to an interview so im- 
 portant and interesting as that which had just 
 transpired, he supposed good manners would 
 require that he should treat the Committee with 
 something to drink ; and opening a door that 
 led into a room in the rear he called out, 
 ' Mary ! Mary ! ' A girl replied to the call, to 
 whom Mr. Lincoln spoke a few words in an 
 undertone, and, closing the door, returned 
 again to converse with his guests. In a few 
 minutes the maiden entered, bearing a large 
 waiter containing several glass tumblers, and a 
 large pitcher in the midst, and placed it upon 
 the centre-table. Mr. Lincoln arose, and 
 gravely addressing the company said : ' Gentle- 
 men, we must pledge our mutual healths in the 
 most healthy beverage which God has given to 
 man. It is the only beverage I have ever used 
 or allowed in my family, and I cannot con- 
 scientiously depart from it on the present oc- 
 casion. It is pure Adam's ale from the spring.' 
 And taking a tumbler he touched it to his lips 
 and pledged them his highest respects in a cup 
 of cold water. Of course all his guests were 
 constrained to admire his consistency and to 
 join in his example." 
 
 The Voice for Oct. 10, 1889, printed in 
 facsimile an autograph letter which had 
 never before been published, written by 
 Lincoln to J. Mason Haight, in which 
 Lincoln referred to this incident as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 "Private and Confidential. — Spring- 
 field, III., June 11, 1860. — J. Mason Haight, 
 Esq. — My Dear Sir : I think it would be im- 
 proper for me to write or say anything to or for 
 the public upon the subject of which you in- 
 quire. I therefore wish the letter. I do write 
 to be held as strictly confidential. Having kept 
 house 16 years, and having never held the 
 ' cup ' to the lips of my friends then, my judg- 
 ment was that I should not, in my new posi- 
 tion, change my habits in this respect. What 
 actually occurred upon the occasion of the 
 Committee visiting me I think it would be 
 better for others to say. — Tours respectfully, 
 "A. Lincoln." 
 
 Sept. 29, 1863, a deputation from the 
 Grand Division of Sons of Temperance 
 of the District of Columbia waited upon 
 President Lincoln, and submitted some 
 recommendations in behalf of promoting 
 temperance in the army. In his response 
 the President said : 1 
 
 " As a matter of course, it will not be possible 
 
 1 Specially transcribed for this work by J. K. Bridge, 
 917 French street, Washington, D. C, from the official 
 report published at the time by the Sons of Temperance. 
 
 for me to make a response coextensive with the 
 address which you have presented to me. If I 
 were better known than I am, you would not 
 need to be told that in the advocacy of the cause- 
 of temperance you have a friend and sympa- 
 thizer in me. When I was a young man — long 
 ago, — before the Sons of Temperance as an or- 
 ganization had an existence, I in an humble 
 way made temperance speeches, and I think I 
 may say that to this day I have never by 
 my example belied what I then said. In regard 
 to the suggestions which you make for the pur- 
 pose of the advancement of the cause of tem- 
 perance in the army, I cannot make particular 
 responses to them at this time. To prevent in- 
 temperance in the army is even a part of the 
 articles of war. It is part of the law of the 
 land, and was so, I presume, long ago, to dis- 
 miss officers for drunkenness. I am not sure 
 that, consistently with the public service, more 
 can be done than has been done. All, there- 
 fore, that I can promise you is (if you will be 
 pleased to furnish me with a copy of your ad- 
 dress) to have it submitted to the proper de- 
 partment and have it considered whether it 
 contains any suggestions which will improve 
 the cause of temperance and repress the cause 
 of drunkenness in the army any better than it 
 is already done. I can promise no more than 
 that. I think that the reasonable men of 
 the world have long since agreed that intemper- 
 ance is one of the greatest if not the very great- 
 est of all evils amongst mankind. That is not a 
 matter of dispute, I believe. That the disease 
 exists, and that it is a very great one, is agreed 
 upon by all." 
 
 As President, Lincoln inaugurated or 
 approved a number of measures Prohib- 
 itory in character; and the friendship 
 that he manifested causes the English 
 temperance historian, Dr. Dawson Burns, 
 to remark that in his assassination " the 
 friends of temperance had a special reason 
 for regret, as this crime deprived them 
 of the moral support of one who had for 
 many years been a personal example of 
 the practice they desired should become 
 universal. In his official capacity he had 
 also given a sanction to all measures 
 which could advance the movement in 
 the army and the nation at large."* 
 In 1861 Generals Butler, McClellan and 
 Banks issued orders excluding all liquors 
 from their respective commands ; and on 
 Aug. 5 of the same year the President 
 signed an act of Congress providing 
 
 " That it shall not be lawful for any person 
 in the District of Columbia to sell, give or 
 administer to any soldier or volunteer in the 
 service of the United States, or any person 
 wearing the uniform of such soldier or volun- 
 teer, any spirituous liquor or intoxicating drink; 
 and every person offending against the provi- 
 sions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a 
 
 > Temperance History, vol. 3, p. 61, 
 
Liqueurs.] 
 
 371 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, 
 before a magistrate or Court having criminal 
 jurisdiction, shall be punished by a fine of $25 
 or imprisonment for 30 days." (U. S. Statutes 
 at Large, vol. 12, c. 44.) 
 
 By an act of Congress signed by Presi- 
 dent Lincoln March 19, 1862, the Inspec- 
 tors-General of the army were constituted 
 a board of officers to prepare a list or 
 schedule of the articles sold by sutlers 
 to the officers and soldiers in the vol- 
 unteer service, " provided always [as to 
 this list or schedule] that no intoxicating 
 liquors shall at any time be contained 
 therein, or the sale of such liquors be in 
 any way authorized by said board." (IT. 
 S. Statutes at Large, vol. 12, c. 47, § I.) 
 As a result of the agitation of temperance 
 reformers, supported by the urgent re- 
 commendations of such men as Kear- 
 Admiral Foote and Captains Dupont, 
 Hudson and Stringham of the navy, an 
 act of Congress, with the following pro- 
 vision enforcing the total prohibition of 
 the use of spirituous liquors in the navy 
 for beverage purposes, was signed by the 
 President July 14, 1862 : 
 
 "And be it further enacted, That from and 
 after the 1st day of September, 1862, the spirit 
 ration in the navy of the United States shall 
 forever cease, and thereafter no distilled spirit- 
 uous liquors shall be admitted on board of ves- 
 sels of war except as medical stores, and upon 
 the order and under the control of the medical 
 officers of such vessels, and to be used only for 
 medical purposes. From and after the said 1st 
 day of September next there shall be allowed 
 and paid to each person in the navy now entitled 
 to the spirit ration five cents per day in com- 
 mutation and lieu thereof, which shall be in 
 addition to their present pay." (U. S. Statutes 
 at Large, vol. 12, c. 164, § I.) 
 
 President Lincoln was' also one of the 
 12 signers of the Presidential temperance 
 declaration. (See Delavast, Edwaed C.) 
 
 LiqUeurs. — Spirituous drinks and 
 flavors compounded from alcohol and 
 various aromatic substances, herbs, etc., 
 by special processes. Liqueurs are of 
 as many varieties, almost, as wines. 
 Chartreuse, curacoa, maraschino, bene- 
 dictine, ratafia, absinthe, vermouth and 
 kirschenwasser are among the best- 
 known. (See Spirituous Liquors.) 
 
 Liquor. — When used in a general way, 
 without designating the particular bev- 
 erage, this word applies to alcoholic 
 drinks of all kinds. 
 
 Liquor Traffic. — In one respect 
 the early American temperance agitators 
 labored under conditions decidedly less 
 unfavorable than those existing at the 
 present time : they were not opposed 
 by a thoroughly organized, resourceful, 
 cunning, vigilant, politically powerful, 
 wealthy and carefully entrenched liquor 
 traffic. In those days the manufacturers 
 and vendors of liquor, though perhaps 
 more numerous in proportion to the total 
 population than are the makers and deal- 
 ers of to-day, were almost entirely inde- 
 pendent of one another, having no strong 
 societies and no authorized leaders, and 
 making few united efforts to counteract 
 the reform movement or to control 
 politics and legislation. Moreover, the 
 retail traffic was then conducted chiefly 
 in inns and groceries, as a branch of 
 other and reputable lines of trade : the 
 saloon of to-day was scarcely suggested 
 by the drinking establishments of the 
 first half of the century, and the rum- 
 sellers had little of that "enterprise" 
 which is now so conspicuous and so bale- 
 ful. Prejudice, indifference and indi- 
 vidual appetite were serious obstacles to 
 temperance progress ; but though the 
 antagonism of the drink-traffickers was 
 also to be contended with, this was not 
 a concentrated or well-directed antago- 
 nism, and, so far as its practical influence 
 upon public policy was concerned, was 
 scarcely more formidable than the unor- 
 ganized opposition of other citizens of 
 equal number. 
 
 PAST AND PRESENT. 
 
 In the social history of the United 
 States in the 19th Century there is hardly 
 anything so remarkable as the change 
 effected in the character and conduct of 
 the liquor traffic during the 40 years 
 from 1850 to 1890. The idea of dram- 
 selling is no longer associated with the 
 thought of unpretentious and carelessly- 
 managed taverns and general stores ; 
 these establishments cut no figure in the 
 retail liquor system now. In every city and 
 nearly every town above the hamlet 
 rank, probably at least 95 per cent, of 
 the retail liquor business is done in 
 places fitted up and operated for the ex- 
 clusive or principal purpose of selling 
 intoxicants — places affording few or no 
 conveniences for the public, in which 
 none of the necessaries of life are kept for 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 372 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 sale to the people at large ; places which 
 no decent woman can enter, unescorted, 
 under any circumstances, and where no 
 child or youth can safely be permitted 
 to set foot. These establishments, so far 
 as they serve other purposes than the 
 distribution of drink, do so only with 
 the design of catering to the incidental 
 wants and vices of drinkers and increas- 
 ing the attractions of which the drink- 
 ing-bar is the center ; restaurants are 
 found in connection with some saloons 
 and certain kinds of food are obtainable 
 in nearly all of them, tobacco and non- 
 alcoholic beverages are invariably kept, 
 billiards, pool-tables, cards and other 
 gambling paraphernalia are almost 
 always present, prostitutes are harbored 
 or encouraged in most instances, and 
 newspapers and music are frequently 
 provided, only as associated and con- 
 tributing features of the one absorbing 
 vocation of liquor-selling. This voca- 
 tion is driven with an energy and a wan- 
 tonness of which there were few ex- 
 amples in former years, while the tradi- 
 tional " mine host " has given way to the 
 foreign-born saloon-keeper, who is with- 
 out standing in respectable society and 
 is commonly ranked with the lowest and 
 criminal classes. The characteristic tap- 
 room shows a lavishness and skill of ex- 
 penditure suggestive of ample capital, 
 and the dealers cheerfully pay license 
 fees that are sometimes as large as a fair 
 annual income ; in fact these license 
 fees, in a number of States, probably 
 range higher than the actual profits of 
 the small retail rumseller in the old days. 
 The present compact organization and 
 prodigious political strength of the traffic 
 are even more instructive evidences of the 
 great change that has been wrought. 
 The insignificant part played by the 
 liquor interest in the Prohibitory agita- 
 tion of 40 years ago seems grotesque 
 when viewed by the light of existing 
 conditions. To-day it is counted among 
 the impossibilities to pass a Prohibitory 
 statute through any Legislature without 
 waging prolonged and arduous battles 
 with the " rum power," whose resources 
 appear to be inexhaustible; but in the 
 decade beginning with 1850 it was with 
 no great difficulty that Legislatures were 
 persuaded to enact the Maine law. The 
 former inactivity and weakness of the 
 traffic can be explained only by saying 
 
 that the early license systems did not en- 
 courage brisk competition in the trade, 
 or excite rivalry and enterprise, or hold 
 out to a select few the prospects of large 
 profits, or erect the liquor business into 
 a place of peculiar prominence. The 
 license rates were low, and more import- 
 ant than that there were no serious 
 efforts made to increase them. This fact 
 is of great importance; for if the ex- 
 penses incidental to conducting a licensed 
 establishment had been subject to sud- 
 den and material change by legisla- 
 tive imposition of increased license 
 charges, organization would no doubt 
 have been perfected without delay and 
 the revolution in the traffic would have 
 been accomplished more speedily. While 
 the dealers naturally regarded the total 
 abstinence and Prohibition work with 
 disgust and fear, the license privileges 
 which they held were, on account of the 
 low rates and practical free trade then 
 prevailing, not specially valuable. The 
 manufacture of liquor was not taxed by 
 the Federal Government, the brewing 
 " industry " was in its infancy, whiskey 
 was cheap and small stills were numer- 
 ous, large investments of capital were ex- 
 ceptional, and the liquor-makers did not 
 find it necessary to employ political 
 influence and watch the details of na- 
 tional legislation. 
 
 FEDERATION AND CONCENTRATION. 
 
 Organization of the United States 
 Brewers' Association (1862). — The 
 United States Brewers' Association was 
 organized at a meeting of representative 
 brewers, held in New York, Nov. 12, 
 1862. In the summer of that year (July 
 1) Congress had passed an act to take 
 effect in September, 1862, levying taxes 
 on domestic liquors, including a tax of 
 $1 per barrel on beer. This was done to 
 meet the expenses occasioned by the Civil 
 War. Thus the beginning of practical 
 organized action was almost simulta- 
 neous with the first interference by the 
 general Government in the affairs of the 
 "trade." 1 The brewers apparently did 
 
 1 In Washington's Administration taxes were laid by 
 Congress upon distilled liquors, and the Pennsylvania 
 distillers promptly showed their resentment by rising in 
 armed rebellion. Strictly speaking, this famous insurrec- 
 tion was the first manifestation of the banded liquor 
 power in American history. But it was merely a sedi- 
 tious outbreak, which spent itB force in a brief time. The 
 effective organization and political influence of the drink 
 traffic as now understood date from 1863, the year in 
 which the Internal Revenue act was passed. 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 373 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 not foresee the advantages that they 
 would derive from the new system; for 
 at their first convention they objected to 
 the tax and took steps to secure a reduc- 
 tion. Despite the Government's necessi- 
 ties the brewers' demands were so re- 
 spectfully listened to that by the act of 
 March 3, 1863, the tax on beer was re- 
 duced from $1 to 60 cents per barrel ; 
 and although the $1 tax was subse- 
 quently restored (April 1, 1864), this re- 
 storation was not seriously opposed by 
 the brewers, and the $1 rate has been 
 left undisturbed until the present time 
 (1891). Taxation of the liquor traffic 
 for revenue purposes has indeed been 
 the uninterrupted policy of the Federal 
 Government since 1862; and the pursu- 
 ance of this policy has necessarily im- 
 plied possible changes in important mat- 
 ters of detail. The need of continued 
 organization and of unflagging attention 
 to politics has therefore been constantly 
 recognized by the brewers, and their 
 national Association has become a very 
 formidable power. In October, 1877, it 
 was made an incorporated body under 
 the laws of New York State. The clos- 
 est relations have been established be- 
 tween its officers and the authorities in 
 charge of the Internal Eevenue Depart- 
 ment (see United States Government 
 and the Liquor Traffic), and its in- 
 fluence in Congress and throughout the 
 country has been felt many times and in 
 many ways. During the 28 years of its 
 existence the quantity of beer brewed 
 in the United States has increased won- 
 derfully: only 2,006,625 barrels were 
 produced in the fiscal year ending June 
 30, 1863; but there were 25,119,853 bar- 
 rels manufactured in 1888-9. Eeports 
 made at the United States Brewers' Con- 
 vention in 1888 showed that 78.4 per 
 cent, of the whole beer product of 1887-8 
 was made by members of the Associa- 
 tion. 
 
 Creation of the Organized Whiskey 
 Power. — The act of July 1, 1862, taxed 
 distilled spirits as well as beer, and the 
 consolidation of the whiskey interest 
 began soon after the passage of that 
 measure. From the original tax of 20 
 cents per gallon on spirits the tax was 
 increased (March 7, 1864) to 60 cents 
 per gallon, and again (June 30, 1864) to 
 |l.50 per gallon, and again (Dec. 22, 
 1864) to $2 per gallon ; after the war it 
 
 was reduced to 50 cents (June 20, 18681,, 
 then raised to 70 cents (June 6, 1872), 
 and finally (March 3, 1875) fixed at the 
 present rate of 90 cents. The heavy 
 tax, together with the elaborate regula- 
 tions prescribed for distilleries, had the 
 effect of 6oncentrating the manufactur- 
 ing business, bringing large investors 
 into it and substituting for the old and 
 not very vigilant or enterprising dis- 
 tillers a band of keen-witted and aggres- 
 sive individuals, whose characteristics 
 gave an entirely new significance to the 
 name " whiskey men." The distil- 
 lers have never revealed their organized 
 national strength with the frankness and 
 formality exhibited by the brewers ; they 
 have not held annual public conventions, 
 and they evidently wish to have it be- 
 lieved that they are bound together by 
 loose ties. But it is apparent to watch- 
 ful observers that the whiskey power is 
 quite as carefully disciplined for practi- 
 cal purposes and quite as arrogant as 
 the beer power. It is prepared at all 
 times to send to Washington skilful 
 lobbyists with unlimited resources, it 
 has procured extraordinary concessions 
 from the highest executive officers of the 
 Government, and it has special repre- 
 sentatives in both Houses of Congress — 
 men of commanding ability and great 
 influence. 
 
 The Wine Manufacturers. — The third 
 branch of liquor manufacture, the wine 
 interest, has not until recently at- 
 tained prominence. Wine production 
 in the United States has always been 
 confined to a few localities where natural 
 conditions are particularly favorable to 
 grape culture; and this circumstance, 
 with the preference shown for foreign 
 wines and the uninviting quality of the 
 native product, has hitherto prevented 
 the wine-makers from taking rank with 
 the whiskey men and beer-brewers. But 
 there has been a marked advance in the 
 last few years: while only 1,860,008 gal- 
 lons of domestic wine were produced in 
 1860, 3,059,518 gallons in 1870 and 17,- 
 404,698 gallons in 1885, the production 
 in 1888 was 31,630,523 gallons.' Wealthy 
 and shrewd men have obtained control 
 of the vineyards of California, and by 
 untiring offorts have persuaded the State 
 
 1 Estimates of W. F. Switzler, Chief of the! United 
 States Bureau of Statistics under President Cleveland. 
 (See p. 129.) 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 374 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 "to enact laws specially fostering the wine 
 interest and giving those connected with 
 it an importance not enjoyed by any 
 other agricultural or commercial class, 
 to create an official " Viticultural Com- 
 mission," to guarantee the purity of 
 California wines and to industriously 
 seek purchasers for them throughout the 
 country. Thus the cheap and crude 
 stuff produced in California, which 
 could not win its way on its merits, has 
 been rapidly pushed to the front by the 
 same means that have enabled the brew- 
 ers and distillers to strengthen their hold 
 upon the public — by organization and 
 systematic management. 
 
 The English Brewery Syndicates. — Of 
 equal importance with the tendency 
 toward federation is that looking to 
 proximate monopolization of the liquor- 
 manufacturing interests. In the brew- 
 ing "trade" this latter tendency has 
 had striking development. Extensive 
 purchases of American breweries have 
 teen made by English syndicates, whose 
 public operations were begun in 1888. 
 The profits of brewing properties in the 
 United States have always been large, 
 and the reports made by agents of British 
 capitalists soon created an active demand 
 for them on the London market. Several 
 great companies were organized, 1 and 
 the result is the practical consolidation 
 for corporate purposes, by the manipu- 
 lation of a few Englishmen and with- 
 in a few months' time, of 82 brew- 
 ing and malting establishments, valued 
 at more than $81,000,000,' and pro- 
 ducing in the aggregate about one-sixth 
 of all the malt liquor manufactured in 
 this country. The following details of 
 English syndicate purchases are com- 
 piled from a table printed in the 
 Brewers' Journal (New York) for Dec. 
 1, 1890: 
 
 Number of breweries and malting houses 
 bought by the English syndicates to that date, 82. 
 
 The sales of these establishments for the year 
 ending May 1, 1890, aggregated 4,461,177 bar- 
 rels. These 82 concerns had been reorgan- 
 
 1 The principal English syndicates interested are the 
 City of London Contract Corporation, the Executors' 
 Trustees' Securities Company and the London Debenture 
 Corporation. (Stated on the authority of A. E. J. Tovey, 
 editor of the Brewers' Journal.) 
 
 2 It is undoubted, however, that the breweries, as floated 
 on the London market, have been very much over-capital- 
 ized, the object being, as in all such instances, to enrich 
 the negotiators or stock-jobbers without regard to the 
 subsequent rates of dividends to investors. It is of course 
 impossible to estimate the extent of the over-capitaliza- 
 tion. 
 
 ized into 23 new companies. Thus 23 com- 
 panies were made to transact the business for- 
 merly done by 82 breweries. In the city of 
 St. Louis alone, 19 breweries were consolidated 
 into one. 
 
 Cities in which purchases have been made by 
 the English syndicates : Baltimore, 4 (con- 
 solidated into two) ; Rochester, 3 (consolidated 
 into one) ; Philadelphia, 1 ; Chicago, 7 (con- 
 solidated into two) ; Cincinnati, 1, and Au- 
 rora (Ind.), 1 (consolidated into one); Denver, 
 2 (consolidated into one) ; Detroit, 5 (consoli- 
 dated into two) ; New York, 4, Newark, 5 and 
 Albany, 1 (consolidated into three) ; Peoria, 4, 
 Joliet, land Wilmington (111.), 1 (consolidated 
 into one) ; Indianapolis, 3 (consolidated into 
 one) ; Boston, 4, Lawrence (Mass.), 1 and 
 Portsmouth (N. H.), 1 (consolidated into two); 
 St. Louis, 19 (consolidated into one) ; San 
 Francisco, 7, San Jose, 1, Oakland (Cal.), 1 
 and West Berkeley (Cal.), 1 (consolidated into 
 one) ; Springfield (O.), 2 (consolidated into 
 one) ; Washington, 1. 
 
 The stated values of the shares and bonds of 
 the 82 enumerated establishments is £16,663,000 
 ($81,148,810, reckoning a pound sterling at 
 $4.87). 3 
 
 Of the 23 brewery companies (as reorganized) 
 every one represents a stated investment of more 
 than $500,000 and only six are capitalized at 
 less than $1,000,000; while eight are rated at 
 about $4,000,000 and one has a value of nearly 
 $14,000,000. 
 
 Of the brewery companies for which the last 
 annual dividends are given, one paid as high as 
 16 per cent., four paid 15 per cent, and only 
 one paid less than 10 per cent. 
 
 In these English syndicate transactions 
 a majority of the brewery stock (in 
 nearly all instances two-thirds) was sub- 
 scribed by the foreign capitalists, who 
 thus obtained a controlling interest in 
 each case. A minority of the stock (as a 
 rule, not in excess of one-third) was 
 taken by the former American owners, 
 who were also bound by the terms of 
 the contracts to operate the breweries 
 for at least three years." Only the 
 choicest properties, from the investor's 
 point of view, have been sought by 
 British capitalists, and naturally the 
 combinations effected are formidable in 
 all respects. It is noticeable, however, \ 
 that the greatest breweries of the country, 
 like the Anheuser-Busch of St. Louis, 
 the Pabst of Milwaukee and George 
 Ehret's of New York, have not suc- 
 cumbed to the syndicates ; the leading 
 breweries, with few exceptions, are still 
 conducted by independent companies. 
 
 s See p. 380. 
 
 « Stated on the authority of A. E. J. Tovey editor of 
 the Brewers' Journal. 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 375 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 The syndicates have acquired many es- 
 tablishments of the second, third and 
 fourth ranks, and by consolidating them 
 have created companies that rival the old- 
 est and strongest ones formerly existing. 
 The dominating influence previously 
 enjoyed in the markets of the country 
 by a few breweries is therefore threat- 
 ened by the sudden appearance of new 
 •competitors, and a more thorough con- 
 centration is logically indicated. Yet 
 the monopoly movement has by no 
 means brought the brewing interest in 
 general under " trust " dictation ; and it 
 cannot even be said that a majority of 
 the beer product is controlled by a hand- 
 ful of autocratic individuals. The half- 
 dozen English syndicates, as already 
 .shown, produce, in the aggregate, about 
 4,500,000 barrels annually; the Anheu- 
 .ser-Busch Brewing Association of St. 
 Louis sold 626,692 barrels in the fiscal 
 year 1889-90; the Pabst Brewing Com- 
 pany of Milwaukee sold 608,231 barrels; 
 the Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company 
 ■of Milwaukee, 418,834 barrels, and 
 George Ehret of New York, 394,627 bar- 
 rels. These are the largest producers, and 
 their combined output is about 6,500,- 
 000 barrels, leaving more than 21,000,- 
 000 barrels manufactured by some 2,000 
 smaller concerns. On the other hand, the 
 significance of recent monopolization un- 
 dertakings is not to be discredited. They 
 have not only created powerful corpora- 
 tions but have stimulated speculation 
 .and competition on a great scale through- 
 out the "trade," and demonstrated to 
 all individual brewers the commercial 
 advantage of intelligent combination. 
 
 Distillers' Combinations. — Although 
 there has been no similar absorption of 
 •distilleries by English or other syndi- 
 cates, the business of distilling is practi- 
 cally conducted by " pools " and " trusts " 
 clothed with arbitrary power. Several 
 distinctions must be held in view in 
 .speaking of the trade management of 
 this branch of liquor manufacture. In 
 the United States distilleries are of three 
 classes — those using grain, those using 
 molasses and those using fruit. In the 
 year ended June 30, 1889, there were 
 1,440 grain distilleries (of which 1,267 
 were operated), producing 87,887,456 gal- 
 lons of spirits ; 10 molasses distilleries (all 
 of which were operated), producing 1,471,- 
 054 gallons and 3,126 fruit distilleries (of 
 
 which 3,072 were operated), producing 
 1,775,040 gallons. 1 Thus nearly the entire 
 product of spirituous liquors came from 
 the grain distilleries. This is accounted 
 for by the comparative cheapness and 
 greater availability of grain. Fruit, 
 which is perishable, is very expensive or 
 wholly unobtainable, except during a few 
 months of the year; and the fruit dis- 
 tilleries are operated solely for supplying 
 a limited demand for apple, peach and 
 grape brandy ; therefore while the num- 
 ber of these establishments is large 
 their aggregate output is small. Molasses 
 as a distiller's material yields nothing 
 but rum, and as the demand for this 
 article is not extensive the molasses 
 stills are relatively unimportant. From 
 other points of view, also, the fruit and 
 molasses concerns are to be examined 
 apart from the grain. The fruit dis- 
 tillers are practically exempt from Gov- 
 ernment supervision and the proprietors 
 are not kept within narrow bounds by 
 elaborate revenue law restrictions; the 
 easy conditions under which they are 
 permitted to run encourage production 
 in a small way and are responsible for 
 the great number of petty stills; as a 
 natural sequence, fruit distillation is 
 conducted indiscriminately and no ef- 
 forts are made to regulate it by trade 
 concentration. 3 The molasses distilleries, 
 with but two exceptions, are located in 
 
 1 It must be borne in mind, in looking at the figures 
 under the head of fruit distillation, that the liberty allowed 
 to distillers of this class by the Federal laws invites and is 
 naturally attended by frauds on the revenue. Since it is 
 not required that the processes of fruit distillation shall 
 be under the eye of a Government officer, the fruit dis- 
 tiller is able, if so disposed, to understate the amount of 
 his product and thus put on the market a great deal of 
 illicit spirits of which no record appears in the Internal 
 Revenue returns. Indeed, it has been stated and sworn 
 to by the man probably best qualified to speak on the sub- 
 ject, that the fruit distillers systematically pursue the 
 practices hinted at. W. H. Thomas of Louisville, Ky., 
 in testifying before a Congressional Committee in 1888, 
 said: " I handle and sell and am the agent for more apple 
 and peach brandy distillers than any SO men in the coun- 
 try, and am pretty well posted on the subject. The rea- 
 son they (the fruit distillers) do not want the bonded period 
 on apple and peach brandy is that the distiller very sel- 
 dom, if ever, cares for it. When he manufactures his 
 brandy it is worth as much money when it is two months 
 old as when it is two or three years old. . . . He has no 
 storekeeper to watch him. He has got the advantage, 
 which he takes to his own interest, and he pays the tax 
 mi only about one-third of what he makes.' 1 '' (Report of 
 the "Whiskey" Investigating Committee of the 50th 
 Congress [1st session] , p. 39.) Apparently, therefore, the 
 volume of fruit spirits produced in 1889 was three times 
 as great as the figures above indicate. 
 
 2 More than one-half the fruit spirits produced is dis- 
 tilled in the State of California. The brandy business, 
 like the wine business, is under the general direction and 
 fostering care of the Viticultural Commission in that 
 State. The Eastern fruit distillers, at least in particular 
 Siates, co-operate more or less harmoniously. But appar- 
 ently no formal combinations of general scope have been 
 effected. 
 
Liquor Traffic.] 
 
 376 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 the State of Massachusetts; and since 
 there are only 10 of these distilleries in 
 the country, their common interests are 
 easily adjusted when questions of trade 
 policy arise. Thus the fruit and molas- 
 ses distilleries stand by themselves ; and 
 the present inquiry applies essentially 
 to the grain establishments manufactur- 
 ing whiskey, alcohol and other articles 
 for which there is widespread demand, 
 and producing more than 96 per cent, of 
 all the ardent spirits. 
 
 Here again an understanding of im- 
 portant distinctions is necessary. Grain 
 distillation on a large scale is almost 
 entirely confined to the Northern States 
 and four or five other States lying on the 
 border between North and South. Omit- 
 ting Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Vir- 
 ginia and West Virginia, less than 3 per 
 cent, of the 87,887,456 gallons of tax- 
 paid grain spirits produced in the fiscal 
 year 1888-9 was manufactured in the 
 South; and nearly four-fifths of this 3 
 per cent, was distilled in Tennessee and 
 North Carolina. This is explained, no 
 doubt, by the fact that the grain used in 
 distillation is nearly all raised in the 
 North, and there are few important grain 
 markets in the South. It is true that 
 there is a considerable number of small 
 grain stills in that section, and probably 
 a larger number of illicit or "moon- 
 shine" distilleries; but leaving out the 
 States named, grain distillation is carried 
 on to so limited an extent in the South 
 that the persons engaged in it are 
 hardly taken into account by the 
 "trade" at large, and cut no figure in 
 the great combinations that have been 
 set up. 
 
 A very sharp line of trade division 
 separates the representative Northern 
 and Southern distilling interests. In the 
 North, with the exception of some so- 
 called " fine whiskey " made in Pennsyl- 
 vania and possibly a little manufactured 
 in other States, the entire product is raw 
 alcohol, condensed spirits, etc., which is 
 marketed as soon as produced and used 
 altogether for compounding, adulterat- 
 ing, blending, fortifying and in other 
 ways manipulating beverage spirits and 
 wines, and for mechanical and similar 
 purposes. On the other hand, in the 
 representative distilling States of the 
 South, Kentucky and Maryland — for 
 Missouri, from the distillers' point of 
 
 view, is counted as a part of the North, 
 • — most of the product is bourbon or rye 
 whiskey, which is intended for sale as a 
 high-priced and choice beverage and is 
 generally retained in the bonded ware- 
 houses for the full period of three years,, 
 in order to give it the ripeness of age, 
 before it is offered for consumption. 
 The grain spirits of the North and South 
 are therefore radically different, and the 
 distinctive product of each section is 
 subject to separate control. 
 
 An investigation into the trade affairs 
 of the distillers was undertaken by a. 
 Committee of the National House of 
 ^Representatives in July and August, 
 1888. The most prominent representa- 
 tives of the Kentucky and the North- 
 ern interests testified. It was shown 
 that the producers of " fine " whiskey in 
 Kentucky had suffered severely from 
 overproduction in certain years and 
 been forced to devise means for regulat- 
 ing the output. The overproduction 
 was especially great in 1881 and 1882,. 
 about 32,000,000 gallons of " fine " whis- 
 key having been made in the State in 
 each of those years ; whereas, according 
 to the testimony of J. M. Atherton of 
 Louisville, the average yearly demand 
 for Kentucky goods was not in excess 
 of 12,000,000 to 14,000,000 gallons. 1 
 This immense quantity of "fine"' 
 whiskey glutted the market; it could 
 not be sold in the United States, yet, 
 under the Internal Kevenue daws, taxes 
 on the whole of it, at the rate of 90 cents, 
 per gallon, had to be paid within three 
 years. Belief was sought by exporta- 
 tion. Many millions of gallons were 
 shipped to foreign countries, in the hope 
 that a market could be created there, but. 
 nobody would take the American liquor. 
 In 1883 the Kentucky production of 
 "fine" whiskey was only 6,000,000 gal- 
 lons, and in 1884 7,000,000 gallons; but 
 in 1885, 1886 and 1887 the quantities 
 distilled were, respectively, 10,000,000, 
 16,000,000 and 16,000,000 gallons. Mean- 
 while the exported goods were coming 
 back. To put an end to the embarrass- 
 ment distillers representing 90 per cent, 
 of the producing capacity of Kentucky 
 held a meeting at Louisville on June 9, 
 1887, and agreed that not a gallon should 
 be manufactured by the establishments- 
 
 1 Report of the " Whiskey " Investigation hy the House- 
 Committee in 1888, p. 4. 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 represented during the year beginning 
 with July 1, 1887. This had the desired 
 effect, and in that year only 3,500,000 
 gallons of " fine " whiskey were distilled 
 in the State. 1 The remedy thus applied 
 can be made available in all future 
 emergencies. The Kentucky distillers 
 have discovered the expediency of united 
 action, and are prepared to adopt any 
 measures that will promote the general 
 prosperity and efficiency of their " trade." 
 They hold aloof entirely, however, 
 from the great organization of spirit- 
 distillers at the North, and are not 
 even associated with the producers of 
 so-called "fine" whiskey in Pennsyl- 
 vania, Maryland and other States. These 
 last-mentioned producers, in turn, ap- 
 parently have no formal connection with 
 other branches of the "trade"; and, 
 like the spirit-distillers of the South out- 
 side of Kentucky, do not seem to operate 
 under any definite limitations. But 
 these comparatively independent " fine " 
 whiskey distillers of Pennsylvania and 
 Maryland produce, in the aggregate, not 
 more than 4,500,000 gallons annually, 
 which is only about 5 per cent, of the 
 whole quantity of grain spirits manufac- 
 tured in the country. 
 
 As the Kentucky manufacturers repre- 
 sent nearly the entire "fine" whiskey 
 interest, so the Illinois and Ohio dis- 
 tillers represent the great producers of 
 alcohol and raw spirits. In the North- 
 ern States (including Missouri and Penn- 
 sylvania but not including Maryland), 
 probably from 85 to 90 per cent, of the 
 55,000,000 or 60,000,000 gallons of grain 
 spirits distilled in that section in the 
 fiscal year 1888-9 was alcohol and crude 
 liquor, not subjected to the "ageing" 
 process but thrust upon the market for 
 immediate consumption. In the Con- 
 gressional investigation already alluded 
 to it was found that these Northern 
 spirit-distillers, at a meeting held in 
 Chicago on the 10th of May, 1887, had 
 banded themselves into a " trust," known 
 as the Distillers and Cattle-Feeders' 
 Trust, which within a single year's time 
 had become powerful enough to control 
 all but 10 or 15 per cent, of all the 
 
 ' Ibid, p. 6. 
 
 This is Mr. Atherton'8 estimate ; and the figures for the 
 other years as given above are also Mr. Atherton's. But 
 the Internal Eevenue report for 1888 (p. 59) places the pro- 
 duct of bourbon and rye whiskey in Kentucky in the fiscal 
 year 1887-8 at 4,643,617 gallons. 
 
 spirits (apart from bourbon and rye 
 whiskey) produced in the country — not 
 omitting the South. The following is 
 an extract from the testimony of J. B. 
 Greenhut of Peoria, President of the 
 Trust : 2 
 
 " Q. How much alcohol is made outside of 
 your association in this country ? — A. Strictly- 
 speaking, of alcohol and spirits I presume 
 probably 10 or 15 per cent. 
 
 " Q. You embrace all except 10 or 15 per 
 cent, of alcohol as distinguished from whis- 
 key ? — A. Well, we also produce whiskey. 
 
 " Q. A little, not much ? — A. Considerable 
 comparatively. 
 
 ' ' Q. About what per cent, of your total 
 output is whiskey? — A. I should judge about 15 
 per cent. 3 
 
 " Q. Where is the remaining 10 or 15 per 
 cent, [of alcohol, spirits, etc., produced out- 
 side the Trust] made ? — A. It is scattered ; 
 Chicago, Cincinnati, and some in New York, and 
 in Indiana and Kentucky, and some here and 
 there ; and I think a little of it in Tennessee, 
 and there is a good deal also made that we 
 know nothing of that does not pay the tax — 
 moonshine whiskey." 
 
 This Trust, according to President 
 Greenhut, was organized for precisely 
 the same object that the Kentucky dis- 
 tillers had in view when they made their 
 agreement in 1887— to prevent overpro- 
 duction and bring about intelligent co- 
 operation. In the years 1878-81 there 
 sprang up an extensive demand in foreign 
 countries for American alcohol and 
 spirits ; and to take advantage of the 
 profitable export trade that seemed to 
 be opening up, many new distilleries 
 were built and the producing capacity 
 of the "trade" was increased to great 
 proportions. But in 1882 the German 
 Government passed an act granting a 
 bounty on all spirits exported by Ger- 
 man distillers ; and this measure at once 
 ruined the American export business. 
 Then the large spirit-distillers in the 
 United States recognized that combina- 
 tion was advisable in order to diminish 
 the producing capacity, prevent over- 
 production, maintain prices and insure 
 profits. The various distilling prop- 
 erties were purchased outright by the 
 
 2 Ibid, p. 72. 
 
 3 The " whiskey " produced by the Trust is, however, 
 of the vilest quality. There is no pretense of '• ageing '* 
 it, in order to eliminate the fusel oil and other impurities, 
 and nearly all of itls practically of no higher grade than 
 raw spirits. For example, more than 3,800,000 gallons 
 produced in Indiana, in the fiscal year 1888-9, is classed 
 by the Internal Revenue report for that year (p. 78) as 
 "whiskey 11 and " spirits and whiskey ; " but Indiana is 
 not known to the " trade " as one of the States in which 
 any considerable amount of honest whiskey is distilled. 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 378 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 Trust (certificates of stock in the Trust 
 being given to the former owners), and 
 the Trust obtained arbitrary control over 
 each establishment, with power to dictate 
 its production or to suspend it entirely. 
 At the time of the investigation (accord- 
 ing to President Greenhut) the capital 
 of the Trust amounted to $30,000,000.! 
 In the early part of 1890 the Trust was 
 converted into an incorporated company, 
 under the laws of Illinois, taking the 
 name of the Distilling and Cattle-Feed- 
 ing Company. This change was deemed 
 prudent as a means of protecting the 
 organization from possible anti-trust leg- 
 islation or judicial decisions. Its power 
 has steadily increased, and apparently 
 it is now able, if it chooses to do so, to 
 control the manufacture, the price and 
 the sale of every gallon of grain spirits, 
 excepting the so-called " fine " whiskey. 
 
 The federation and concentration of 
 the brewers, distillers and wine-makers 
 is the chief source not only of the traf- 
 fic's national wealth and power but of 
 nearly all the separate elements of its 
 activity and influence. From the facts 
 already stated the first part of this 
 conclusion may indeed be taken for 
 granted ; for it is needless to demonstrate 
 the proposition that for acquisitive pur- 
 poses riches can be most effectively util- 
 ized when invested co-operatively and 
 wielded by a few chosen executives, or 1 
 that for objects of aggression and defense 
 the degree of co-operation determines 
 the degree of strategic advantage. 
 And in a more detailed survey of the 
 organized strength of the liquor " trade " 
 at large the prestige of the manufac- 
 turers is the most conspicuous thing. 
 
 There are two great organizations that 
 act politically and represent the " trade" 
 throughout the country in a comprehen- 
 sive manner — the United States Brew- 
 ers' Association, which has been noticed 
 above, and the National Protective Asso- 
 ciation. The latter was founded at a 
 convention held in Chicago, Oct. 18 and 
 19, 1886, at the instance of distillers, 
 brewers and wholesale liquor-dealers. Its 
 special mission is to raise funds by assess- 
 ments upon members, which are wholly 
 used for counteracting the Prohibitory 
 movement. It is supported mainly by 
 the distillers and their agents, the whole- 
 
 i Ibid, p. 64. 
 
 sale whiskey-sellers; a distiller is at its 
 head and its headquarters are in Louis- 
 ville, one of the most important distil- 
 lers' centers. A third national organiza- 
 tion, also controlled by the distillers and 
 wholesalers, is the Wine and Spirit Trad- 
 ers' Society, with headquarters in New 
 York. The results of its political work 
 have not been frequently shown, but its 
 power was indicated by the alacrity with 
 which Congress submitted to its dicta- 
 tion when the McKinley tariff rates of 
 1890 were fixed. (See United States 
 Government and the Liquor Traffic.) 
 Even among the liquor organizations in 
 the separ&te States the manufacturers' 
 societies are frequently the strongest and 
 most energetic. There are compact or- 
 ganizations of brewers in a number of 
 States, notably New York, New Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania and Ohio. In Prohibitory 
 Amendment campaigns the brewers, 
 through State associations, have often 
 constituted the chief factor of the oppo- 
 sition. 
 
 Retailers. — The retail traffic is every- 
 where organized, but in most instances 
 for local and immediate purposes only. 
 Almost without exception the saloon- 
 keepers are ignorant and brutal individ- 
 uals, and their trade policy resembles 
 that pursued by criminal bands. They 
 are forever at war with the restrictions 
 of the law and the opinion of the moral 
 and religious public; and the value of 
 their organized efforts, from a general 
 pro-liquor point of view, lies in their 
 ability, locally, to perform all conceiv- 
 able dirty work with success — to defy 
 restrictive laws and make them ridicu- 
 lous, to sell the maximum quantity of 
 liquor, to take the leadership of the des- 
 perate, corrupt and criminal classes of 
 voters, to manipulate primaries and con- 
 ventions, to defeat good and elect bad 
 candidates for office, and to compel the 
 police and other authorities to disregard 
 their duties and their oaths. While the 
 retailers are very active and powerful in 
 local affairs their open interference in 
 larger fields is discouraged by all the 
 discriminating persons interested, be- 
 cause it is not desirable to have the 
 traffic formally represented by ruffians, 
 blackguards and illiterates. On the other 
 hand the saloon-keepers bear themselves 
 with a certain conceit and insist upon 
 instituting State associations, which in- 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 379 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 veigh against Prohibition and restric- 
 tion, scurrilously attack honest men and 
 good women, broadly hint at the success- 
 ful use of corrupt methods in Legisla- 
 tures and elections and in other ways 
 forcibly call attention to the worst as- 
 pects of the liquor cause. 
 
 But the retailers also are feeling the 
 discipline of concentration. High Li- 
 cense is reducing their numbers, elimi- 
 nating the indiscreet and irresponsible 
 rumsellers and bringing the saloon busi- 
 ness as a whole under systematic man- 
 agement. Since practical experiments 
 have shown that this policy promotes 
 the general welfare of the traffic without 
 diminishing the consumption of liquor 
 or disturbing the characteristic methods 
 and influence of the dealers, the entrench- 
 ment movement is resisted only by the 
 short-sighted. In forecasting the ulti- 
 mate development of present tendencies 
 it is hardly needful to take into account 
 the preferences of the retailers as a class. 
 Even now they are not an independent 
 element. In most of the great cities the 
 majority of them operate as agents of the 
 brewers, who select or approve the prem- 
 ises, procure the licenses, advance the 
 requisite capital in whole or in part, and 
 secure themselves by chattel mortgages. 
 W. J. Onahan, City Collector of Chicago, 
 in January, 1888, declared that not less 
 than 80 per cent, of the saloons in that 
 city were owned by or mortgaged to the 
 brewers. In New York City an exami- 
 nation of the records showed that during 
 the eight weeks from March 10 to April 
 25, 1888, mortgages or renewals of mort- 
 gages on 497 saloons were executed in 
 favor of 43 brewing firms, the aggregate 
 value of the mortgages and renewals 
 being $404,932.* The mortgaged saloons, 
 or "tied houses," represent a consider- 
 able part of the investment of each 
 brewer, and their chief business object is 
 to sell and advertise the beer of the par- 
 ticular brewery to which they are bound. 
 Frequently the signs displayed in front 
 of licensed premises announce the name 
 of the brewing establishment in large 
 characters, but do not show the name of 
 the saloon-keeper. The prevalence of 
 this system is another evidence of the 
 concentration that the whole traffic has 
 undergone. 
 
 i Political Prohibitionist for 1888, p. 159. 
 
 General Conclusions. — As effect fol- 
 lows cause, temperance success is made 
 more difficult by the conditions which 
 we have reviewed. A fight with a single 
 saloon means a fight with a combination 
 of saloons and with the brewer and whole- 
 saler whose interests are involved; a 
 general conflict with the retail traffic in 
 city, county or State, means a conflict 
 with all the local societies and also (if 
 the issues at stake are important) with 
 great national organizations which are 
 always ready for battle and can compel 
 enormous campaign contributions with 
 perfect ease. Yet it must be remembered 
 that when the existence of a long-estab- 
 lished institution is threatened a solid 
 confederation of its defenders is inevit- 
 able ; and that the sooner such a confeder- 
 ation is effected the sooner will all the con- 
 ditions of warfare be understood, the pre- 
 liminary results be reckoned at their cor- 
 rect worth and the decisive operations be 
 inaugurated. Therefore if the aggres- 
 sors aim to definitely overthrow rather 
 than to harrass the enemy, there are 
 compensations for any prejudicial con- 
 sequences inflicted by vigorous resistance : 
 the issues are drawn so that none can 
 mistake them, the co-operation of hither- 
 to indifferent forces is gained, the merits 
 of the cause receive more serious con- 
 sideration from the public at large and 
 the ground subsequently won will be more 
 secure. 
 
 RESOURCES AND NUMBERS — THE RUM 
 POWER. 
 
 Capital Invested. — The total capital 
 invested in the various departments of 
 the traffic cannot be satisfactorily 
 reckoned. According to the Census of 
 1880 2 there were invested in the manu- 
 facturing branches in that year the fol- 
 lowing amounts: Malt liquors, $91,- 
 208,224; distilled liquors, $24,247,595; 
 vinous liquors, $2,581,910. We have 
 seen that in December, 1890, 82 brew- 
 eries which had recently been consoli- 
 dated had a stated capitalization of 
 more than $81,000,000; while several of 
 the greatest breweries, with more than 
 1,850 others, were not included in this 
 
 2 Application was made by tbe editor of this Cycloptedia 
 to the Superintendent of the 11th Census for estimates of 
 the amounts of capital invested in liquor manufacture in 
 1890 ; but a communication from the Census office, re- 
 ceived just before this part of the book was given to the 
 printer, stated that the data then in hand were not suffi- 
 cient to justify the desired estimates. 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 380 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 number. We have also seen that, on the 
 testimony of the President of the Dis- 
 tillers and Cattle-Feeders' Trust, the 
 capital stock of that organization was 
 $30,000,000 in 1888, and that this sum 
 represented none of the capital invested 
 in distilleries in the South, or in the 
 " fine " whiskey business in Pennsylvania 
 or other Northern States, or in the 
 molasses distilleries, or in the more 
 than 3,000 fruit distilleries. Manifestly, 
 therefore, it must be concluded (1) that 
 the Census figures of 1880 were very 
 much too low, 1 or (2) that the capital of 
 the brewers and distillers has been vastly 
 increased since that year, or (3) that the 
 English syndicates and Whiskey Trust 
 have been over-capitalized or " stock- 
 watered " to a great extent. It is quite 
 
 1 It 16 generally recognized by statisticians that the 
 estimates in the Census for 1880 of capital invested in 
 manufacturing; interests are conservative, including paid- 
 up capital only. Besides, the Census Bureau disregards 
 capital invested in many small establishments. For ex- 
 ample, the Census estimate of $24,247,595 invested in the 
 manufacture of distilled liquors represented only 844 dis- 
 tilling establishments (" Compendium of the 10th Census, 11 
 p. 938); yet the Internal Revenue records show that 4,661 
 distilleries were operated in the fiscal year ending June 
 30, 1880. 
 
 Indeed, the unsatisfactoriness of the Census statistics 
 of capital invested is frankly admitted by Francis A. 
 Walker, Superintendent, who says (" 10th Census of the 
 United States," vol. 2, p. xxxix) : 
 
 " The statistics of capital invested in manufacture, as 
 obtained by a popular canvass, in which the statements of 
 individual proprietors are necessarily accepted, and, in- 
 deed, are by the law intended to be accepted, are al- 
 ways likely to be partial and defective, far beyond the 
 limit of error which pertains to other classes of statistics 
 derived from the manufacturing schedule. , . . When the 
 Committee of Congress was in 1869 engaged in preparing 
 a bill providing for the taking of the 9th Census, the 
 present writer [Francis A. Walker] addressed to that 
 Committee a recommendation that the inquiry regarding 
 the amount of capital invested be omitted fr o m the manu- 
 facturing schedule; and ... in commenting . . . used 
 the following language (see volume on 'Industry and 
 Wealth, 1 9th Census, pp. 381-2): 'The Census returns of 
 capital invested in manufactures are entirely untrust- 
 worthy and delusive. The inquiry is one of which it is 
 not too much to say that it ought never to be embraced in 
 the schedules of the Census, not merely for the reason 
 that the results are and must remain wholly worthless, 
 . . . but also because the inquiry in respect to capital 
 creates more prejudice and arouses more opposition . . . 
 than all the other inquiries. . . Manufacturers resent 
 [it] as needlessly obstrusive, . . . and the majority of 
 them could not answer to their own satisfaction even if 
 disposed. No man in business knows what he is worth — 
 far less can say what portion of his estate is to be treated 
 as capital. With . . . corporations, having a determinate 
 capita] stock, the difficulty . . . becomes very much re- 
 duced; yet . . . the difference caused by returning such 
 capital stock at its nominal value on the one hand, or its 
 actual selling-price on the other, whether above or below 
 par, might easily make a difference of 50 to 75 per cent, in 
 the aggregate amount of capital stated for any branch of 
 industry. Where . . . business is carried on outside of 
 incorporated companies, the difficulty of obtaining even 
 an approximate return of the capital, . . . irrespective of 
 the reluctance of manufacturers, becomes such as to 
 render success hopeless. So numerous are the construc- 
 tions, possible and even reasonable, in respect to what 
 constitutes manufacturing capital, that anything like 
 harmony or consistency of treatment is not to be ex- 
 pected of a large body of officials pursuing their work in- 
 dependently of each other. The Superintendent is free 
 to confess that he would be puzzled to furnish a definition 
 (fit for practical use by enumerators) of manufacturing 
 capital, or, even in a single case, with complete access to 
 
 certain that all these conclusions are to 
 be accepted. The reasonableness of the 
 first is shown by the fact that the 82 
 syndicated breweries, capitalized at $81*,- 
 000,000 in 1890, produced only 4,461,- 
 177 barrels, 2 or something more than 
 one-third as much as the total beer out- 
 put of 1880; and it is not conceivable 
 that the brewers of the country were 
 able to manufacture nearly three times 
 as much beer with only $91,000,000 in 
 1880 as 82 brewers produced with $81,- 
 000,000 in 1890 — even making very gen- 
 erous allowances for a smaller percent- 
 age of watered stock in 1880 than in 
 1890. But it is undoubted that there 
 has been a heavy increase in invested 
 capital in the 10 years ; this is shown by 
 the doubled production of beer and the 
 development of the wine interest, 3 not 
 to speak of the capital specially attracted, 
 by the new movements that we have out- 
 lined. In the brewing business alone, 
 if the capital has increased in proportion 
 to the production, the amount now in- 
 vested should be about $180,000,000; 
 but it is unsafe to make this assumption. 
 
 the books of a manufacturing establishment conducted by 
 two or more partners and with the frankest exhibit of the 
 assets, both of the firm and of the individuals thereof, to 
 make up a statement of the capital of the concern in re- 
 spect to which he would feel any assurance. When to such 
 difficulties in the nature of the subject is added the re- 
 luctance of manufacturers to answer an inquiry of this 
 character, it may fairly be assumed in advance of any 
 enumerations that the result will be of the slightest pos- 
 sible value. 1 
 
 " A host of illustrations might be offered. . . . Here 
 are two shoe factories in the same town, each employing: 
 200 workmen. In one case the manufacturer owns the 
 building in which his operations are carried on, and re- 
 ports his capital $75,000, being the value of his stock and 
 machinery plus the value of the building ; the other re- 
 ports his capital $25,000, being the value of stock and 
 machinery only. The latter would not and could not 
 rightfully report the value of the building as a part of hie 
 capital. . . . Yet that building is devoted to manufactur- 
 ing uses, and any summary of the manufacturing capital 
 of the country which omits consideration of it is, in so 
 far, defective. ... A very large part of the manufactur- 
 ing establishments of a city like New York or Philadel- 
 phia are located in leased buildings. . . . The value of 
 utilized water-powers . . . must amount to a vast sum, 
 . . . being the property of water-power companies or of 
 the individual owners of adjaceut lands. . . . Take still 
 another large class of cases. A manufacturer has habitu-' 
 ally $50,000 worth of his paper discounted by one, two, or 
 three banks. ... He cannot return this. ... It is not 
 his manufacturing capital, for the best reason in the 
 world, viz., that it is not his property at all— it is the 
 capital of the bank6 or of his individual creditors. . . . 
 Yet many hundreds of millions of dollars of borrowed 
 capital are habitually employed in prosecuting the maml- 
 facturing enterprises of the country." 
 
 2 Brewers' 1 Journal, Dec. 1, 1890. 
 
 3 According to an article appearing in the New York 
 Sun for Oct. 26, 1890, which (it was claimed) was based on 
 information furnished by Mr. Gardner, Special Agent of 
 the Census office for the collection of statistics relating 
 to viticulture, the amount of capital now invested in vine- 
 yards and wine-cellars in the United States is in excess of 
 $155,000,000. This large estimate, taken in connection 
 with the figures above presented, is another illustration of 
 the great embarrassments encountered in such an investi- 
 gation as the present one. 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 381 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 All that can with certainty be said is 
 that the aggregate amount of liquor- 
 manufacturers' capital ($118,037,729) 
 given in the Census for 1880 was very- 
 much below the actual amount for that 
 year; and that no estimate of the 
 present amount is likely to be excessive 
 if so calculated as to avoid, on the one 
 hand, the disposition to obtain a total 
 not considerably above the Census figures, 
 and on the other the danger of un- 
 reasonably approximating a total that 
 would be in proportion to the foregoing 
 figures of English syndicate capitaliza- 
 tion. 
 
 It is even more difficult to estimate 
 the sums invested in the wholesale and 
 retail departments. The most that can 
 be done is to state the number of per- 
 sons engaged, and leave it to the reader 
 to determine the probable average in- 
 vestment. In the fiscal year 1888-9 
 there were, according to the Internal 
 Eevenue report, 6,907 wholesale and 
 171,669 retail dealers in malt and dis- 
 tilled liquors— a total of 178,576. Many 
 of these were druggists, others 'were 
 hotel-owners and others were not law- 
 fully engaged in the traffic under State 
 regulations. But taking these facts and 
 others into account it is probably a fair 
 supposition that this number represents 
 not less than 165,000 establishments de- 
 voted, practically, to the exclusive sale 
 of liquor at wholesale or retail, and based 
 on tolerably solid trade foundations. If 
 it is assumed that the average investment 
 per liquor-dealer is $2,000, the aggregate 
 capital is, therefore, $320,000,000; if 
 $4,000, $640,000,000, etc. 
 
 There is another means of indicating 
 the magnitude of the wealth invested. 
 The total annual gross receipts of the 
 retailers from the consumers have been 
 conservatively calculated at $1,000,000,- 
 000. (See Cost of the Deixk Traf- 
 fic.) It may be supposed that the in- 
 vestment necessary to produce such an 
 income is of course much smaller in the 
 retail liquor business than in most other 
 lines of trade, since the profits are far 
 larger and are won without special ef- 
 fort; but when it is remembered that the 
 hazards involved are greater, that rents 
 and insurance come higher, that license 
 fees averaging perhaps not less than 
 $250 per year must be paid by each 
 dealer, etc., it will be understood that 
 
 the volume of the capital must be enor- 
 mous, even when measured with the 
 gross receipts. Indeed, knowing the 
 amount that the traffic draws from the 
 people annually, it is unnecessary as it is 
 fruitless to strive for a precise answer to 
 the question, How much is invested ? 
 Each year the tremendous sum of a 
 thousand millions, freshly obtained from 
 the people, is handled by the liquor-deal- 
 ers, while incalculable hundreds of mil- 
 lions of accumulated resources are held 
 by them in reserve. 1 
 
 Resources of the Liquor Organizations. 
 — Upon this vast wealth the leaders of 
 the traffic have power to levy indefi- 
 nitely for political and defensive pur- 
 poses, and there are numerous evidences 
 that the power is constantly exercised. 
 The great national organizations, the 
 United States Brewers' Association and 
 the National Protective Association, are 
 able to raise large sums at short notice. 
 The brewers are so well organized in the 
 separate States that their National As- 
 sociation apparently does not address 
 itself to detail work, but stands ready to 
 perform any national or special service 
 that may be required. Thus, in 1887 it 
 paid to two lawyers the princely fee of 
 $16,000 for writing briefs in a single 
 anti-Prohibition case (see p. 92), and 
 donated $13,000 to liquor managers in 
 Amendment campaigns. Apart from 
 extra assessments it has a regular annual 
 income of more than $50,000, raised by 
 a tax of 20 cents on each 100 barrels of 
 beer manufactured, and by requiring 
 each associate member to pay annual 
 dues of $40. 2 The National Protective 
 Association is incessantly engaged in 
 anti-Prohibition agitation. Its regular 
 funds are provided by yearly assessments 
 of $25 to $1,000 on distillers and whole- 
 salers, the amount paid by each to be 
 in proportion to the business done dur- 
 
 1 There is also a very considerable amount of capital 
 invested by dealers illicitly or transiently engaged in 
 the traffic, and by persons in various pursuits— coopers, 
 hotel-proprietors, hop-growers, maltsters (see Malt), ice- 
 dealers, manufacturers of distilling and brewing appara- 
 tus, bottlers, etc., — whose prosperity is associated with 
 that of the drink-producers and sellers. This allied cap- 
 ital must be reckoned in taking a general view of the 
 traffic's resources. 
 
 2 The Brewers' Association, previously to 1890, assessed 
 its members only 10 cents per 100 barrels, and charged only 
 $20 for annual dues. These rates were doubled m 1890, 
 and this of course doubled the regular annual income. 
 (See "Report of the Thirtieth Brewers' Convention," 
 p. 45.) 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 382 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 ing the year. 1 But the money thus ob- 
 tained is only a part of its resources ; 
 additional sums are secured by system- 
 atic solicitation when campaigns are on. 
 Secrecy is one of the essential rules of 
 conduct of all the liquor organizations, 
 but the enormous amounts which they 
 expend in political and legislative 
 machinations and to defeat Prohibition 
 are indicated by much testimony besides 
 that cited above. It is known that in 
 the Amendment campaign in Pennsyl- 
 vania, in 1889, $200,000 was contributed 
 in the city of Philadelphia alone, while 
 a single wholesale liquor firm advanced 
 $38,000; and the Philadelphia Press 
 estimated that in the whole State the 
 subscriptions aggregated $1,000,000, and 
 additional amounts were raised outside 
 the State, including $100,000 from the 
 New York brewers and large donations 
 from the National Protective Associa- 
 tion. (See pp. 121-2.) By direct testi- 
 mony from the liquor campaign man- 
 agers it has been ascertained that in the 
 Ehode Island contest of 1889 $31,000 
 was paid for the single object of ma- 
 nipulating the newspapers, and $6,000 
 was given for the services of a single 
 politician (see pp. 125-6) ; and that in 
 Nebraska in 1890 $25,000 was furnished 
 by a few brewers and probably an equal 
 amount by the Executive Board of the 
 Whiskey Trust. 2 It is notorious that 
 the payments made by the liquor-sellers 
 to the campaign leaders of both the 
 leading political parties are steady and 
 heavy. In the Presidential fight of 1888 
 it was charged that the National Com- 
 mittee of one of the parties received 
 $200,000 from the Whiskey Trust, do- 
 nated because of a discrimination in 
 favor of small distillers embraced in a 
 revenue bill championed in Congress by 
 the opposing party ; and that the same 
 Committee obtained generous sums from 
 the brewers in consideration of the 
 
 1 Wholesale dealers : those doing a yearly business of less 
 than $200,000, i$25; those doing a business of $200,000 to 
 $500,000, $100; those doing a "business of $500,000 to 
 $1,000,000, $300; those doing a business of more than 
 $1,000,000, $500. Distilleries (whether running or not): 
 those with a mashing capacity of 100 bushels, $100; 200 to 
 300 bushels, $200; 300 to 400 bushels, $400; 500 to 600 
 bushels, $500; 600 to 700 bushels, $600; 700 to 800 bushels, 
 $700; 800 to 900 bushels, $800; 900 to 1,000 bushels, $900; 
 over 1,000 bushels, $1,000.— Political Prohibitionist for 
 1888, p. 25. 
 
 2 See confidential letters from George L. Miller of 
 Omaha, Neb., and J. B. Greenhut, President of the Dis- 
 tilling and Cattle-Feeding Company, in the Voice for Oct. 
 2, 9 and 16, 1890. 
 
 pledge of its Chairman to defeat Pro- 
 hibition in Pennsylvania in 1889. 
 
 It is impossible to touch this subject 
 of the means at the command of Prohi- 
 bition's organized opponents . without 
 speedily becoming convinced that they 
 are practically identical with the surplus 
 resources of the traffic. There have even 
 been cases of resistance so zealous as to 
 bankrupt the persons engaged in it. 3 
 
 Numerical Strength. — The following 
 table, compiled from the Internal Keve- 
 nue reports, shows the numbers of distil- 
 leries and breweries operated in the^ 
 United States each year since 1872 : 
 
 Fiscal Years 
 
 
 
 Ending 
 June 30. 
 
 Operated. 1 
 
 Breweries. 
 
 1872 
 
 3,132 
 
 3,421 
 
 1873 
 
 7,504 
 
 3.554 
 
 1874 
 
 3,506 
 
 2,524 
 
 1875 
 
 4,608 
 
 2,783 
 
 1876 
 
 2,918 
 
 3,293 
 
 1877 
 
 4,510 
 
 2,758 
 
 1878 
 
 5,652 
 
 2,830 
 
 1879 
 
 5,346 
 
 2,719 
 
 1880 
 
 4,661 
 
 2,741 
 
 1881 
 
 5,210 
 
 2,474 
 
 1882 
 
 5,022 
 
 2,371 
 
 1883 
 
 5,129 
 
 2,378 
 
 .1884 
 
 4,738 
 
 2,240 
 
 1885 
 
 5,172 
 
 2,230 
 
 1886 
 
 6,034 
 
 2,292 
 
 1887 
 
 4,905 
 
 2,269 
 
 1888 
 
 3,646 
 
 1,968 
 
 1889 
 
 4,349 
 
 1,964 
 
 1 To avoid confusion, the reader should bear in mind that 
 not all of these distillers are included in the tables of per- 
 sons paying United States special liquor taxes. Distillers- 
 as such do not pay special taxes; only those distillers who- 
 are also engaged in rectifying (as defined in § 3244 of c. 3 
 Of the Interna] Revenue laws for 1889) are so taxed. Thus, 
 although there were 4,349 distilleries operated in 1889, the 
 Internal Revenue returns show that only 1,243 persons paid' 
 the rectifier's special tax in that year. This distinction 
 does not apply to brewers, wholesale liquor-dealers or re- 
 tail liquor-dealers— all of whom pay special taxes. But 
 the distinction as to distillers must be remembered by all 
 who may have occasion to compare the figures given above 
 with those appearing in the original Internal Revenue tables- 
 of special tax-payers— these tables being commonly (but 
 erroneously) regarded as embracing all manufacturers of 
 and dealers in distilled and malt liquors. 
 
 In the following table are shown the= 
 numbers of distilleries operated, by States- 
 and Territories, for the three years 1872,. 
 
 1880 and 1889: 
 
 States and 
 Territories. 
 
 1872. 
 
 1880. 
 
 1889. 
 
 
 68 
 
 22 
 262 
 
 55 
 
 'l3 
 
 646 
 
 24 
 
 'id 
 
 212 
 
 1 
 
 97 
 
 '87 
 287 
 
 64 
 
 '85 
 262 
 
 '53 
 177 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 Notably the case of John Walruff , a brewer at Law- 
 rence, Kan., who spent his entire fortune In vainly fight- 
 ing the Kansas Prohibitory law. 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 383 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 States and Territories, 
 
 Idaho 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts . . 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Montana 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Hampshire 
 New Jersey 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina. 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania... 
 Rhode Island . . . 
 South Carolina. 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Virginia 
 
 ishington 
 
 West Virginia.. 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Wyoming 
 
 Totals 
 
 1872. 
 
 1880. 
 
 1889. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 98 
 
 54 
 
 38 
 
 121 
 
 79 
 
 67 
 
 18 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 237 
 
 570 
 
 584 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 12 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 28 
 
 22 
 
 62 
 
 28 
 
 26 
 
 15 
 
 1 
 
 „ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 43 
 
 3 
 
 
 91 
 
 81 
 
 79 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 "2 
 
 116 
 
 110 
 
 72 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 92 
 
 40 
 
 58 
 
 166 
 
 1,284 
 
 1,333 
 
 110 
 
 87 
 
 68 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 11 
 
 86 
 
 96 
 
 116 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 102 
 
 40 
 
 29 
 
 246 
 
 262 
 
 316 
 
 29 
 
 12 
 
 25 
 
 "5 
 
 "9 
 
 
 342 
 
 1,002 
 
 769 
 
 78 
 
 113 
 
 36 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 3,132 
 
 4,661 
 
 4,349 
 
 Below are given the numbers of brew- 
 eries, by States and Territories, for the 
 same years: 
 
 States and Territories. 1872. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arizona 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Dakota 
 
 Delaware 
 
 District of Columbia. 
 
 Florida 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Idaho 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 KansaB 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Montana 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Nevada 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New Mexico 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Rhode Mand 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah 
 
 5 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 25 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 216 
 
 169 
 
 171 
 
 46 
 
 46 
 
 16 
 
 1 
 
 72 
 
 56 
 
 189 
 
 114 
 
 2 
 
 124 
 
 36 
 
 33 
 
 41 
 
 5 
 
 479 
 
 1 
 
 288 
 
 31 
 
 443 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 11 
 
 44 
 
 16 
 
 1880. 
 
 1 
 15 
 
 223 
 
 36 
 20 
 19 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 11 
 
 130 
 96 
 
 139 
 39 
 43 
 11 
 
 37 
 141 
 132 
 
 34 
 
 34 
 
 35 
 
 6 
 
 58 
 
 3 
 
 387 
 
 3 
 
 214 
 
 33 
 
 372 
 
 7 
 
 17 
 
 2G* 
 25 6 
 
 108 
 44 
 41 
 
 4» 
 37 
 10'° 
 11 
 
 56' 2 
 24 
 
 138 
 
 49 
 46" 
 
 42" 
 
 13 
 
 '6" 
 
 40 
 1418 
 285 
 
 140 
 
 77 19 
 
 368 
 
 States and Territories. 
 
 1872. 
 
 1880. 
 
 1889. 
 
 
 4 
 13 
 14 
 17 
 292 
 
 ~3 
 
 15 
 
 12 
 
 223 
 
 9 
 
 . . 22 
 '2 
 
 33 
 '3 
 
 176 
 . , 34 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3,421 
 
 2,741 
 
 1,964 
 
 
 1 Since Oct. 2, 1876, the District of Columbia has been 
 part of the third district of Maryland. 2 See New Mexico 
 above. 3 Including Nevada. 4 Including Wyoming. 6 In- 
 cluding Rhode Island. 6 See Nebraska above. 7 See Mary- 
 land above. a See Montana above. 9 Including Indian 
 Territory. 10 Including Mississippi. u See New Hamp- 
 shire above. 12 Including Delaware, Dist. of Columbia and 
 two counties of Virginia. 13 See Louisiana above. 14 In- 
 cluding Idaho and Utah. 1B Including Dakota. le See 
 California above. J7 Including Maine and Vermont. 18 In- 
 cluding Arizona. 19 Including Alaska and Washington. 
 20 See Connecticut above. 21 See Montana above. 22 SeeNew 
 Hampshire above. 2S See Oregon above. 21 See Colorado 
 above. 
 
 The Internal Revenue reports of 
 wholesale and retail liquor-dealers are, 
 for several reasons, not conclusive. 
 Every person paying the United States 
 special tax on wholesale and retail liquor- 
 dealers, whether regularly engaged in 
 the liquor traffic or not, and whether 
 selling for a whole year or for but a sin- 
 gle month, week or day, is counted in 
 these reports. This fact should not be 
 overlooked in analyzing the figures that 
 follow. 
 
 Previously to 1878 the numbers of 
 wholesale and retail dealers were not 
 specified in the Internal Revenue rec- 
 ords. For that year and the succeed- 
 ing years the numbers, as indicated by 
 the records, were i 1 
 
 Fiscal Tears 
 
 Wholesale 
 
 Retail 
 
 Ending 
 
 Dealers. 
 
 Dealers. 
 
 June 30. 
 
 
 
 1878 
 
 5,632 
 
 165,804 
 
 1879 
 
 5,400 
 
 165,338 
 
 1880 
 
 5,855 
 
 173,400 
 
 1881 
 
 6,146 
 
 179,176 
 
 1882 
 
 6,427 
 
 176,776 
 
 1883 
 
 7,229 
 
 195,869 
 
 1884 
 
 6,996 
 
 188,288 
 
 1885 
 
 6,904 
 
 190,994 
 
 1886 
 
 7,302 
 
 198,530 
 
 1887 
 
 7,550 
 
 196,792 
 
 1888 
 
 7,185 
 
 176,748 
 
 1889 
 
 6,907 
 
 171,669 
 
 The numbers of wholesale and retail 
 dealers, by States and Territories, for the 
 
 1 In the Internal Revenue reports the different kinds of 
 dealers are classified as " Wholesale Liquor-Dealers " 
 (meaning those dealing in diBtilled liquors), u Wholesale 
 Dealers in Malt Liquors " (meaning those not dealing in 
 distilled liquors), "Retail Liquor-Dealers " and "Retail 
 Dealers in Malt Liquors." We have combined both classes 
 of wholesale and retail dealers under the respective heads, 
 so that our lists of wholesale and retail dealers include 
 all wholesalers and all retailers. 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 384 
 
 [Liquor Traffic- 
 
 fiscal years ending June 30, 1878 and 
 June 30, 1889, are given below: 
 
 States and 
 Territories. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 Arizona 1 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 California 2 
 
 Colorado 3 
 
 Connecticut 4 . . 
 
 Dakota 5 
 
 Delaware 6 .... 
 District of Columbia 7 
 
 Florida 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Idaho" 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kansas 9 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 10 
 
 Maine 11 
 
 Maryland 13 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Mississippi 13 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Montana 14 
 
 Nebraska 15 
 
 Nevada 18 
 
 New Hampshire 17 . 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New Mexico 18 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Oregon 10 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Rhode Island 20 .... 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Utah 21 
 
 Vermont 22 
 
 Virginia 
 
 Washington 23 
 
 West Virginia 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Wyoming 24 
 
 Totals 
 
 Wholesale 
 
 Retail 
 
 Dealers. 
 
 Dealers. 
 
 1878. 
 
 1889. 
 
 1878. 
 
 1889. 
 
 53 
 
 46 
 
 1,720 
 
 879 
 
 21 
 
 
 403 
 
 
 43 
 
 41 
 
 1,433 
 
 811 
 
 392 
 
 512 
 
 8,785 
 
 13,029 
 
 55 
 
 109 
 
 904 
 
 2,633 
 
 104 
 
 209 
 
 2,799 
 
 4,340 
 
 33 
 
 
 608 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 625 
 
 
 11 
 
 20 
 
 513 
 
 '352 
 
 85 
 
 75 
 
 2,300 
 
 1,610 
 
 9 
 
 
 215 
 
 
 334 
 
 443 
 
 11,123 
 
 12,278 
 
 125 
 
 167 
 
 4,837 
 
 6,214 
 
 114 
 
 85 
 
 4,350 
 
 2,981 
 
 44 
 
 38 
 
 1,082 
 
 1,350 
 
 354 
 
 220 
 
 3,963 
 
 3,308 
 
 192 
 
 176 
 
 3506 
 
 5,679 
 
 13 
 
 
 487 
 
 
 217 
 
 183 
 
 4,887 
 
 6,323 
 
 396 
 
 353 
 
 6,775 
 
 5,482 
 
 118 
 
 174 
 
 5,095 
 
 6,056 
 
 67 
 
 140 
 
 2,303 
 
 2,749 
 
 62 
 
 
 1,776 
 
 
 361 
 
 2?i 
 
 6,082 
 
 5,709 
 
 42 
 
 92 
 
 439 
 
 2,151 
 
 46 
 
 173 
 
 1,001 
 
 3,534 
 
 33 
 
 
 989 
 
 
 32 
 
 61 
 
 928 
 
 2,326 
 
 85 
 
 255 
 
 6,359 
 
 6,846 
 
 21 
 
 66 
 
 406 
 
 1,401 
 
 942 
 
 1,279 
 
 28,149 
 
 33,287 
 
 44 
 
 33 
 
 1,779 
 
 1,273 
 
 446 
 
 541 
 
 13.379 
 
 12,230 
 
 19 
 
 66 
 
 934 
 
 1,992 
 
 502 
 
 555 
 
 16,190 
 
 9,968 
 
 67 
 
 
 1,410 
 
 
 38 
 
 17 
 
 1,337 
 
 826 
 
 135 
 
 69 
 
 3,104 
 
 1,659 
 
 164 
 
 217 
 
 3,704 
 
 3,318 
 
 19 
 
 
 361 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 444 
 
 
 71 
 
 57 
 
 2,384 
 
 2,311 
 
 11 
 
 
 292 
 
 
 19 
 
 8 
 
 731 
 
 619 
 
 97 
 
 167 
 
 4,964 
 
 6,355 
 
 7 
 
 
 269 
 
 
 5,632 
 
 6,907 
 
 165,804 
 
 171,669 
 
 1 See New Mexico above. 2 Including Nevada from Oct. 
 1, 1883 to July 31, 1884, and since July 1, 1887. s Including 
 Wyoming since Aug. 15, 1883. 4 Including Rhode Island 
 since July 1, 1887. ° See Nebraska above. fl Including 9 
 counties of Maryland from Oct. 2, 1876 to June 30. 1887, 
 two counties of Virgini»from June 19, 1877 to June 30,1887, 
 and part of the collection district of Maryland since July 
 1, 1887. 7 See Maryland above. 8 See Montana above. 
 6 Including Indian Territory since Aug. 8, 1881. 10 Includ- 
 ing Mississippi since July 1, 1887. " See New Hampshire 
 above. ,3 Including District of Columbia from Oct. 2, 1876 
 to June 30, 1887, and States of Maryland and Delaware and 
 District of Columbia since July 1, 1887. 13 See Louisiana 
 above. 14 Including Idaho since Aug. 20. 1883, and Utah 
 from Aug. 20. 1883 to July 31, 1884, and since Julv 1, 1887. 
 1 5 Including Dakota since Aug. 20, 1883. ' 6 Including Utah 
 from Aug. 1, 1884 to June 30, 1887; see California above. 
 17 Including Maine and Vermont since July 1, 1887. 18 In- 
 cluding Arizona since Sept. 5, 1&S3. I9 Including Alaska 
 since Dec. 27, 1872, and Washington Territory since Sept. 
 1, 1883. 20 See Connecticut above. 21 See Montana and 
 Nevada above. 22 See New Hampshire above. 23 See 
 Oregon above. 24 See Colorado above. 
 
 From these statistics it appears that 
 the number of establishments manufac- 
 turing or selling liquors (exclusive of 
 those in which only vinous liquors were 
 made or vended) increased from 179,918 
 
 in 1878 to 214,158 in 1886, and that since 
 1886 there was an annual decrease, the 
 number having fallen to 184,889 \ in 1889 
 — a decrease of nearly 30,000 in three 
 years. We have already pointed out that 
 many who pay United States special taxes 
 as wholesale and retail liquor-dealers are 
 not to be regarded as rumsellers proper. 
 Making allowance for this fact it is 
 probable that the whole number of places 
 in which the wholesaling or retailing of 
 liquors is carried on constantly and as the 
 sole or chief feature of the business, may 
 now fairly be estimated at about 165,000; 
 and counting distillers and brewers, the 
 number of manufacturing, wholesale and 
 retail liquor establishments (distilled and 
 malt) is therefore something in excess of 
 170,000. On the basis of this total the 
 number of persons engaged as pro- 
 prietors, active or silent (including those 
 handling vinous liquors only), cannot 
 reasonably be reckoned at less than 
 250,000. 
 
 These 250,000 proprietors constitute 
 the chief division of the " rum power." 
 But there are other divisions even more 
 formidable numerically. The first is made 
 up of employes of the traffic. According to 
 the Census returns, there were employed 
 in the three manufacturing branches 
 33,234 males over 16 years of age in the 
 year 1880; but since the number of 
 liquor-manufacturing establishments in- 
 cluded in the Census records for that 
 year was very much less than the actual 
 number, and since the volume of the 
 brewing business has doubled in the last 
 10 years, it is probable that not fewer 
 than 50,000 adult males (exclusive of 
 proprietors) are now employed in liquor 
 production. There are no reliable sta- 
 tistics of persons employed in the whole- 
 sale and retail departments ; but it is un- 
 doubtedly fair to assign at least three 
 employes to each two wholesale and re- 
 tail concerns, making 247,500 employes 
 if the aggregate number of wholesale and 
 retail establishments is placed at the low 
 figure of 165,000. Besides proprietors 
 and employes, there is a large element 
 made up of saloon dependents, relatives 
 of manufacturers and dealers, individuals 
 engaged in allied trades, etc., whose per- 
 sonal interests are scarcely less actively 
 
 1 These totals are at variance with the footings of the 
 tables of United States special tax-payers. For ex- 
 planations, see the note to the table, p. 382, col. 2. 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 385 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 «nlisted in defense of the traffic than 
 those of the classes already mentioned. 
 In view of the peculiarly strong influence 
 ■exerted by the men engaged in the liquor 
 business, few will dispute the conclusion 
 that for each one of the 170,000 liquor 
 establishments there are at least rive 
 men (besides proprietors and employes) 
 whose opinions and votes, so far as the 
 temperance issue is concerned, are abso- 
 lutely at the disposal of the liquor-traffick- 
 ers— making 850,000 in all. The follow- 
 ing recapitulation shows the approximate 
 total numerical strength of the "rum 
 power " if the foregoing calculations are 
 worthy of acceptance : 
 
 Proprietors 250,000 
 
 Employes (manufacturing) 50,000 
 
 Employes (wholesale and retail) 247,500 
 
 Dependents of the traffic, etc 850,000 
 
 Total 1,397,500 
 
 Our estimates represent males and 
 voters only. The entire popular vote of 
 the United States in 1888 (including 
 Territories) was about 11,700,000 ; so 
 that the rum power constitutes nearly 
 12 per cent, of the entire electorate. This 
 is a most formidable balance of power, 
 and its importance is increased when its 
 ■distribution is analyzed. The pivotal 
 State of the Union, politically, is New 
 York, which contains about 35,000 special 
 liquor tax-payers ; and if no more than 
 five votes (including proprietors and 
 employes) are represented by each special 
 tax payment, the voting strength of the 
 liquor traffic in this one State is 175,000, 
 •or more than 13 per cent., without 
 taking into account the numerous voters 
 whose hostility to Prohibition arises from 
 other causes than personal identification 
 or direct association with the traffic. 
 
 ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL RELATIONS. 
 
 The value to mankind of the vast 
 wealth and strength of this traffic, and 
 the influence exercised upon the varied 
 interests of civilization, are to be esti- 
 mated, as in the case of any industry or 
 craft, by a dispassionate inspection of 
 its fruits. 
 
 The claim is no longer made by intel- 
 ligent persons that alcohol in any of its 
 beverage forms is indispensable to man 
 in the broad sense that food, clothing, 
 habitation, etc., are indispensable. Even 
 if it is conceded (and the temperance 
 advocates are by no means willing to 
 make such a concession) that alcohol is 
 
 to a certain limited extent indispensa- 
 ble for medicinal and similar restricted 
 purposes, it is manifest that there is no 
 actual necessity for a large production of 
 beverage liquors or for a liquor traffic of 
 any considerable importance. The most 
 favorable view of the drink business in 
 its present state of development is, there- 
 fore, that it exists to supply a iuxury. 
 But when it is remembered that the 
 characteristic results of this business are 
 vice, crime, impoverishment, insanity, 
 and misery in all its forms, its place in 
 the economic scale is clearly not with 
 those luxury-supplying industries that 
 minister peculiarly to refinement and 
 elegance, but with those abhorrent 
 trades (like prostitution and gambling) 
 that prey upon the innocence, weakness 
 and folly of humanity. If exception- 
 ally, or even in many instances, the use 
 of liquor is not conspicuously injurious, 
 or indeed may be thought promotive of 
 pleasure and sociability, this fact does 
 not call for a modification of the severity 
 with which the general liquor traffic is 
 viewed by moralists. The most promi- 
 nent of living American apologists for 
 conservative or " expedient " liquor 
 legislation has frankly declared that the 
 saloon is " evil, and only evil, and that 
 continually ; " 1 and it is in vain to seek 
 for a serious contradiction of this opin- 
 ion from any disinterested person whose 
 views deserve citation. 
 
 Necessarily the traffic pays a price for 
 its existence; and it remains to be de- 
 termined whether this price so far com- 
 pensates the community for the evils 
 wrought as to neutralize the objections 
 that are urged against the business. 
 Conclusions may be reached, first, by 
 logically reviewing the general questions 
 involved from the standpoint of morals 
 and public policy; and second, by reck- 
 oning, from available statistics, the com- 
 parative money value of the contribu- 
 tions made by the traffic to the commu- 
 nity. The outlines of the logical argu- 
 ment are presented in various articles in 
 this work, especially in Ethics of Li- 
 cense, License, Peesonal Liberty, and 
 Logic, Liquor. The chief statistical 
 facts are examined in the articles on 
 Cost op the Drink Traffic and 
 Farmers; but there is one factor not 
 
 1 Dr. Howard Crosby, in a speech in Brooklyn, N. T., 
 Feb. 3, 1887. (See the Voice. Feb. 10, 1887.) 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 386 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 yet considered — the recompense that the 
 traffic gives to labor and to various in- 
 dustries (apart from agriculture) for 
 services performed, material furnished, 
 etc. 
 
 Labor Employed by the Liquor Traf- 
 fic. — An immoral and damaging trade 
 cannot be economically defended on the 
 ground that it employs labor and to 
 some extent enlarges the market for 
 useful products. The questions inevita- 
 bly arise, Does not such a trade, by rea- 
 son of its demoralizing and damaging 
 effects, prevent to a greater extent than 
 it promotes the employment of labor ? 
 Does it not injure or ruin more men 
 than it benefits ? Does it not restrict 
 more than it enlarges the market for 
 necessaries and comforts ? Does it not 
 interfere with more than it stimulates 
 consumption ? Even if the wages paid 
 to labor and the volume of the business 
 transacted with other industries are up 
 to or above the average the general 
 judgment upon such a trade must be 
 made up without regard to any favorable 
 reputation that it may have from this 
 point of view. 
 
 But the liquor traffic notoriously gives 
 to labor smaller rewards, on the basis of 
 the capital invested, than are bestowed in 
 other lines fit trade. Taking its three man- 
 ufacturing branches (malt, distilled and 
 vinous), we have seen that in the 3,152 
 establishments represented in the Census 
 of 1880, the capital invested (according 
 to the Census estimates); amounted to 
 8118,037,729, while the average number 
 of hands employed (adult males, females 
 and minors) was 33,689 and the wages 
 paid for the year 1880 aggregated $15,- 
 078,579. Although the Census data 
 under this head were not complete, the 
 returns for the liquor establishments 
 represented were probably as nearly accu- 
 rate (so far as the ratios existing between 
 capital invested, laborers employed 
 and wages paid are concerned) as those 
 given in the Census for most other man- 
 ufacturing industries. In so broad an 
 inquiry as that conducted by the Cen- 
 sus Bureau, it may be assumed that the 
 proportion of errors in the estimates for 
 one department of manufacture is no 
 greater than in those for other separate 
 departments. On the basis of the above 
 figures, an investment of $3,504 of capi- 
 tal in liquor manufacture employs one 
 
 man one year and pays him in wages- 
 $448. Taking the statistics for several 
 other leading manufacturing industries- 
 appearing in the Census for 1880, the 
 following comparisons are obtained i 1 
 
 Industry. 
 
 Capital. 
 
 
 
 Liquors " 
 
 Boots and Shoes .... 
 
 Woolen Goods 
 
 Sewing Machines 
 
 and Attachments . 
 Printing and Pub- 
 Agricultural Imple- 
 
 - ©3,504 Invested. ■ 
 
 1 
 
 8.6 
 
 4.6 
 
 9.7 
 
 8.4 
 
 3.4 
 
 3. 
 
 3.2 
 
 2.7 
 
 3.3 
 3.2 
 
 2.2 
 
 $448 
 3,287 
 1,847 
 4,408 
 1,702 
 1,135 
 728 
 942 
 
 1,299 
 
 1,699 
 977 
 
 867 
 
 1 Including Furniture (Chairs). 2 Including Carpets (Rag)- 
 and Carpets (Wood). 
 
 The $118,037,729 of capital which, in- 
 vested in liquor manufacture, gave em- 
 ployment to 33,689 persons and paid 
 them $15,078,579 in wages, would, if in- 
 vested in the other 11 industries speci- 
 fied above, have employed 134,833 per- 
 sons and paid them in wages $45,499,- 
 595 — reckoning on the basis of the Cen- 
 sus returns for 1880. 
 
 There are no statistics from which to 
 compare-the number of laborers employed 
 and the wages paid in the wholesale and 
 retail liquor traffic and in other branches 
 of wholesale and retail trade. But it is 
 not probable that the share given to 
 labor by the liquor-dealers is proportion- 
 ately more generous than that given by 
 the liquor-manufacturers. It is notori- 
 ous that very little labor is required in 
 the ordinary liquor-shop. And there 
 are but few who will claim that the 
 demand for labor which is to be credited 
 to the rumsellers is a wholesome demand 
 or beneficial in any sense to the general 
 interests of labor. The name of bar- 
 tender is odious to all reputable work- 
 ingmen; and the most extensive secret 
 organization of wage-workers ever found- 
 ed in the United States has refused to 
 recognize bartenders as worthy of fel- 
 lowship with its members. 
 
 Aside from and above all other reasons, 
 the liquor traffic is economically con- 
 
 ' For these computations the editor is indebted to John 
 Lloyd Thomas. The figures hitherto presented by Mr. 
 Thomas have been specially revised and corrected for- 
 tius wort. 
 
Liquor Traffic] 
 
 387 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 demned because of its hurtfulness to the 
 community on grounds of public policy. 
 It is regarded by all as the chief pro- 
 moter of corruption, crime and rascality 
 in politics, and of wicked and discredit- 
 able government. Any trade whose ex- 
 istence is in jeopardy will naturally ac- 
 quire political prominence. If the trade 
 in question is a thoroughly bad one from 
 the moral point of view, the political in- 
 fluence that it exerts is certain to be evil 
 in a corresponding degree. To survey 
 the political relations of the drink traffic 
 is therefore to present in wearisome de- 
 tail familiar instances of odious political 
 conditions. This subject may at pres- 
 ent be dismissed with the general state- 
 ment here made ; it is more particularly 
 considered in the article on Political 
 Evils. 
 
 character of liquor-sellers — policy 
 and methods. 
 
 Nothing more distinguishes the drink 
 traffic from all legitimate trades than the 
 ignorance, callousness and viciousness of 
 the individuals engaged in it. Utter in- 
 difference to religion, morality, intelli- 
 gence and the rights of persons is one of 
 the chief attributes of the typical liquor- 
 dealer. Indeed, it is all but impossible 
 for any scrupulous man to enter this 
 traffic. Many of the religious denomina- 
 tions absolutely refuse church member- 
 ship to all its votaries. Not a few rum- 
 sellers profess connection with the Eoman 
 Catholic Church ; but this church, 
 through its highest representative body 
 in America, has in the most solemn lan- 
 guage counseled its liquor-selling mem- 
 bers to cease their disgraceful work and 
 find more decent means of livelihood. 
 There are few words that are more re- 
 proachful in the estimation of cultivated 
 people in the United States than " liquor- 
 dealer." The number of native Ameri- 
 cans, or persons with names of English 
 derivation, identified with the " trade," 
 is comparatively very small. 
 
 The policy of the traffic is wholly sel- 
 fish, uniformly obstructive and recklessly 
 defiant. Apparently the experience of 
 50 years of Prohibition and severe restric- 
 tion has not induced the liquor-sellers to 
 participate in practical efforts for solving 
 the drink problem. No co-operation has 
 ever been volunteered or is to be looked 
 for from them. While .vast numbers 
 
 of thoughtful persons are proposing and 
 seeking to institute various remedies, the 
 men who are pecuniarily most interested 
 and who have it in their power to at least' 
 give evidences of a disposition to correct 
 abuses are flagrantly exhibiting their 
 contempt for law and for reform senti- 
 ment. The total inability of the traffic 
 to demonstrate its right to exist, by se- 
 riously meeting the questions at stake, 
 caused the most important liquor organ 
 of the country to print these pregnant 
 words :* 
 
 "It is all very well for the wine and spirit 
 trade to quiet its apprehensions by reverting to 
 the majorities against Prohibition in the Michi- 
 gan, Texas, Tennessee, Oregon and West Vir- 
 ginia elections, hut the fact is still apparent that 
 the sentiment against our business is constantly 
 growing in this country and gaining friends 
 among the most substantial element in our popu- 
 lation. The question is a grave one, and the 
 sooner we appreciate fully the hold it is securing 
 on the public mind and conscience the better. It 
 is to most of its followers what the slavery 
 question was to its adherents — a great moral 
 question. The good that alcohol does is little 
 referred to ; the harmful effects following its 
 abuse are seen by all the world. To check this 
 abuse is the aim of the conservative classes, and 
 hoping to find a remedy in Prohibition they are 
 rapidly falling into its ranks. 
 
 "We are all familiar with society's com- 
 plaints against the liquor traffic. We realize that 
 there is good ground for many of these com- 
 plaints. We deplore the facts, but stand help- 
 less and without a word of advice to those 
 who would correct them. Herein lies our 
 weakness. We are without a policy. We 
 see young men becoming drunkards, but we 
 offer no remedy. We see old men turn to com- 
 mon sots, but we offer no remedy. We see the 
 scum of society all flocking into the retail liquor 
 business, but we offer no remedy. We see these 
 men gain control of city governments, but we 
 offer no remedy. We see the retail liquor busi- 
 ness dragged down to the level of the bawdy- 
 house and little hells are operated in public 
 places under liquor licenses, but we offer no 
 remedy. The great mass of our fellow-citizens 
 are not opposed to the manufacture or sale of 
 wine, beer or whiskey, but they are opposed to 
 the abuses referred to above, and demand their 
 correction. They are right, and we should add 
 our protests to theirs. We should define an 
 aggressive reform policy that will attract them 
 to our standard. We should demand the pas- 
 sage of restrictive laws that will prevent any but 
 reputable men retailing wines and spirits." 
 
 Occasionally fulsome utterances, prom- 
 ising or counseling reformation in the 
 traffic, come from leading representatives 
 of it or from influential organizations. 
 For example, the National Protective 
 
 1 Bonfort's Wine and Spirit Circular (New York), 
 Feb. 10, 1889. 
 
Liquor Traffic.] 
 
 388 
 
 [Liquor Traffic. 
 
 Association, at its first Convention 
 .(Chicago, Oct. 19, 1886), declared :• 
 
 "Resolved, That we recognize to the ful- 
 lest extent the duties and responsibilities resting 
 upon us as citizens, and pledge ourselves to 
 the faithful performance of every duty. 
 
 "Resolved, That we most earnestly favor 
 temperance and most strongly condemn in- 
 temperance, and appeal to every member of the 
 trade to make proof of this declaration by his 
 daily life and the daily conduct of his business. 
 
 " Resolved, That it is our duty, as it is of 
 all good citizens, to obey the laws of our 
 country, and we condemn every violation of 
 law, regardless of. the damage inflicted in its 
 observance upon any individual or upon our 
 general business interests. 
 
 "Resolved, That we are in favor of both 
 public and private morality and good order and 
 popular education, and that we feel the duty 
 resting on us as individuals and as a trade to 
 work with the great body of our people in the 
 advancement of these interests. 
 
 " We recognize and admit the evils that 
 result from the abuse of all kinds of liquors, 
 and condemn in the strongest terms every place, 
 by whatever name known, that encourages or 
 permits this abuse. We likewise condemn the 
 indiscriminate issue of licenses and the estab- 
 lishment or toleration of places open to disrep- 
 utable characters who expose their depravity 
 under the guise of intoxication. Our interests, 
 as well as our duty as citizens, demand that we 
 enter a solemn protest against all such places, 
 and pledge ourselves as a trade to co-operate 
 with the officers of the law and with all good 
 citizens to prevent the issue of licenses to all 
 disreputable places." 
 
 But these sounding pledges and rec- 
 ommendations find no practical obser- 
 vance. In no locality and under no cir- 
 cumstances do the rumsellers live up to 
 the spirit of the National Protective 
 Association's platform, unless they are 
 compelled to do so by public officials 
 whom they cannot bribe or intimidate, 
 or by public sentiment that they can- 
 not override. Indeed, the only phases 
 of policy that have the cordial support 
 of the " trade " are the ones indicated in 
 the following resolutions, from the same 
 platform : 
 
 "Resolved, That we are unalterably op- 
 posed to Prohibition, general or local. . . . 
 
 " Resolved, That in our natural abhor- 
 rence of all titled rulers, and in our devotion to 
 Jiberty, we should not install the statute-book 
 as a tyrant, nor establish a tyranny in the law. 
 
 " Resolved, That we are in favor of absolute 
 non-interference in politics as an organization, 
 except in such places and at such times as united 
 action is necessary to protect ourselves and our 
 business against such legislation as seeks to destroy 
 our trade and not to remedy evils therein exist- 
 ing. 
 
 " Resolved, That we endorse the license sys- 
 
 tem and favor the enactment of laws by the 
 States imposing a reasonable license. ..." 
 
 The methods by which the "trade" 
 prosecutes its policy are in all ways re- 
 pugnant to fairness, decency and intel- 
 ligence. Only the very ignorant rum- 
 sellers are frank enough to engage in 
 open advocacy of the traffic on the merits 
 of the questions involved. The leaders 
 admit that it is not wise to defend the 
 business of making and selling liquors, 
 and that only by artful evasions, elabo- 
 rate misrepresentations and corrupt prac- ■ 
 tices can popular majorities for the 
 saloon be commanded. There was never 
 any attempt made to formally discuss 
 issues from the pro-liquor standpoint 
 until the National Protective Associa- 
 tion came into existence in 1886. This 
 organization announced that its especial 
 purpose was to meet the Prohibitionists 
 with facts and arguments, and many 
 pamphlets and tracts were prepared 
 under its auspices. But in the Prohibi- 
 tion campaigns in which these were cir- 
 culated, the name of the Association 
 responsible for them was suppressed, or 
 veiled under such fictitious names as 
 " The National Publishing Association " 
 and "The American Printing Company." 1 
 The same organization, as a means of ' 
 appealing to rural voters, published a 
 pretended agricultural journal, called 
 the Farm Herald; but similar artifices 
 were resorted to. 2 The United States 
 Brewers' Association conducts a "liter- 
 ary bureau," which employs unscrupu- 
 lous and bombastic writers : the publica- 
 tions emanating from it are invariably 
 sophistical, and nevei deal in an honest 
 way with facts and statistics. It has 
 indeed been the constant endeavor of the 
 representatives of the traffic to prevent 
 the ascertainment of truth and to avert 
 a fair consideration of all the pertinent 
 evidence produced by their opponents. 
 Their steady antagonism to the demand 
 for an impartial investigation of the 
 public aspects of the drink question by 
 a Federal Commission is a notable illus- 
 tration of their attitude. The exhaustless 
 wealth at their disposal has not been 
 used, in any instance, for gathering and 
 presenting weighty testimony, but for 
 propagating the most scandalous false- 
 hoods and deceptions and for bribing 
 
 ' i See the Voice, June 13, 1889. * Ibid, April 17,-1890. ■ 
 
Livesey, Joseph.] 
 
 389 
 
 [Livesey, Joseph. 
 
 the editors of influential newspapers. 
 With but few exceptions the special 
 " trade " organs of the traffic display no 
 editorial ability or intelligence. The 
 excepted journals, representing the 
 brewing, distilling and wholesale inter- 
 ests, are owned by wealthy men; but 
 they take no part in the serious discus- 
 sion of vital subjects. 
 
 The methods which govern all the 
 efforts put forth by the traffic in seeking 
 to control the public verdict were never 
 hinted at more authoritatively or signif- 
 icantly than by the representative of the 
 pro-liquor organization that had charge 
 of the anti-Prohibition campaign in 
 Nebraska in 1890. In a confidential let- 
 ter he wrote : " In no event can we con- 
 sent to an open association with the 
 liquor interests of the country."' x And 
 the principal manager of the saloon can- 
 vass in Pennsylvania in 1889, in confid- 
 ■ ing to an interviewer his experiences and 
 the secrets of his success, laid ' especial 
 stress upon the recommendation, " Never 
 try to defend the saloon." s 
 
 Livesey, Joseph. — Born in Wal- 
 ton, Eng., March 5, 1794; died Sept. 2, 
 1884. He was left an orphan at the age 
 of seven and was brought up by his 
 grandparents, who were in extreme pov- 
 erty. As a boy and youth he worked at 
 a loom in a damp cellar. He married at 
 the age of 21, and soon afterward aban- 
 doned the trade of weaver and engaged 
 in a provision business in Preston, Eng., 
 which thrived and brought him a com- 
 fortable fortune. He. reared a family of 
 13 children. 
 
 Despite the disadvantages of his early 
 years he acquired a fair education by 
 reading and study in his leisure hours. 
 In January, 1831, he started a monthly 
 magazine, the Moral Reformer, devoted 
 to social reform. In it he advocated the 
 repeal of the famous Beer act, which 
 had come into operation in October, 
 1830, and which, though designed to 
 promote temperance by discriminating 
 in favor of beer, greatly stimulated the 
 drink traffic and largely increased the 
 
 1 George L. Miller, of the Executive Association of the 
 " State Business Men's and Bankers' Association of Ne- 
 braska," in a letter (dated Omaha, Sept. 20, 1890), to A. 
 Lucius Rodman of Albany, N. Y. The so-called "Busi- 
 nessMen's and Bankers' Association" was a liquor organi- 
 zation pure and simple, masquerading under a respectable 
 name. (See the Voice, Oct. 2, 1890.) 
 
 a See p. 122. " ' 
 
 number of public houses. (See p. 366.) 
 On March 22, 1832, the Preston Tem- 
 perance Society was organized, on the 
 basis of abstinence from the beverage 
 use of distilled spirits. Livesey was 
 a prominent member, but the aim of the 
 Society was not in keeping with his radi- 
 cal views. On Aug. 22 of the samer 
 year he drew up a pledge of abstinence* 
 from all intoxicating drinks, and induced 
 one sympathizer, John King, to sign it 
 with him. The Preston Society held its. 
 next meeting on Sept. 1, and the ques- 
 tion whether the new idea should be ap- 
 proved was hotly discussed. Livesey 
 produced the following pledge, which 
 had been signed by himself, John King 
 and five others : 
 
 "We agree to abstain from all liquors of aD 
 intoxicating quality, whether ale, porter, wine 
 or ardent spirits, except as medicine." 
 
 It is recognized by all that these " seven 
 men of Preston "were the founders of the 
 movement for total abstinence in Great 
 Britain. Livesey was the father of the 
 cause, and he was the only one of the 
 seven who accomplished any notable 
 work. In the next year (July 8) he, 
 with five companions, members of the 
 Preston Society, began a week's tour. 
 They rode from place to place, going as 
 far as Manchester and Bolton, displaying 
 a banner on which a temperance motto 
 was inscribed, distributing tracts and 
 holding meetings in the open air or 
 within-doors as occasion offered. The 
 foundation of a temperance society at 
 Bolton, on July 22, was one of the results 
 of this tour. But in the time that had 
 elapsed since the pledge was signed at 
 Bolton, Livesey had not been inactive. 
 On Feb. 28, 1833, he had delivered at 
 Preston his celebrated lecture on " Malt 
 Liquors," in which he gave facts and ar- 
 guments to controvert the popular belief 
 in the nutritive qualities of beer. This 
 lecture, in condensed form, under the 
 title of "The Great Delusion" was 
 printed and very widely circulated, and 
 copies of it were sent to all the members 
 of Parliament. The Moral Reformer 
 was discontinued with the number for 
 December, 1833, but a new total absti- 
 nence journal, the Preston Temperance 
 Advocate (monthly) was issued by Liv- 
 esey in January, 1844. He wrote a 
 number of tracts and made many ad- 
 dresses, giving his " Malt Liquors " lee- 
 
Local Option.] 
 
 390 
 
 [Local Option. 
 
 ture again and again. In its printed 
 form it passed through many editions, 
 and probably no other single temper- 
 ance argument has enjoyed so extensive a 
 dissemination in England. Mr. Livesey 
 •and Dr. F. E. Lees acted as Secretaries 
 at the session of the British Temperance 
 Association at Leeds, July 4 and 5, 
 1837. 
 
 Besides the periodicals already men- 
 tioned, Livesey published Liveseifs Moral 
 Reformer, a penny weekly begun in 1838; 
 the Struggle, started in 1841 in advocacy 
 of Free Trade and the repeal of the 
 Corn laws; the Preston Guardian, estab- 
 lished in 1844 and conducted until 1859 
 by Livesey and his son; Livesey' s Pro- 
 gressionist, issued in 1852 and devoted to 
 " temperance and physical, moral, social 
 and religious reform," and the Staunch 
 Teetotaler (1867). In 1868 he published 
 his " Keminiscences of Early Teetotal- 
 ism/' and in 1881 his "Autobiography." 
 
 Local Option. — In its popular ac- 
 ceptation, Local Option is that legisla- 
 tive mode of dealing with the liquor 
 traffic which permits citizens to deter- 
 mine by vote whether the sale or furnish- 
 ing of liquors shall be allowed in a given 
 locality during a specified period, usually 
 of one or two years. Local Option is of 
 two kinds : (1) A general statute may be 
 enacted by a Legislature, with limita- 
 tions, penalties, etc., made applicable to 
 counties, townships, municipalities or 
 other small districts, which territories 
 may avail themselves, by popular vote, of 
 the provisions of this general law ; or (2) 
 A special act may be passed for a given 
 locality with restrictions, penalties, etc., 
 applicable to that territory only. Stat- 
 utes of the second variety are of many 
 kinds. Some of them provide that when 
 Prohibition shall have been carried in 
 the prescribed territory no further elec- 
 tions shall be held under the act. This 
 latter status can hardly be called Local 
 Option at all, since the option feature is 
 eliminated after the first affirmative vote. 
 It is rather Local Prohibition, effected 
 by the Legislature through the concur- 
 rence of the popular vote. Many coun- 
 ties in Georgia have secured such Local 
 Prohibition. In a majority of the States, 
 however, the option principle appears in 
 the vote — usually annual — of towns or 
 townships, upon the issue of license or 
 no-license for the saloons. 
 
 Local Option laws differ widely as 
 to scope of restriction and also as to ex- 
 tent of territory. Some prohibit the 
 vending of all liquors, spirituous, malt 
 or cider; others prohibit only distilled 
 liquors. Some provide for the sale of 
 certain liquors for medicinal or mechan- 
 ical purposes; others make no such ex- 
 ceptions. Some prescribe penalties for 
 their violation for the special territory 
 concerned; others leave the whole mat- 
 ter of penalty under a general law, as in v 
 the case of other criminal offenses. In- 
 deed, so wide are the variations of these 
 statutes that only their general inhibi- 
 tory feature allows them to be referred to 
 the same genus of laws, while their local 
 application gives them, in popular con- 
 ception, a fancied resemblance to demo- 
 cratic methods. 
 
 HISTOEICAL EEVIEW. 
 
 Local Option grew up as a kind of 
 natural fungus upon the license system 
 stock. While statutory license laws were 
 necessarily of legislative origin, and nat- 
 urally applicable to the whole territory 
 under the jurisdiction of the legislating 
 power, the application of these laws and 
 their enforcement were committed to 
 local authorities in whose hands were 
 lodged the issuing of the license, com- 
 monly the amount of the license fee, the 
 infliction of penalties, etc. Thus the 
 people learned to look to the local rather 
 than to the State authorities as the dis- 
 pensers of the license prerogatives, and 
 so the local came to be popularly re- 
 garded as the real source of power. The 
 citizen regarded the license-dispensing 
 authority, with which he came into di- 
 rect contact, as in some sort the proper 
 authority also to refuse the license and 
 prohibit the traffic. Local Prohibition 
 thus grew up as the natural offspring of 
 local license, and Local Option and local 
 license have therefore much in common. 
 
 The chief merit claimed for the Local 
 Option system is that it enables a small 
 area to free itself from the liquor traffic 
 when it would be impossible for the rid- 
 dance to be effected m a whole State or 
 large territory. Local Option has so far 
 been applied only to the vending or 
 " furnishing " of liquors, the manufac- 
 ture and importation being beyond the 
 scope of local legislation. County Local 
 Option has found favor chiefly at the 
 
Local Option.] 
 
 391 
 
 [Local Option. 
 
 South, while the town or township method 
 has been common at the North. 
 
 As early as 1833 the Georgia Legisla- 
 ture extended to the inferior Courts of 
 two counties — Liberty and Camden — the 
 right to grant or to withhold retail 
 licenses. As these Courts were elected 
 by the people the law in effect became 
 optional in its application. Prior to 
 1833, in many parts of the Union the 
 constitutionality of the license system or, 
 at least, the right of the State to grant 
 license, began to be questioned. Between 
 1835 and 1840 local control, in some 
 form, of the license-dispensing policy, 
 had been acquired in several States. Six 
 counties in Massachusetts, through the 
 action of the County Commissioners, 
 elected by popular vote, refused license. 
 In 1838 Rhode Island and New Hamp- 
 shire left license optional with the 
 towns. Connecticut followed in 1839. 
 Illinois granted to towns and counties 
 power to suppress the traffic upon the 
 petition of a majority of the adult male 
 inhabitants. The rise of the Washing- 
 tonians, in 1840, and the general accept- 
 ance of their moral suasion policy, prac- 
 tically put an end, for several years, to 
 Prohibitory effort. After this wildfire 
 had passed the movement for Prohibi- 
 tion revived, but this time was directed 
 generally in favor of State Prohibition, 
 since the local acts were usually repealed 
 after one or two years and the people 
 began to grow disgusted with such insta- 
 bility. In Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, 
 Connecticut and Michigan, a large num- 
 ber of towns had been carried for Pro- 
 hibition — in Iowa, all the counties except 
 Keokuk. Soon Ohio and Michigan made 
 the granting of license unconstitutional. 
 Most of the Local Option of this period 
 fell still-born or died in early infancy. 
 After State Prohibition had begun to be 
 agitated, little more effort in behalf of 
 Local Option in the ante-bellum period 
 was made. Toward the close of the war 
 Khode Island engrafted Local Option 
 upon her license law. Pennsylvania had 
 a Local Option law from 1872 to 1875; 
 Massachusetts followed in 1881. New 
 Jersey's law was repealed almost without 
 atrial. All the Southern States now 
 have Local Option in some form. 
 
 Local Option has never effected gene- 
 ral Prohibition in any State, unless, for- 
 sooth, through the negative force in- 
 
 spired by disgust at its failure. The sys- 
 tem is certainly the most acceptable to 
 the liquor power of all forms of Prohi- 
 bition. In 1884 Hon. J. H. Murphy, a 
 liquor representative from Iowa, intro- 
 duced into Congress a resolution declar- 
 ing that, "in the sense of this House, 
 the matter of restricting and regulating 
 the traffic in alcoholic, malt or vinous 
 liquors in the United States belongs 
 properly to the domain of municipal or 
 local government, and does not fall 
 within the scope of the powers inherent 
 in the Federal Government in virtue of 
 the Constitution." About the same time 
 Hon. P. V. Deuster introduced an anti- 
 Prohibition Amendment to the Federal 
 Constitution, which should abrogate all 
 existing State and local anti-liquor laws 
 and render similar enactments illegal 
 thenceforth. This extraordinary scheme 
 would have prevented Congress from 
 prohibiting the liquor traffic, and then 
 made that body abolish all local Prohib- 
 itory statutes and forbid any such future 
 legislation. Thus the liquor power mani- 
 fests its readiness to use both National 
 and State legislation to crush Prohi- 
 bition. 
 
 CLAIMS OB THE IOCAL OPTIONISTS. 
 
 Local Optionists claim especially the 
 following advantages for their methods : 
 
 1. That it secures and has secured 
 Prohibitory laws over much territory 
 where general Prohibition, through State 
 enactment, was impossible. Witness the 
 large number of counties, townships, dis- 
 tricts and municipalities all over the 
 land where such local Prohibition is in 
 effect to-day. 
 
 2. That it is especially valuable to 
 rural districts, where it is chiefly applic- 
 able, the contaminating traffic being 
 thereby removed from the yeoman popu- 
 lation — "the bone and sinew" of the 
 land. 
 
 3. That it is essentially non-political 
 and non-partisan in its operation, and 
 thereby avoids collisions with parties and 
 the antagonisms of politicians — an oppo- 
 sition invariably provoked by any party 
 efforts to accomplish Prohibition. By 
 thus eliminating or avoiding the oppo- 
 sition of political parties, all the friends 
 of temperance may be united against the 
 saloon. Moreover, only on this common 
 ground can Republicans, Democrats and 
 
Local Option.] 
 
 392 
 
 [Local Option. 
 
 other party adherents be rallied for Pro- 
 hibition, as they are not compelled to 
 surrender party affiliations ofttimes of 
 life-long continuance. 
 
 4. That Local Option requires no new 
 statement of position — no confession of 
 faith as to tariff, silver coinage, race 
 problems, universal suffrage or other 
 vexed questions which must surely dis- 
 tract and divide whenever introduced. 
 In this way the harmony of opposition 
 to the saloon may hold all creeds, colors 
 and castes under its banner, the destruc- 
 tion of the traffic being the only issue. 
 
 5. That by the retention of this live 
 issue, popular attention cannot be di- 
 verted from the saloon's enormities; the 
 public cannot grow indifferent to the 
 ever present question, but must be con- 
 stantly on the alert, for safety can be 
 the reward only of eternal vigilance. 
 So the Local Option condition may be- 
 come an important factor in educating a 
 people to the horrors of the traffic and 
 the necessity for its suppression. 
 
 6. That the system, by steadily elim- 
 inating the traffic, tends gradually 
 towards general Prohibition, to which it 
 is therefore a kind of stepping-stone. 
 
 7. That the option principle accords 
 best with popular ideas of local independ- 
 ence — sentiments everywhere preva- 
 lent in our democratic polity, e. g., in 
 the comparative autonomy even of our 
 municipal governments in the regula- 
 tion of their internal affairs. The prin- 
 ciple thus commends itself by its gen- 
 eral harmony with our political system. 
 
 DEFECTS. 
 
 But Local Option, as a temperance 
 measure, has many radical defects. Some 
 of these we will now consider. 
 
 1. The system is necessarily of a leg- 
 islative and political character. The 
 very enactment of such a law means 
 that the crime-side of the liquor traffic 
 is denied or at least not universally ac- 
 cepted, and therefore special statutes are 
 needed to give authority to Courts and 
 officials to deal with and punish its ex- 
 ercise. But legislators willing to enact, 
 maintain and enforce such laws must be 
 chosen. To the defeat of such law- 
 makers, of course, the liquor power is 
 committed and the issue is made. Since 
 Local Option leaves the question an 
 
 open one, and the law always subject to 
 change or repeal, it must forever remain 
 in politics, and the election of all offi- 
 cials in any wise charged with maintain- 
 ing or enforcing the law must ever be of 
 a political character. 
 
 2. Although thus necessarily political 
 in its workings, the option system is also 
 non-partisan in its character. A non- 
 partisan petition may bring on an elec- 
 tion so non-partisan, indeed, that neither 
 of the chief and law-making parties will 
 dare endorse the measure ; yet, if carried, 
 parties and politicians altogether hostile 
 must be depended upon to enforce the 
 statute. It dares not promise support 
 or threaten opposition to the parties and 
 officials into whose hands its life is com- 
 mitted. It trembles while exercising the 
 common "right to peaceably petition." 
 Disarmed and neutral it is thrust into the 
 arena, while denied the right of self-de- 
 fense or even the maidenly privilege of 
 choosing its own champion knights. 
 Politically helpless and unresisting it is 
 led away to be crucified. 
 
 3. Local Option, like license, makes 
 revenues local but expenses general. 
 County or Town A votes "For the Sale," 
 levies its license fees, collects its police 
 fines and monopolizes its private chain- 
 gang of "rock-pile" labor; while its 
 heavy criminal docket, pauperage, alms- 
 houses, and the fearful residuum of in- 
 creased depravity and immorality which 
 always follow the traffic, are thrown like 
 an incubus upon the State and county at 
 large. As license naturally shifts to the 
 crowded communities, its revenues flow 
 to the towns. To purchase popular in- 
 dulgence these fees are commonly de- 
 creed to schools and benevolent pur- 
 poses. Thus it has happened, especially 
 in the South, that nearly all the well- 
 supported public schools are in license 
 towns and depend chiefly upon the li- 
 quor revenue for sustenance. As a con- 
 sequence, thousands of families of our 
 most substantial rural population are an- 
 nually drawn into these towns to enjoy 
 the benefits of the schools, and the chil- 
 dren are brought face to face with the 
 saloons and grow up under their baleful 
 influence. The rural districts, on the 
 contrary, thus lose their bone and sinew, 
 their schools are made yet poorer and 
 their industries languish. Thus the sys- 
 tem .operates to degenerate the people, 
 
Local Option.] 
 
 393 
 
 [Local Option. 
 
 to crowd the towns and to depopulate 
 and pauperize the country. 
 
 4. Local selfishness is therefore en- 
 gendered and fostered. "What cares 
 Town A for the sword and fire it sends 
 through the adjacent territory while it 
 revels in its revenues ? On the other 
 hand, how much active interest will A — 
 dry by Local Option — take in the strug- 
 gles of B, C, D and the rest, against the 
 destroyer? A's fight is won; aid she 
 neither receives nor lends; the weak 
 may take care of themselves. The policy 
 is "too local and too optional." 
 
 5. Local Option — operating in this 
 local, selfish manner, scattering and dis- 
 integrating the temperance forces and 
 preventing unity of purpose and of 
 effort, effectually militates against State 
 and National Prohibition. So far from 
 being a stepping-stone to general Pro- 
 hibition, it has contributed so much to 
 thwart such legislation that State Pro- 
 hibition has never followed as a result 
 of this disunifying measure. Local Op- 
 tion makes such general laws far harder 
 of attainment. 
 
 6. Local Option impregnably fortifies 
 the traffic from without, while it can 
 be assailed only from within. Forty- 
 four States are powerless against a sin- 
 gle hamlet or county. A treaty of non- 
 interference stands with the world out- 
 side. Five hundred saloonists may con- 
 centrate in a town or county, bid defiance 
 to the nation and sell their liquors to 
 debauch the whole country. Only at 
 their own sovereign will can liquors be 
 removed, while they, on the other hand, 
 may have the land for a prey. The king 
 of Dahomey may pave his chamber with 
 the heads of his enemies, toss his sub- 
 jects from a precipice and marry or mur- 
 der half the women of his pigmy realm 
 — the world has nothing to say. His 
 majesty is lord absolute at home. So of 
 the Liquor Dahomey under the option 
 system. Strongholds of Bluebeards will 
 be left all over the land and protected by 
 law. 
 
 7. Local Option sounds an armistice 
 to Prohibitory work but leaves liquor 
 free. A county or a town is carried for 
 no-license. The legal goal has been 
 reached for the temperance forces, but 
 liquor remains under arms, for its truce 
 need last only 12 months or two 
 years, and it may openly, defiantly build 
 
 its batteries securely under Prohibition's 
 silent guns — then, at a crisis, when 
 the opportunity offers, it may strike its 
 unarmed victim to the heart. Thus 
 with all of advantage on the side of 
 liquor, Local Option territory steadily 
 falls back to the saloon's sway. 
 
 8. As a consequence, the enthusiasm of 
 first temperance efforts dies out and it is 
 next to impossible to preserve or to re- 
 arouse it for repeated elections. An 
 abnormal tension — even in religion — 
 cannot be maintained, for enthusiasm 
 is not man's normal state. Temperance 
 men weary with this everlasting crushing 
 of hydras' heads, and not having — like 
 their enemies — selfish motives in the con- 
 test, eventually give over the strug- 
 gle, accepting " High License and strict 
 regulation " as a substitute for Prohibi- 
 tion, and so the latter condition is usu- 
 ally far worse than the former. 
 
 9. Local Option has to Prohibition- 
 ists the character of a " suspect " from 
 its correlation and companionship with 
 license. The latter appears always as 
 the alternate or supplement to the for- 
 mer. Both are local in operation; both 
 involve permission to the traffic ; the the- 
 ory of each contemplates the continued 
 existence of the traffic ; neither proposes 
 to touch the manufacture or importation 
 of liquors; neither attacks the Internal 
 Eevenue system — the money power of the 
 traffic ; neither deals with the State as a 
 whole ; neither will prevent the traffic in 
 the Territories, in the army, navy, or else- 
 where (directly) under Federal jurisdic- 
 tion ; neither can hinder the traffic among 
 the Indians. Both are directly or indi- 
 rectly under local control. The two sys- 
 tems are naturally correlated, the twain 
 have long lived side by side in most of 
 the States, and in tolerable amity, as 
 most wedded pairs. " High License with 
 the Local Option feature " is the popular 
 recognition of their relationship; while 
 the " feature " of option in morals para- 
 lyzes all the temperance force in either. So 
 helpless, indeed, is Local Option that it ( 
 lives rather by tolerance than by inher- 
 ent vitality. Its longest lease of life 
 is where one political party is practically 
 in undisputed ascendancy. The hot 
 blasts of " close " State campaigns hardly 
 allow it a span of life. 
 
 10. The system stands always as a com- 
 promise measure. Its basis is temporiz- 
 
liocal Option.] 
 
 394 
 
 [Local Option. 
 
 ing, temporary expediency. It is the 
 commercial method of dealing with the 
 traffic. It is made to stand aside in the 
 interests of all parties, cliques, politi- 
 cians and schemers. Its little ewe-lamb 
 of Prohibition may be butchered for any 
 stranger, be offered up to propitiate any 
 liquor Moloch, and its blood may be 
 sprinkled upon all the high places where 
 sin holds its carnivals. 
 
 MORAL CONSIDERATION'S. 
 
 But far the greatest of all Local Option's 
 defects is its rotten basis as to morals, 
 where its presumptuous elective system 
 appears most audacious. With its ma- 
 jority rule set up as the origin of right, 
 the results are most destructive to all 
 proper conceptions of divine law. Here 
 it is best for us to compare the respective 
 moral basis of Prohibition and Local 
 Option, to see the broad difference be- 
 tween their foundation tenets. It is 
 taken for granted in this discussion that 
 there is a Euler who governs the world 
 by moral law; that this law is supreme 
 in the affairs of men, and all human 
 laws are, or should be, in conformity 
 therewith ; that all human statutes sanc- 
 tioning that which is forbidden by 
 the divine law must be wrong; that 
 conformity with divine law in the more 
 effective enforcement of its precepts is 
 the only proper object of civil legislation 
 — the only justification for such laws to 
 assume jurisdiction over the lives, liber- 
 ty, property and pursuits of men ; and 
 that the liquor traffic is wrong as judged 
 by every moral standard. With these 
 lights let us examine the moral basis of 
 Prohibition and Local Option, as judged 
 hy this divine law. 
 
 i Civil law should, per se, prohibit the 
 wrong and uphold the right. No con- 
 stitutional provisions — those symptoms 
 of moral weakness — ought to be neces- 
 sary to authorize Courts to prohibit and 
 punish the evil. Such is the ideal rela- 
 tion of law to crime. But the force of 
 evil habits, of perverted views, has given a 
 kind of legalization to wrong. Therefore 
 it has been felt necessary to give authority 
 to Courts, by specific constitutional and. 
 statutory backing, to deal with the 
 wrong. Thus human depravity has con- 
 stantly added to the bulk of such laws, 
 when the moral code alone should have 
 been a sufficient warrant. But all these 
 
 civil laws must agree with, not contra- 
 dict, the divine. Here is the basis of 
 Prohibition, namely, in its harmony with 
 Ood's law, which ever prohibits, never 
 permits ; always punishes, never legalizes 
 the wrong. Prohibition does not as- 
 sume the right of veto in moral law as 
 does Local Option. A vote for it is a 
 man's approval of the right. Prohibi- 
 tion provides for no alternative. Failure 
 to carry it does not commit its adherents 
 to license any more than the refusal of 
 the multitude to accept Christ commits 
 his followers to the service of Satan. The 
 vote is not in regard to the Tight- 
 ness of Prohibition itself — only upon its 
 acceptance or rejection. The exercising 
 of the wrong is the issue — not the Tight- 
 ness of forbidding it. Israel might choose 
 and risk the consequences, as to the Lord 
 or the Baalim; but she did not choose 
 as to the rightfulness of Jehovah's rule. 
 So in the question of Prohibition, not the 
 right of the law but adherence to it 
 is the thing to be settled. Where Pro- 
 hibition is already in force the right to 
 repeal the law in favor of license cannot 
 be morally conceded ; where the inhibition ' 
 does not exist, it should be incorporated 
 into the fundamental law. If this can 
 be done only by popular vote then the 
 question may be submitted — not for ac- 
 ceptance or rejection at irresponsible op- 
 tion, but only for legalization of the in- 
 hibition. It will be observed that Pro- 
 hibition being a dealing with morals, the 
 right to reject it for the immoral can- 
 not belong to the powers of human 
 option. 
 
 Local Option, as a principle, is the ig- 
 noring of the moral in law. It totally 
 rejects the eternity of right, since it as 
 readily endorses the wrong and as cheer- 
 fully legalizes it. Indeed, it eliminates 
 the moral entirely, save in so far as it it- 
 self, at its own will, creates it by its ma- 
 jority method. Thus the most destruc- 
 tive standards in morals are set up — 
 standards which eliminate the moral 
 from human action. The option princi- 
 ple recognizes no divine, unchanging, all- 
 pervading law of right. A majority vote 
 is its highest authority in morals ; ' the 
 right this year may be the wrong after 12 
 months. It assumes the prerogative to 
 make wrong into right by investing it 
 with all the sanctity of law. It puts 
 right on trial for its life by a probation 
 
Local Option.] 
 
 395 
 
 [Local Option. 
 
 of one or two years. Local Option is 
 merely a balancing between two wrongs, 
 •or a right — not as a right, however — 
 against a wrong. It is always Local Op- 
 tion in one end of the scale and license 
 in the other, never Local Option balanced 
 against some other form of Prohibition. 
 If temperance does not succeed, drunk- 
 ard-making may be lawfully endorsed. 
 If law-breakers defy and violate the law, 
 then to prevent the violation the law 
 should be set aside, we are told, and the 
 crime legalized. The amount of viola- 
 tion is to determine the life of the law. 
 A premium is set for a greater degree of 
 violation. 
 
 Local Option's practical lesson is to go 
 with the multitude, even "to do evil." 
 Local Option's moral standard is the will 
 of the majority — one of the fatal deduc- 
 tions from a democracy. Necessarily, 
 therefore, not only the liberty to exer- 
 cise the traffic but the right of the traf- 
 fic itself is assumed. To illustrate : Had 
 Joshua said to Israel, "Determine this 
 year whether ye will serve the Lord or 
 other gods, and next Nisan the question 
 may be again submitted," then, of course, 
 the right of submission and of decision 
 would have been in the people's hands; 
 no crime could have attached to the 
 choice of Baalim, for the right to choose 
 and to worship other gods would have 
 been Israel's, and neither guilt nor pun- 
 ishment could have been visited upon 
 them in the matter. This is Local Op- 
 tion. Prohibition would say in the spirit 
 of Joshua: "As voluntary agents, re- 
 sponsible for your actions and their con- 
 sequences, choose, this day, whom ye 
 will serve; for you must bear your own 
 sins. Nay, more; remember, you cannot 
 choose the Lord this year and Moloch the 
 next, for he is a jealous God. If ye for- 
 sake the Lord and serve strange gods, 
 then he will turn and do you hurt, and 
 consume you after that he hath done you 
 good." 
 
 Here we can easily see the province of 
 the option principle. The right of 
 choice without criminality in its result 
 was never' thought of. The option of 
 submission — like that of mercy — admit- 
 ted the possibility, never the right, to re- 
 ject. The opportunity for "choice was 
 given; not liberty to choose the wrong. 
 ^Responsibility still hung over the choice. 
 Opportunity there may be to contract 
 
 debt, but no exemption from payment to 
 the uttermost farthing. So of all ques- 
 tions having a criminal side as an alter- 
 nate issue. A man has power and op- 
 portunity to steal; divine law inhibits 
 the exercise of that opportunity, not the 
 possibility of stealing. So far from 
 guiltlessness attaching to choice, the 
 choosing of the wrong but intensifies 
 the criminality of the option. 
 
 Prohibition contemplates no other 
 side — no alternative, no rejection of the 
 divine law, least of all the right to re- 
 ject. The choice of the right is to be 
 final. " Put away, therefore, the strange 
 gods from among you." Option would 
 permit Israel to " hate knowledge " and 
 "not choose the fear of the Lord." But 
 for their option for the bad they must 
 " eat of the fruit of their own way, and 
 the turning away of the simple should 
 slay bhem." Israel must "choose none 
 of the ways of the oppressor, for the 
 curse of the Lord is on the house of the 
 wicked." For merely exercising this 
 choice in the wrong direction they must 
 " bow to the slaughter and be numbered 
 to the sword." Option can choose, but 
 never lawfully choose the wrong. The 
 right to create right, to commit or per- 
 mit crime, is at war with God's law. The 
 option to approve and enforce this higher 
 law never implies permission to subvert 
 it. The option of obedience or rebellion 
 is presented, but the choice is not with- 
 out sin. Standing in the gate of the 
 camp Moses gives option to Israel in the 
 call, " "Who is on the Lord's side let him 
 come unto me;" but those who used 
 their option to stay away soon felt the 
 Levites' destroying swords. 
 
 Prohibition, then, is popular assent to 
 the divine law; confirmatory, it expresses 
 the consent of men to the Tightness of 
 that law and willingness to keep it. 
 Option, on the contrary, would sit in a 
 higher than Moses's seat, cite this law 
 to trial, accept or reject it, and set up 
 another standard in its stead. Option 
 would make a law to sin by, or rather to 
 turn wrong into right. The distinction 
 between the principles is very broad. 
 Prohibition will choose only right. Op- 
 tion says: "License or No-License; For 
 the sale or against the sale; make your 
 choice; it is immaterial in morals." 
 Such a principle, generally applied in 
 morals, would wreck the universe. It 
 
Local Option.] 
 
 396 
 
 [Local Option. 
 
 ignores the divine law and makes man's 
 will supreme. H. A. Scomp. 
 
 Additional Particulars. — The Local 
 Option provisions in the statutes of the 
 various States and Territories, past and 
 present, are summarized in the article on 
 Legislation. 
 
 Although most of the Prohibition 
 leaders — at least in the North — regard 
 Local Option measures with pronounced 
 dissatisfaction, few of them have refused 
 to co-operate in the campaigns brought on 
 under such measures. These campaigns 
 have frequently been waged with great 
 vigor, and in their results have been 
 of much significance by showing the 
 strength of local sentiment, bringing the 
 practical reasons for and against the li- 
 cense system under searching review and 
 demonstrating that the demand for Pro- 
 hibition is not ephemeral, capricious or 
 confined to a few extremists, but is con- 
 stant, determined and widespread, and 
 indeed touches the thought and action 
 of the people more intimately than any 
 other subject involving local policy. 
 
 The record made by the communities 
 of the State of Massachusetts is espec- 
 ially impressive. The following tables 
 show the number of towns and cities, re- 
 spectively, voting for and against license, 
 and the popular vote polled, each year 
 from 1884 to 1889, inclusive : x 
 
 Teak. 
 
 Towns (Voting in March). 
 
 No. Towns Carried 
 Against For 
 License. License. 
 
 Popular Vote 
 Against For 
 License. License. 
 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 1889 
 
 238> 
 232 2 
 260 s 
 277« 
 260 s 
 273« 
 
 86 
 93 
 65 
 49 
 68 
 53 
 
 41,413 
 39,428 
 45,066 
 54,603 
 47,622 
 49,971 
 
 34,592 
 34,463 
 31,252 
 34,433 
 35,340 
 34,834 
 
 1 Including 10 towns that did not vote on the question. 
 
 2 Including 10 not voting and 3 in which the vote was tied. 
 
 3 Including 6 not voting. 4 Including 2 not voting. 5 In- 
 cluding 2 ties. 6 Including 1 not voting and 3 ties. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Cities (Voting in December). 
 
 No. Cities Carried 
 
 Popular Vote 
 
 
 Against For 
 
 Against For 
 
 
 License. License. 
 
 License. License. 
 
 1884 
 
 3 
 
 20 
 
 38,001 
 
 69,701 
 
 1885 
 
 5 
 
 18 
 
 41,733 
 
 57,956 
 
 1886 
 
 13 
 
 10 
 
 56,945 
 
 61,464 
 
 1887 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 63,385 
 
 75,555 
 
 1888 1 
 
 7 
 
 17 
 
 59,782 
 
 90,141 
 
 1889= 
 
 12 
 
 13 
 
 64,695 
 
 73,944 
 
 1 The last election before the High License and Limita- 
 tion laws came into force. 2 The first election after these 
 acts took effect. 
 
 1 These tables have been compiled from printed reports 
 furnished by the Secretary of State of Massachusetts. 
 
 Combining the votes of the towns and 
 cities, it is found that, on the Local Op- 
 tion issue, there were anti-license ma- 
 jorities in the whole State of Massa- 
 chusetts of 5,888 in 1889, 7,200 in 1887, 
 and 9,295 in 1886. Yet on the question 
 of Constitutional Prohibition, in April, 
 1889, there was a saloon majority of 45,- 
 820 (see p. 119), and this despite the fact 
 that the aggregate vote cast on Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition (216,304) was more than 
 7,000 less than that cast in the Local Op- 
 tion elections in the same year (223,444). 
 This difference is easily explained. Local 
 Option excites comparatively little an- 
 tagonism; and the liquor men, knowing 
 from experience that Prohibition in lo- 
 calities can be circumvented without spe- 
 cial difficulty, do not put forth their en- 
 ergies in Local Option campaigns. The 
 figures also show that notwithstanding 
 the apparent majority of 46,000 against 
 Prohibition in Massachusetts, there really 
 exists in that State a predominant anti- 
 saloon sentiment. 
 
 To further illustrate the strength of 
 local feeling in favor of Prohibition, we 
 give the following detailed exhibit of the 
 vote by towns and cities on the license 
 issue in Massachusetts in 1889 : 
 
 Towns Voting Against 
 License, March, 1889. 
 
 Barnstable Co. 
 
 License. 
 
 No. TeB. 
 
 Barnstable 13 6 
 
 Bourne 69 1 
 
 Brewster 47 14 
 
 Chatham 86 19 
 
 Dennis 85 4 
 
 Bastham 35 11 
 
 Falmouth 82 6 
 
 Harwich 108 19 
 
 Mashpee 26 18 
 
 Orleans 79 6 
 
 Provincetown . . 153 14 
 
 Truro 69 4 
 
 Wellfleet 97 
 
 Yarmouth 32 1 
 
 Totals 981 
 
 Berkshire Co. 
 
 Alford 24 
 
 Becket 81 
 
 Cheshire 106 
 
 Clarksburg 7 
 
 Dalton., 164 
 
 Egremont 103 
 
 Florida 30 
 
 Hancock 72 
 
 Hinsdale 149 
 
 Lanesborough.. 45 
 
 Lee 228 
 
 Monterey 41 
 
 Mt. Washington 16 
 
 NewAshford... XQ 
 
 NewMarlbor'h. 83 
 
 Peru 20 
 
 Richmond 47 
 
 Sandisfield 108 
 
 Savoy 33 
 
 Stockbridge . . . . 145 
 
 123 
 
 21 
 21 
 56 
 4 
 34 
 42 
 
 as 
 
 7 
 
 85 
 
 26 
 
 210 
 
 23 
 
 11 
 
 13 
 
 51 
 
 7 
 
 o 
 
 23 
 
 19 
 
 120 
 
 Towns Voting for Li 
 cense, March, 1889. 
 
 Barnstable Co. 
 
 License. 
 No. Yes. 
 Sandwich 115 129> 
 
 Berkshire Co. 
 
 Adams 203 
 
 Gt. Barringtou. 246 
 
 Lenox 70 
 
 North Adams . . 543 
 
 Otis 26 
 
 Pittsfield 741 
 
 Sheffield 106 
 
 536 
 366 
 1113 
 995 
 68 
 1,442 
 165 
 
 Totals 1,935 3,755. 
 
Local Option.] 
 
 397 
 
 [Local Option. 
 
 Towns Voting Against 
 License, March, 1889. 
 
 License. 
 
 No. Yes. 
 
 Tyringham 30 17 
 
 Washington 21 12 
 
 Williamstown.. 255 78 
 
 Windsor 51 17 
 
 Totals 1,875 927 
 
 Bristol Co. 
 
 Acushnet 40 9 
 
 Attleborough... 396 208 
 
 Berkley 32 1 
 
 Dartmouth 135 22 
 
 Dighton 96 
 
 Ea'ston 178 132 
 
 Fairhaven 205 7 
 
 Freetown 56 10 
 
 Mansfield 121 25 
 
 Morton 85 39 
 
 Raynham 68 11 
 
 Rehoboth 94 35 
 
 Seekonk 62 3 
 
 Somerset 119 52 
 
 Swanzey 88 30 
 
 Westport 131 2 
 
 Totals 1,906 586 
 
 Dukes Co. 
 
 Chilmark 37 3 
 
 Cottage City.... 66 
 
 Edgartown 81 2 
 
 Gay Head 22 
 
 Gosnold 9 
 
 Tisbury 103 3 
 
 Totals 318 8 
 
 Essex Co. 
 
 Amesbury 556 431 
 
 Andover 358 82 
 
 Beverly 473 236 
 
 Boxford 35 11 
 
 Bradford 190 140 
 
 Danvers 463 100 
 
 Essex 93 16 
 
 Georgetown.... 95 52 
 
 Hamilton 74 38 
 
 Lynnfleld 59 20 
 
 Manchester 99 6 
 
 Marblehead . . . . 750 560 
 
 Merrimac 130 48 
 
 Methuen 328 181 
 
 Middleton 67 23 
 
 Newbury 68 22 
 
 North Andover. 287 170 
 
 Peabody 712 639 
 
 Rockport 350 14 
 
 Bowley 90 44 
 
 Salisbury 98 58 
 
 Saugus 245 204 
 
 Swampscott 275 30 
 
 Topsfield 53 29 
 
 Wenham 58 12 
 
 West Newbury. 102 23 
 
 Totals 6,108 3,189 
 
 Franklin Co. 
 
 Ashfield 68 14 
 
 Bernardston. ... 53 40 
 
 Charlemont .... 45 11 
 
 Colrain 41 13 
 
 Conway 108 57 
 
 Gill 30 14 
 
 Hawley 50 3 
 
 Heath 39 21 
 
 Leverett 39 
 
 Leyden 27 
 
 Monroe 26 18 
 
 New Salem 39 3 
 
 Northfield 97 70 
 
 Orange 466 95 
 
 Rove 36 24 
 
 Shelburne 77 8 
 
 Shntesbury 28 23 
 
 Sunderland .... 76 17 
 
 Towns Voting for Li- 
 cense, March, 1889. 
 
 License. 
 No. Yes. 
 
 Bristol Co. 
 N. Attleborougn 372 
 
 462 
 
 Dukes fro.— None. 
 
 Essex Co. 
 
 Groveland 59 
 
 Ipswich ,. 171 
 
 Nahant 42 
 
 Totals ....,., 272 
 
 75 
 
 204 
 
 63 
 
 Franklin Co. 
 
 Buckland 55 
 
 Deerfield 141 
 
 Erving 40 
 
 Greenfield 247 
 
 Montague 146 
 
 Wendell 28 
 
 Totals 657 
 
 103 
 
 218 
 
 77 
 
 343 
 
 441 
 
 34 
 
 1,216 
 
 Towns Voting Against 
 License, March, 1889. 
 
 License. 
 
 No. Yes. 
 
 Warwick 44 21 
 
 Whately 38 34 
 
 Totals 1,427 486 
 
 Hampden Co. 
 
 Agawam 121 63 
 
 Brimfleld 74 20 
 
 Chester 75 72 
 
 Granville 108 39 
 
 Hampden 62 _ 58 
 
 Holland 13 3 
 
 Longmeadow ..76 1 
 
 Ludlow 61 6 
 
 Monson 234 127 
 
 Montgomery ... 40 7 
 
 Tolland 34 9 
 
 Wales 42 29 
 
 W. Springfield . 312 113 
 
 Wilbraham .... 107 41 
 
 Totals 1,359 578 
 
 Hampshire Co. 
 
 Amherst 136 48 
 
 Belchertown ... 134 60 
 
 Chesterfield .... 55 12 
 
 Cummington ... 64 10 
 
 Goshen 30 11 
 
 Granby 77 2 
 
 Greenwich 62 14 
 
 Hadley 110 66 
 
 Hatfield 57 27 
 
 Huntington .... 120 71 
 
 Middlefield 32 16 
 
 Pelham 42 16 
 
 Plainfield 74 3 
 
 South Hadley . . 259 57 
 
 Southampton . . 56 15 
 
 WeBthampton.. 47 4 
 
 Williamsburgh. 138 69 
 
 Worthington... 50 6 
 
 Totals 1,543 507 
 
 Middlesex Co. 
 
 Acton 88 68 
 
 Arlington 445 328 
 
 Ashby 47 25 
 
 Ashland 15* 36 
 
 Ayer 148 1 
 
 Bedford 127 12 
 
 Belmont 127 21 
 
 Billerica 69 10 
 
 Boxborough 36 12 
 
 Burlington 42 34 
 
 Carlisle 40 17 
 
 Chelmsford .... 93 13 
 
 Concord 128 104 
 
 Dnnstable 41 12 
 
 Everett 510 21 
 
 Framingham... 784 648 
 
 Groton 105 28 
 
 Holliston 218 88 
 
 Hudson 450 197 
 
 Lexington 230 115 
 
 Lincoln 54 3 
 
 Littleton 55 5 
 
 Medf ord 496 460 
 
 Melrose 518 16 
 
 Natick 905 645 
 
 North Reading. 41 20 
 
 Pepperell 269 206 
 
 Reading....;... 261 41 
 
 Sherborn 64 13 
 
 Shirley 59 40 
 
 Stoneham 458 228 
 
 Stow :.... 28 13 
 
 Sudbury 91 21 
 
 Tewksbury 82 15 
 
 Townsend 94 32 
 
 Wakefield 431 277 
 
 Watertown 459 319 
 
 Wayland 116 43 
 
 Westford 138 130 
 
 Weston 83 15 
 
 Wilmington. ... 51 26 
 
 Winchester .... 238 2 
 
 Totals 8,871 4,360 
 
 Towns Voting tor Li- 
 cense, March, 1889. 
 License. 
 No. Yes. 
 
 Hampden Co. 
 
 Chicopee 450 585 
 
 Palmer 249 302 
 
 Russell 17 153 
 
 Southwick 63 104 
 
 Westfield 490 763 
 
 Totals 1,269, 1,907 
 
 Hampshire Co. 
 Easthampton . . 256 
 
 Enfield 64 
 
 Prescott 18 
 
 Ware 321 
 
 Totals 775 
 
 279 
 72 
 S3 
 
 401 
 
 659 
 
 Middlesex Co. 
 
 Dracut 36 135 
 
 Hopkinton 232 267 
 
 Marlborough... 600 1,117 
 
 Maynard 103 218 
 
 Tyngsborough . 34 57 
 
 Totals 1,005 1,794 
 
Local Option.] 
 
 Towns Voting Against 
 License, March, 1889. 
 
 License. 
 No. Yes. 
 Nantucket Co.— None. 
 
 398 
 
 Norfolk Co. 
 
 Avon 100 
 
 Bellingham 45 
 
 Braintree 379 
 
 Brookline 505 
 
 Canton 290 
 
 Cohasset 69 
 
 Dover 26 
 
 Foxborough . . . 145 
 
 Franklin 277 
 
 Holbrook 195 
 
 Hyde Park 792 
 
 Medfield 59 
 
 Medway 261 
 
 Millis 39 
 
 Milton 303 
 
 Needham 226 
 
 Norfolk 49 
 
 Norwood 231 
 
 Eandolph 413 
 
 Sharon 70 
 
 Stoughton 340 
 
 Walpole 147 
 
 WelleBley 121 
 
 Weymouth 496 
 
 Wrentham 64 
 
 Totals 5,542 
 
 Plymouth Co. 
 
 Abington 230 
 
 Carver 44 
 
 B. Bridgewater. 127 
 
 Halifax 41 
 
 Hanover 101 
 
 Hanson 85 
 
 Kingston 84 
 
 Lakeville 52 
 
 Marion 77 
 
 Marshfield 99 
 
 MattapoiBett . . . 109 
 Middleborough. 302 
 
 Norwell 101 
 
 Pembroke 67 
 
 Plymouth 438 
 
 Plympton 37 
 
 Rochester 34 
 
 Rockland 318 
 
 Scituate 94 
 
 Wareham 170 
 
 W. Bridgewater 85 
 Whitman 406 
 
 Totals 3,101 
 
 Suffolk Co. 
 
 Winthrop 295 
 
 Worcester Co. 
 Ashburnham ... 108 
 
 Athol 324 
 
 Auburn 67 
 
 Barre 96 
 
 Berlin 95 
 
 Bolton 54 
 
 Boylston 35 
 
 Charlton 85 
 
 Dana 56 
 
 Harvard 65 
 
 Holden 189 
 
 Hopedale 81 
 
 Hubbardston ... 69 
 
 Lancaster 130 
 
 Leicester 174 
 
 Leominster 537 
 
 Lunenburg 73 
 
 Mendon 56 
 
 Millbury 272 
 
 New Braintree. . 19 
 Northborough. . 112 
 Northbridge.... 83 
 N. Brookfield.. 336 
 
 Oxford 153 
 
 Paxton 38 
 
 Phillipston 35 
 
 Princeton 51 
 
 15 
 13 
 90 
 
 487 
 
 250 
 53 
 10 
 63 
 
 145 
 60 
 
 272 
 25 
 
 201 
 
 26 
 
 16 
 
 75 
 
 6 
 
 144 
 
 179 
 15 
 72 
 75 
 37 
 
 410 
 
 2,770 
 
 130 
 13 
 64 
 
 14 
 36 
 18 
 59 
 19 
 12 
 18 
 
 252 
 46 
 97 
 65 
 
 177 
 
 1,402 
 
 60 
 
 278 
 
 2 
 
 21 
 31 
 
 28 
 29 
 18 
 22 
 2 
 33 
 78 
 98 
 
 377 
 35 
 8 
 
 218 
 14 
 64 
 13 
 
 150 
 40 
 15 
 17 
 
 Towns Voting for Li- 
 cense, March, 1889. 
 
 License. 
 No. Yes- 
 Nantucket Co. 
 
 Nantucket 141 212 
 
 Norfolk Co. 
 Dedham 374 423 
 
 Plymouth Co. 
 Bridgewater ... 136 
 
 Duxbury 50 
 
 Hingham 198 
 
 Hull 21 
 
 Totals 405 
 
 Suffolk Co. 
 
 Revere 237 
 
 Worcester Co. 
 
 Blackstone 76 
 
 Brookfleld 211 
 
 Clinton 618 
 
 Douglas 137 
 
 Dudley 66 
 
 Gardner 342 
 
 Grafton 250 
 
 Hardwick 84 
 
 Milford 513 
 
 Petersham 57 
 
 Royalston 51 
 
 Southbridge 358 
 
 Sterling 53 
 
 Webster 219 
 
 228 
 52 
 
 316 
 71 
 
 667 
 
 235 
 945 
 138 
 167 
 490 
 262 
 120 
 740 
 65 
 60 
 389 
 100 
 485 
 
 Totals 3,035 4,585 
 
 Towns Voting Against 
 License, March, 1889. 
 
 License. 
 
 No. Yes. 
 
 Rutland 72 68 
 
 Shrewsbury 101 34 
 
 Southborough.. 154 24 
 
 Spencer 440 373 
 
 Sutton 121 102 
 
 Templeton 175 77 
 
 Upton 114 98 
 
 Uxbridge 121 35 
 
 Warren 275 246 
 
 Weetborough . . 419 247 
 
 West Boylston. 129 73 
 
 W. Brookfleld.. 86 13 
 
 Westminster ... 100 58 
 
 Winchendon ... 224 104 
 
 Totals 5,863 3,168 
 
 Tie Votes. 
 
 Berkshire Co. 
 W. Stockbridge 70 70 
 
 Worcester Co. 
 
 Oakham 46 46 
 
 Sturbridge 74 74 
 
 No Returns. 
 
 Hampden Co. 
 Blandford. 
 
 Cities Voting Against 
 License, December, 1889. 
 
 License. 
 
 No. Yes. 
 
 Brockton 2,229 1,763 
 
 Cambridge.... 3,793 3,300 
 
 Fall River 4,190 2,731 
 
 Fitchburg 1,504 1.299 
 
 Haverhill 1,711 1,464 
 
 Lowell 5,457 4,457 
 
 Maiden 1,186 848 
 
 Newton 1,841 750 
 
 Quincy 1,162 618 
 
 Sbmerville.... 1,706 635 
 
 Woburn 979 809 
 
 Worcester 5,189 5,119 
 
 Totals 30,947 23,793 
 
 [Local Option. 
 
 Towns Voting for Li- 
 cense, March, 1889. 
 
 License. 
 ; No. Yes. 
 
 Cities Voting for Li- 
 cense, December, 1889. 
 License. 
 No. Yes. 
 
 Boston ; 17,875 27,134 
 
 Chelsea 951 1,647 
 
 Gloucester.. 861 1,342 
 Holyoke.... 767 2,253 
 Lawrence... 2,593 2,792 
 
 Lynn 2,040 3,012 
 
 NewBedford 1,717 2,382 
 Newb'yport. 718 1,164 
 N'thampton. 722 748 
 
 Salem 1,293 2,237 
 
 Springfield.. 2,176 2,950 
 
 Taunton 1,244 1,486 
 
 Waltham ... 791 1,004 
 
 Totals.... 33,748 50,151 
 
 Connecticut is another New England 
 State in which Local Option votes by 
 cities and towns are taken annually, al- 
 though its returns are not so extended as 
 those for Massachusetts. Many of the 
 Connecticut towns neglect the license is- 
 sue, taking no vote upon it. 1 ' From an 
 abstract of the votes cast for and against 
 license on Oct. 1, 1889, specially obtained 
 from the Secretary of State of Connec- 
 ticut, the following summary is made : 
 
 Cities and towns for which returns are given, 
 81 — of which 57 voted for license and 24 against. 
 
 Cities and towns which did not vote on the 
 question, or for which no returns are given, 84 — 
 of which 33 voted against license at the last elec- 
 tion and 6 voted for license, while the latest re- 
 sults in the other 45 are not stated. 
 
 Total number of cities and towns favoring li- 
 cense, 63; opposing, 57; attitude not stated, 45. 
 (In most of the 45 unclassified towns no licenses 
 are issued; so that a majority of .the Connecti- 
 cut communities are "dry.") 
 
 A peculiar system of indirect Local 
 
 1 Due to the provision in the statutes that petitions must 
 be presented before Local Option elections can be held. 
 
Local Option.] 
 
 399 
 
 [Local Option. 
 
 Option prevails in the State of New- 
 York. In each town and small city the 
 Hcensing power is wielded by a Board of 
 Excise Commissioners, of three members 
 chosen by popular vote — one member re- 
 tiring and one new member being elected 
 each year. The Board in every locality 
 has absolute power to grant or refuse li- 
 censes ; and it is the constant aim of the 
 temperance people to secure or retain 
 control. The formidable strength of 
 anti-license sentiment must be recognized 
 when it is said that even under this im- 
 perfect measure it is wholly impossible to 
 procure license in many parts of New 
 York, and local agitation against the 
 liquor traffic is in a great number of 
 towns the chief feature of the annual 
 elections. In other States, like New Jer- 
 sey, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Califor- 
 nia and many more, where local deter- 
 mination of the license issue is dependent 
 on the action of the authorities, the strife 
 with the dramshops divides public senti- 
 ment constantly and nearly always re- 
 ceives greater attention than any other 
 permanent subject of local concern, so 
 thoroughly has the Prohibition idea per- 
 meated the country. It is a peculiarity 
 of these petty contests that defeat does 
 not daunt the Local Option workers; and 
 the constancy with which their demands 
 are urged is one of the clearest evidences 
 of the impossibility of solving the drink 
 question by any measure short of Pro- 
 hibition. 
 
 But while the town struggles are most 
 instructive in making a minute analysis 
 of what may be called the spontaneous 
 disposition of the people at large, the 
 aspects of County Local Option are hardly 
 less interesting. County Option laws are 
 more distasteful to the saloon element 
 than those acts that apply merely to 
 towns and townships ; and legislative bills 
 extending County Option have frequently 
 been modified, at the instance of liquor 
 leaders, so as to confine the exercise of 
 Prohibitory rights to smaller constituen- 
 cies. County Local Option campaigns 
 are prosecuted with greater vigor, and 
 have at times engaged general and sys- 
 tematic support. 
 
 Missouri is a typical County Option 
 State. The county privilege is some- 
 what restricted, however, by the require- 
 ment that a Local Option vote in a county 
 shall not affect the liquor traffic in any 
 
 city within the county, each city being 
 permitted to vote separately on the ques- 
 tion. The following table gives the re- 
 sults of Local Option votes in elections 
 held between June, 1887, and April, 1888,. 
 in 82 counties and 20 cities of Missouri : 1 
 
 Counties 
 (82 of the 115). 
 
 Andrew 
 
 Atchison 
 
 Audrain 
 
 Barry 
 
 Barton 
 
 Bates 
 
 Bollinger 
 
 Butler 
 
 Cape Girardeau 
 
 Caldwell 
 
 Carroll 
 
 Chariton 
 
 Christian 
 
 Clarke 
 
 Clay 
 
 Clinton 
 
 Cooper 
 
 Crawford 
 
 Dade 
 
 Dallas 
 
 Daviess 
 
 Dent 
 
 DeKalb 
 
 Douglass 
 
 Dunklin 
 
 Gentry 
 
 Grundy 
 
 Greene 
 
 Henry 
 
 Holt 
 
 Howell 
 
 Iron 
 
 Jasper 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 Knox 
 
 Laclede 
 
 Lafayette 
 
 Lawrence 
 
 Lewis 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 Linn 
 
 Livingston 
 
 McDonald 
 
 License. 
 
 No. Yes. 
 
 900 1,598 
 
 1,486 1,355 
 
 1,256 1,162 
 
 1,038 1,662 
 
 1,533 960 
 
 2,476 1,255 
 
 598 1,062 
 
 635 749 
 
 1,053 1,920 
 
 967 1,322 
 
 1,502 1,062 
 
 1,804 2,386 
 
 726 635 
 
 1,050 1,386 
 
 1,032 1,926 
 
 1,492 656 
 
 1,083 1,147 
 
 1,102 492 
 
 1,236 1,265 
 
 605 682 
 1,740 
 
 627 
 1,099 
 
 770 
 
 1,044 
 
 231 
 
 946 
 
 1,769 1,321 
 
 1,057 695 
 
 2,095 998 
 
 2,185 1,595 
 
 1,286 1,391 
 
 1,021 879 
 
 660 854 
 
 2,274 760 
 
 1,170 2,096 
 
 885 634 
 
 982 928 
 
 1,255 2,952 
 
 1,679 937 
 
 1,461 1,203 
 
 1,622 951 
 
 1,443 692 
 
 957 816 
 
 700 1,017 
 
 License. 
 No. Yes. 
 428 
 
 369 
 247 
 203 
 
 License. 
 No. Yes. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Macon 1,109 
 
 Madison - 761 
 
 Marion 1,156 
 
 Miller 798 
 
 Mercer 1,191 
 
 Mississippi 847 
 
 Moniteau 826 
 
 Monroe 1,085 
 
 N. Madrid 774 
 
 Newton 2,320 
 
 Nodaway 2,426 
 
 Oregon 392 
 
 Ozark 268 
 
 Pemiscot 242 
 
 Pike 1,715 
 
 Polk 1,219 
 
 Pulaski 469 
 
 Putnam 900 
 
 Randolph 477 
 
 Ray 207 
 
 Eipley 104 
 
 St. Clair 103 
 
 Saline 14 2,194 
 
 St. Prance 67 
 
 Schuyler 802 
 
 Scotland 89 
 
 Scott 146 
 
 Shannon 106 
 
 Shelby 268 
 
 Stoddard 135 
 
 Stone 
 
 Sullivan 905 
 
 Taney 107 
 
 Texas 637 
 
 Washington... 214 
 
 Wayne 117 
 
 Webster 209 
 
 Worth 700 
 
 Wright 66 
 
 831 
 
 742 
 
 927 
 
 1,073 
 
 529 
 
 810 
 
 1,759 
 
 2,796 
 
 873 
 
 1,280' 
 
 694 
 
 707 
 
 223 
 
 153 
 
 1,454 
 
 1,785 
 
 429- 
 
 629 
 
 1,664 
 
 1,977 
 
 566 
 
 1,419 
 972 
 377 
 
 1,080 
 219 
 
 1,233- 
 965- 
 
 27a 
 
 1,663 
 482' 
 556 
 9T 
 
 797 
 SJ9 
 945 
 736 
 
 Totals 92,134 85,< 
 
 Majority . . . 6,148 
 
 License. 
 
 Cities. No. Yes. 
 
 Macon 305 269' 
 
 Marshal 353 324 
 
 Maryville 414 237 
 
 Moberly 579 1,022 
 
 Neosho 206 167 
 
 Pierce City. ... 297 217 
 
 Springfield.... 1,722 1,472 
 
 Trenton 406 311 
 
 Totals 8,186 8,509 
 
 Majority 323 
 
 for, 44. Cities 
 
 Cities (20). 
 
 Boonville 823 
 
 Brookfield 284 
 
 Butler 337 
 
 Cameron 267 
 
 Carroll ton 308 
 
 Carthage 781 427 
 
 Clinton 478 421 
 
 De Soto 310 347 
 
 Pulton 300 378 
 
 Kirksville 340 199 
 
 Lamar 291 274 
 
 Lexington 135 617 
 
 Counties voting against license, 
 
 against, 13; for, 7. 
 
 In the other States that have tried 
 the County Option system the anti- 
 license people have enjoyed more or less 
 success and the results have been uni- 
 formly significant. For example, in 
 Michigan, under the law of 1877 (pro- 
 nounced unconstitutional in 1888), 36 of 
 the 82 counties voted out the saloons in 
 a few months; in Pennsylvania, under 
 the law of 1872 (repealed in 1875), more 
 
 1 Political Prohibitionist for 1888, p. 57. 
 
Local Option.] 
 
 400 
 
 [Locke, David Ross. 
 
 than 40 of the 66 counties did the same; 
 in Hew Jersey, under the law of 1888, 
 the Prohibition victories were so numer 
 ous that the politicians repealed the act 
 the next year, and in Arkansas (which 
 votes by counties on the license issue in 
 September of every second year) the 
 anti-saloon vote is always very large. 1 
 The vast area of Prohibition at the 
 South, especially in the States of 
 Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, 
 Tennessee and Kentucky, has been won 
 chiefly by the county method, as Prof. 
 Scomp has pointed out. 
 
 As a rule, however, the ordinary Local 
 Option contests excite little attention, 
 and every year there' are hundreds of 
 town, township and county - votes of 
 which no record is made. It is only 
 when exceptionally aggressive or impor- 
 tant fights are waged that much in- 
 terest is aroused. 
 
 Some of these fights are historic and 
 almost take rank with the Constitutional 
 Prohibition campaigns. The most mem- 
 orable, undoubtedly, were those made in 
 Atlanta, the capital of Georgia, in 1885 
 and 1887. The first one was won by the 
 Prohibitionists, who secured a majority 
 of 228 in.. a total of 9,000 votes; in the 
 second there was an anti- Prohibition ma- 
 jority of 1,100 in a total of 10,000. In 
 each year the city was stirred as it had 
 never been, even by the most exciting 
 political agitations. The repeal of the 
 law was due to the unscrupulous meth- 
 ods by which the liquor element influ- 
 enced the colored vote. Other South- 
 ern struggles hardly less remarkable 
 have been undertaken in various impor- 
 tant centres, like Jackson, Miss., Raleigh, 
 N. C, and Borne, Ga., resulting in alter- 
 nate victory and defeat for the oppo- 
 nents of the saloon. The changes at- 
 tending these crusades have been strik- 
 ingly illustrated in the city of Lynchburg, 
 Va., where Prohibition was beaten by 
 1,100 majority in 1886, but in 1890 
 lacked only seven votes of success — 
 a change of 1,100 in a total of only 
 3,400. _ At the North the annual city 
 campaigns in Massachusetts seldom fail 
 to show the increasing willingness of the 
 people to seek the destruction of the 
 
 1 The following are the aggregate votes of the State of 
 Arkansas on license foraBeries of years: 1882— for, 79,- 
 246; against, 45,187; 1884— for. 91,243; against, 44,366; 
 1886— for, 79,456; agaanst, 62,260; 1888— for, 94,844; 
 against, 68,035. 
 
 saloon. Great strongholds of the traffic, 
 like Worcester, Pall Eiver, Lowell, 
 Springfield and Lawrence have been car- 
 ried at times; and the anti-license vote 
 in Boston increased from 9,362 in 1882 to 
 17,875 in 1889. Cambridge, the seat of 
 Harvard University — a city of 70,- 
 000 population, — which formerly gave 
 liquor majorities, has since 1886 stead- 
 ily refused to grant licenses. 2 
 
 Necessarily the results of Local Option 
 Prohibition have not proved so advanta- 
 geous from the temperance point of 
 view as those of complete State Prohib- 
 ition. Crime, drunkenness and the 
 other evils flowing from the sale of liquor 
 have not been diminished in so marked 
 a degree. But the results have mani- 
 fested the superiority of even this unsatis- 
 factory form of Prohibition as compared 
 with any system of license, however 
 stringent. Indeed, it is not conceivable 
 that the number of anti-license cities in 
 Massachusetts could have increased from 
 three in 1884 to 12 in 1889, and the 
 total anti-license vote from 38,001 to 
 64,695, in the teeth of a much more 
 watchful and aggressive liquor opposi- 
 tion, unless experience had convinced 
 the citizens of the benefits of Prohibitory 
 law. (For important testimony bearing 
 upon this point, see Prohibition, Bene^ 
 fits OF.) 
 
 Locke, David Ross. — Born in 
 Vestal, 1ST. Y., Sept. 20, 1833, and died in 
 Toledo, O., Feb. 15, 1888. He was edu- 
 cated in the common schools and at the 
 age of 10 was apprenticed to learn the 
 printer's trade in. the office of the Cort- 
 land Democrat. Seven years later he 
 undertook a journey through the United 
 States, and to meet his expenses worked 
 both as printer and local reporter on 
 various Western newspapers. In 1852 he 
 joined James G. Robinson in editing and 
 publishing the Plymouth (O.) Adver- 
 tiser. Later he had charge of the Mans- 
 field Herald, and in 1856 established the 
 Bucyrus Journal, to which he contrib- 
 uted a series of stories that were repub- 
 lished in other papers. He had charge 
 of the Bellefontaine Republican and was 
 connected with the Pindlay Jeffersonian, 
 becoming its editor and proprietor in 
 1861. The action of some citizens of 
 
 3 Anti-license majorities in Cambridge: 1886, 566 in a 
 total of 5,254; 1887, 566 in a total of 8,020; 1888, 664 in a 
 total of 8,302; 1889, 493 in a total of 7,093. 
 
Logic, Liquor.] 
 
 401 
 
 [Logic, Liquor. 
 
 Wingert's Corners, 0., in petitioning the 
 State Government to remove all colored 
 persons in Ohio suggested to Locke the 
 theme of his famous "Nasby Letters," 
 the first of which, dated "Wingert's 
 Corners, March the 21st, 1861" and 
 signed " Petroleum V. Nasby," announced 
 that Wingert's Corners had declared her- 
 self free and independent of Ohio. Others 
 followed, at first in. the Jeffersonian and 
 then in the Toledo Blade of which he 
 became editor and part proprietor. These 
 letters exerted a powerful influence dur- 
 ing the war and reconstruction periods. 
 They were continued at intervals until 
 Mr. Locke's death. In the later ones 
 the views and logic of whiskey advocates 
 were frequently and effectively ridiculed. 
 In 1871 Mr. Locke removed to New York 
 City and took charge of the Evening 
 Mail, but a few years later he returned 
 to Ohio and resumed his place on the 
 Toledo Blade. In his youth he published 
 a little paper devoted to temperance, and 
 his advocacy of total abstinence and op- 
 position to the legalized saloon made the 
 Weekly Blade for many years the strong- 
 est and most widely-circulated temper- 
 ance paper in this country. His tem- 
 perance articles in that journal always 
 ended with the words, "Pulverize the 
 Rum Power!" He also made contribu- 
 tions to magazines in support of his anti- 
 liquor principles. He was a thorough 
 Prohibitionist in sentiment but an un- 
 bending Republican partisan; and ap- 
 parently he neither sought nor secured 
 any extensive personal influence in 
 the Prohibition movement. Besides the 
 " Nasby Letters " he printed various vol- 
 umes and papers on political and social 
 subjects. 
 
 Logic, Liquor. — Those who sell in- 
 toxicating drinks and those who justify 
 the traffic range all worlds in seeking 
 arguments of defense and lines of excul- 
 pation. They start, like archangels, in 
 Heaven itself, and end, like fallen arch- 
 angels, in the lowest pit of selfishness. 
 They begin by affirming that these drinks 
 are the gifts of God, and that their use 
 is sanctioned by the example of Christ. 
 They are the gift of God precisely as the 
 dagger is the gift of God ; but what has 
 that to do with the act of the assassin ? 
 A farther bestowment of God is our own 
 reason, which bids us to put all his gra- 
 
 cious concessions to those uses and those 
 only in which they shall profit ourselves 
 and others. The words of St. Paul are 
 the eternal law of charity under which 
 we hold all gifts: "If meat make my 
 brother to offend, I will eat no flesh 
 while the world standeth." Scarcely an- 
 other such accumulation of offenses, bit- 
 ter and pervasive, is found in human 
 history as that associated with the use of 
 intoxicating drinks and the traffic in 
 them ; yet these men are ready to speak 
 of this business as if it were a dispensa- 
 tion of the charities of Heaven. If love 
 has nothing to say on such a theme as 
 this, its lips may as well be cut in marble 
 once for all. 
 
 Christ accepted the Roman Govern- 
 ment and explicitly justified it in the 
 teachings of the tribute money. Is pa- 
 triotism, therefore, void, and the search 
 for liberty among men an illusion ? The 
 one all-embracing plan of Heaven is prog- 
 ress, growth into the grace of God. 
 This growth alters constantly the rela- 
 tions of action. There is no sacrilege 
 more censurable, no profanity more com- 
 plete, than bringing forward the inno- 
 cency of a past action to cover the guilt 
 of a present one, than this effort to plead 
 the accidents of the life of Christ against 
 the spirit of Christ. This is to stand in 
 the way of exit when a building is on 
 fire, because one may lean innocently on 
 the door-post when there is no such flee- 
 ing of multitudes. If one is to use holy 
 things he must use them in . a holy tem- 
 per, or they are most of all deadly. They 
 become the name of God on profane 
 lips. 
 
 Stooping a little from this direct ap- 
 peal to God, these defenders of the traf- 
 fic affirm : " You cannot make men moral 
 by law." Ah ! this much then is ad- 
 mitted, that the business does involve im- 
 morality ; and the parry becomes, " This 
 immorality can be rooted out only by pure 
 morality; in such a conflict civil law 
 is a sword of lath." We answer, Civil 
 law is itself a moral agent, and a most 
 primary and efficient one. We are using 
 it in all the relations of life to secure the 
 conditions and give the motives of moral- 
 ity ; to express the moral temper of the 
 community. A moral conflict is all-em- 
 bracing. We enter it from every side. 
 We bring to it the sweet words of affec- 
 tion and the strong hands of resistance. 
 
Logic, Liquor.] 
 
 402 
 
 [Logic, Liquor. 
 
 Let law be immoral, and the society it 
 encloses will be immoral. Nothing alone, 
 indeed, not even law, can make men 
 moral. We need all influences, individual 
 and collective, persuasive and mandatory, 
 to compass this great end. Give us moral 
 forces in their integrity and entirety, as 
 they flow through each mind singly and 
 all minds in their conjoint civic action. 
 
 But " This is a free country," and free- 
 dom means to do as one pleases. Having 
 tried their hand at perverting the grace 
 of God, they now attempt to profane the 
 liberty of the world. Liberty is for the 
 sake of power, and power is for the sake 
 of beneficence. He who uses his personal 
 liberty to injure himself, and his civic 
 liberty to injure others, robs them both 
 of their value, and prepares the way for 
 the loss of both. That which has kept 
 men back so long from freedom has been 
 their ignorance of the uses of freedom ; 
 and that which is ready to plunge them 
 again into a more bitter bondage is this 
 mistaking of license for liberty. Alas, 
 that men should stand within the holy 
 precincts of our civil liberty, which was 
 so religiously won and at such infinite 
 cost, and devote it to vice and woe — de- 
 vote it to the very demon of tyranny. 
 
 Sinking a shade farther they say : " I 
 do not compel men to drink; if people 
 would stop drinking I would stop sell- 
 ing." These assertions concede that the 
 sale of liquor is something short of per- 
 sonal right and needs the apology of 
 affirming that the sin lies at least between 
 the buyer and the seller — is a common 
 one. If either is to let go of it both 
 must let go. As long as the appetites of 
 men give me a chance to sell, says the 
 liquor-dealer, it is too much virtue to ex- 
 pect from me not to sell. The sin does 
 indeed lie between the buyer and the sel- 
 ler. They are the two dogs in the fight 
 who tear each other and hold on to each 
 other in the grip of hate. But what of us 
 who stand around ? Shall we be indiffer- 
 ent to the brutal conflict or cheer it on ? 
 What of the fact that one of these dogs 
 is armed with an iron collar, and the other 
 naked to all injury ? The buyer may be 
 driven by an inexorable appetite that has 
 robbed him of power, and the seller turns 
 this weakness — a very censurable weak- 
 ness, yet a weakness — into a means of per- 
 sonal profiting. Most shameful, yet most 
 true confession of the craft, it never has 
 
 had and can never be expected to have 
 grace enough not to make what gains it 
 can out of the infirmities and sins of 
 men. We will hold on to our gainful 
 end of iniquity, say they, till the men at 
 the other losing end of indulgence let 
 go. After the virtue of other men has 
 made your vice impossible, will you in- 
 deed quit it ? So we believe, and so we 
 make haste to bring the compulsion of 
 Prohibition to bear upon you. 
 
 Again, they bid under themselves : " I 
 never sell to a man who is drunk." Why 
 not ? Which is worse, to make a man 
 drunk or to make him dead drunk ? If 
 the transition at this stage of it is more 
 brutish, it is also more innocent. The 
 moral struggle in which you side with 
 the devil takes place while the man is 
 getting drunk. Once drunk, and he is 
 only an insensate brute whose appetites 
 are merely physical facts. It is by many 
 degrees less sinful to fill a brutish man 
 to bursting than it is to help a sober man 
 down the incline to brutishness. 
 
 Having cast up these defenses in suc- 
 cession they now retire from the region 
 of moral ideas and shelter themselves 
 behind custom. " I am licensed to sell 
 liquor ; " " Eesolved, That so long as our 
 business is licensed by the United States, 
 the State and county, we consider it 
 perfectly legitimate and honorable, and 
 do not think we deserve the censure 
 which is constantly being heaped upon 
 us." We are not disposed to enter into' 
 the common shame which lies between 
 the licenser and the licensed. We have 
 scant sympathy with the I-am-holier- 
 than-thou air with which the licenser, 
 having received his reward, draws to- 
 gether his robes and tries to keep clear 
 of contact with the man who ministers, 
 his permission. We have some sad en- 
 joyment of the cynical smile with which 
 the liquor-dealer stretches out his hand 
 and says, "My brother, this business 
 lies between you and me." We turn 
 loathingly from this haggling over the 
 partition of infamy. If the above reso- 
 lution of the liquor-dealers had really 
 been just it would never have been of- 
 fered. What galls them is the inextin- 
 guishable sense of shame which is in 
 their own minds and the minds of men. 
 If the harlot is licensed she does not 
 thereby become an acceptable member 
 of society. No approval can ever make 
 
Logic, Liquor. | 
 
 403 
 
 [Logic, Liquor. 
 
 her such. The eternal law of God is 
 against her, and man cannot help con- 
 firming it. Men, in their very selfish- 
 ness, despise the instruments of their 
 own sins, as the Eomans of old held in 
 contempt the gladiator who fought for 
 their amusement. Unjust as this aver- 
 sion may be, the saloon-keeper may rest 
 assured that the community which li- 
 censes him and the church which de- 
 fends him will, more often than otherwise, 
 think him and his ilk worthy of hell- 
 *fire— the hell-fire they have helped 
 to kindle on earth. 
 
 One slight step farther: "Our busi- 
 ness puts much money into the public 
 treasury." "We as a people have fallen 
 perceptibly behind the Pharisee who 
 would not devote to the service 
 of the temple the 30 pieces of sil- 
 ver — the price of blood. We have no 
 scruples. Let not, however, these hun- 
 dred millions blind the eye by their own 
 glitter. They stand for a thousand 
 millions of most wasteful and wretched 
 expenditure. They stand for money 
 wrongfully taken from the most extreme 
 poverty, money that all divine charity 
 and human love would have devoted to 
 the nourishment of women and chil- 
 dren, to the safety of the body and 
 the nurture of the mind. All human 
 ties have been torn asunder in receiv- 
 ing that money, as much so as if it 
 were the price of a slave. These hun- 
 dred millions must stand forever as the 
 visible sign of a thousand millions 
 wrung from men in all stages of impov- 
 erishment, as the price at which we have 
 valued the poor of our people. Bring to 
 bear on these coins sharp-eyed moral 
 vision, and symbols of debauch, poverty 
 and crime will be seen intertwined in the 
 device of every one of them. 
 
 " The liquor traffic gives work to many 
 people;" "It makes business lively." 
 That no condemning feature might be 
 wanting to the manufacture of intoxicat- 
 ing drinks and to the traffic in them, 
 this occujDation is distinguished from all 
 other lines of employment in the unfav- 
 orable ratio of labor to the capital 
 engaged in it. (See p. 386) It is parsi- 
 monious above every branch of business 
 in the accidental good of giving labor to 
 workmen. The liveliness it imparts to 
 business is the lumbering thud of the 
 beer-truck in the crowded thoroughfare, 
 
 issuing a few hours later in the idleness, 
 unnerved energies and scattered ambi- 
 tions of the saloon. Where is all worthy 
 life, whether social or economic, so ham- 
 strung as in the saloon ? The saloon is 
 the enemy of purity, honesty and enter- 
 prise; of every affection which prompts 
 and rewards industry. If we could unite 
 visibly the beginning and the end of this 
 business, no kind of industry — unless it 
 be that of the undertaker — would be 
 found to end so quickly and so certainly 
 in the charnel-house. 
 
 And now comes the last deep dip, as 
 the bird touches the Dead Sea waves of 
 sin : " I was brought up to this business, 
 and I must live ; if I do not sell, others 
 will." If a man pleads that he must live, 
 even though it be on the lives of his fel- 
 low-men, one feels like accepting the 
 cynical reply of Talleyrand on a like 
 occasion, "I do not see the necessity." 
 It hardly seems possible that one should 
 unite such a despicable reason as this, 
 " I will make haste to earn the wages of 
 sin, lest others should anticipate me in 
 them," with that first argument, the 
 grace of God and the example of Christ. 
 Yet this connection marks one of the 
 terrible features in this accursed traffic. 
 Its leading advocates may stand in the 
 pulpit, and thence the tenuous line of 
 defenders may pass, like a thread, out of 
 the church-door, through the thorough- 
 fare, by the gilded saloon on the cross- 
 street, down the lane, till it hides itself 
 from sunlight and daylight in a dive. 
 While the preacher at one end is quoting 
 the example of Christ, the vendor at the 
 other end mingles with the oaths that 
 part his sodden lips that abortion of the 
 moral reason, "If I do not sell others 
 will." I rob, because the man behind me 
 is a robber. Where, in all this continuity 
 of sin-sick thought, is the point of sound 
 division ? Which of its two extremities 
 would one prefer to occupy ? In which 
 direction do men shift most frequently in 
 mutual ministration along this line of 
 defense — from the dive to the pulpit, or 
 from the pulpit to the dive ? 
 
 God give us grace to speedily gather 
 up all these interlocked reasons of a per- 
 verted heart, and cast them, like the 
 chain with which Satan is bound and 
 binds his followers, into the bottomless 
 pit. 
 
 John Bascom. 
 
Longevity.] 
 
 404 
 
 [Longevity. 
 
 Longevity. — The evidence that the 
 use of alcohol shortens life greatly is 
 ample and is daily becoming more con- 
 vincing. There are few — if indeed there 
 are any — of the questions relating to 
 social and vital statistics which can be so 
 easily and satisfactorily determined as 
 this one. It is (if the abundant testi- 
 mony so far adduced can be regarded as 
 conclusive) a rule without any exception, 
 that when two groups of men, the one 
 group composed of alcohol-users and the 
 other of abstainers, whose environments 
 — except in so far as they are affected by 
 the use of alcohol or by abstinence 
 from it — have been brought into com- 
 parison, the abstainers have been found 
 to have had a great advantage in the 
 matter of longevity over the alcohol- 
 users. This point of environment is of 
 vital importance inasmuch as the returns 
 of the English Registrar-General show 
 that the various occupations or employ- 
 ments, in their influence on the longevity 
 of those engaged in them, differ from 
 each other to quite a surprising extent. 1 
 In some of these occupations, at certain 
 ages, the death-rate is twice, in some 
 thrice, and in some even four times as 
 high as it is in others. Obviously, there- 
 fore, in such an inquiry as the present, it 
 is necessary that keen watch be kept on 
 the sanitary and other surroundings of 
 the various groups which are compared. 
 Thus, soldiers who are alcohol-users 
 should be compared with soldiers, simi- 
 larly circumstanced, who are abstainers. 
 
 1 These differences make a very decided showing in 
 favor of those classes especially noted for sobriety and 
 total abstinence and against those that are distinguished 
 above all others for recklessness in the use of liquors. 
 Every one will admit that the clergymen and farmers be- 
 long peculiarly to the first-mentioned classes, and the 
 brewers, saloon-keepeis, beer-dealers, hotel servants and 
 bartenders to the second-mentioned. The Registrar- 
 General's report for 1885 gives the results of a very careful 
 inquiry concerning the death-rate of all males in England 
 and Wales between the ages of 25 and 65, and of separate 
 classes of males, by occupations. The death-rate of "all 
 males " is placed at 1,000, and on this basis the following 
 comparative figures are presented ; 
 Death-rate of 
 
 All males 1,000 
 
 Clergymen 556 
 
 Farmers, etc 631 
 
 Laborers, agricultural 701 
 
 Males in selected healthy districts 804 
 
 Carpenters and joiners 820 
 
 Coal miners 891 
 
 Masons and bricklayers 969 
 
 Plumbers, painters, etc 1,202 
 
 Brewers 1,361 
 
 Saloon-keepers, beer-dealers, etc 1,521 
 
 Hotel servants, bartenders, etc 2,205 
 
 The Registrar-General, in his summary of the facts 
 shown in his report, makes the significant comment that 
 " the mortality of men who are directly concerned in the 
 liquor trade is appalling." 
 
 Abstaining workingmen ought to be com- 
 pared with other workingmen who use 
 alcohol, and not with alcohol-using 
 clergymen, lawyers and business men — 
 and so on. 
 
 An investigation of crucial importance 
 bearing on this subject was recently con- 
 cluded in England. It was " An inquiry 
 as to the rates of mortality and sickness, 
 according to the experience for the ten 
 years 1878-87, of the Independent Order 
 of Rechabites Friendly Society," and was 
 conducted by Francis G-. P. Neison, Esq., 
 Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries, and 
 barrister-at-law. The members of this 
 Society are all abstainers and are mostly 
 workingmen. Therefore a comparison 
 between their rate of mortality and the 
 rate of mortality of the members of other 
 workingmen's benefit societies may le- 
 gitimately be made. No one could be 
 better fitted for undertaking it than Mr. 
 Neison. He is an expert in benefit society 
 matters, and has conducted several in- 
 vestigations as to the rates of mortality 
 and sickness of the Order of Odd-Fellows 
 and the Order of Foresters, both of which 
 are very large and very important non-tee- 
 total benefit societies with a membership 
 consisting chiefly of respectable working- 
 men. The longevity of members of each 
 of these three societies, as ascertained by 
 Mr. Neison, is set forth as follows : 
 
 
 Summary of the Rates of Mor- 
 
 
 T4T.TTV PBH PF.VT. TW F. A PFT PlTRTOTl 
 
 
 
 of Years. 
 
 From Age 
 
 
 
 Odd- 
 
 
 
 
 Fellows. 
 
 Foresters. 
 
 Bechabites. 
 
 
 1866-1870. 
 
 1871-1875. 
 
 1878-1887. 
 
 20 to 30 
 
 7.0 
 
 7.4 
 
 5.2 
 
 30 to 40 
 
 9.2 
 
 9.9 
 
 5.5 
 
 40 to 50 
 
 13.4 
 
 14.8 
 
 8.5 
 
 50 to 60 
 
 22.5 
 
 25.3 
 
 17.0 
 
 60 to 70 
 
 44.7 
 
 48.7 
 
 39.0 
 
 70 to 80 
 
 96.5 
 
 99.1 
 
 97.3 
 
 Here, manifestly, the Rechabites have 
 a very considerable advantage in the 
 matter of longevity over both the Odd- 
 Fellows and the Foresters. But there is 
 other evidence derived from unquestion- 
 able sources that points in the same 
 direction. 
 
 The following table, which gives the 
 number of deaths per 1,000 per annum, 
 at the ages named, of Rechabites, For- 
 esters, "Healthy Assured Males" and 
 " Males of All England," should be read 
 thus : Of 1,000 Rechabites, aged 25, 5.080 
 tuill die before reaching (he age of 26/ of 
 1,000 Foresters aged 25, 7.370 'will die 
 
Longevity.] 
 
 405 
 
 [Longevity. 
 
 before reaching the age of 26; of 1,000 
 " Healthy Assured Males " 6.630 will die 
 before reaching the age of 26/ and of 1,000 
 "Males of all England" 7.729 will die 
 before reaching that age — and so on. 
 
 Age 
 
 °<JSo 
 
 hBoh 
 
 4 
 
 sit) 
 
 5.080 
 5.120 
 5.450 
 6.460 
 8.570 
 11.970 
 17.190 
 25.150 
 38.970 
 
 §°2 
 
 S.E5 
 
 5 a s 
 PShh 
 
 7.370 
 8.070 
 10.130 
 12.080 
 15.110 
 18.650 
 26.260 
 33.660 
 49.370 
 
 B^3 
 ■■£ — 
 
 
 7.729 
 9.386 
 11 276 
 13.893 
 16.601 
 20.390 
 26.669 
 35.450 
 48.85G 
 
 « ° S S 2 a 
 «£ ' 
 
 E"* *j QJ ^ -J- 3 
 
 6.630 
 7.720 
 8.770 
 10.310 
 12.190 
 15.950 
 21.030 
 29.680 
 
 It is important that the differences be- 
 tween these tables should be noted. 
 They are just such as the returns of the 
 Kegistrar-General and the results of the 
 investigations conducted by Mr. Neison 
 would lead us to expect. The highest 
 rate of mortality is amongst the " Males 
 of All England." This section includes 
 the whole of the males belonging to all 
 diseased and defective classes in the 
 country, and, of course, in it the death- 
 rate is very high. The next in order is 
 that of the Foresters. The position of 
 those composing this section is consider- 
 ably better than that of the males in 
 general. Obviously, people of abnormally 
 feeble constitutions and those known to 
 be subject to hereditary disease, are ex- 
 cluded from the Foresters. The next in 
 order is that of the "Healthy Assured 
 Males." Those included in it belong 
 mainly to the middle and upper classes, 
 whose sanitary conditions and sur- 
 roundings are of the best. They are 
 also selected lives. Their death-rate, 
 consequently, is considerably lighter 
 than that of the Foresters and very 
 much lighter than that of the " Males 
 of All England." The lightest death- 
 rate of all, however, is that of the 
 members of the Order of Rechabites. 
 Their rate of mortality is very consider- 
 ably lighter than even that of the mid- 
 dle and upper-class healthy assured 
 males. This is very noteworthy, for of 
 
 course the real and legitimate compari- 
 son is between the Eechabites and the 
 Foresters, who, saving in the one point 
 of using or not using alcohol, are prac- 
 tically in identical circumstances. One 
 point of importance must here be no- 
 ticed. The investigations as to the mor- 
 tality of the Rechabites are somewhat- 
 more recent than are those as to the mor- 
 tality of the other sections under notice ; 
 and during the last 10 years, as compared 
 with the preceding 20 years, there has 
 been a considerable decrease in the aver- 
 age death-rate of the United Kingdom. 
 Hence it is necessary to make a deduc- 
 tion from the death-rates given of the 
 Foresters, the "Males of All England" 
 and the healthy assured males sufficient 
 to cover the difference. A deduction of 
 about 1\ per cent, would be amply suffi- 
 cient on this account. But after this 
 deduction has been made the balance in 
 favor of the Rechabites will still be very 
 great. 
 
 Now, if the matter were left at this 
 point, the case in support of the thesis 
 that the use of alcohol is the great short- 
 ener of life would be one of the strong- 
 est ; but it is not necessary to leave it in 
 this position. Much additional evidence 
 of a similarily cogent character can be 
 presented. 
 
 The Sons of Temperance Benefit 
 Society, an organization similar in all 
 essential particulars to the Order of 
 Rechabites, has a death-rate correspond- 
 ing very closely to that of the Rechabites. 
 In addition to all this, insurance socie- 
 ties that insure both abstainers and non- 
 abstainers in separate sections, and re- 
 cord their life experiences separately, 
 have a similar mortality experience to 
 that of the Rechabites. The Sceptre, 
 with 23 years' experience, has a death- 
 rate of a little under 5 per 1,000 on the 
 average per annum amongst the teetotal- 
 ers, and a fraction over 10 per 1,000 
 amongst the general section. This So- 
 ciety, which consists, in both sections, 
 of exceptionally young insurers, has, 
 even for insurers exceptionally young, 
 an abnormally low rate of mortality in 
 both sections. This, so far at least as 
 the teetotal section is concerned, will be 
 seen from the astonishing fact that while 
 amongst the healthy assured males 
 the rate of mortality at the early age 
 of 19 is 5.750 per 1,000, the death- 
 
Longevity.] 
 
 406 
 
 [Longevity. 
 
 rate amongst the teetotal insurers at 
 all ages with the Sceptre has, on the 
 average of 23 years, been only about 
 5 per 1,000 per annum. The Whit- 
 tington Society has a death-rate of 
 8.74 for the teetotalers, and 1G.35 for the 
 non-abstainers Something must be al- 
 lowed in both these societies for the fact 
 that on the average the teetotalers 
 amongst their insurers are younger than 
 the non-teetotalers. But it has been 
 found that between the ages of 30 and 
 50 in the Whittington, the death-rate 
 for the temperance people is only 6. 72 
 per 1,000 per annum. The significance 
 of this fact will be recognized when it is 
 remembered that the annual death-rate 
 per 1,000 amongst "Healthy Assured 
 Males " at the age of 30 is 7.720, at the 
 age of 40 is 10.310, and at the age of 50, 
 15.950. 
 
 Two other English societies which in- 
 sure "temperance lives" have lately 
 been established, and their experience is 
 not less favorable to the views of the 
 temperance party than that of the older 
 societies. These are the Scottish Tem- 
 perance Life Assurance Company (limit- 
 ed), and the Blue Eibbon Life, Accident, 
 Mutual and Industrial Insurance Com- 
 pany (limited). Each of these societies 
 has recently issued its first quinquennial 
 report. In the case of the first-named, 
 in the temperance section, only 34 deaths 
 have occurred per 100 of those which, 
 according to the " Healthy Males " table, 
 were expected ; and, in the general sec- 
 tion, G2 per 100 of those expected. In 
 the Blue Eibbon Company the mortality 
 experience has been equally favorable. It 
 must, however, be remembered that so 
 exceptionally low a death-rate cannot be 
 expected to be maintained, as the whole 
 of the insurers in both these societies 
 have quite recently been passed by the 
 medical officers, so that latent imperfec- 
 tions of constitution which, in a certain 
 proportion of cases, will by and by affect 
 the rate of mortality, have not yet had 
 time to do so. This peculiarity, how- 
 ever, affects both teetotalers and non- 
 teetotalers alike — hence the point to be 
 noticed is the difference between the 
 death-rate in the teetotal section and 
 that in the general section, which is very 
 marked. 
 
 Probably, however, the most valuable 
 of all the evidence that can at present be 
 
 obtained from the statistics of assurance 
 associations is that supplied by the United 
 Kingdom Temperance and General 
 Provident Institution. This society has 
 had a long and wide experience. The 
 comparison between the mortality ex- 
 perience of the temperance and that of 
 the general insurers is based on the 
 extent of the difference between the 
 expected and the actual deaths in both 
 sections ; and the " expectation " is based 
 on the death-rate in the actuaries' tables. 
 The results are these : For the 20 years 
 1866-85 the expected deaths in the 
 temperance section were 3,384, and the 
 actual deaths were 2,408; while in the 
 general section the expected deaths were 
 5,431, and the actual deaths were 5,284. 
 One significant fact is that there has 
 been a gradual decrease in the death- 
 rate of the abstainers during the whole 
 period. For the five years 1866-70, of 
 every 100 deaths expected 74 took place; 
 for the years 1871-5, of every 100 ex- 
 pected deaths 71 occurred ; for the years 
 1876-80, of every 100 expected deaths 
 70 took place; and for 1881-5 the deaths 
 were 70 for every 100 expected. 
 
 Mr. Neison calculates that of 1,000 
 Foresters, at 18 years of age, 118 will 
 reach 80; while of 1,000 Rechabites of 
 18, no fewer than 164 will reach that 
 age. The following fact, brought to light 
 by recent investigations of the British 
 Medical Association, is strongly confirm- 
 atory of the evidence already given. Of 
 a total number of people over 80 years 
 of age, whose cases were investigated by 
 the Association, it was found that 36 per 
 cent, were total abstainers. Considering 
 how small a proportion of the general 
 community are abstainers, this is a re- 
 markable result. 
 
 One other point ought to be noticed. 
 The difference between the death-rate of 
 teetotalers and that of alcohol-users does 
 not measure the extent of the mortality 
 caused by drink; for many teetotalers 
 have sustained injury from their own 
 former intemperance, many from their 
 parents' intemperance, and all of them 
 from the general lowering of the condi- 
 tions of life which is caused by drinking. 
 James Whyte. 
 
 Much stress has been laid by unthink- 
 ing or unscrupulous persons in the United 
 States upon certain interpretations of 
 
Longevity.] 
 
 407 
 
 [Longevity. 
 
 statistics recently collected by the British 
 Medical Association. The following, from 
 the Wine and Spirit Gazette (accepted 
 without question by hundreds of Ameri- 
 can newspapers and reprinted by them) 
 is a specimen of the deductions that have 
 been made : 
 
 " The British Medical Association appointed 
 a Committee to -make inquiries in order to ascer- 
 tain the average age of the different categories 
 of drinkers — that is to say, those who refrain 
 completely from alcoholic drink, those who in- 
 dulge more or less in moderation, and those who 
 drink to excess. This Committee has handed 
 in its report. Its cases are drawn from 4,234 
 deaths, which are divided into five categories of 
 individuals, with average of age attained by 
 each: 
 
 1. Total abstainers 61 years 22 days. 
 
 2. Habitually temperate drinkers.. 63 " 13 " 
 
 3. Careless drinkers 59 " 67 " 
 
 4. Free drinkers 57 " 59 " 
 
 5. Decidedly intemperate drinkers. 53 " 3 " 
 
 These figures show, singularly enough, that 
 those who reach the shortest age are those who 
 drink no alcohol whatever; after them come 
 the drunkards, who only exceed them by a trifle. 
 The greatest average age is those who drink 
 moderately." 
 
 The investigation in question was super- 
 intended by Dr. Isambard Owen, and 
 when his attention was called to the at- 
 tacks on total abstinence, based upon his 
 figures, he wrote the following letter to 
 the Secretary of the United Kingdom 
 Alliance : 
 
 " Sib. — As the author of the report on ' The 
 Connection of Disease with Habits of Intem- 
 perance,' issued last year by the Collective In- 
 vestigation Committee of the British Medical 
 Association, I shall be glad if you will allow me 
 to correct certain erroneous ideas of its purport 
 which, I am informed by numerous correspond- 
 ents, have become current among the public, 
 and are being disseminated by interested per- 
 sons in a manner calculated to do serious mis- 
 chief. 
 
 " It is constantly being asserted, I am told, on 
 the authority of the report in question, that ab- 
 stinence from alcoholic liquors has been proved 
 to be a habit eminently prejudicial to health, 
 and that total abstainers have been shown to be 
 a shorter-lived body of men even than habitual 
 drunkards. 
 
 " Permit me to say, sir, that my report is not 
 answerable for any such absurdities. The as- 
 sertions I refer to are founded on certain statis- 
 tical figures contained in the report, which are 
 systematically quoted apart from their context, 
 and in defiance of the explanations therein 
 given. The actual conclusions of the report, 
 as regards relative longevity, are as follows: 
 
 "1. That habitual indulgence in alcoholic 
 liquors beyond the most moderate amounts has 
 
 A DISTINCT TENDENCY TO SHOBTEN LIFE, the 
 
 average shortening being roughly proportioned 
 to the degree of indulgence. 
 
 " 2. That of men who have passed the age of 
 
 25, the strictly temperate, on the average, live 
 at least 10 years longer than those who become 
 decidedly intemperate. (We have not, in these 
 returns, the means of coming to any conclu- 
 sion as to the relative duration of life of total 
 abstainers and habitually temperate drinkers of 
 alcoholic liquors.) I am, sir, your obedient 
 servant, Isambabd Owen, M.D." 
 
 Mr. James Whyte (the writer of the 
 preceding article) makes a further ex- 
 planation, as follows: 
 
 " The temperance movement is comparatively 
 new, and, as is well known, it is among the 
 young mainly that, during the last quarter of a 
 century especially, it has been influential and 
 successful. Hence it is that the proportion of 
 teetotalers in the section of the community be- 
 tween 25 and say 35 or 40, is enormously 
 greater than among that portion of it whose 
 ages exceed 35 or 40 years. As there is no pe- 
 riod of life at which there are not some people 
 who die, and as the rate of mortality is very 
 much lower in early manhood than it is later in 
 life, we should expect to find that amongst tee- 
 totalers the deaths which have occurred 
 would, in proportion to the number of teetotal- 
 ers living, be few, and, on the average, would 
 have taken place at a relatively early age." 
 
 And the organ of the British Medical 
 Association, the British Medical Journal, 
 has added its condemnation of the writers 
 who use this report to assail total absti- 
 nence : 
 
 "Rarely (says the Journal) has any docu- 
 ment been the subject of such extraordinary 
 misconception and misrepresentation as has 
 fallen to the lot of Dr. Isambard Owen's report 
 of the collective investigation on the connection 
 between drinks and diseases. All over the 
 kingdom Dr. Owen has been represented as lay- 
 ing down, from the returns sent in to this com- 
 mittee, that total abstainers do not live so long 
 as moderate drinkers, or even as those who are 
 actually intemperate. We need hardly say to 
 our readers that Dr. Owen has never said any- 
 thing of the kind. On the contrary, he dis- 
 tinctly stated that no conclusion could be drawn 
 from the returns as to the relative longevity of 
 teetotalers. It is true that the figures warrant 
 the construction of a table from which a casual 
 observer, ignorant of the subject, might sup- 
 pose that the average life of the abstainer was 
 some nine months less than that of the decid- 
 edly intemperate. But Dr. Owen devotes con- 
 siderable space for the exposure of such a fal- 
 lacy. His explanation of the apparent anomaly 
 is simply that, as the greater number of con- 
 verts to abstinence have been from the young 
 during the three years embraced in the returns, 
 the average age of adult abstainers must have 
 been less than the average age of drinkers. He 
 supports this explanation by constructing two 
 tables of the average at death of persons be- 
 tween 30 and 40, and of those above that age, 
 with the result that the relative proportions are 
 greatly altered. 
 
 "The conclusion, erroneously attributed to 
 Dr. Owen, is utterly unwarrantable, though it 
 
Longevity.] 
 
 408 
 
 [Longevity. 
 
 has been paraded in high-class journals of 
 which better things might have been expected. 
 Taking into consideration how valueless vital 
 statistics are without the explanations which 
 usually accompany them, it is curious how so 
 many writers have seized upon a few isolated 
 figures, have put an interpretation on them 
 which they did not warrant, and have credited 
 conclusions to the editor of the returns which 
 he not only never drew, but actually showed 
 good reason for not drawing. A careful peru- 
 sal of the committee's report would have saved 
 not a few literary critics from a ludicrous blun- 
 der." ' 
 
 In another article (March 17, 1888), 
 the British Medical Journal reviewed, 
 with considerable formality, the mor- 
 tality figures of total abstinence insur- 
 ance societies as compared with those of 
 companies that insure teetotalers and 
 drinkers promiscously, and made this 
 comment : " There can be little doubt as 
 to the general tendency of these striking 
 tables in favor of healthfulness of ab- 
 staining temperance." 
 
 In the United States the testimony of 
 experts in life insurance is exceedingly 
 strong in confirmation of the opinion 
 that the use of alcohol in any form, 
 even in so-called moderation, tends to 
 shorten life. The Voice, in 1884 and 
 1885, submitted to the officials of many 
 insurance companies the following state- 
 ment from Jacob L. Greene, President 
 of the Connecticut Mutual Life Insur- 
 ance Company: 
 
 "It has been my duty to read the records of 
 and to make inquiry into the last illness and 
 death of many thousand persons of all classes 
 in all parts of the country. . . . Among 
 the persons selected with care for physical 
 soundness and sobriety, and who are, as a rule, 
 respectable and useful members of society, the 
 death-rate is more profoundly affected by the 
 use of intoxicating drinks than from any other 
 one cause, apart from heredity. 
 
 ' ' I protest against the notion so prevalent 
 and so industriously urged that beer is harm- 
 less, and a desirable substitute for the more 
 concentrated liquors. What beer may be and 
 what it may do in other countries and climates, 
 I do not know from observation. That in this 
 country and climate its use is an evil only less 
 than the use of whiskey — if less on the whole — 
 and that its effect is only longer delayed, not so 
 immediately and obviously bad, its incidents not 
 so repulsive but destructive in the end, I have 
 seen abundant proof. In one of our largest 
 cities, containing a great population of beer- 
 drinkers, I had occasion to note the deaths 
 among a large group of persons whose habits, 
 in their own eyes and in those of their friends 
 and physicians, were temperate; but they were 
 habitual users of beer. When the observation 
 
 1 British Medical Journal, Sept. 1, 1888. 
 
 began, they were upon the average something' 
 under middle age, and they were, of course, 
 selected lives. For two or three years there was. 
 nothing very remarkable to be noted among 
 this group. Presently death began to strike it 
 and until it had dwindled to a fraction of its. 
 original proportions the mortality in it was as- 
 tounding in extent, and still more remarkable 
 in the manifest identity of cause and mode. 
 There was no mistaking it; the history was al- 
 most invariable — robust, apparent health, full 
 muscles, a fair outside, increasing weight, florid 
 faces; then a touch of cold or a sniff of malaria, 
 and instantly some acute disease, with almost, 
 invariably typhoid symptoms, was in violent 
 action, and ten days or less ended it. It was as 
 if the system had been kept fair outside while 
 within it was eaten to a shell; and at the first 
 touch of disease there was utter collapse — every 
 fiber was poisoned and weak. And this, in its 
 main features — varying, of course, in degree — 
 has been my observation of beer-drinking 
 everywhere. It is peculiarly deceptive at first ; 
 it is thoroughly destructive at the last." 
 
 James "W. Alexander, Vice-President 
 of the Equitable Life Assurance Society, 
 wrote : 
 
 " No one can attend to the settlement of losses- 
 in an insurance company without being pain- 
 fully reminded of the danger to life arising 
 from intemperance; and how often what even 
 we designate as moderate drinking expands into- 
 immoderate drinking and causes early death, is 
 hardly realized by those who do not have the 
 evidence brought under their eyes as we do. I 
 suppose that next to pulmonary diseases more 
 persons come to their death, either directly or 
 indirectly, by alcoholism than from any other 
 one cause. Hundreds of men who die from liver 
 complaint, kidney troubles, etc., etc., might 
 have been healthy men to-day if they had not 
 poisoned their systems with alcohol. . . . We 
 have for some time charged extra rates "for brew- 
 ers and persons engaged in the manufacture and 
 sale of beer and spirits, even when the appli- 
 cants themselves were abstemious men, for we 
 fear that persons so engaged cannot keep so near 
 the fire without getting burned. Other things- 
 being equal, I think we should always give the 
 preference to total abstainers, excepting those 
 who have been excessive drinkers and who have 
 reformed. These we are obliged to be cautious 
 about on account of the terrible danger in which 
 a man who has once been a drinker stands of 
 falling back in the habit." 
 
 Walter E. Gillette, Medical Director of 
 the Mutual Life Insurance Company,, 
 wrote : 
 
 " If there is anything proved by our mortuary 
 experience it is that those who abstain from the 
 habitual or excessive use of alcoholics have a far 
 greater chance of long life than those who in- 
 dulge in these beverages. . . . There can be no 
 question but that total abstainers have a much 
 better chance of longevity than those who drink 
 even in moderation. . . . This rule applies to- 
 the use of malt liquors as well as to spirituous 
 liquors. The fact is that drinkers of malt 
 
Louisiana.] 
 
 409 
 
 [Loyal Temperance Legion. 
 
 liquors take more spirits than the ordinary drink- 
 ers of alcoholics, inasmuch as beer is a seductive 
 drink and it is necessary to take a larger amount 
 of malt liquors to get the equivalent in effect of 
 one or two drinks of ordinary spirits. . . . Our 
 experience is simply the experience of all other 
 companies in the matter of alcohol. We look 
 upon it as a poison as it is generally used, and 
 wish we could eliminate it entirely from the 
 drinks of our insured; hut so long as this cannot 
 he done, we shall use the greatest care possible 
 to ascertain their habits in this regard. Never- 
 theless, with all our care and investigations, 
 the Company is called upon yearly to pay losses 
 due both directly and indirectly to the use of 
 alcohol which, could the figures be accurately 
 ascertained, would be appalling." 
 
 Henry Tuck, M.D., Medical Director 
 of the New York Life Insurance Com- 
 pany, wrote : 
 
 "We are very confident that total abstainers 
 stand a better chance of attaining a good lon- 
 gevity than what are known as 'moderate drink- 
 ers.' " 1 
 
 Louisiana. — See Index. 
 
 Loyal Temperance Legion. — In 
 
 the first National Convention, called to 
 meet in Cleveland in 1874, for the purpose 
 of organizing the Woman's Christian 
 Temperance Union, the Plan of Work 
 Committee besought all friends of the 
 cause to take immediate measures for 
 the formation of juvenile temperance 
 societies. The Committee on these socie- 
 ties, consisting of " Mother " Thompson, 
 the Crusade leader, Miss Frances E. Wil- 
 lard and Mrs. A. M. Noe, recommended 
 that in the new paper, ordered by the 
 Convention, a department be instituted 
 for children and youth. The same Com- 
 mittee in 1875 authorized the preparation 
 of a juvenile song-book and manual. 
 The Convention of 1876, held in Newark, 
 N. J., advised that the children be organ- 
 ized under the name "Juvenile Temper- 
 ance Societies." In connection with the 
 Convention of 1877, in Chicago, a chil- 
 dren's mass-meeting was held on Sunday 
 afternoon. The resolutions of this Con- 
 vention dwelt on the need of instructing 
 the children along the line of scientific 
 temperance, and the Juvenile Committee 
 recommended that the stress of effort be 
 laid on reaching the children through 
 Sabbath-schools. The Juvenile Commit- 
 tee of 1880 presented a constitution 
 for children's societies, which included 
 the pledge against all intoxicating liquors 
 
 1 For the letters from which the above quotations are 
 made, and numerous others from insurance companies, 
 see the Voice for Oct. 16, 1884, and Jan, 1, 8 and 15, 1885. 
 
 and tobacco. This year the system of 
 standing committees for department work 
 was abolished, and that of individual 
 Superintendents took its place. Miss 
 Elizabeth W. Greenwood of Brooklyn was 
 placed in charge of the Juvenile Depart- 
 ment, which, in distinction from the 
 Sunday-school Department and that of 
 Scientific Temperance Instruction in the 
 Public Schools, finds its expression in the 
 organized societies of children auxiliary 
 to the W. C. T. U. Time has proved that 
 each of these departments, together with 
 that of the Kindergarten, since added, 
 has its own special mission, all being 
 necessary to round out the full measure 
 of opportunity for reaching the children. 
 In 1882 Miss Greenwood was succeeded 
 by Miss Nellie H. Bailey of Chicago. In 
 1883 Mrs. Anna M. Hammer of Newark, 
 N. J., was elected Juvenile Superintend- 
 ent. Her resignation in 1887 was followed 
 by the appointment of the present 
 incumbent. Previously to 1886 -the var- 
 ious juvenile societies had existed under 
 many local names, but at the National 
 Convention, held that year in Minne- 
 apolis, it was decided to give to each of 
 these societies not only a uniform plan 
 of organization but also the name of 
 Loyal Temperance Legion, which in each 
 State would consist of as many divisions 
 as there were districts or counties, the 
 local societies of each division being 
 known as Company A, Company B, etc., 
 according to date of organization. To 
 Mrs. Caroline B. Buell, Corresponding 
 Secretary of the National W. C. T. U. 
 belongs the honor of having originated, 
 and to the Connecticut W. C. T. U. the 
 distinction of having been the first to 
 adopt, this name and plan in all their 
 essential features. 
 
 The original thought of a temperance 
 school, where the instruction is given by 
 classes, is still largely carried out, while 
 the frequent application of new methods 
 and helps prevents a wearisome monot- 
 ony. The children not only fill the 
 offices of Juvenile President, Secretary 
 and Treasurer, under the leadership of 
 an adult Superintendent, but also serve 
 on various committees, whose reports 
 add to the interest of regular meetings. 
 The companies are frequently graded by 
 being divided into platoons, each of 
 which has its own leader, who is styled 
 Ensign and who is responsible for the 
 
Loyal Temperance Legion.] 
 
 410 
 
 [Lutheran Church. 
 
 regular attendance of the platoon. Care 
 is taken to have frequent rotation in the 
 j uvenile offices, which can be multiplied 
 as circumstances suggest. Special methods 
 are employed for holding the older boys 
 and girls. Bands of Mercy have been 
 largely introduced into the companies, 
 the endeavor being to foster all sweet 
 and tender graces. 
 
 The aim is not only to make the 
 children intelligent total abstainers, ready 
 always to give a reason for their prin- 
 ciples and practice, but also to train them 
 into efficient workers for Prohibition in 
 State and nation. In Prohibitory Amend- 
 ment and no-license campaigns, as well 
 as in many other directions, they have 
 proved themselves valuable helpers. 
 Their loyalty to their pledge of total 
 abstinence against alcoholic beverages of 
 every name, tobacco in any form, as well 
 as all profanity, has repeatedly stood the 
 test of great temptation, statistics show- 
 ing that 93 per cent, of those thus pledged 
 stand true. The delightful entertain- 
 ments given by the children must be 
 counted among the most potent fac- 
 tors for arousing Prohibition sentiment 
 in many localities, where leading men 
 have not been ashamed to acknowledge 
 the persuasive power of these sweet young 
 voices in recitation and song. 
 
 The Juvenile Department has an ex- 
 tensive literature of its own, in the form 
 of Catechisms, Lesson Manuals, Black- 
 hoard Talks, Pledge-cards, Song-books, 
 "Loyal Leaflets" for distribution at 
 children's meetings, and choice temper- 
 ance stories for home and library. Miss 
 Julia Coleman of New York was the 
 pioneer in the preparation of these juve- 
 nile temperance supplies, the National 
 Temperance Society being the publisher. 
 Later this work has been taken up by 
 the Woman's Temperance Publication 
 Association of Chicago. In addition to 
 the literature already mentioned, the 
 children have their own official organ, 
 the Young Crusader, edited by Miss 
 Alice M. Guernsey, and published by the 
 W. T. P. A. 
 
 Every State and Territory has now its 
 Superintendent of this Department, 
 under whose leadership thotisands of 
 women all over the land, whose labor is 
 nnpaid save in the coin of Heaven, are 
 giving time, strength and money to the 
 work. As nearly as can be estimated the 
 
 present number (1890) of Loyal Temper- 
 ance Legion Companies is 3,976, with a 
 total pledged membership of 200,000 boys 
 and girls, representing every sect, color 
 and nationality. All wear the L. T. L. 
 badge, and march under the L. T. L. 
 motto, " Tremble, King Alcohol, we shall 
 
 grow up 
 
 t" 
 
 Helest G. Rice, 
 
 National Superintendent L. T. L. 
 
 Lucas, Margaret Bright. — Born 
 
 in Eochdale, Lancashire, Eng., July 14, 
 1818 ; died in London, Feb. 4, 1890. She 
 was of the famous Bright family, of 
 which nine members sat in the House of 
 Commons ; she was the youngest 
 daughter of Jacob Bright, and the still 
 more noted John Bright was her brother. 
 She shared the enthusiasm for reform 
 and philanthropy that gave so peculiar a 
 distinction to these celebrated men. 
 Like them she professed the religious 
 faith of the Friends. In 1839 she was 
 wedded to Samuel Lucas, of whom she 
 was bereaved after 25' years of very 
 happy married life. At the age of 16 
 she signed a pledge requiring total 
 abstinence from all intoxicating bever- 
 ages ; and therefore she was one of the 
 earliest adherents of radical teetotalism 
 in England. She became a member of 
 the Good Templar Order during her visit 
 to the Social Science Congress at Ply- 
 mouth, Eng., in 1872, and was chosen 
 Grand Worthy Vice-Templar of the 
 Grand Lodge in 1874, a position to which 
 she was re-elected in 1876 and 1877. 
 She was President of the British Women's 
 Temperance Association and was the first 
 President of the World's W. C. T. U. 
 In 1886, when 68 years old, she came to 
 America and attended the National Con- 
 vention of the W. C. T. U. at Minne- 
 apolis. Her energies were not ex- 
 hausted in the temperance work ; she 
 exhibited active sympathy for many 
 other advanced movements, and was 
 especially devoted to the Woman 
 Suffrage cause. Possessed of consider- 
 able wealth, she contributed liberally and 
 judiciously to charitable enterprises. 
 
 Lutheran Church (English 
 Branch). — The General Synod of the 
 Evangelical Lutheran Church, in session ' 
 at Omaha, Neb., June, 1887, adopted the 
 following : 
 
 ' ' Resolved, That the right and therefore the 
 wisest and most efficient method in dealing with 
 
Lutheran Church.] 
 
 411 
 
 [Maine Law. 
 
 the traffic in alcoholic liquors for drinking pur- 
 poses is its suppression, and that we therefore 
 also urge those who comprise the church which 
 we represent to endeavor to secure in every 
 State the absolute Prohibition of the manufac- 
 ture and sale of intoxicating liquors as a 
 leverage." 
 
 The last session of this body, held in 
 Allegheny, Pa., June, 1889, contented 
 itself with the following deliverance, 
 limited to a single State campaign : 
 
 " The General Synod of the Evangelical 
 Lutheran Church in the United States, in Alle- 
 gheny assembled, in accord with previous deliv- 
 erances of the Synod, bids the Prohibitory Con- 
 stitutional Amendment in Pennsylvania God- 
 speed, and hopes her members, in the exercise 
 of their Christian liberty as citizens, will all 
 vote for it. 
 
 "Resolved, That the Secretary be in- 
 structed to send a copy of this action to all our 
 churches in Pennsylvania, with a request that 
 it be read from the pulpit on next Sunday, 
 June 16." 
 
 Lutheran Church (German 
 
 Branch). — Rev. P. Wischan, editor of 
 the Missionbote, official organ of the 
 German Lutheran Church, states that no 
 recent action has been taken by the 
 General Synod on the liquor question. 
 
 Madagascar. — See p. 13. 
 
 Madeira. — See Vinous Liquoks. 
 
 Maine. — See Index. 
 
 Maine Law. — Maine was the first 
 State to adopt a rigorous general Prohib- 
 itory act. The measure became known 
 as the " Maine law," and similar statutes 
 that rapidly followed in other States were 
 similarly named. The term " Maine 
 law," though having a special application 
 to the Prohibitory act of Maine, is there- 
 fore suggestive also of all the other 
 kindred State laws passed before the Civil 
 War (see p. 306). This article will be con- 
 fined, however, to a brief review of the 
 Maine law in Maine. 
 
 To Gen. James Appleton is justly attri- 
 buted the honor of first outlining and 
 publicly advocating, before the people 
 and in ■ the Legislature of Maine, the 
 policy of State Prohibition. His work 
 was begun soon after his removal from 
 Massachusetts to Portland, and the most 
 conspicuous development of it was the 
 report in favor of Prohibition which he 
 submitted as Chairman of a joint select 
 committee in the Legislature of 1837. 1 
 
 1 Mr. Dow, the writer of this article, refrains from 
 alluding to the chief influence in the origiual Maine law 
 agitation— his own devoted, long-continued and self- 
 eacriflcing work. (See p. 158.) In that agitation the 
 
 The first Prohibitory law — a crude and 
 unsatisfactory one — was passed in 1846. 
 The Maine law, properly so-called, was 
 not enacted until June, 1851. It passed 
 through all its stages in one day, the 
 final vote being 18 to 10 in the Senate 
 and 86 to 40 in the House. It took 
 effect upon its approval by the Governor, 
 which was on Monday, the 2d of June. 
 It condemned all intoxicating liquors of 
 whatever kind to be seized, confiscated 
 and destroyed, if kept for unlawful sale. 
 
 The comparative ease with which this 
 unprecedented legislation was obtained 
 was due in no small measure to the mani- 
 festly great evils inflicted upon the popu- 
 lace by drink. At that time Maine was 
 overrun with distilleries and breweries; 
 there were seven of the former and two 
 of the latter in the small city of Portland 
 alone. There was probably no State 
 where more liquor was consumed, in pro- 
 portion to population. A sum equivalent 
 to the value of all the property existing 
 in the State was wasted in drink in every 
 period of 20 years. Maine had two princi- 
 pal industries, lumbering and the fisheries. 
 The products of these were sent mostly 
 to the West India Islands, and the chief 
 commodities received in exchange were 
 rum and molasses. The imported molasses 
 was converted into rum, and practically all 
 of the ardent spirits, both home-made and 
 foreign, was consumed in Maine, so that 
 the State was never a dollar the richer 
 for all this large trade. The wealth of 
 the vast forests and of the fisheries was 
 poured down the throats of the people in 
 the form of intoxicating liquors. 
 
 The immediate effect of the law of 
 1851 was the entire suppression of the 
 wholesale liquor trade throughout the 
 State, and the abandonment of the liquor 
 business by persons who wished to stand 
 well in the community as honest men. 
 Another consequence was the suppression 
 of the manufacture of intoxicating 
 liquors : there is not to-day, and has not 
 been for many years, a distillery or brew- 
 ery in Maine. The various municipal 
 authorities, by public notice, granted to 
 liquor-dealers a reasonable period of time 
 
 labors of all other persons were insignificant in compari- 
 son with Mr. Dow's. The public sentiment that made the 
 enactment possible was the result of his untiring efforts ; 
 the law of 1851 was framed by him ; its passage through 
 the Legislature was due to his persuasion and energies. 
 Wherever Prohibition is advocated the Maine law of 1851 
 is remembered as the first radical precedent, and Neal 
 Dow is honored as its "Father."— Editor. 
 
Maine Law.] 
 
 412 
 
 [Malt. 
 
 in which to send their stocks of liquors 
 away, though warning them to make no 
 sales within the State. This concession 
 was generally accepted in a spirit of be- 
 coming submissiveness. One liquor-seller 
 refused to ship his stock — a large one, — 
 and after some delay it was seized. . A 
 protracted lawsuit followed, but the dealer 
 obtained no relief from the Courts, and 
 besides losing his property he was ruined 
 by the litigation. No lawsuits involving 
 principle or right occur now in connec- 
 tion with the enforcement of the law. 
 All legal and constitutional points are 
 settled. 
 
 The retail liquor trade was immediately 
 reduced to inconsiderable proportions, 
 being continued only by persons without 
 respectable character, on the sly and on a 
 very small scale. Supplies of liquor were 
 brought into Maine in disguise, concealed 
 in flour-barrels, in sugar-barrels, in dry- 
 goods boxes, in travellers' trunks, even in 
 coffins, and in many other ways. The 
 dealer in liquors came to be regarded by 
 the public as an infamous person, the 
 same as a keeper of a gambling-house or 
 house of ill-fame. Another effect of the 
 law was to render disreputable the public 
 drinking of liquors. Intoxicants are now 
 rarely if ever seen at public dinners; 
 whatever the occasion may be, whether 
 given by Boards of Trade or to public 
 men, liquors are excluded from the menu. 
 
 In the old rum times, as already inti- 
 mated, the people of Maine were very 
 hard drinkers. Now the traffic is prac- 
 tically unknown in more than three- 
 fourths of the territory of the State, con- 
 taining far more than three-fourths of 
 the population. Where it exists at all it 
 is mostly confined to the cities, and there 
 it is carried on, in nearly all instances, in 
 a small way, with more or less secrecy. 
 This is due entirely to certain defects in 
 the law, that leaves to the "' trade " a con- 
 siderable margin of profit, which no Pro- 
 hibitory law should do. To be thoroughly 
 effective it should be so constructed as to 
 make violations very unprofitable and 
 very uncomfortable to those who persist. 
 All the improvements that are still needed 
 will come in due time, when the politi- 
 cians are shown, by popular sentiment, 
 that it is not safe to trifle with this bene- 
 ficent system in any manner. 
 
 Before the Prohibition era Maine was 
 not only one of the most drunken but 
 
 one of the poorest States of the Union. 
 The evidences of poverty were seen 
 everywhere — in neglected farms, dilapi- 
 dated houses, decaying fences and general 
 unthrift. All is changed for the better. 
 Maine ranks with the most prosperous 
 commonwealths, saving as she does prob- 
 ably $20,000,000 (directly and indirectly) 
 that would be squandered for drink if 
 any system of license were tolerated. 
 The people have sustained the act by 
 overwhelming majorities whenever they 
 have had opportunity to give a verdict 
 upon it at the polls. The most striking 
 evidence of popular support was provided 
 in 1884, when the principle of Prohibi- 
 tion was imbedded in the Constitution by 
 a vote of three to one. Neal Dow. 
 
 [The editor is also indebted to N. F. Wood- 
 bury of Auburn, Me. For a digest of the 
 Maine law, as originally enacted and as amended 
 at various times, see pp. 306-9. For a further 
 statement of the results of Prohibition in Maine, 
 see Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 Malt. — The product obtained from a. 
 special treatment of barley or other 
 grain. The cereal is first steeped in 
 warm water for a period long enough to 
 induce germination, when the growth is 
 arrested by spreading and drying ; then 
 it is ground or crushed between rollers. 
 The germinating process changes a por- 
 tion of the starch of the grain to grape- 
 sugar — a change that is an essential pre- 
 liminary to vinous (i. e., alcoholic) fer- 
 mentation, and therefore to the brewing 
 of beer, ale and like beverages. Theo- 
 retically malt may be made from any 
 cereal, but practically barley is the only 
 one employed for the purpose in this 
 country ; in some of the northern na- 
 tions of Europe bere and bigg (which, 
 however, are mere varieties of barley) 
 are malted. Of American barleys those 
 grown in Canada have hitherto been 
 most esteemed by maltsters and brewers, 
 and large quantities of Canada barley have 
 been imported every year, the amount- 
 now imported averaging about 10,000,- 
 000 bushels. 
 
 Malting, though incidental to the- 
 brewing business, is an independent and 
 separate trade ; few brewers go to the 
 pains of malting their own grain. Ac- 
 cording to the United States Census re- 
 turns, there were in 1880 216 malt manu- 
 facturers in this country, with an in- 
 vested capita! of $14,390,441, employing 
 
Malt Liquors.] 
 
 413 
 
 [Malt Liquors. 
 
 2,332 hands, whose yearly wages 
 amounted to $1,004,548, using material 
 valued at $14,321,423, and producing 
 merchandise worth $18,273,102. 1 The 
 following list of the number of malt- 
 sters, by States, was specially prepared 
 for this work in November, 1890, by a 
 leading New York firm : 
 
 California, 5; Delaware, 1 ; Illinois, 25 ; Iowa, 
 7 ; Kentucky, 7 ; Maryland, 4 ; Massachusetts, 
 1 ; Michigan, 9 ; Minnesota, 2 ; Missouri, 11 ; 
 New York, 117 ; Ohio, 25 ; Pennsylvania, 23 ; 
 "Wisconsin, 12— Total, 249. 
 
 The largest malt-houses are at the 
 West. One Milwaukee concern has a 
 yearly capacity of 2,000,000 bushels. The 
 chief malting cities are Chicago, produc- 
 ing annually between 8,000,000 and 9,- 
 000,000 bushels; Milwaukee, 4,000,000 to 
 5,000,000 ; New York, 4,000,000 to 5,000,- 
 000; Buffalo, 4,000,000 to 5,000,000; St. 
 Louis, 1,000,000 to 2,000,000, and Oswe- 
 go, about 1,000,000. 
 
 In the process of malting the barley 
 undergoes a slight shrinkage : a bushel of 
 barley yields only 0.84 bushel of malt. 
 The malt bushel in the United States has 
 a fixed weight of 34 lbs. About two 
 bushels or 68 lbs. of malt are required to 
 make a barrel of beer of 31 gallons. 
 
 Although malt is distinctively a brew- 
 ers' material it is consumed in consider- 
 able quantities by the distillers also. 
 The Internal Eevenue records show that 
 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1889, 
 2,242,214 bushels of malt were destroyed 
 in distillation, valued at $825,134.75. In 
 this country Indian corn and rye are 
 cheaper for distilling purposes, and are 
 regarded with greater favor by the dis- 
 tillers, on the whole, than malt. But in 
 Scotland and Ireland barley is compara- 
 tively more abundant, and barley malt 
 plays a larger part in distillation than 
 any other grain. 
 
 Malt Liquors. — One of the three 
 great families of inebriating drinks, in- 
 cluding all fermented liquors produced 
 from grain. Knowing that the ancient 
 Chinese, many centuries before Christ, 
 manufactured intoxicants from rice, it is 
 reasonable to suppose that they under- 
 stood the brewing art, even if the opin- 
 ion is accepted that the liquors generally 
 in use among them were distilled; for 
 fermentation always precedes distilla- 
 
 > Apropos of the reliability of these statistics, see 
 foot-note, p, 380. 
 
 tion. Eice-brewing was also apparently 
 practiced in ancient India; the drink 
 called sura, mentioned in the Big-Vedas, 
 is believed to have been manufactured 
 from rice. 2 But the discovery of barley- 
 brewing is attributed to the Egyptians; 
 it is claimed that they made beer from 
 barley as early as 2,000 years before 
 Christ, 3 and Herodotus, about 450 B.C., 
 spoke of their barley-beer (see p. 227). 
 References to the use by the Greeks of 
 beer from barley appear in the writings 
 of ^Eschylus (470 B.C.), Sophocles (420 
 B.C.) and Theophrastus (300 B.C.) ; Xen- 
 ophon (400 B.C.) says that the Arme- 
 nians had a fermented drink that they 
 extracted from barley; Tacitus (1st cen- 
 tury A.D.) alludes to the manufacture of 
 beer by the Germans, and Pliny (living 
 at about the same time) to its use in 
 Spain and Gaul." The Eomans acquired 
 the secret of beer-brewing and intro- 
 duced it into Britain, where beer replaced 
 the ancient mead (an intoxicant fer- 
 mented from honey). (See "Encyclopaedia 
 Britannica, " article on " Brewing.") In 
 all modern nations malt liquors of differ- 
 ent kinds have been prepared. Even 
 among the native tribes of Africa cereals 
 are subjected to fermentation and the re- 
 sulting liquor is eagerly consumed. 
 
 The early grain beverages, though 
 probably as strong in alcohol as those now 
 produced, were manufactured by crude 
 processes and could not be preserved from 
 decay. With the general employment of 
 hops (beginning in the 17th Century) and 
 the gradual extension of chemical know- 
 ledge, it was made possible to keep the 
 beer fresh for a longer time, and the 
 business of brewing expanded rapidly. 
 It has reached its largest development in 
 Great Britain and Germany, and in the 
 United States has made great strides. 
 The quantities of malt liquors produced 
 in various nations, and other pertinent 
 facts, are given under the appropriate 
 heads in this work. 
 
 Beer is the popular name for all the 
 
 2 Foundation of Death, p. 4. 
 
 a Ibid, p. 18. 
 
 4 All the several nations who inhabit the West of Europe 
 have a liquor with which they intoxicate themselves, 
 made of corn and water. The manner of making this 
 liquor is sometimes different in Gaul, Spain and other 
 countries, and is called by many various names ; but its 
 nature and properties are everywhere the same. The people 
 of Spain, in particular, brew the liquor so well that it will 
 keep good a long time. So exquisite is the cunning of 
 mankind in gratifying their vicious appetites that they 
 have thus invented a method to make water itself intoxi- 
 cate.— Pliny, Nat. Mist., xiv, 29. 
 
Malt Liquors.] 
 
 414 
 
 [Malt Liquors. 
 
 ordinary malt liquors. In England most 
 of the beer consumed is of a kind recog- 
 nized in the United States as ale or por- 
 ter. In Germany the beer is called 
 "lager beer," and this is also the name 
 given it in America. This beverage is 
 distinguished by its high amber color, its 
 bitter taste and the abundant froth that 
 gathers at the top of the glass when it is 
 drawn from the keg. The alcoholic 
 strength of American lager beer averages 
 from 3 to 6 per cent. Many, of the im- 
 ported beers are much stronger, especi- 
 ally the Bavarian. The chemical com- 
 position of common beer is given by Prof. 
 E. A. Parkes, in his " Hygiene," as fol- 
 lows : One hundred ounces of beer con- 
 tains 5 ounces of alcohol, 6 ounces of 
 extractives, dextrine and sugar, 125 
 grains of free acids and 65 grains of salt. 
 Weiss beer is a considerably milder 
 drink than lager, and is fermented from 
 the malt of wheat, with a slight admix- 
 ture of barley-malt. Small beer also is 
 quite weak in alcohol. To show the rel- 
 ative importance of beer manufacture in 
 American cities, the following table is 
 reproduced from the Brewers' Journal : l 
 
 5 1 !l|H-o||S2.|B^|.|gs| 
 
 M- gl-i 
 
 : : *??*?*&(«: §?: : ': : : #': F: 
 
 
 sp-icoos; on- 1 
 
 3 CJi Ci 13 * d£ Ol 
 
 
 3 rfi. -3 ~1 CJ £; >- 
 
 5y«MC 
 
 3 05 00 OC 
 
 tJ~ W CO — I C 
 , jl££Sfc 
 
 -3 Cl-1 C0 4--1 
 
 Crtt-^C 
 
 u 
 
 CO "t. CO 00 (to. CO Si 
 
 „ c-. cs Jo cs 55 -I -, 
 
 =DCltO-3-H- l Ol3 
 
 " "oora-2. 
 
 OiOCOCO* 
 
 >-. *0 SO Ol >&• rf^ CO ** JO to g Cg *0 IO CO 
 
 £ Ol JO CO W^CG j» -7 jS^^S oios 
 
 V "■*- Co'tOfcO UT CO Q0"So">-» Cn o1o"co"tO OCR QO t-i'tO CD -1 — 
 
 tCp-lK-.^.COODJ^-UO^COK^cnCOCi'Cb-li.-lOOtB 
 
 -TXOC3l^C0*101C0t-.^t00SC0*:C00lC0^00CO^5' 
 
 cto»ocoi-.cR**cncoc7icop 
 01 Co to CO CO -I CO 1 
 
 ,W--.5> 
 
 yl/e contains a smaller percentage of 
 hops than lager beer, is of a paler color 
 and sweeter taste, and. does not produce so 
 high or so persistent a froth. Originally 
 ale was the sole name given to malt 
 liquors by the English ; and the old 
 British statutes invariably described the 
 
 > The figures include malt liquors of all kinds— alee, 
 porters, etc., as well as lager beer. 
 
 places where these liquors were sold as 
 "ale-houses." The word "beer" was 
 at first applied to the malt beverages pre- 
 pared with hops, to distinguish them 
 from ale, in the manufacture of which 
 no hops were then used. The amount of 
 alcohol in ales averages higher than in 
 American beers, being generally in ex- 
 cess of 6 per cent. The most celebrated 
 ales are those brewed in Ireland, Eng- 
 land and Scotland. The establishment 
 of Guinness & Co. (Dublin, Ireland) 
 produced in 1889 2,122,860 barrels 
 (American measurement) of malt liquors. 
 The brewery of Bass, Katcliff, Gretton 
 & Co., Limited (Burton on Trent, 
 Eng.), manufactured more than 1,000,- 
 000 barrels ; and upward of 500,000 bar- 
 rels each were made by these four con- 
 cerns : Allsop & Sons, Limited (Burton 
 on Trent), Coombes & Co. (London), 
 Truman, Hanbury & Buxton (London) 
 and Barclay & Perkins (London). s 
 Draught ale is not an article of large con- 
 sumption in the United States except in 
 a few Eastern cities. There is no means 
 of determining the exact quantity made 
 in this country, since the official returns 
 make no distinction between the differ- 
 ent kinds of malt liquors. But several 
 ale breweries are located in the States of 
 New York and New Jersey, and there 
 are a few in other States. 
 
 Porter is a black, bitter, peculiarly 
 flavored beer. The percentage of alco- 
 hol in it is about the same as in ordinary 
 lager. It is brewed from a pale ' or 
 amber malt, with which is mixed, a cer- 
 tain percentage of roasted malt. The 
 latter imparts the dark color as well as 
 the burnt taste of the liquor. Porter 
 was first made in 1722 by Harwood, a 
 London brewer, and its popularity among 
 the porters and laboring classes gave it 
 its name. Enormous quantities are drank 
 in England, but in the United States it 
 is one of the less important beverages, 
 although wherever ale is made and sold 
 porter is in request. 
 
 Stout, or brown stout, is a variety of 
 porter, stronger and richer than the com- 
 mon stuff. It, too, is an English drink, 
 and there is very little demand for it out- 
 side the British Isles. 
 
 [See also Adulteration, Consumption op 
 Liquors and Light Liquors.] 
 
 2 These quantities, however, stand for porter and stou 
 as well as ale. 
 
Maun, Horace.] 
 
 415 
 
 [Mann, Horace. 
 
 Mann, Horace.— Born in Franklin, 
 Mass., May 4, 1796; died in Yellow 
 Springs, 0., Aug. 2, 1859. At the age of 13 
 he lost his father, who was a poor farmer. 
 His childhood and youth were passed in 
 great poverty; he earned his own school- 
 books by braiding straw, and from his 
 tenth to his twentieth year there was "no 
 year in which he was able to secure more 
 than six weeks of schooling. As a lad, he 
 writes, he " formed the resolution to be a 
 slave of no habit," never used tobacco 
 and was never under the influence of 
 liquor. His savings enabled him to em- 
 ploy a competent tutor, and in 1816 he 
 entered the sophomore class of Brown 
 University. He graduated in 1819 with 
 first honors, and was appointed a tutor 
 in Latin and Greek. In 1821 he began 
 the study of law, and in 1823 he was ad- 
 mitted to the bar at Dedham. It is 
 said that in the 14 years during which 
 he actively practiced his profession he 
 won four-fifths of his cases. His legis- 
 lative career began in 1827, when he was 
 chosen a member of the lower House of 
 the Massachusetts Legislature; and for 
 10 years he served continuously in one 
 branch or the other of that body, ulti- 
 mately becoming President of the Senate. 
 During this period he exhibited a lively 
 interest in the cause of reform legisla- 
 tion, and especially in behalf of temper- 
 ance, anti-lottery and educational meas- 
 ures. In 1830 he stood alone in the 
 Legislature for a statute prohibiting Sun- 
 day sales of liquor; for at that time the 
 liquor laws of Massachusetts still per- 
 mitted selling on Sunday. Seven years 
 later, while he was President of the Sen- 
 ate, the Sunday law was passed; and in 
 a letter to a friend, while exulting over 
 the victory, he declared that it was mere- 
 ly a step and not an end. 
 
 "You asked me,'' he wrote, "some time 
 since, what I meant by the triumph of the tem- 
 perance reform, and whether we must not 
 always see excess. What I meant by the tri- 
 umph of the temperance reform was the entire 
 Prohibition of the sale of ardent spirits as a 
 drink, the abrogation of the laws authorizing 
 the existence of public places for its use or sale 
 — thus taking away those frequent temptations 
 to men whose appetites now overcome their re- 
 solutions. There are thousands and tens of 
 thousands of inebriates who never would have 
 been so had the tavern and the dramshop been 
 five miles off from their homes. " ' 
 
 1 " Life of Horace Mann," by Mary Mann (Boston, 
 1865), p. 56. 
 
 In his "Journal," May 26, 1837, he 
 wrote : 
 
 ' ' The annual meeting of the Massachusetts 
 Temperance Society took place this evening. 
 Pretty well attended, and some good speeches 
 made. The cause progresses. I used to feel a 
 faith in its ultimate triumph, as strong as proph- 
 ecy. The faith is now in a forward state of real- 
 ization; and what a triumph it will be! Not like a 
 Roman triumph that made hearts bleed and na- 
 tions weep, and reduced armies to captivity, but 
 one that heals hearts and wipes tears from a, 
 nation's eyes, and sets captivity free." 2 
 
 He became Secretary of the Massachu- 
 setts Board of Education on June 30, 1837, 
 and for more than 11 years he devoted 
 himself to improving the public school 
 system of the State and promoting the 
 interests of education in general. In this 
 work he acquired a great reputation. In 
 1843 he visited Europe, and his study of 
 the school systems of foreign countries led 
 to the publication of a very valuable re- 
 port. In 1844 he induced the State to 
 found Normal Schools, though he had to 
 make contributions from his private 
 purse. 
 
 In 1848 he was elected to Congress as a 
 "Whig to succeed John Quincy Adams. 
 His first speech in that body was a plea 
 for the exclusion of slaves from the Ter- 
 ritories. His anti-slavery aggressiveness 
 led to a quarrel with Daniel Webster, 
 and by Webster's influence he was de- 
 feated for re-nomination in 1850. But 
 he appealed to- the people as an inde- 
 pendent anti-slavery candidate and was re- 
 elected. In 1852 he was nominated for 
 Governor of Massachusetts by the Free 
 Democracy (Free-Soilers), but was beaten. 
 He then became President of Antioch 
 College at Yellow Springs, 0., retaining 
 the position until his death. His labors 
 here were earnest and progressive, but 
 his efforts to build up the institution 
 were counteracted by the gross financial 
 mismanagement of his associates. 
 
 Mr. Mann's early enthusiasm for rad- 
 ical temperance legislation was not modi- 
 fied in his later years. He was a pro- 
 nounced Prohibitionist to the last. In a 
 letter written from Washington, May 18, 
 1852, he said : 
 
 "Another great moral question is profoundly 
 agitating the people of the Northern and Eastern 
 States; it is the question of temperance. Be- 
 tween one and two years ago such a concentra- 
 tion and pressure of influence was brought to 
 bear upon the Legislature of the State of Maine 
 
 3 Ibid, pp. 71-2. 
 
Marsh, John.] 
 
 416 
 
 [Marsh, John. 
 
 that though it is said that body was principally 
 composed of anti-temperance men, yet it passed 
 what has now become famous in the moral his- 
 tory of mankind — the Maine liquor law. Its 
 grand features are the search for and the seizure 
 of all intoxicating liquors, and their destruction 
 when adjudicated to have been kept for sale. 
 It goes upon the ground that the Government 
 cannot knock a human passion or a depraved 
 and diseased appetite upon the head, but it can 
 knock a barrel of whiskey or rum upon the 
 head, and thus prevent the gratification of the 
 passion or appetite; and after a time the unfed 
 appetite or passion will die out." ' 
 
 Among his published works are : " A 
 Few Thoughts for a Young Man " (1 850) ; 
 "Slavery: Letters and Speeches " (1851); 
 "Powers and Duties of Woman" (1853); 
 "Sermons" (1861); "Lectures, and An- 
 nual Eeports on Education " (1867), and 
 "Annual Reports on Education" (1868). 
 
 Marsh, John. — Born in Wethers- 
 field, Conn., April 2, 1788 ; died in 
 Brooklyn, N. Y., Aug. 5, 1868. At a 
 4th of July celebration he became intoxi- 
 cated, but one such experience was suffi- 
 cient to make him an abstainer. Upon 
 finishing a course of study at Yale 
 College he fitted himself for the ministry, 
 and in 1809 he began preaching. In 
 1818 he was installed pastor of the Con- 
 gregational Church at Haddam, Conn., 
 where he remained for 14 years. In 1828 
 he became one of the officers of a county 
 temperance society, and the next year 
 he was chosen Secretary and Agent of 
 the Connecticut Temperance Society 
 (organized at Hartford, May 20, 1829). 
 As Agent he visited various parts of the 
 State, addressing meetings, founding 
 branch societies and collecting material 
 for his first report, which was published 
 in 1830. A temperance speech delivered 
 by him at Pomfret, Conn., Oct. 28, 1829, 
 entitled "Putnam and the Wolf," was 
 printed and 150,000 copies were sold. 
 In 1831 he was employed by the Balti- 
 more Temperance Society to conduct a 
 three months' campaign in that city and 
 Washington. He left his church in 
 charge of another and gave his entire 
 time to the new work. One of the de- 
 velopments of this engagement was the 
 famous temperance meeting held in the 
 Hall of the National House of Repre- 
 sentatives, Dec. 16, 1831. It was pre- 
 sided over by Lewis Cass, and among 
 the speakers were Daniel Webster, ex- 
 President John Quincy Adams, Senators 
 
 i Ibid, pp. 364-5. 
 
 Theodore Frelinghuysen and Felix 
 Grundy and Representatives J. M. 
 Wayne and Isaac C. Bates. Mr. Marsh 
 was one of the 440 delegates, represent- 
 ing 21 States, who comprised the first 
 National Temperance Convention that 
 met in Philadelphia, May 24, 1833, and 
 he was a Secretary of that body. During 
 the same year he was appointed Agent 
 for the American Temperance Society, 
 with headquarters in Philadelphia. The 
 second National Convention, at Saratoga 
 Springs, N. Y, Aug. 4, 1836 (364 dele- 
 gates being in attendance, and Mr. 
 Marsh being Secretary), reorganized the 
 Society and gave it the new "name of the 
 American Temperance Union. The 
 headquarters were continued at Phila- 
 delphia and a pledge requiring total 
 abstinence from all intoxicating bever- 
 ages was adopted. Mr. Marsh was the 
 Corresponding Secretary and editor. He 
 had already prepared six reports (1831-6, 
 inclusive), which were republished in a 
 volume entitled " The Permanent Ameri- 
 can Temperance Documents." The Union 
 issued two periodicals, called the Jour- 
 nal of the American Temperance Union 
 and the Youths' Temperance Advocate, of 
 which 60,000 and 160,000 copies, respec- 
 tively, were issued at the time of Dr. 
 Marsh's twenty-ninth (and last) annual 
 report. His work during his connection 
 with the American Temperance Union 
 was so conspicuous and devoted that 
 James A. Briggs declared in 1865 : " Dr. 
 John Marsh for the last 25 years has 
 been the American Union — its body, 
 its soul, its spirit, its President, its 
 Executive Committee, its energy and 
 its everything." His active labors came 
 to an end in 1865, when the Union was 
 replaced by the National Temperance 
 Society. During the Civil War he made 
 great efforts in behalf of temperance 
 among the soldiers of the United States 
 Army, and in 1861 270 regiments were 
 supplied with temperance tracts through 
 his exertions. Besides numberless re- 
 ports, tracts and pamphlets he pub- 
 lished a " Temperance Hymn-Book and 
 Minstrel" (1841); "Epitome of Ecclesi- 
 astical History" (1838; 16th ed., 1867) ; 
 "Half Century Tribute to the Cause of 
 Temperance " (1851) ; " The Temperance 
 Speaker " (1860) ; " Temperance Recollec- 
 tions — an Autobiography" (1866), and 
 "Prayer from Plymouth Pulpit" (1867). 
 
Maryland.] 
 
 417 
 
 [Mathew, Theobald. 
 
 Maryland. — See Index. 
 
 Massachusetts. — See Index. 
 
 Mathew, Theobald. — Born at 
 Thomastown House, near Cashel, Ireland, 
 Oct. 10, 1790 ; died in Queenstown, Ire- 
 land, Dec. 8, 1856. He was educated for 
 the priesthood in the Eoman Catholic 
 Church, spending a year at the celebrated 
 college at Maynooth, Ireland, which he 
 entered Sept. 10, 1807, and completing 
 his studies at Dublin. In 1814 he was 
 ordained. He engaged in mission work 
 at Kilkenny, where he joined the Capu- 
 chins. Removing to Cork he shared for 
 many years the labors of Father Donovan 
 in a humble mission. Here he estab- 
 lished a female industrial school, a night- 
 school for boys and little children (the 
 pupils numbering 500 in 1824), and a li- 
 brary and reading-rooms. His eloquent 
 sermons and the wisdom of his counsels 
 in the confessional won for him a wide 
 popularity. Throughout the cholera 
 epidemic of 1832 he was a faithful atten- 
 dant in one of the largest hospitals of 
 Cork, having requested, "as a favor," 
 that the hours of his service should be 
 from midnight to 6 in the morning, when 
 he would be exposed to the greatest 
 danger from contagion. For several 
 years he was one of the Governors of the 
 House of Industry — the Cork workhouse, 
 — and in his frequent visits to the inmates 
 he won the friendship of another of the 
 Governors, William Martin, an old 
 Quaker, who, with two associates (Rev. 
 Nicholas Dunscombe, a Protestant clergy- 
 man, and Richard Dowden) enjoyed local 
 prominence because of their fanatically 
 persistent but not very fruitful advocacy 
 of total abstinence. In passing through 
 the workhouse in company with the 
 priest it was Martin's custom to point 
 out some of the most wretched victims 
 of intemperance, with the comment: 
 " Oh, Theobald Mathew, if thou would 
 but take the cause in hand ! " After 
 long deliberation Father Mathew sent for 
 his Quaker friend one evening early in 
 April, 1838, and requested him to assist 
 in forming a temperance organization. 
 A meeting was held in Father Mathew's 
 chapel on the 10th of April, resulting in 
 the formation of the Cork Total Absti- 
 nence Society, with 60 enrolled members, 
 each of whom took the following pledge •} 
 
 "Dr. Dawson Burns's "Temperance History," vol. 1, 
 pp. 137-9. 
 
 "I promise to abstain from all intoxicating 
 drinks, etc., except used medicinally and by the 
 order of a medical man, and to discountenance 
 the cause and practice of intemperance." 
 
 In his address at this meeting Father 
 Mathew said: 
 
 "These gentlemen are good enough to say 
 that I could be useful in promoting the great 
 virtue of temperance and arresting the spread of 
 drunkenness. I am quite alive to the evils which 
 this vice brings with it, especially to the hum- 
 bler classes, who are naturally most exposed to 
 its temptations and liable to yield to its seduc- 
 tive influences. . . . If only one poor soul could 
 be rescued from destruction by what we are now 
 attempting, it would be giving glory to God and 
 well worth all the trouble we could take. No 
 person in health has any need of intoxicating 
 drinks. My dear friends, you don't require 
 them, nor do I require them — neither do I take 
 them. ... I will be the first to sign my name 
 in the book which is on the table, and I hope we 
 shall soon have it full. " * 
 
 When he had finished the priest sub- 
 scribed his name, exclaiming, "Here 
 goes, in the name of God ! " 
 
 The Society held frequent meetings on 
 week-day and Sunday evenings and the 
 pledge-signers multiplied with a rapidity 
 far surpassing the fondest dreams of the 
 most sanguine of the reformers. A very 
 conservative estimate places the number 
 enrolled at the end of the year 1838 at 
 10,000. 3 Many were residents of the sur- 
 rounding counties, Kerry, Waterford, 
 Clare, Tipperary and Limerick, and the 
 distant County Galway — men who had 
 come to Cork expressly to join Father 
 Mathew's crusade. In August, 1839, the 
 members numbered 21,780, and from this 
 date the movement assumed huge pro- 
 portions; the enrollments in August and 
 September swelled the total to 52,707, 
 and in October to 66,360. A brief visit 
 to Tipperary resulted in obtaining many 
 signatures, while the announcement that 
 Father Mathew would preach a charity 
 sermon in Limerick on Dec. 1 filled the 
 city with such multitudes that standing- 
 room in cellars, in which to pass the 
 night, was purchased at two shillings. 
 Father Mathew spent the greater part of 
 Sunday, Sunday night and Monday ad- 
 ministering the pledge; 17,000 names 
 were recorded, and the entire number of 
 pledge-takers was estimated at from 100,- 
 000 to 150,000. Two days' work at 
 Waterford secured 80,000 signers and 
 one day at Clonmel 30,000, while the 
 
 2 Father Mathew, by J. F. Maguire, M. P. (London, 
 1865), p. 72 
 
 3 Temperance History, vol. 1, p. 139. 
 
Mathew, Theobald.] 
 
 418 
 
 [Mathew, Theobald. 
 
 growth of the reform at Cork was un- 
 abated. Of the effectiveness of the work 
 no better proof could 'be adduced than 
 that afforded by the Excise returns, which 
 showed a falling off in the consumption 
 of spirits in Ireland from 12,296,342 gal- 
 lons in 1838 to 10,815,709 gallons in 1839. 
 
 While these results must have been 
 most gratifying to Father Mathew, it 
 appears that from the first he cherished 
 the hope that Ireland would be wholly 
 redeemed from drink. He expressed 
 this hope in an address delivered about 
 four years after the origin of the reform 
 at a festival in the town of Nenaugh : 
 
 " This great temperance movement which we 
 witness," said he, "was not lightly thought of 
 "by me ; it was not the result of sudden excite- 
 ment; it was not the impulse of a moment that 
 induced me to undertake the share I have had 
 in it. I pondered long upon it; I examined it 
 carefully; I had long reflected on the degrada- 
 tion to which my country was reduced — a 
 country, I will say, second to none in the uni- 
 verse for every element that constitutes a na- 
 tion's greatness, with a people whose generous 
 nature is the world's admiration. I mourned 
 in secret over the miseries of this country; 1 
 endeavored to find out the cause of those mis- 
 eries, and, if that were possihle, to apply a 
 remedy. I saw that these miseries were chiefly 
 owing to the crimes of the people, and that 
 those crimes again had their origin in the use 
 that was made of intoxicating drinks. I dis- 
 covered that if the cause were removed the 
 effects would cease; and with my hopes in the 
 God of universal benevolence and charity, re- 
 posing my hopes in the Omnipotent, I began 
 this mission in Cork." ' 
 
 The year 1840 was the most remarkable 
 in the history of this wonderful agita- 
 tion, and the results gained have no par- 
 allel in temperance annals. The princi- 
 pal cities visited by Father Mathew in 
 this year, with the numbers of pledge- 
 signers in each, were: Lismore, 25,000; 
 Gort, 40,000; Ennis, 30,000; Loughreagh, 
 51,000; Portumna, 20,000; Kilkenny, 
 60,000; Enniscorthy, 25,000; Wexford, 
 26,000; Maryborough, 60,000; Athlone, 
 100,000; Sligo, 78,000; Castlereagh, 65,- 
 000; three visits to Dublin, 60,000, 72,- 
 000 and 46,000 respectively. 2 In the 
 localities where he introduced the pledge 
 (including the principal cities and towns 
 in about two-thirds of Ireland) the ef- 
 fects of his work upon the liquor traffic 
 were marked; many distilleries, brew- 
 eries and public houses were forced to 
 close, and the Court calendars were 
 
 1 Maguire's " Father Mathew,' 1 p. 86. 
 
 2 Temperance History, p. 173. 
 
 cleared of criminal cases. Lord Mor- 
 peth, Chief Secretary for Ireland, re- 
 marked : " The duty of the military and 
 police in Ireland is now almost entirely 
 confined to keeping the ground clear for 
 the operation of Father Mathew." 8 The 
 annual consumption of spirits, which 
 during the years 1835 to 1839 averaged 
 11,595,536 gallons, fell in 1840 to 7,401,- 
 051 gallons — a decrease of more than 
 4,000,000 gallons, resulting in a loss of rev- 
 enue of £500,000." At the close of the first 
 three months of the year 1841 the num- 
 ber of pledge-takers had reached a total 
 of 4,647,000, and by the end of that 
 year the number must have been at 
 least 5,000,000 in a total population of 
 8,175,124 (Census of 1841). The num- 
 ber of gallons of spirits consumed had 
 decreased from 7,401,051 in 1840 to 
 6,485,443 in 1841. The fact that this: 
 decrease, however remarkable, was not 
 proportionate to the number of converts, 
 is readily accounted for when it is re- 
 membered that under any circumstances 
 a great many persons are bound to re- 
 lapse from the best resolutions. 
 
 In 1842 the movement began to ebb, 
 but tens of thousands were enrolled. 
 The fruits of what had been accom- 
 plished were now enjoyed at their best. 
 The consumption of spirits in Ireland 
 amounted to only 5,290,650 gallons in 
 1842, a decrease of 1,194,793 gallons 
 since 1841 and 7,005,692 gallons since 
 1838. The enthusiasm excited by these 
 great achievements was shared by the 
 most eminent persons of the day. In a. 
 letter to Mr. R. Allen, Dublin, written 
 from Edgeworthstown, Ireland, Feb. 28, 
 1842, Maria Edgeworth, the novelist, 
 said : 
 
 "Beyond all calculations — beyond all the 
 predictions of experience and all the example 
 from the past and all analogy, — this wonderful 
 crusade against the bad habits of nations, the 
 bad habits of sensual tastes of individuals, has 
 succeeded and lasted for about two years. It 
 is amazing, and proves the power of moral and 
 religious influence and motive beyond any 
 other example on record in history. I consider 
 Father Mathew as tne greatest benefactor to 
 his country, the most true friend to Irishmen 
 and to Ireland." 5 
 
 During August, 1842, Father Mathew 
 visited Glasgow, where 40,000 took the 
 pledge. In 1843 Ireland was regarded 
 
 3 Ibid, p. 174. 
 « Ibid, p. 175. 
 o Father Mathew, pp. 134-5. 
 
Mathew, Theobald.] 
 
 419 
 
 [Mathew, Theobald. 
 
 as redeemed, and there was a huge dem- 
 onstration in Cork, April IT, in honor 
 of Father Mathew; but the Excise re- 
 turns showed a consumption of 5,546,- 
 483 gallons of spirits, an increase of 
 255,833 gallons over 1842. A tour of 
 England, made this year by the " Apos- 
 tle of Temperance," as Father Mathew 
 was now universally called, resulted in 
 197,940 pledges, 60,940 of them from 
 London. In 1844 the consumption of 
 spirits in Ireland was 6,451,137 gallons, 
 an increase of 1,160,487 gallons over 
 1842. It was asserted that Father 
 Mathew was making enormous profits 
 from the sale of medals furnished to 
 pledge-takers — each signer being charged 
 8d for his medal, if able to pay, or re- 
 ceiving one gratuitously, if unable. But 
 this insinuation was found to be ground- 
 less, for the priest had impoverished 
 himself for his work's sake. 
 
 In 1845-6, the years of the famine, the 
 consumption of spirits advanced to 
 7,605,196 and 7,952,076 gallons, respect- 
 ively. This increase greatly distressed 
 Father Mathew. At Lisgoold, a village 
 near Cork, he said : 
 
 " I don't blame the brewers or the distillers — 
 I blame those who make them so. If they 
 could make more money in any other way they 
 would; but so long as the people are mad enough 
 to buy and drink their odious manufacture, they 
 will continue in the trade. Is it not a terrible 
 thing to think that so much wholesome grain, 
 that God intended for the support of human 
 life, should be converted into a maddening 
 poison, for the destruction of man's body and 
 soul? By a calculation recently made it is 
 clearly proved that if all the grain now con- 
 verted into poison were devoted to its natural 
 and legitimate use it would afford a meal a day 
 to every man, woman and child in the land. 
 The man or woman who drinks, drinks the 
 food of the starving. Is not that man or woman 
 a monster who drinks the food of the starving? "' 
 
 In a letter dated Sept. 30, 1846, ad- 
 dressed to Sir Charles Trevelyan, he said : 
 
 " It is a fact, and you are not to attribute my 
 alluding to it to vanity, that the late provision 
 riots have occurred in the districts in which the 
 temperance movement has not been encouraged. 
 Our people are as harmless in their meetings as 
 flocks of sheep, unless when inflamed and mad- 
 dened by intoxicating drink. If I were at lib- 
 erty to exert myself, as heretofore, no part of 
 Ireland would remain unvisited; but the un- 
 avoidable expenses of such a mighty reformation 
 are now an insurmountable obstacle. Were it 
 not for the temperate habits of the greater por- 
 tion of the people of Ireland our unhappy 
 
 i Ibid, p. 317. 
 
 country would be before now one wild scene of 
 tumult and bloodshed." * 
 
 Father Mathew's reception in the 
 United States, which he visited in 1849, 
 reaching New York on June 30, was 
 attended by official honors rarely accorded 
 to a foreigner. In New York he was 
 welcomed by the City Council in a body, 
 and addresses were presented to him by 
 the President of the Board of Aldermen 
 and by William E. Dodge for the Amer- 
 ican Temperance Union. In Boston an 
 address of welcome was made in the 
 name of the City Council, and Governor 
 Briggs attended a reception given in his 
 honor. The Philadelphia City Council 
 received him in Independence Hall. At 
 Washington President Taylor extended 
 a banquet to him at the White House, 
 Dec. 20, and the Senate voted, by 33 to 
 18, 3 to admit him to the bar of the Senate 
 Chamber — a mark of distinction that had 
 been conferred on only one other for- 
 eigner, Gen. Lafayette. On this occasion 
 Henry Clay pronounced a eulogy, in 
 which he said : 
 
 "I think it ought to be received as a just 
 homage to a distinguished foreigner, for his 
 humanity, his benevolence, his philanthropy and 
 his virtue, and as properly due to one who has 
 devoted himself to the good of his whole species. 
 It is but a merited tribute of respect to a man 
 who has achieved a great social revolution — a 
 revolution in which no blood has been shed, a 
 revolution which has involved no desolation, 
 which has caused no bitter tears of widows and 
 orphans to flow; a revolution which has been 
 achieved without violence, and a greater one, 
 perhaps, than has ever been accomplished by 
 any benefactor of mankind. " 4 
 
 In 1851 Father Mathew returned to 
 Ireland completely exhausted, after a 
 tour of the principal cities of the South 
 and of the Mississippi Valley made in 
 spite of sickness and intense suffering. 
 It is estimated that he administered the 
 pledge to about 600,000 in this country. 
 In his native land he found the fruit of 
 his life's work gradually slipping away — 
 
 2 Ibid, p. 236. 
 
 3 This vote was not reached without protracted discus- 
 sion, due to the action of the Boston Abolitionists, who 
 after seeking vainly to obtain a statement from Father 
 Mathew against slavery republished a circular, issued some 
 years before and signed by Father Mathew and Daniel 
 O'Connell, in which the strongest anti-slavery ground was 
 taken. Father Mathew's desire to remain neutral on this 
 question during his visit was in order that he might not 
 prejudice the temperance cause or impair his power for 
 usefulness as its advocate. The course of the Abolitionists 
 proved a serious bar to his work in the South, as he had 
 foreseen. (See u King Alcohol in the Realm of King Cot- 
 ton," by H. A. Scomp, Ph. D., chapter 31 ; and "Father 
 Mathew," chapter 35.) 
 
 1 Father Mathew, p. 396. 
 
Mathew, Theobald.] 
 
 420 
 
 [Medicine. 
 
 the consumption of spirits constantly in- 
 creasing; and his mature judgment of 
 the means necessary for the permanent 
 destruction of intemperance was ex- 
 pressed in a letter written to Rev. George 
 W. Pepper in 1854, two years before his 
 death : 
 
 "The question of prohibiting the sale of 
 ardent spirits and the many other intoxicating 
 drinks which are to be found in our unhappy 
 country is not new to me. The principle of 
 Prohibition seems to me the only safe and cer- 
 tain remedy for the evils of intemperance. This 
 opinion has been strengthened by the hard labor 
 of more than 20 years in the temperance cause. 
 I rejoice in the welcome intelligence of the for- 
 mation of a Maine Law Alliance, which I trust 
 ■will be the means, under God, of destroying the 
 fruitful source of crime and pauperism." 
 
 Referring to the causes of the gradual 
 decline of the Irish into their old drink- 
 ing habits Dr. Dawson Burns says : 
 
 "Added to all other causes, and greater than 
 all, was the continuance of the legalized drink 
 traffic in the midst of the converted millions. 
 Though many liquor-shops were closed, suffi- 
 cient numbers remained open to act as snares to 
 the unwary, and as ever-present temptations in 
 moments of weakness. Had the power been 
 placed in the hands of the people of extinguish- 
 ing these centres of evil and- thus allowing time 
 for the free and full formation of sober habits 
 and of a stronger will, the results would have 
 been widely different. No one understood this 
 better than Father Mathew himself, who became 
 a Vice-President of the United Kingdom Alli- 
 ance in 1853, and recognized in its policy of the 
 legislative suppression of the liquor traffic the 
 necessary guarantee of all permanent temper- 
 ance reformation." ' 
 
 This statement is confirmed by a letter 
 from Father Mathew addressed to the 
 Alliance from Cork, Feb. 21, 1853. 
 
 "My labors," he wrote, "with the Divine 
 aid, were attended with partial success. The 
 efforts of individuals, however zealous, are not 
 equal to the mighty task. The United King- 
 dom Alliance strikes at the very root of the 
 evil." I trust in God the associated efforts of 
 the many good and benevolent men will effec- 
 tually crush a monster gorged with human 
 gore." 3 
 
 Medicine. — One of the most obsti- 
 nate obstacles to a successful propagation 
 of total abstinence principles is the drug 
 fallacy — a delusion founded on precisely 
 the same error which leads the dram- 
 drinker to mistake a process of irritation 
 
 1 Temperance History, vol. 1, pp. 398-9. 
 
 2 The Alliance was organized avowedly " for the total 
 and immediate legislative suppression of the traffic in in- 
 toxicating liquors as beverages, 1 ' (See the paper by 
 Thomas H. Barker, formerly Secretary of the Alliance, in 
 the " Centennial Temperance Volume " [New York,1881], 
 p. 810.) 
 
 3 Father Mathew, p. 330. 
 
 for a process of invigoration. During 
 the infancy of the healing art all medical 
 theories were biased by the idea that sick- 
 ness is an enemy whose attacks must be 
 repulsed a main forte, by suppressing 
 the symptoms with' fire, sword and poison 
 — not in the figurative, but in the literal 
 sense, — the keystone dogma of the primi- 
 tive Sangrados having been the following 
 heroic maxim : " Quod medicamenta non 
 cur ant, ferrum curat/ quod non curat 
 ferrum ignis curat " (What drugs won't 
 cure must be cured with iron [the lancet] ; 
 if that fails, resort to fire). But with the 
 progress of the physiological sciences the 
 truth gradually gained ground that 
 disease itself is a reconstructive process, 
 and that the suppression of the symp- 
 toms retards the accomplishment of that 
 reconstruction. And ever since that 
 • truth has dawned upon the human mind 
 the use of poison drugs has steadily de- 
 clined among intelligent people. 
 
 Alcohol lingers in our hospitals as 
 slavery lingers in South America or tor- 
 ture in the Courts of eastern Europe. 
 Quacks prescribe it because it is the 
 cheapest stimulant; routine doctors 
 prescribe it because its stimulating 
 effect is more infallible than that of 
 other poisons; empirists prescribe it 
 at the special request of their patients, 
 or because they find it in the ready-made 
 formulas of their dispensatories. Obser- 
 vant physicians, however, are beginning 
 to recognize the fact that virulent drugs 
 can at best only force nature to postpone 
 the crisis of a disease and interrupt the 
 course of a process which, after all, is the 
 safest and often the most direct path to 
 the goal of definite recovery. The neces- 
 sity of alcoholic drugs has been disproved 
 by the strongest testimony ever accumu- 
 lated on any medical question. Alcohol 
 as a medicine can be rejected in favor of 
 safer as well as more efficacious tonics ; 
 and that it should be thus rejected ad- 
 mits of no doubt, from a moral point of 
 view, considering the facts that: (1) 
 Fifteen per cent, of all confirmed topers 
 owe their ruin to the after effects of medi- 
 cal prescriptions, and (2) A single dose 
 of alcoholic drugs is sufficient to re- 
 awaken the dormant passion of a re- 
 claimed inebriate or to kindle the fuel 
 gathered by the transmission of heredi- 
 tary tendencies. " I remember the case 
 of a habitual drinker," says Dr. Mussey, 
 
Medicine,] 
 
 421 
 
 [Medicine, 
 
 " who in an interval of contrition took a 
 solemn pledge that he would touch no 
 more spirits for 40 years, never doubt- 
 ing, however, that 40 years would place 
 him in his grave. His health improved 
 and he actually kept his vow, but at the 
 expiration of the stipulated period ven- 
 tured to take a little liquor, as it seemed 
 no more than a friendly salutation given 
 to an old acquaintance — and in a short 
 time died a sot." 
 
 Alcohol can in no case be considered 
 an indispensable means either of main- 
 taining or restoring the normal condition 
 of the human organism. "Alcohol is 
 neither a food nor a generator of force in 
 the human body," says Dr. N. S. Davis, 
 ex-President of the American Medical 
 Association, " and / have found no case 
 of disease, and no emergency arising from 
 accident, that I could not treat more 
 successfully tuithout any form of fer- 
 mented or distilled liquor than with." 
 Dr. Andrew Clark of London, court- 
 physician of the royal family, confesses 
 that " Alcohol is not only not a helper of 
 work but a certain hinderer, and every 
 man who comes to the front of a profes- 
 sion in London is marked by this one 
 characteristic, that the more busy he gets 
 the less in the shape of alcohol he takes, 
 and his excuse is: 'I am sorry, but I 
 cannot take it and do my work.' " " The 
 banishment of alcohol/' says the editor 
 of the Boston Journal of Chemistry, 
 " would not deprive us of a single one of 
 the indispensable agents which modern 
 civilization demands. Neither would 
 chemical science be retarded by its loss. 
 In no instance of disease is it a remedy 
 which might not be dispensed with and 
 other agents substituted." Dr. H. E. 
 Greene of Boston reminds us of an addi- 
 tional reason for renouncing the aid of 
 the treacherous drug. " It needs no 
 argument," he says, " to convince us that 
 it is upon the medical profession to a 
 very great extent that the rumseller de- 
 pends to maintain the respectability of 
 the traffic. It requires only your own 
 experience and observation to convince 
 you that it is upon the medical profes- 
 sion, upon "their prescriptions and recom- 
 mendations, that the habitual dram- 
 drinker depends for the seeming respect- 
 ability of his drinking habits. As a re- 
 sult of 30 years of professional experience 
 and practical observation, I- feel assured 
 
 that alcoholic stimulants are not required 
 as medicines, and believe that many, if 
 not a majority of physicians to-day, of 
 education and experience, are satisfied 
 that alcoholic stimulants as medicines 
 are worse than useless, and physicians 
 generally have only to overcome the force 
 of habit and of prevailing fashions to 
 find a more excellent way, when they 
 will all look back with wonder and sur- 
 prise to find that they, as members of an 
 honored profession, should have been so 
 far compromised." 
 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 The relation of the physician to the 
 temperance reform is a subject of such 
 importance that neither he nor the gene- 
 ral public can afford to ignore it. There 
 can be no doubt that the frequent and 
 free use of alcoholics in the sick-room 
 has been one of the greatest impediments 
 to the progress of this reform ; and yet if 
 this freedom of use is advantageous to 
 the patient, if it meets the requirements 
 as nothing else does, and if the second- 
 ary effects are desirable and satisfactory, 
 the faithful physician will be slow to re- 
 linguish the practice even if the liquor 
 traffic and the drink habit derive no in- 
 considerable support therefrom. On the 
 other hand, if the use of intoxicants in 
 the sick-room is largely empirical, the 
 result of routine practice or a matter of 
 convenience; if most serious secondary 
 results do very often ensue, and if in 
 most instances, if not in every case, other 
 remedies will meet the indications quite 
 as well or very much better, then not 
 only as a reformer, a philanthropist and 
 a good citizen, but also as a scientific 
 medical man, he is bound to eschew in- 
 toxicants and substitute other remedies. 
 
 It is undeniable that many a man is 
 tottering to-day on the brink of a drunk- 
 ard's grave who can trace the origin of 
 his drink habit to a physician's prescrip- 
 tion, and who has thus suffered through 
 all his subsequent career from a so-called 
 remedy which his doctor prescribed when 
 he was sick. Here, then, is a risk which 
 the judicious physician will not fail to 
 consider, and he will give the preference 
 to remedies that are quite as efficient in 
 primary results and less dangerous in 
 secondary. 
 
 Physicians have without doubt fre- 
 quently administered alcoholics with a 
 
Medicine.] 
 
 422 
 
 [Medicine. 
 
 view to their food value; but the uncon- 
 tradicted evidence of all authorities is 
 that alcohol is a poison. All our dispen- 
 satories and medical dictionaries — Eng- 
 lish, French and American — agree on 
 this point, and probably all physicians 
 will agree that a food is not a poison and 
 a poison is not a food. The difference 
 between these two classes of substances 
 lies in their inherent qualities, and the 
 one does not run into the other. But even 
 if some degree of nutrition could be 
 claimed for alcohol, we have in milk an 
 article of positive and undeniable food 
 value that is always at hand and never 
 open to the objections that lie against 
 the intoxicants. 
 
 It is also claimed by some that alcohol 
 is of value as a heat-producer, and the 
 fact that much of that which is taken 
 into the system cannot be found by the 
 chemist has given some plausibility to 
 this theory; but after three years of care- 
 ful experiment, Dr. B. W. Eichardson 
 expresses his full conviction that alcohol 
 is not a supporter and sustainer of the 
 animal temperature. Other eminent 
 physiologists who have given the subject 
 much attention — such as Carpenter, Ait- 
 ken and Lees — fully agree with him; 
 while the practical experience of polar 
 navigators seems to settle the matter be- 
 yond a peradventure, for they have in- 
 variably found that the total abstainers 
 could resist the extreme cold far better 
 than those who attempted to warm them- 
 , selves with intoxicants. 
 
 But the physician most frequently re- 
 ports to the use of intoxicants for the 
 ,sick in those later stages of fever and 
 other exhaustive diseases where the vital 
 powers begin to flag and some stimulant 
 .seems to be indicated. The opinion has 
 been quite prevalent, both in the profes- 
 sion and out of it, that under these cir- 
 cumstances the patient can be kept up 
 or "run along" by the use of intoxi- 
 cants — that these supply a stimulation 
 suited to the exigencies of the case; but 
 it now appears very probable, if not ab- 
 solutely certain, that we have been seri- 
 ously deceived here, as it has been shown 
 that patients can be kept up and ".run 
 along" quite as well with other reme- 
 dies, and it is now seriously questioned 
 whether alcohol is in any proper sense a 
 stimulant. It is universally admitted 
 that in its secondary effects it is a para- 
 
 lyzer of nervous power. This is shown 
 in the uncertain gait of a person under 
 its influence, and it becomes more mani- 
 fest in the obtuseness of nervous sensi- 
 bility when one is farther advanced. In 
 the light of investigations made within 
 the last quarter of a century it is quite 
 probable, if not certain, that its first 
 effect also is a partial paralysis of the 
 terminal nerves, whereby the tension of 
 the capillary is so much relaxed that the 
 heart's action is increased — not because 
 fresh power has been given it, but be- 
 cause the normal resistance to its action 
 has been diminished. If however the 
 old theory, that the first action of alco- 
 hol is really that of a stimulant, is con- 
 ceded, the wise physician will consider 
 whether we have not in ammonia and 
 other substances stimulants of greater 
 value, and those that are free from the 
 serious objections that belong to the al- 
 coholics. 
 
 Any physician who would honor his 
 profession and serve his patrons well 
 must give to the non-alcoholic treatment 
 that patient investigation and candid 
 consideration which its importance de- 
 mands, and then pursue the course 
 which the broadest philanthropy and the 
 most enlightened medical science dic- 
 tate. Johjt Blackmer. 
 
 However unsatisfactory the attitude of 
 the medical profession at large may ap- 
 pear to be in the estimation of those who 
 are in accord with the views expressed in 
 the foregoing articles, there has been a 
 very marked growth of sentiment in the 
 last 50 years. The evidences of it are seen 
 not alone in the uncompromising attacks 
 upon alcohol made in many medical 
 books of great authority, and in utter- 
 ances from a multitude of eminent prac- 
 titioners and investigators, as well as in 
 the increasing favor with which total ab- 
 stinence is regarded by leading medical 
 journals, but also in important declara- 
 tions, issued with much formality and 
 representing the best thought of the pro- 
 fession. 
 
 Three famous " medical declarations " 
 on the alcohol question have been put 
 forth in England. The first was drawn 
 up in 1839 by Julius Jeffreys, and was 
 signed by 78 scientists of distinction, in- 
 cluding Sir Benjamin Brodie, Dr. W. E. 
 Chambers, Sir James Clarke, Bransby 
 
Medicine.] 
 
 423 
 
 [Medicine. 
 
 Cooper, Dr. D. Davis, Sir J. Eyre, Dr. A. 
 Ferguson, Mason Good, Dr. Marshall 
 Hall, Dr. J. Hope, C. A. Key, Herbert 
 Mayo, E. Partridge, Richard Quain, Dr. 
 
 A. T. Thomson, R. Travers, Dr. Andrew, 
 and Alexander Ure (the Queen's physi- 
 cian). It was as follows : 
 
 " An opinion handed down from rude and ig- 
 norant times, and imbibed by Englishmen from 
 their youth, has become very general, that the 
 habitual use of some portion of alcoholic drink, 
 as of wine, beer or spirit, is beneficial to health, 
 and even necessary to those who are subjected 
 to habitual labor. Anatomy, physiology and 
 the experience of all ages and countries, when 
 properly examined, must satisfy every mind 
 well-informed in medical science that the above 
 opinion is altogether erroneous. Man, in ordi- 
 nary health, like other animals, requires not 
 any such stimulants, and cannot be benefited by 
 the habitual employment of any quantity of 
 them, large or small ; nor will their use during 
 his lifetime increase the aggregate amount of 
 his labor. In whatever quantity they are em- 
 ployed they will rather tend to diminish it. 
 When he is in a state of temporary debility 
 from illness or other causes, a temporary use of 
 them, as of other stimulant medicines, may be 
 desirable ; but as soon as he is raised to his 
 natural standard of health a continuance of 
 their use can do no good to him, even in the 
 most moderate quantities ; while larger quanti- 
 ties (yet such as by many persons are thought 
 moderate) do, sooner or later, prove injurious 
 to the human constitution, without any excep- 
 tions." 
 
 The second declaration was prepared 
 in 1847 by John Dunlop, Esq., and sign- 
 ed by more than 2,000 physicians and 
 surgeons, of whom a few were : Dr. Ad- 
 dison, Dr. Niel Arnot, J. Moncrieff Ar- 
 not, Esq., Dr. B. G. Babington, Dr. 
 Beattie, Sir J. Bisdon Bennett, Dr. A. 
 Billing, Dr. John Bostock, Dr. Gold- 
 ing Bird, Dr. R. Bright, W. Bowman, 
 Esq., Sir B. 0. Brodie, Sir W. Burnett, 
 Dr. G. Budd, Sir G. Burrows, Dr. W. 
 
 B. Carpenter, Dr. W. P. Chambers, 
 Sir J. Clark, Dr. Copland, Sir J. Eyre, 
 Dr. A. Farre, Dr. Robert Ferguson, 
 Sir William Ferguson, Sir J. Forbes, 
 R. D. Grainger, Esq., Dr. Guy, Dr. Mar- 
 shall Hall, Sir H. Holland, Sir Aston 
 Key, F. Kiernan, Esq., W. B. Langmore, 
 Esq., Dr. P. M. Latham, Sir J. McGregor, 
 Dr. J. A. Paris, Dr. Peacock, Dr. Pereira, 
 Dr. Pettigrew, Dr. Prout, Dr. Toynbee, 
 Dr. Wilks, Erasmus "Wilson, Esq., Dr. 
 Forbes Winslow, Prof. Adams, Dr. Ait- 
 ken, Prof. Alison, Dr. S. Begbie, W. 
 Braithwaite, Esq., Dr. Buchanan, Dr. P. 
 Crampton, Prof. Curran, Dr. Keith, Sir 
 H. Marsh, Dr. Q. E. Paget, Prof. Pirrie, 
 
 Prof. J. Reid, Prof. Syme, T. P. Teale, 
 Esq., Dr. Andrew Wood and Dr. Wylie. 
 This declaration spoke with increased 
 emphasis in behalf of total abstinence, 
 and did not hint at the necessity of 
 using alcoholic drinks in cases of sick- 
 ness. The following is the text : 
 
 "We, the undersigned, are of opinion: (1) 
 That a very large proportion of human misery, 
 including poverty, disease and crime, is induced 
 by the use of alcoholic or fermented liquors as 
 beverages. (2) That the most perfect health is 
 compatible with total abstinence from all such 
 intoxicating beverages, whether in the form of 
 ardent spirits or as wine, beer, ale, porter, cider, 
 etc., etc. (3) That persons accustomed to such 
 drinks may with perfect safety discontinue them 
 entirely, either at once or gradually, after a 
 short time. (4) That total and universal abstin- 
 ence from alcoholic liquors and beverages of all 
 sorts would greatly contribute to the health, the 
 prosperity, the morality and the happiness of 
 the human race." 
 
 The third and final English medical 
 declaration, written by Prof. Parkes in 
 1871, was signed by George Burrows, 
 M. D., F. R. S., President of the Royal 
 College of Physicians, etc., by George 
 Busk, F. R. S., President of the Royal 
 College of Surgeons, by a large number 
 of the leading physicians and surgeons of 
 London, and by 69 eminent practitioners, 
 heads of medical institutions in various 
 cities and towns of England. It is re- 
 produced below. 
 
 "As it is believed that the inconsiderate pre- 
 scription of large quantities of alcoholic liquids 
 by medical men for their patients has given rise 
 in many instances to the formation of intemper- 
 ate habits, the undersigned, while unable to 
 abandon the use of alcohol in the treatment of 
 certain cases of disease, are yet of opinion that 
 no medical practitioner should prescribe it with- 
 out a sense of grave responsibility. They be- 
 lieve that alcohol, in whatever form, should be 
 prescribed with as much care as any powerful 
 drug, and that the directions for its use should 
 be so framed as not to be interpreted as a sanc- 
 tion for excess, or necessarily for the continu- 
 ance of its use when the occasion is past. They 
 are also of opinion that many people immensely 
 exaggerate the value of alcohol as an article of 
 diet, and since no class of men see so much of 
 its ill effects, and possess such power to restrain 
 its abuse, as members of their own profession, 
 they hold that every medical practitioner is 
 bound to exert his utmost influence to inculcate 
 habits of great moderation in the use of alcoholic 
 liquids. 
 
 ' ' Being also firmly convinced that the great 
 amount of drinking of alcoholic liquors among 
 the working classes of this country is one of the 
 greatest evils of the day, destroying — more than 
 anything else — the health, happiness and wel- 
 fare of those classes, and neutralizing to a large 
 extent the great industrial prosperity which 
 
Medicine.] 
 
 424 
 
 [Medicine. 
 
 Providence has placed within the reach of this 
 nation, the undersigned would gladly support 
 any wise legislation which would tend to restrict, 
 within proper limits, the use of alcoholic bever- 
 ages, and gradually introduce habits of temper- 
 ance. " 
 
 At the International Medical Congress 
 held at Washington, D. C, in 1887, the 
 following, prepared by the editor of the 
 Voice, was circulated for signatures; and 
 although the work was not systematically 
 done, or under favorable circumstances, 
 the names of 78 delegates were obtained 
 (including distinguished physicians from 
 foreign countries), the list being headed 
 with the signature of Dr. ST. S. Davis, 
 President of the Congress : 
 
 "In view of the alarming prevalence and ill 
 effects of intemperance, with which none are so 
 familiar as members of the medical profession, 
 and which have called forth from eminent 
 physicians all the world over the voice of warn- 
 ing concerning the use of alcoholic beverages, 
 we, the undersigned, members of the Interna- 
 tional Medical Congress, unite in the declaration 
 that we believe alcohol should be classed with 
 other powerful drugs; that, when prescribed 
 medicinally, it should be with conscientious 
 caution and a sense of grave responsibility. 
 
 ' ' We are of the opinion that the use of alco- 
 holic liquor as a beverage is productive of a 
 large amount of physical disease, that it entails 
 diseased appetites upon offspring, and that it is 
 the cause of a large percentage of the crime and 
 pauperism of our cities and country. 
 
 "We would welcome any judicious and ef- 
 fective measures which would tend to confine 
 the traffic to the legitimate purposes of medical 
 and other sciences, art and mechanism." ' 
 
 From all this 'it is perfectly plain that 
 total abstinence is unqualifiedly recom- 
 mended by the deliberate judgment of 
 physicians so numerous and reputable 
 as to be considered thoroughly represen- 
 tative of the profession, that the care- 
 less prescription of alcohol or liquors is 
 solemnly condemned by them, and that 
 they exhibit a distinct friendship for 
 legislation against the beverage traffic. 
 Individual doctors may dissent from 
 their conclusions and even hold fast to 
 the old-time practices of indifference or 
 recklessness; but these "declarations" 
 are absolutely unchallenged by the pro- 
 fession in general. No counter-declara- 
 tions have been formulated. If alcohol 
 were good for man, if total abstinence 
 were injurious or unnecessary, if mode- 
 rate indulgence were promotive of health 
 in any way, surely such declarations as 
 those printed above, issued with so much 
 
 i See the Voice, Sept. 32, 1887. 
 
 formality and aggressiveness, would not 
 be permitted to stand as the representa- 
 tive utterances of the medical profession. 
 There remain two propositions, ad- 
 vanced by the radical anti-alcohol scien- 
 tists, that physicians still seem slow to 
 accept — first, that even if alcohol has a. 
 remedial value, its virtues lie wholly in 
 the spirits at the basis of liquors, and 
 therefore that so far as this substance" is 
 prescribed it should invariably be given 
 in the form of pure alcohol and not in the 
 disguised form of beer, wine, ale, brandy, 
 etc. ; second, that even pure alcohol as a 
 medicinal agent may be dispensed with, 
 advantageously or without serious dis- 
 advantage, in nearly (if not quite) all 
 cases. ' But conservative prejudices are 
 gradually giving way before the convic- 
 tion that those who make claims for al- 
 cohol cannot consistently prefer the di- 
 luted drinks to the pure article when the 
 sole aim is to obtain a therapeutic effect ; 
 while the epigrammatic saying of the dis- 
 tinguished Dr. John Higginbottom, that 
 in reality " alcohol is neither food nor 
 physic," finds confirmation in numerous 
 practical experiments. The results pro- 
 duced in the London Temperance Hos- 
 pital have received widespread attention. 
 This institution was founded Oct. 3, 
 1873, with a view to treating disease with- 
 out recourse to alcohol ; and although its 
 supporters struggled for several years 
 under serious difficulties it has for some 
 time been on a tolerably good financial 
 footing. In 1889 it treated 5,390 pa- 
 tients, of whom 789 were in-patients. 
 Of the 5,390, 2,844 were cured, 2,049 
 were relieved, 329 died, 127 were unre- 
 lieved and 41 still remained under medi- 
 cal care — making a death-rate of only 
 6.10 per cent, for in and out-patients 
 combined, certainly a very low death- 
 rate for a metropolitan hospital. The 
 report of the hospital for the 10^- years 
 ending April 30, 1884, gave the following 
 statistics for in-patients treated in that 
 period : 
 
 Total number admitted, 2,278 ; cured, 1,272 ; 
 relieved, 850 ; died, 113 ; still under treatment, 
 43 — average death-rate for the 10% years, 5.05 
 per cent. 
 
 In the same period of 10£ years, 53 
 cases of typhoid fever were treated; and 
 47 of the 53 patients recovered. Of the 
 six who died, five were non-abstainers, 
 and the other one had been an abstainer 
 
Mennonites.] 
 
 425 [Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 for only six months. Indeed, it was in- 
 variably found that the patients whose 
 ailments were most stubborn were non- 
 abstainers. The ' results in surgical 
 cases were no less remarkable than in 
 typhoid fever cases. In the period from 
 March 25, 1875, to April 30, 1884, Dr. 
 Edmunds, of the hospital staff, had 
 under his care 401 "surgical cases of 
 such severity as to require treatment in 
 the beds of the hospital,'" and in no case 
 did he administer alcohol in any form; 
 yet only eight deaths occurred — a mor- 
 tality of but 2 per cent. 
 
 Concerning the methods practiced in 
 the Temperance Hospital, Mr. Axel Gus- 
 tafson says : 
 
 ' ' Part of the success is due to the distinction 
 of its medical staff, to the model character of 
 the hospital and to the devoted ladies who 
 superintend the nursing. But a large part of 
 the success is undoubtedly due to the fact that 
 alcohol is practically disused. The visiting phy- 
 sicians and surgeons are in no way tied with re- 
 gard to the use of alcohol, if they deem it de- 
 sirable to use it as a medicine. It is only 
 stipulated that in the event of any such excep- 
 tional case they fully report the matter to the 
 Board. As a matter of fact, alcohol has only 
 been used in one or two experimental cases 
 during these ten years (1873-84), and in these 
 cases without beneficial results. As an article 
 of food and as a pharmaceutical vehicle, the use 
 of alcohol is formally excluded from the hos- 
 pital." 1 
 
 Mennonites . — The Mennonite 
 Church has a membership of about 250,- 
 000 in the United States. Its newspaper 
 organs and District Conferences have 
 taken strong ground for total abstinence 
 and against the liquor traffic, but the 
 General Conference has not in recent 
 years made a distinct record. 
 
 Methodist Episcopal Church. — 
 
 This church, ever since its foundation, 
 has manifested a strong interest in the 
 drink question. The Wesleys were un- 
 compromising opponents of drunken- 
 ness and drinking, and also of the spiritu- 
 ous liquor traffic. The rules formulated by 
 them for the United Societies of Metho- 
 dists in 1743 declared that all "members 
 were expected to evidence their desire 
 of salvation, first, by doing no harm; 
 by avoiding evil of every kind, especi- 
 ally that which is most generally prac- 
 ticed, such as . . . drunkenness, 
 buying or selling spirituous liquors, or 
 drinking them, except in cases of ex- 
 
 ■ ^Foundation of Death, pp. 31CM1. 
 
 treme necessity." (See Wesley, John.) 
 Upon the organization of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church in America in 1784,. 
 the following was made a, part of the 
 minutes : 
 
 " Q. Should our friends be permitted to 
 make spirituous liquors, and sell and drink 
 them in drams? — A. By no means." 
 
 The rule of "Wesley was modified in 
 1790 so as to read, "drunkenness or 
 drinking spirituous liquors, unless in 
 cases of necessity," — the words "buying 
 and selling" and "extreme" being 
 omitted. This less aggressive attitude 
 of the church continued for a number of 
 years. Even as late as 1812 the Gen- 
 eral Conference voted down (after it had 
 been called up five successive times) the 
 following resolution : 
 
 "Resolved, That no stationed or local 
 preacher shall retail spirituous or malt liquors, 
 without forfeiting his ministerial character 
 among us." 
 
 Radicalism gradually came into favor 
 again. The labors of men like Wilbur 
 Fisk were instrumental in bringing the 
 church back to its first position. In 1836, 
 1840 and 1844 attempts were made in 
 the General Conference to restore Wes- 
 ley's rule; but although a very large 
 majority in the affirmative was obtained 
 in each of these years, the necessary 
 three-fourths of all the elected delegates 
 could not be controlled. The division of 
 the church into Northern and Southern 
 branches occurred in 1844. In 1848 the 
 General Conference re-enacted the rule 
 by a vote of 2,011 ayes to 21 nays. The 
 Southern branch had already, at its first 
 General Conference in 1846, declared 
 that 
 
 "From the high ground so early and long 
 maintained by the Methodist EpiscopalChurch in 
 her disciplinary provisions against drunken- 
 ness and the needless use of ardent spirits, it is 
 doubtless expected by the lovers of pure moral- 
 ity that she continue to evince by every possible 
 method, and especially in the expressions of 
 her supreme councils, a decided and irrevocable 
 opposition to intemperance, and that such un- 
 equivocal avowals be constantly sustained in 
 the teaching of her ministry and in the uncom- 
 promising administration of her discipline; 
 therefore 
 
 "Resolved, That we recommend all the 
 members of our churches to unite their efforts 
 in promoting the great temperance reformation 
 now in successful operation. " 
 
 THE NORTHERN BRANCH. 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 North, at its last General Conference, held 
 
Methodist Episcopal Church.] 426 [Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 in New York in May, 1888, adopted an 
 extended temperance report (May 24), 
 which endorsed and emphasized the fol- 
 lowing strong words contained in the 
 address submitted by the Bishops of the 
 church : 
 
 " The liquor traffic is so pernicious in all its 
 "bearings, so inimical to the interests of honest 
 trade, so repugnant to the moral sense, so inju- 
 rious to the peace and order of society, so hurt- 
 ful to the homes, to the church and to the body 
 politic, and so utterly antagonistic to all that is 
 precious in life, that the only proper attitude 
 toward it for Christians is that of relentless hos- 
 tility. It can never be legalized without sin. 
 No temporary device for regulating it can be- 
 come a substitute for Prohibition. License, 
 iigh or low, is vicious in principle and power- 
 less as a remedy." 
 
 The report touched upon nearly all 
 the separate questions of policy arising 
 from the temperance agitation. On the 
 .subject of total abstinence it said: 
 
 " We renew our time-honored testimony in 
 favor of total abstinence from all alcoholic 
 liquors. The best modern science has irrefra- 
 gably demonstrated that there is no legitimate 
 place for alcohol, not even in the form of the 
 milder liquors, and in however moderate quan- 
 tities, in a healthy, living organism. This tes- 
 timony of science has been independently con- 
 firmed by the impartial demonstrations of life- 
 insurance experts, critically seeking sure bases 
 on which to conduct great financial interests. 
 Total abstinence is now fully vindicated as 
 something more than 'a dietetic whim ' or a fan- 
 atical craze ; and we can accept of nothing less 
 than this as security for personal safety and as 
 the basal principle of the temperance reform." 
 
 Speaking of the rules of conduct that 
 .should govern individual Methodists, the 
 following extreme opinion was advanced : 
 
 " "We approve the action of the Lay Electoral 
 Conference of California, condemning the rais- 
 ing and selling of grapes for the manufacture 
 of fermented wine, and we think the time has 
 ■come for a broader utterance upon this subject. 
 "We warn our members against raising and sell- 
 ing, not only grapes, but also other fruits, hops 
 and grain, for the manufacture of alcoholic 
 liquors, as inconsistent with the Christian pro- 
 fession, benumbing to the conscience and hurt- 
 ful to the cause of temperance and true piety. 
 These practices bring the church into complic- 
 ity with the great liquor nuisance, paralyze our 
 efforts and afford comfort to the greatest enemy 
 of modern Christianity." 
 
 The political recommendation adopted 
 by the General Conference in 1884 was 
 re-affirmed (May 25), as follows : 
 
 " We are unalterably opposed to the enact- 
 ment of laws that propose, by license, taxing or 
 otherwise, to regulate the drink traffic, because 
 they provide for its continuance and afford no 
 protection against its ravages. We hold that 
 
 the proper attitude of Christians toward this 
 traffic is one of uncompromising opposition, 
 and while we do not presume to dictate to our 
 people their political affiliations, we do express 
 the opinion that they should not permit them- 
 selves to be controlled by party organizations 
 that are managed in the interest of the liquor 
 traffic. We advise the members of our church 
 to aid in the enforcement of such laws as do 
 not legalize or endorse the manufacture and sale 
 of intoxicants to be used as beverages; and to 
 this end we favor the organization of Law and 
 Order Leagues wherever practicable. We pro- 
 claim as our motto: Voluntary total abstinence 
 from all intoxicants as the true ground of per- 
 sonal temperance, and complete legal Prohibi- 
 tion of the traffic in intoxicating drinks as the 
 duty of civil government." 
 
 In some of its minor parts the report 
 was not wholly satisfactory to the most 
 radical Prohibitionists. There was a 
 paragraph advising voters to labor for 
 political reform through the caucuses 
 and primaries; and since this was the 
 only explicit suggestion concerning the 
 method of political action, it was re- 
 garded by some as a hint that the ene- 
 mies of the saloon might without incon- 
 sistency (in the judgment of the Confer- 
 ence) continue in affiliation with the 
 anti-Prohibition parties. In view, how- 
 ever, of the above-quoted utterances,, 
 this indirect justification of a conserva- 
 tive course (if indeed it may rightly be 
 interpreted as even an indirect justifica- 
 tion) was deprived of positive signifi- 
 cance. Another minor expression that 
 occasioned regret among the radicals was 
 embraced in that portion of the report 
 which dealt with legislation ; besides ap- 
 proving Constitutional Prohibition, the 
 policy of " no-license votes under a Local 
 Option regime " was favored. Local 
 Option, as is well-known, no longer re- 
 ceives the undivided support of advanced 
 temperance people. 
 
 The inferior Conferences uniformly 
 advocate Prohibition and condemn li- 
 cense in the strongest terms, and fre- 
 quently show a most aggressive political 
 tendency. The following extracts from 
 36 recent Conference reports have been 
 select.ed with impartiality : ' 
 
 California (1888). — " We favor the abolition 
 of the Government tax on intoxicating liquors 
 as making the State and nation particeps crimi- 
 nis in the liquor traffic; and we are unalterably 
 opposed to all measures that propose by license, 
 taxing or otherwise to regulate the drink 
 traffic." 
 
 1 The Voice, Oct. 24, 1889. 
 
Methodist Episcopal Church.] 427 [Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 Cincinnati (1888). — "As consistent and cour- 
 ageous Christian men, we must ever protest 
 against any form of license which shall legalize 
 the importation, manufacture and sale of intox- 
 icating beverages." 
 
 Colorado (1888). — "To license such a busi- 
 ness [the liquor traffic] for the purpose of reve- 
 nue, or for any other motive, is a crime, and 
 the revenue obtained is the price of our broth- 
 ers' blood." 
 
 Dakota (1888). — " Intemperance is a sin 
 against the individual, the home and the State; 
 and license, high or low, insures the perpetua- 
 tion of this great evil. . . . We are uncompro- 
 misingly opposed to High License." 
 
 Des Moines (1888). — " We declare uncompro- 
 mising hostility to the liquor traffic, and de- 
 mand its unconditional surrender." 
 
 Detroit (1888). — "'License, high or low, is 
 vicious in principle and powerless as a remedy.' 
 . ' . . We will make every effort to secure 
 its [the liquor traffic's] complete suppression by 
 constitutional and statutory enactment." 
 
 Genesee (1888). — " We deprecate and resent 
 the effort of politicians of any phase of political 
 belief who would minify the utterances of the 
 highest authority of the church to harmonize 
 with their predilections, or who would magnify 
 the meaning of the same for purely partisan 
 purposes. The saloon must go. It is mur- 
 derous. We are opposed to license. It is no 
 remedy." 
 
 Illinois (1888). — " The manufacture and sale 
 of alcoholic liquors is the moral plague of the 
 19th Century. . . . We are opposed to all 
 license of the liquor traffic, either high or low." 
 
 Indiana (1888). — "The peace of society de- 
 mands not a modification but the overthrow of 
 the whole traffic." 
 
 Indiana, North (1888). — "We favor nothing 
 but uncompromising opposition. No license, 
 no tax, but complete legal Prohibition, and 
 that only." 
 
 Indiana, Northwest (1888). — "It is not the 
 prerogative of civil government to ' frame iniq- 
 uity by law,' and we look upon all legislation 
 which is designed by any method to legalize 
 the liquor traffic as being both inexpedient and 
 wrong." 
 
 Indiana, Southeast (1887). — " We regard . . . 
 complete legal Prohibition of the traffic in 
 intoxicating drinks as the duty of civil gov- 
 ernment." 
 
 Iowa, Northwest (1888). — "We favor the un- 
 conditional and immediate abandonment of all 
 revenue from the liquor traffic, in order more 
 readily to suppress the business and put an end 
 to the scandal of Government deriving support 
 from the poverty, degradation and vices of the 
 people." 
 
 Iowa, Upper (1887). — " There can be no com- 
 promise with the saloon." 
 
 Kansas (1888). — "Partisan friendship with 
 the saloon must be accepted as hostility to the 
 church, the home and all that is valuable in so- 
 ciety. No party is worthy the support of 
 Christian men that fails to antagonize the sa- 
 loon." 
 
 Kansas, Northwest (1888)-. — "On no ground 
 will we make peace with the traffic. The con- 
 flict must go on to the end." 
 
 Kansas, South (1888). — " We stand unaltera- 
 bly opposed to any measure that in any way 
 looks to the supplanting of our Prohibitory law 
 by any license system. " 
 
 Kentucky (1888). — " No organization, whether 
 social, political or ecclesiastical, should have 
 our support in any form or manner that di- 
 rectly or indirectly favors license or taxation." 
 
 Michigan (1888). — "The church demands 
 that this Government cease protecting the sa- 
 loon by the baneful system of revenue and li- 
 cense laws, and forever prohibit this traffic 
 within our borders. " 
 
 Minnesota (1888). — " We in no measure ac- 
 cept the license system as a solution, to any ex- 
 tent, of this [liquor] problem. 
 
 Nebraska, North (1888).— " The liquor traffic 
 being the greatest of all evils that afflict our 
 land, it is the greatest of sins to consent to its 
 license." 
 
 New York, Central (1888).— "We will not 
 parley with the enemy, nor compromise with 
 any policy which, under the guise of restriction, 
 puts principle and practice at variance. It is 
 not license, high or low, not restriction, so- 
 called, but absolute Prohibition for which we 
 contend." 
 
 New York, Northern (1888). — "We are unal- 
 terably opposed to all forms of license, high or 
 low." 
 
 Ohio (1888). — " No system of license or taxa- 
 tion can be accepted as a settlement of the issue, 
 and nothing short of the abolition of the sa- 
 loons can ever furnish ample protection to 
 society." 
 
 Ohio, Central (1888). — "We condemn as con- 
 trary to the law of God and the best interests of 
 the State the licensing and taxation of the 
 liquor traffic." 
 
 Ohio, Mast (1888).— "The liquor traffic can 
 never be legalized without sin, and we wilj 
 give it no quarter." 
 
 Ohio, North (1888). — "We denounce all sys- 
 tems of [liquor] license or taxation, high or 
 low, State or national." 
 
 Oregon (1888). — "A license to keep open 
 saloon is an unjust and wicked regulation of 
 government ; produces vice and corruption in 
 society. The privilege to sin and ruin manhood 
 and souls should not be sold at any price." 
 
 Pennsylvania, Central (1888). — "The legal- 
 izing of the liquor traffic is a violation of God's 
 law and detrimental to the peace and prosperity 
 of society and the progress of the church." 
 
 Philadelphia. (1888). — "High License is not 
 a temperance measure. It is a trap adroitly set 
 for timid and half-informed temperance men. 
 It was originally offered and is now urged as a 
 compromise by the influential political friends 
 of the saloon. Their object is to kill the move- 
 ment for Prohibition, and prevent the threat- 
 ened annihilation of the liquor traffic. We 
 pray God to open the eyes of those who have 
 been deceived." 
 
Methodist Protestant Church.] 428 
 
 [Mexico. 
 
 Pittsburgh (1888).— "We endorse the senti- 
 ment expressed in the episcopal address to the 
 late General Conference in reference to the 
 liquor traffic. ' It can never be legalized with- 
 out sin.' " 
 
 Rock River (1888).— "The license system is 
 essentially sinful ; it affords no remedy for the 
 evils of alcoholism, and provides for its con- 
 tinuance." 
 
 Troy (1888).— "License, both high and low, 
 is wrong in principle, and instead of suppressing 
 the enormities of the traffic provides for their 
 continuance. " 
 
 Vermont (1888).—" The licensing or taxing 
 of the liquor traffic is wrong in principle and 
 disastrous in practice." 
 
 West Virginia (1888).— " License, high or 
 low, is vicious in principle and is no remedy for 
 the evils of intemperance." 
 
 Wisconsin, West (1888).— "We believe it to 
 be the duty of the State to declare this traffic 
 criminal and to outlaw it as such." 
 
 THE SOUTHERN BRANCH. 
 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church, 
 South, at the General Conference held 
 in St. Louis, May, 1890, incorporated the 
 following words in its deliverance on 
 temperance : 
 
 "We are emphatically a Prohibition church. 
 We stand out squarely and before the whole 
 world, certainly in theory, and for the most 
 part in practice, for the complete suppression 
 of the liquor traffic. We offer no compromise 
 to and seek no terms from a sin of this heinous 
 quality. We are opposed to all forms of license 
 of this iniquity, whether the same be ' high ' or 
 'low.' It cannot be put so 'high' that the 
 prayers of God's people for its suppression will 
 not rise above it, nor so ' low, ' though it makes 
 its bed in hell, that the shrieks of the souls lost 
 through its accursed agency will not descend 
 beneath it." 
 
 In its Discipline, this provision ap- 
 pears : 
 
 ' ' Let all our preachers and members faith- 
 fully observe our General Rules, which forbid 
 ' drunkenness, or drinking spirituous liquors, 
 except in cases of necessity.' In cases of 
 drunkenness let the Discipline be administered 
 as in cases of immorality, drunkenness being a 
 crime expressly forbidden in the word of God. 
 In cases of drinking, except in cases of neces- 
 sity, let the Discipline be administered as for 
 imprudent or improper conduct. Let all our 
 preachers and members abstain from the manu- 
 facture and sale of intoxicating liquors to be 
 used as a beverage ; and if any shall engage in 
 such manufacture or sale, let the Discipline be 
 administered as in case of imprudent or im- 
 proper conduct. " 
 
 Methodist Protestant Church. 
 
 — The General Conference, held in 1890, 
 declared, in part : 
 
 "We rejoice in the success of any effort and 
 any measure used to cripple and finally destroy 
 
 the traffic in alcoholic drinks, and will gladly 
 join in any effort for its restriction which will 
 not compromise our Christian character ; but 
 as every form of so called ' restriction ' by li- 
 cense or taxation tends to entrench the traffic 
 behind the cupidity of the tax-payer and ren- 
 ders us partes participens to the crime of its 
 continuance, we therefore believe that the only 
 successful way of destroying this hydra-headed 
 monster is by Constitutional Prohibition, State 
 and national ; and that the only efforts in which 
 we as Christian people can engage are those 
 which look toward this end ; therefore 
 
 "Resolved, That we are unalterably op- 
 posed to any form of license, high or low, as 
 being wrong in principle and pernicious in 
 practice. 
 
 ' ' Resolved, That any minister or member 
 who makes, buys, sells, or signs a petition for 
 license to sell, uses, or gives to others as a bever- 
 age any spirituous or malt liquors, is guilty of 
 immorality and shall be dealt with accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 ' ' Resolved, We believe the time has fully 
 come when Christian men should rise above 
 party prejudice and sectional jealousy and give 
 their suffrages to any party which lias for its 
 object the protection of our homes by the de- 
 struction of the unholy traffic." 
 
 Mexico. — The peculiar conditions of 
 Mexican life, the vast tracts of territory 
 over which there is but little Govern- 
 mental control, and the consequent lack 
 of system and completeness in statistical 
 reports, render difficult the collection of 
 exact information regarding the drink 
 habits of the people. Briefly, it may be 
 said that the use of intoxicants is almost 
 universal, and to this cause, perhaps as 
 much as to any other, is to be attributed 
 the low condition of the inferior classes 
 of that country. 
 
 The principal liquors used are pulque, 
 mescal, aguardiente, mishla, ulung, pesso, 
 caraca, acchioc, beer and imported wines, 
 whiskey and brandy. Pulque is the 
 national drink and the national curse of 
 the aboriginal races, and of those people 
 descended from the ancient occupants of 
 the soil. The upper classes in Mexico 
 use it less, choosing rather the costlier 
 beverages that are imported. Pulque is 
 made from the maguey plant, or Ameri- 
 can aloe, which reaches great perfection 
 on the high table-land of the Eepublic. 
 In central and Southern Mexico it can 
 be seen growing wild upon the mount- 
 ains, springing up in uncultivated places 
 and spreading over large tracts of country 
 where it is cultivated with great dili- 
 gence. It does well in both rich and poor 
 soils, being often found where nothing 
 
Mexico.] 
 
 429 
 
 [Mexico. 
 
 else will grow. The plant itself is ex- 
 tremely useful to the Mexican, its fibre 
 furnishing him with thread, cloth, bag- 
 ging, ropes, paper, brooms, white-wash 
 brushes, scrubbing-brushes and combs 
 for the hair. But its chief value, in 
 the eyes of the native, arises from the 
 intoxicating liquid it produces so bounte- 
 ously. The plant soon after it reaches 
 its tenth year puts forth a blossom, 
 which, if not interfered with, shoots up 
 to a height of 15 or 20 feet and crowns 
 itself with a cluster of beautiful flowers. 
 Such is the century plant, or agave Am- 
 ericana. But the cultivator who is on 
 the watch for the blossom, at its appear- 
 ing cuts from it its heart, leaving an 
 open basin or cavity in the plant, into 
 which a sap exudes, milky in appear- 
 ance and containing when fermented 
 water, gluten and alcohol. It has the 
 taste of sour buttermilk or spoiled beer. 
 From four to eight pints per day are taken 
 from each plant, for a period of two or 
 three months. To extract this fluid from 
 the cavity into which it has run, the 
 Mexican uses a long hollow gourd per- 
 forated at each end, and sucks it full of 
 the liquor, which he empties into a pig- 
 skin carried on the shoulders. To con- 
 vert the juice or "honey-water" into 
 pulque, all that is necessary is to put 
 into it a little of the same material that 
 has been permitted to become sour, and 
 fermentation soon takes place. So sensi- 
 tive is the liquor to the presence of any 
 foreign substance that a pinch of salt 
 dropped into one of the bottles will, in 
 time, ruin the product of an entire plant- 
 ation. The laws against adulteration are 
 Very stringent. 
 
 The pulque is seldom sold at whole- 
 sale. Each plantation seeks to have its 
 own shops in town. In these the stuff 
 is dispensed to throngs of peons, Indians 
 and the laboring classes generally, while 
 jars and bottles filled with it are carried 
 away for home consumption. In the 
 city of Mexico nearly 300,000 pints of 
 jralque are consumed daily by a popula- 
 tion of 330,000. The revenue derived 
 by the Government from its sale in the 
 three cities of Mexico, Puebla and To- 
 luca is over $900,000. The consumer 
 pays for it from 6 to 25 cents a quart. 
 In the large cities of Southern Mexico 
 the pulque is to a great extent responsi- 
 ble for the gambling, drunkenness and 
 
 fighting that prevail, the use of the 
 knife being very common. The police 
 report for the city of Mexico for the 
 year 1888 gave the following figures, 
 in round numbers: 400 pulque-shops 
 open, yielding a revenue to the city Gov- 
 ernment of $75,000; 8 breweries in oper- 
 ation (the beer from which is sold mostly 
 to foreigners, Americans and Germans) ; 
 600 grocers' shops, in which liquor is 
 sold by the drink, yielding a revenue to 
 the city Government of about $30,000; 
 140 cafes, eating-houses and "fondas," 
 which pay to the city about $5,000 an- 
 nually. The arrests for the year were : 
 221 men and youth and 180 women for 
 disorderly conduct ; 1,270 men and 1,941 
 women for excessive drinking (lying 
 in the gutter, or reeling in the pub- 
 lic parks) ; 401 men and 122 women 
 for robbery; 191 men and 87 women on 
 suspicion of being concerned in house- 
 breaking and petty larceny; 131 men 
 and 27 women as pickpockets; 31 men 
 and 4 women for murder; 800 men and 
 276 women for assault and battery, re- 
 sulting in wounds; 271 men and 91 
 women for carrying forbidden weapons ; 
 40 men who had escaped from prison; 
 60 persons for false pretences; 371 men 
 and 421 women for adultery and forni- 
 cation; 320 men and 327 women for 
 violations of public decency; 70 delin- 
 quent youth to the House of Correction. 
 These figures do not begin to number 
 the brawls, knife-fights, etc., at the 
 pulque-shops and in the vicinity of the 
 bull-rings, in which both men and 
 women engage. 
 
 There are no laws to restrict the traf- 
 fic, excepting those requiring each seller 
 to obtain a license. The pulque-shops, 
 however, must be closed at 6 o'clock in 
 the evening, and few attempts are made 
 to violate the statute. The restaurants, 
 gilded barrooms, etc., where the higher- 
 priced liquors are sold, remain open, the 
 poverty of the lower classes debarring 
 their entrance. No figures are obtaina- 
 ble to show the revenue derived from the 
 sale of imported liquors. 
 
 Mescal is a liquor that is obtained 
 from the fleshy and white portion of the 
 maguey leaves. It resembles Holland 
 gin and is much used in Northern Mex- 
 ico, where pulque cannot be had. Te- 
 quila is another liquor produced from 
 the maguey in the district of that name. 
 
Michigan.] 
 
 430 
 
 [Moderation. 
 
 It is said to have the flavor of Scotch 
 Whiskey. 
 
 In Yucatan a favorite drink is mislila, 
 prepared from the roots of the cassava 
 plant; other fermented drinks are made 
 from bananas and pineapples. Young 
 women chew the roots of the cassava and 
 mix the spittle with cold water, allowing 
 the whole to ferment. Plantains are 
 kneaded in warm water and allowed to 
 stand until the mixture ferments. Ulung 
 is made from powdered cocoa and sugar- 
 cane; the pesso from lime-rinds, corn 
 and honey. The cocoa-nut palm yields 
 monthly a large quantity of liquor 
 known as caraca, resembling the toddy 
 of India. Its seeds, when crushed and 
 steeped in hot water, yield the acchioc, 
 which is freely, drunk by the inhabitants 
 of Yucatan, Tabasco and Chiapas. 
 
 There is no work done in Mexico to 
 check the universal indulgence in fer- 
 mented liquors, except that performed 
 by missionaries. An occasional news- 
 paper article appears calling attention to 
 the monstrous evils connected with the 
 traffic, but thus far no real effort has 
 been made to put a stop to the plague. 
 William H. Sloan. 
 
 Michigan. — See Index. 
 Minnesota. — See Index. 
 Mississippi. — See Index. 
 Missouri. — See Index. 
 
 Moderation. — The unsoundness of 
 the moderation doctrine must be ad- 
 mitted upon due consideration, first, of 
 the danger to one's self, and second, of the 
 injury to others. 
 
 The danger to one's self is apparent. 
 The poisonous effect of alcohol upon 
 the human system, even when moderately 
 used, is now generally conceded by scien- 
 tific authorities. But the danger to the 
 user would still remain even if alcohol 
 were proved to be food rather than poi- 
 son. In fact the direct physical effect 
 of alcohol is its least alarming quality. 
 The result that should make every mod- 
 erate drinker turn pale with apprehen- 
 sion is the appetite which it engenders. 
 Every draught taken is, without ques- 
 tion, another step toward that abnormal 
 condition in which desire passes beyond 
 control and the victim becomes bond- 
 slave to the habit. No medical testi- 
 mony is needed as to this. It is matter 
 
 of common observation. There are, it is 
 true, among moderate users those who 
 escape. Some are saved " so as by fire." 
 Others maintain to the end the mastery 
 of their inclinations. But the number 
 annually passing from the ranks of the 
 moderate consumers to those of the 
 drunkards is enormous ; and if the facts 
 were known, probably it would " be 
 found that there is almost no one who, 
 using intoxicating liquor at all, does not 
 go beyond the limit that his own con- 
 science and reason prescribe. Thus the 
 risk that every moderate drinker incurs 
 is very great. When the doctrine of 
 chances is candidly applied, the odds he 
 must see to be against him, and the 
 thought of the fate that awaits him if 
 his chances fail is enough to make him 
 tremble. 
 
 The immorality of moderate drinking 
 turns largely upon this element of risk. 
 No doubt it is often the duty of men to 
 incur risk. There are useful and praise- 
 worthy callings in which the risk to 
 bodily health and sometimes to moral 
 purity is constant and often extreme. 
 But needless exposure to danger shocks 
 the moral sense. The man who reck- 
 lessly leaps from Brooklyn Bridge or 
 drifts over Niagara Falls in a barrel com- 
 mits a crime, even in the eye of the law. 
 His body, his life, is not his own in the 
 sense that he may wantonly throw it 
 away. The risk incurred is culpable in 
 the degree in which it is unnecessary. 
 When the use of opium to assuage in- 
 tense pain has entailed the opium habit, 
 the victim is less censurable than if, in 
 thoughtless self-indulgence, he has be- 
 come needlessly a slave. The sin of the 
 moderate drinker is incurred by his will- 
 ingness, for the sake of a passing grati- 
 fication, to imperil his body and his soul. 
 He cannot plead necessity, for the expe- 
 rience of the last 75 years incontestably 
 proves that alcohol as a beverage is not 
 necessary. Total abstinence has passed 
 beyond the stage of experiment. Thou- 
 sands of individuals and families, and 
 not a few whole communities, have lived 
 happily and well without intoxicating 
 drink. He cannot plead that in his es- 
 pecial case the risk is not considerable. 
 This no man can say beforehand. The 
 power of physical and moral resistance 
 can never be known until the experiment 
 has been tried, and no intelligent being, 
 
Moderation.] 
 
 431 
 
 [Moderation. 
 
 in the presence of what is now known as 
 to the nature and effects of alcohol, can 
 ,be justified in trying the experiment. It 
 is but to cast himself from a precipice in 
 the hope that God or fate will save him. 
 
 The other consideration that imposes 
 abstinence is that coming from recog- 
 nition of the injury done to others. This 
 involves the effect of one's example upon 
 his family, friends and acquaintances, 
 and his relations to the drink evil as it 
 exists in society at large. Every moder- 
 ate drinker not only imperils his own 
 safety but throws the weight of his ex- 
 ample in the scale against the safety of 
 others. When these others are known 
 to be peculiarly susceptible to tempta- 
 tion, or are in any way especially com- 
 mitted to his guardianship, his respons- 
 ibility is immensely increased. There is 
 nothing upon which the righteous indig- 
 nation of the community more heavily 
 and justly descends than upon a man's 
 teaching vice, to children for example. 
 The most deadly charge against Socrates 
 that malice could invent was that he 
 "corrupted the youth." No moderate 
 drinker is free from this sin against the 
 sou-Is of his fellows. Even if he could 
 be supernaturally assured of his own 
 security, nothing can relieve him from 
 blood-guiltiness in the cases of others. 
 The power of example is more obscure 
 and subtile than a physical cause, but no 
 less potent. If one could administer some 
 material poison to a friend which would 
 unconsciously transform him into a dip- 
 somaniac, such an act would be no more 
 culpable than to lure him by the seduc- 
 tiveness of personal example to a drunk- 
 ard's doom. The far-famed Mexican 
 toloacM, or weed of madness, a few drops 
 of the milk of which secretly introduced 
 into your friend's soup act immediately 
 upon the brain, producing at first violent 
 madness and then hopeless idiocy, is a 
 fitting illustration of the fatal influence 
 of the moderate drinker upon the young 
 and innocent. He is employed, whether 
 willingly or not, as Satan's decoy to be- 
 tray the weak and tempted to disease 
 and death. 
 
 The same reasoning applies to society 
 at large. The evil of intemperance stands 
 to-day like the pyramid of Cheops amid 
 the evils of the world. Especially in our 
 own land, owing to climatic influ- 
 ences, the nervous temperament of our 
 
 people and the skill and abundance with 
 which alcoholic beverages are produced, 
 the burden upon society has become vast 
 and insupportable. No one denies the 
 unutterable woes that the curse entails. 
 The only question is as to how they may 
 be removed. Experience has developed, 
 one thoroughly practicable and effective 
 method, namely, the complete disuse of 
 intoxicating drink. Alcohol as a bever- 
 age can, if all agree, be driven from the 
 land. No great evil could come from 
 such a course. Neither the public health 
 nor wealth could suffer. To do without 
 it has been proved, over and over again, 
 to be perfectly feasible and perfectly 
 safe. One thing only keeps the destroyer 
 among us — the self-indulgence of the 
 drinker. Under such circumstances the 
 obligation to abstinence would seem to 
 be almost boundless. The moderate 
 drinkers of our land have power of them- 
 selves to staunch this stream of sin and 
 woe. Without their patronage the traffic 
 could not endure. To neglect such an 
 opportunity, to heedlessly suffer such 
 limitless good to escape, is incapable of 
 justification. But the moderate con- 
 sumer not only neglects the good, he en- 
 courages the evil. Every glass that he 
 takes tends to perpetuate and multiply 
 these miseries. He does what he can to 
 maintain the drinking habits of commun- 
 ity and make the use of the cup preva- 
 lent and popular. How can he escape the 
 disapproval of his own conscience and 
 the condemnation of mankind? 
 
 The argument for total abstinence is 
 often presented in such a way as largely 
 to rob it of its moral power. All things, 
 it is said, are lawful, but not all things 
 are expedient. Again, however right 
 in itself the moderate use of intoxicants 
 may be, it is well to abstain as Paul ab- 
 stained from meat, lest the weak should 
 be made to stumble. Men are called 
 upon, not, in view of the danger to 
 themselves and the injury to others, to 
 perform a solemn duty, but for the sake 
 of their too self-indulgent brethren, and 
 from the standpoint of Christian charity, 
 to surrender a so-called personal right. 
 Temperance, it is admitted, is obliga- 
 tory ; but total abstinence, it is claimed, 
 while perhaps commendable, is discre- 
 tionary. But it is seriously to be 
 doubted whether the temperance reform 
 can ever be carried on the basis of such 
 
Moderation.] 
 
 432 
 
 [Moderation. 
 
 optional morality. Men need to feel 
 the weighty impact of a divine obliga- 
 tion upon their souls. The case from 
 Paul is by no means a parallel. If the 
 eating of meat offered to idols had been 
 fraught with such untold sorrows as the 
 use, in our day, of intoxicating drink, 
 Paul would have made no explanation of 
 his abstinence: the reason would have 
 been apparent enough. The tolerance 
 of a foolish superstition for sweet charity's 
 sake is one thing, the arrest of a mighty 
 evil by the weight of one's personal in- 
 fluence and example is another. It is 
 the moderate drinker who is chiefly re- 
 sponsible for the continuance of the 
 liquor curse. The drunkard long ago 
 parted with reason and self-control. He 
 is the victim of physical disease, con- 
 fessedly helpless and hopeless and, to a 
 great degree, irresponsible. The moder- 
 ate drinker on the other hand boasts 
 of his balance, his ability to refrain, and 
 then with intelligent deliberation incurs 
 infinite personal risk, corrupts by his ex- 
 ample his family and friends, and does 
 what in him lies to perpetuate the evil 
 in the nation and the world. 
 
 William Kincaid. 
 
 It was to the complete failure of the 
 " moderation " plan as a means of check- 
 ing the evils of intemperance that the 
 total abstinence movement owed its rise. 
 Both in America and the British Isles 
 the first practical attempts in behalf of 
 temperance reform were based on the 
 opinion that abstinence (especially ab- 
 stinence from wine and beer) was unnec- 
 essary, and that men could be made to 
 cease the excessive use of intoxicants if 
 sentiment against the abuse could be 
 suitably developed. Consequently for 
 many years the moderationists had the 
 field of argument and effort entirely to 
 themselves, and the temperance societies 
 were founded on the moderation rather 
 than the teetotal idea. Moderation 
 therefore had a thorough and prolonged 
 practical trial; and the results were in- 
 variably discouraging and almost uni- 
 formly led temperance workers to the 
 acceptance of total abstinence. To-day 
 there is in the United States but one 
 temperance organization of any promi- 
 nence that does not insist on abstinence ; 
 and this one, while permitting its adult 
 members to choose the moderation 
 
 pledge if they prefer, requires all who 
 are under 21 years to abstain, and rec- 
 ommends abstinence equally with mod- 
 eration to the adults. (See p. 81.) The 
 influence of this organization counts 
 for little in the general temperance 
 work, although it is identified with a 
 powerful and wealthy church. The at- 
 tempt made by Dr. Howard Crosby some 
 years ago to found a non-sectarian mod- 
 eration society received so little support 
 that it expired without accomplishing 
 anything save a demonstration of the 
 futility of such undertakings. However 
 sincere the individual apologists for 
 moderation may be, and by whatever 
 arguments they may defend their posi- 
 tion, they are looked upon by the tem- 
 perance public as obstructionists; and 
 while most people may be willing to 
 view them charitably, few except those 
 directly interested in the liquor traffic 
 or those who take a pro-liquor attitude, 
 find it possible to praise their judgment. 
 Nothing, indeed, is more cordially wel- 
 comed by the liquor-sellers of America 
 at the present time than pleas from re- 
 spectable persons in behalf of the " mod- 
 derate " and " temperate " use of intoxi- 
 cants. This is shown by the eagerness with 
 which they reprint and circulate articles 
 and pamphlets from the pens of conser- 
 vative clergymen, as well as by the gen- 
 erous remuneration awarded by the 
 liquor organizations to all reputable men 
 and women who have a desire to derive 
 pecuniary advantage from their advocacy 
 of "light liquors" and so-called "true 
 temperance." 
 
 In the nations of continental Europe 
 the abandoned programme of the early 
 British and American agitators is being 
 tested anew, and nowhere are there indi- 
 cations of a successful outcome, unless 
 the increasing total abstinence sentiment 
 is regarded as an indication of approach- 
 ing success. Certain it is, there is no 
 evidence that the moderation movement 
 in Europe has had beneficial results in 
 any instance. This is the more signifi- 
 cant when it is remembered that the al- 
 cohol evil has been discussed on the con- 
 tinent by many scientists of great emi- 
 nence, and thus much has been done 
 toward removing the popular ignorance 
 concerning alcohol that has prevailed for 
 ages. Along with acceptation of the 
 moderation idea goes inertness — that is 
 
Mohammedans.] 
 
 433 
 
 [Mohammedans. 
 
 the lesson taught by the existing state of 
 affairs in every continental country. The 
 restrictive measures of a certain kind 
 that have been inaugurated in a few na- 
 tions, like Sweden, Holland and Switzer- 
 land, are far beneath the standard of legis- 
 lation in America, where the total absti- 
 nence doctrine governs temperance 
 action ; and the common aim of all re- 
 formers, to reduce the drink traffic and 
 mitigate its sad consequences, has not 
 been noticeably promoted by them. 
 
 Mohammedans. — Islamism, or the 
 religion of entire resignation to the will 
 of God, as the Moslems or true believers 
 in Allah call their faith, founded by Mo- 
 hammed, is professed by nearly 200,000,- 
 000 people in Asia and Africa, though 
 only about 6,000,000 adherents of the 
 crescent are found in Europe. Though 
 the nurse of polygamy and slavery, and 
 probably fitted only for nations in a state 
 of semi-civilization, Mohammedanism is 
 the promoter of temperance. The lover 
 of mankind must feel grateful to the 
 founder of Islam for his attitude 
 toward intemperance and his clear and 
 unmistakable prohibition of intoxicating 
 liquors. It may be broadly affirmed that 
 the law of the Koran concerning absti- 
 nence from wine is very generally obeyed, 
 and that drunkenness in Mohammedan 
 society is exceptional. In comparison 
 with a certain phase of the so-called 
 Christian civilization, Moslems have in 
 this regard cause for congratulation and 
 pride. The abundant testimony of many 
 travellers in many centuries is nearly 
 unanimous as to the general habit of 
 abstinence from intoxicating liquors 
 among the vast majority of good Mos- 
 lems. The liquor which has been and is 
 imported by millions of gallons into 
 Africa and Asia is from the stills of 
 Christian countries in Europe and Amer- 
 ica. The missionaries of the Prophet in 
 Africa and the propagandists of Islam in 
 the East Indies and other Asian coun- 
 tries make much of this argument of 
 contrast. They point to the drunken- 
 ness among Christians and the traffic 
 which they carry on among the natives to 
 the destruction of the latter. They quote 
 and enforce the teachings of the Koran, 
 which explicitly forbids the use of wine 
 as a beverage and which commands tem- 
 perance as a positive and necessary vir- 
 
 tue. From George Sale's translation of 
 the Koran (Warne's ed., London, 1888, 
 pp. 23, 85) we quote: 
 
 " But they who believe . . . will ask thee 
 concerning wine and lots: Answer, In both 
 there is great sin, and also some things of use 
 unto men; but their sinfulness is greater than 
 their use." 
 
 " O true believers, surely wine and lots and 
 images and divining arrows are an abomination 
 of the work of Satan; therefore avoid them 
 that ye may prosper. Satan seeketh to sow 
 dissension among you by wine and lots, and to 
 diverting you from remembering God and from 
 prayer; will ye not therefore abstain from 
 them?" 
 
 The comment made upon these and 
 other passages in the Moslem's bible, by 
 Mr. Sale (pp. 95-6) is, as follows : 
 
 "The drinking of wine, under which name 
 all sorts of strong and inebriating liquors are 
 comprehended, is forbidden in the Koran in 
 more places than one. Some, indeed, have 
 imagined that excess therein is only forbidden, 
 and that the moderate use of wine is allowed 
 by two passages in the same book; but the 
 more received opinion is that to drink any 
 strong liquors, either in lesser quantity or in a 
 greater, is absolutely unlawful; and though 
 libertines indulge themselves in a contrary prac- 
 tice, yet the more conscientious are so. strict, 
 especially if they have performed the pilgrim- 
 age to Mecca, that they hold it unlawful not 
 only to taste wine but to press grapes for the 
 making of it, to buy or to sell it, or even to 
 maintain themselves with the money arising 
 by the sale of that liquor. The Persians, how- 
 ever, as well as the Turks, are very fond of 
 wine; and if one asks them how it comes to 
 pass that they venture to drink it, when it is so 
 directly forbidden by their religion, they an- 
 swer that it is with them as with the Chris- 
 tians, whose religion prohibits drunkenness and 
 whoredom as great sins, and who glory, not- 
 withstanding, some in debauching girls and 
 married women, and others in drinking to ex- 
 cess. . . . 
 
 "Several stories have been told as to the 
 occasion of Mohammed's prohibiting the drink- 
 ing of wine; but the true reasons are given in 
 the Koran, viz., because the ill-effects of that 
 liquor surpasses its good ones, the common 
 effects thereof being quarrels and disturbances 
 in company, and neglect or at least indecencies 
 in the performance of religious duties. For 
 these reasons it was that the priests were by the 
 Levitical law forbidden to drink wine or strong 
 drink when they entered the tabernacle, and 
 that the Nazarites and Kechabites, and many 
 pious persons among the Jews and primitive 
 Christians, wholly abstained therefrom; nay, 
 some of the latter went so far as to condemn 
 the use of wine as sinful. But Mohammed is 
 said to have had a nearer example than any of 
 these in the more devout persons of his own 
 tribe." 
 
 It will be seen from the above that the 
 law of the Koran is that of prohibition 
 
Montana.] 
 
 434 
 
 [Moral Suasion. 
 
 and not merely temperance. Providen- 
 tially this feature of Mohammedanism 
 has been a great blessing to a large part 
 of mankind, and it should provoke Chris- 
 tians to the good work of at least staying 
 the flood of intoxicants that issues from 
 the distilleries in Christian lands for the 
 bestializing of the uncivilized races of 
 Africa and Asia. 
 
 William Elliot Gkiffis. 
 
 Montana. — See Index. 
 
 Moral Suasion. — All experience 
 shows that moral suasion will never 
 make the drink curse less, because the 
 open saloon is a more powerful influenc- 
 ing agent than mothers' prayers, wives' 
 entreaties, children's pleadings or re- 
 formers' arguments. No amount of out- 
 side restraining power will counter- 
 balance the temptations of the dramshop 
 when once a person becomes the victim 
 of appetite. The reason is obvious. 
 The will power of every slave of drink is 
 weak. He is incapable of abiding by vir- 
 tuous conclusions. His heart may be right 
 but his head is all wrong. Hence though 
 his impulses may be the very best, his 
 acts may be the very worst. 
 
 From moral suasion work, as such, pros- 
 ecuted for a century and longer, few per- 
 manent results of relative importance 
 have come. There have been great 
 moral suasion movements — Father 
 Mathew, Washingtonian, Gough, Mur- 
 phy, Kibbon, Gospel Temperance and 
 Woman's crusades, — that have won 
 hundreds of thousands, nay, millions, of 
 temporary converts to total abstinence, 
 and in the judgment of their enthusi- 
 astic promotors have even promised to 
 sweep liquor out of existence. It is not 
 undervaluing the good that has been 
 done to say that while individuals have 
 been benefited public policy has not 
 been materially changed for the better, 
 save indirectly. Father Mathew's moral 
 suasion agitation, certainly the most 
 widespread one ever conducted, did not 
 apply to drink conditions in Ireland any 
 lasting remedy. The Washingtonians 
 redeemed no State from the license sys- 
 tem. The Woman's Crusade secured no 
 concessions from the Legislature of Ohio. 
 The work of Francis Murphy is hardly 
 to be reckoned as one of the factors to 
 which the general diminution of intem- 
 perance, crime, etc., in certain political 
 
 divisions of the United States at the 
 present day is due. On the other hand 
 those who have fought the liquor traffic 
 essentially as a matter of public policy 
 can point to decisive victories : by them 
 Maine was won, and Kansas, Iowa, Ver- 
 mont and the Dakotas, and through 
 their efforts it is impossible to sell or ob- 
 tain drink in many hundreds of towns 
 and counties. Moral suasion has culti- 
 vated sentiment, spread education, 
 brought new workers to the cause and 
 created or strengthened organizations ;. 
 but standing alone it has never produced 
 lasting reform. A sterner method is 
 necessary. 
 
 The saloon makes the drunkard. Shut 
 a man up in a prison for a term of years 
 and he will lose the craving for liquor. 
 Let the manufacture, sale and importa- 
 tion of intoxicants be done away with, 
 and the released prisoner will be able to 
 lead just as temperate a life outside the 
 jail as he did inside. But the chances 
 are that if he encounters the saloon when 
 he becomes free he will renew his appe- 
 tite. The liquor-dealer has persuasive 
 powers before which all the capabilities 
 of the reformer must yield. He appeals 
 to weak humanity through the attrac- 
 tions of his place. Missions, churches, 
 ennobling sentiment and better judg- 
 ment cannot compete with these attrac- 
 tions. The self-interest of the rum- 
 seller keeps him ever on the alert, while 
 reform work is spasmodic at best. At 
 every step the reformer meets discourage- 
 ments, hinderances and rebuffs. Public 
 approval is not volunteered to him with 
 alacrity. He grows faint-hearted unless 
 he has an indomitable will, great courage 
 and never-failing faith. The saloon- 
 keeper, moreover, is strengthened by a 
 most respectable backing. Presidents 
 are elected by his permission, Vice-Presi- 
 dents become beneficiaries of his " trade," 
 political parties move just as he wills, 
 and even clergymen are not unwilling to 
 fabricate expediency arguments that are 
 especially delightful to his ears. News- 
 paper editors and legislators are prone to 
 feel a higher esteem for the " boodle " of 
 the rum power than for temperance sta- 
 tistics or Conference deliverances. The 
 nation makes way for the rumster and 
 his business much as a crowd does for a 
 steam fire-engine rushing through the 
 streets to a fire. Women's prayers, chil- 
 
Moravian Church.] 
 
 435 
 
 [Mortality. 
 
 dren's parades, Sunday-school songs and 
 meek petitions to politicians will be dis- 
 regarded so long as they are not re-in- 
 forced by an inexorable political pur- 
 pose, skillful management and votes. 
 The moral and educative agencies will 
 not, however, be dispensed with, but will 
 be multiplied with the adoption of more 
 vigorous methods. More intelligent ag- 
 gression means greater success ; and with 
 practical progress goes increased ardor 
 all along the line. 
 
 Eliza Teask Hill. 
 
 Moravian Church— The General 
 Synod met at Bethlehem, Pa., in Sep- 
 tember, 1888, and among many other 
 things bearing on the subject of temper- 
 ance declared: 
 
 "That this Synod re-affirms all its former 
 recommendations and resolutions referring to 
 the use of intoxicating liquors and the position 
 our church has taken on the temperance ques- 
 tion. . . That this Synod recommends to the 
 ministers of those congregations especially where 
 the vice of intemperance in the use of intoxicat- 
 ing drinks prevails, to preach the "Word of God 
 with close and special reference to this growing 
 sin, as the only remedy to effect its radical cure. 
 That this Synod is opposed to all traffic in in- 
 toxicating drinks, and the use as a beverage of 
 hard cider, beer, ale, whiskey, wine, brandy, 
 gin, rum, patent bitters, etc." 
 
 Mortality. — The great influence of 
 alcohol as a shortener of life is well 
 established. (See Longevity.) But the 
 exact percentage of the total mortality 
 for which it is responsible is at present 
 indeterminate. Alcoholism as a cause of 
 death is a factor in the vital statistics of 
 all large cities ; but under this head are 
 included only a small proportion of the 
 deaths occasioned wholly or in part by 
 indulgence in intoxicants. Fatal illness- 
 es due to intemperance, or accelerated 
 or influenced by liquors, are reported 
 by physicians under a multitude of 
 names that give no suggestion of the 
 ruin done by drink. This arises in part 
 from the fact that most deaths are class- 
 ified by specific disease-names which 
 indicate the ultimate disorder but not 
 necessarily the peculiar contributing 
 agent, and in part also from the willing- 
 ness with which many physicians respect 
 the sensitiveness of drinkers' families 
 and refrain from putting the humiliating 
 truth on record. There is also a vast 
 number of deaths from accident, vio- 
 lence, murder, insanity, suicide, epi- 
 
 demics, lack of nutrition, improvidence, 
 etc., which, if the circumstances were 
 systematically inquired into, would be 
 attributed entirely to drink, or to drink 
 more than any other cause. 
 
 But we are not without expert testi- 
 mony indicative of the magnitude of 
 mortality from alcohol. In another art- 
 icle in this volume Dr. B. W. Richardson, 
 whose competence to discuss the subject 
 authoritatively is admitted by all well- 
 informed persons, estimates that there 
 are annually more than 50,000 deaths in 
 England and "Wales from alcohol, this 
 number being 10 per cent, of the total 
 deaths, and that alcohol, as one of the 
 causes of mortality, is "at the head of 
 those causes." 1 (See pp. 25-6.) The emi- 
 nent Dr. Norman Kerr has given pro- 
 longed an d careful study to drink mor- 
 tality, and in his " Mortality of Intem- 
 perance " (London, 1879) informs us that 
 he began his inquiries "with the 
 avowed object of demonstrating and 
 exposing the utter falsity of the perpetual 
 teetotal assertion that 60,000 drunkards 
 died every year in the "United Kingdom." 
 In his "Inebriety" (pp. 379-82) Dr. Kerr 
 presents his own conclusions and the 
 evidence furnished by a number of men 
 thoroughly qualified by their experience 
 to bear witness. We quote from what 
 Dr. Kerr says: 
 
 "It has been my painful duty to com- 
 pute the mortality from inebriety within 
 our borders, and the estimate which after 
 careful inquiry I was enabled to lay be- 
 fore several scientific and learned socie- 
 ties was pronounced ' moderate ' and 
 ' within the truth,' and has never been 
 seriously disputed. There is first the 
 number of deaths occurring annually in 
 the United Kingdom from personal alco- 
 holic inebriety, which I reckon at 40,000. 
 It is true that only between 1,400 and 
 1,500 deaths have been certified as arising 
 from alcohol in one year. But it is well 
 known that the figures of the registration 
 returns are no criterion of the actual num- 
 ber of deaths from alcoholic excess. . . . 
 
 " I arrived at my estimate of 40,000 by 
 taking the proportion of alcoholic deaths 
 to all the deaths certified by me in the 
 course of one year, and applying that 
 
 1 The Harveian Society report concludes that 14 per 
 cent, of the mortality among adults is due to alcohol,— 
 I. «., about 39,000 in England and Wales, or 53,000 in Great 
 Britain.— Foundation of Heath, p. 266. 
 
Mortality.] 
 
 436 
 
 [Mortality. 
 
 proportion, with certain necessary cor- 
 rections, to the total number of practi- 
 tioners throughout the kingdom. This 
 calculation I checked in a variety of 
 ways. First, by taking the average of 17 
 years' practice, comprising 278 fatal cases. 
 Next, by the summary of the causes of 
 232 deaths in the practice of 12 
 medical men, some located in cities and 
 some in the country. Next, by taking 
 out from the general mortality returns a " 
 certain proportion for alcoholic deaths in 
 hospitals, workhouses, from violence and 
 accident arising through drink, and for 
 the alcoholic mortality among publicans," 
 beer-sellers and licensed grocers. 
 
 "Dr. Wakeley, M.P., late editor of the 
 Lancet, and Coroner for Middlesex, af- 
 forded ample corroboration of the mod- 
 eration of my figures. Of 1,500 inquests 
 held by him yearly, he attributed at least 
 900 to hard drinking, and he believed 
 that from 10,000 to 15,000 persons died 
 annually from drink in the metropolis, 
 on whom no inquest was held. Taking 
 London as one-tenth of the population 
 of the United Kingdom, this would give 
 100,000 deaths from alcoholic indulgence 
 over the country. It is often impossible 
 to elicit a verdict of alcohol-poisoning, 
 or alcohol-acceleration of death, even 
 when the evidence is strong. As the 
 jury have often been neighbors of the de- 
 ceased they are naturally unwilling to 
 return a verdict reflecting on his char- 
 acter. Yet, owing to the gradual en- 
 lightenment of the public mind, juries 
 are steadily becoming more alive to the 
 truth and less reluctant to refer to alco- 
 hol. Even when both Coroner and jury are 
 ready to acknowledge the facts as to the 
 habits of the deceased, it is difficult to 
 elicit the whole truth from the witnesses. 
 I have seen inquests at which the medical 
 testimony showed the presence of alco- 
 hol-poisoning, when the friends declared 
 that their dead relative was a perfectly 
 sober individual, but after the proceed- 
 ings were closed admitted that he ' took 
 far too much.' Dr. Edwin Lankester, 
 E.B.S., Coroner for Middlesex, was of 
 opinion that one-tenth of our entire 
 mortality was the direct result of poison- 
 ing by alcohol; and his successor, Dr. 
 Hardwicke, pronounced my estimate of 
 the direct and indirect mortality from 
 alcohol to be ' far within the truth.' Dr. 
 Noble of Manchester believes that one- 
 
 third of our disease is due to intemper- 
 ance, and Dr. B. W. Eichardson that one- 
 third of the vitality of the nation might 
 be saved but for strong drink." 
 
 In this summary Dr. Kerr does not in- 
 clude all the valuable testimony that has 
 been furnished him. " Prompted by my 
 friend Dr. Norman Kerr," writes W. 
 Wynn Wescott, M. B., Deputy Coroner 
 for Central Middlesex, " I have made an 
 analysis of 1,220 consecutive inquests 
 held by me in London, and I cannot re- 
 frain from making the results public. I 
 am not and have never been a total ab- 
 stainer or an advocate of that cause, so 
 there need be no fear that the figures are 
 exaggerated. Of 1,220 cases of deaths, 
 including deaths from violence, sudden 
 deaths, persons found dead and deaths 
 with regard to which no medical certifi- 
 cate is forthcoming, 470 were infants, 
 children and persons below the age of 16 
 years. These may be presumably re- 
 moved from the list of deaths from alco- 
 holic excess. Of the remaining 750 
 deaths, no less than 143 are recorded as 
 being the result of chronic alcoholic 
 disease, acute alcoholism, delirium tre- 
 mens, suicide caused by drink, or of acci- 
 dental death while drunk, or of accidents 
 arising because of incapability when in- 
 toxicated — that is, one death in every 
 5.24. . . . Only nine of the cases were of 
 persons under 30 years of age, and but 21 
 cases were of persons over 60 years old." 1 
 
 Of course it is not to be arbitrarily 
 concluded that these calculations and 
 opinions may be applied, without qualifi- 
 cations, to the United States. If such a 
 conclusion were adopted, and Dr. Bich- 
 ardson's 10 per Cent, estimate were used 
 as a basis, the number of deaths from 
 drink in the United States in 1880 
 (taking the Census vital statistics as au- 
 thority) would have been somewhere be- 
 tween 98,000 and 106,000, 2 and Dr. Eich- 
 ardson expresses the belief that his 10 
 percent, estimate is "under the mark," 
 — an opinion, so far as it relates to Great 
 Britain, that seems to be sustained by 
 the figures of other experts cited above. 
 On the other hand it may be reasonably 
 claimed that since the per capita con- 
 
 1 National Temperance League's Annual for 1889 (Lon- 
 don), p. 111. 
 
 2 The Census for 1880 reports 756,893 deaths. But this 
 number (it is stated in the Census) represents only about 
 60 or 70 per cent, of the entire number of deaths in 1880. 
 
Mortality.] 
 
 437 
 
 [Mott, Lucretia* 
 
 sumption of alcohol is larger in Great 
 Britain than in the United States, the 
 ratio of deaths from drink must be 
 lighter in the latter country. 
 
 Mr. E. J. "Wheeler, in his very able 
 work, "Prohibition : The Principle, 
 the Policy and the Party," has under- 
 taken (pp. 59-66) to compute the vol- 
 ume of mortality from alcohol by using 
 the recent returns of the British Medical 
 Association. He reckons, from these 
 returns, that "intemperance kills be- 
 tween 30,000 and 35,000 each year in 
 England;" and (after making generous 
 allowance for the smaller consumption of 
 liquors in this country) that "in the 
 United States, Jan. 1, 1889, of sixty-five 
 millions, there were nearly 2,500,000 of 
 hard drinkers, 120,000 of whom die each 
 year, and 30,000 of whom owe their 
 deaths directly to intemperance." These 
 estimates are the most conservative ones 
 yet obtained, and if they are accepted in 
 preference to others the number of 
 deaths annually caused by the liquor 
 habit will still be appalling. But, as we 
 have seen, there is good authority for 
 the opinion that they are too low. 
 
 In the Voice for May 8, 1890, were 
 printed a number of valuable opinions 
 from editors of medical journals, officers 
 of medical organizations, superinten- 
 dents of medical institutions, professors 
 and practicing physicians — specialists 
 who were consulted by the Voice solely 
 with reference to their ability to give 
 weighty opinions, and whose names were 
 chosen with the assistance of the editors 
 of two leading medical magazines. The 
 opinions were in response to a series of 
 explicit questions touching the influence 
 of alcoholic indulgence upon mortality 
 in cases of diseases of the respiratory 
 system (such as pneumonia, pleurisy, 
 asthma, croup, etc.), diseases of the ner- 
 vous system (such as apoplexy, convul- 
 sions, epilepsy, menengitis, brain and 
 spinal diseases), diseases of the digestive 
 system (such as gastritis, peritonitis and 
 diseases of the stomach, liver and intes- 
 tines), consumption, urinary diseases 
 (such as Bright's disease, and diseases 
 of the bladder and kidneys), diseases of 
 the heart and circulatory system, acci- 
 dents, and in cases of surgical opera- 
 tions. The answers showed much varia- 
 tion, but the general tendency was to 
 charge a heavy percentage of deaths 
 
 under nearly all these heads to alcohoL 
 For instance, Dr. Charles H. Hughes, 
 editor of the Alienist and Neurologist, 
 estimated that 15 per cent, of diseases of 
 the nervous system, 10 per cent, of the 
 diseases of the digestive system, 10 per 
 cent, of the diseases of the heart and 
 circulatory system and 20 per cent, of 
 all accidents were due directly or indi- 
 rectly to drink. E. J. Deering, President 
 of the Medico-Legal' Society, made these 
 estimates : Diseases of the digestive sys- 
 tem, 20 per cent. ; urinary diseases, 40 
 per cent. ; diseases of the heart and cir- 
 culatory system, 20 per cent. ; accidents, 
 30 per cent. Averaging the estimates 
 given, the total percentage of mortality 
 from drink would appear to approxi- 
 mate, in the United States, the percent- 
 age calculated by Dr. Eichardson for 
 England and Wales. 
 
 Mott, Lucretia, daughter of 
 Thomas Coffin, was a pioneer Abolition- 
 ist, a leader in the earliest efforts to win 
 equality for woman, one of the first to 
 champion total abstinence principles and 
 a preacher of celebrity among the Hicks- 
 ite Quakers. She was born in Nan- 
 tucket, Jan. 3, 1793, and was descended 
 from the original proprietors of the 
 island. Rugged qualities and self-reli- 
 ance were a part of her inheritance 
 and were strengthened by the associations 
 of her childhood. Her father removed 
 to Boston when she was 12 years old. 
 Although he possessed ample means he 
 sent his daughter to the public school, 
 desiring that she should esteem herself 
 no better than others. He also wished 
 her to have a thoroughly practical train- 
 ing. When she had passed beyond the 
 lower grades he placed her in a Friends' 
 boarding-school in New York. There 
 she met James Mott, whom she married 
 at the age of 18. Her anti-slavery sen- 
 timents had already been moulded ; sym- 
 pathy for the slave had been aroused in 
 her by the lessons taught in her school 
 reading-books in New England and by 
 Clarkson's pictures. Her experience as a 
 teacher impelled her to advocate justice 
 for woman ; although she possessed a 
 man's qualifications and performed a 
 man's services she received only half a 
 man's salary. 
 
 After her marriage Philadelphia be- 
 came her place of residence. Here she 
 
Narcotics.] 
 
 438 
 
 [Narcotics. 
 
 found abundant work to do in behalf of 
 the slaves and woman's rights. At the 
 age of 25 she began her career as a minis- 
 ter, receiving official recognition from 
 her church. Soon afterward the Uni- 
 tarian doctrines of Elias Hicks created 
 dissension among the Quakers, and she 
 ardently espoused the Hicks movement. 
 In 1833 a convention was held in Phila- 
 delphia to organize a National Anti- 
 Slavery Society, and her aggressive 
 speeches had an effect no less stimulat- 
 ing than the impression made by the 
 appearance of a woman on the platform 
 at such an assemblage was sensational. 
 The toleration shown to Mrs. Mott on 
 this occasion was certainly uncommon. 
 Seven years later eight women were 
 among the delegates sent to the World's 
 Anti-Slavery Convention in London, but 
 they were excluded from the floor. 
 
 For half a century Lucretia Mott was 
 a pronounced total abstainer. She was 
 quick to realize the full significance of 
 the evils of the social drinking customs, 
 and her influence, example and pen 
 were devoted to the cause of reform. As 
 a propagandist of radical and unpopular 
 ideas she suffered great persecution, 
 ridicule and denunciation, but in her old 
 age she was regarded with peculiar ten- 
 derness and veneration. She died at the 
 age of 87. " Far beyond the common 
 limit," said Samuel Longfellow, at the 
 memorial meeting held in the Unitarian 
 Church in G-ermantown, Pa., "the light 
 of that countenance has been before us 
 and that voice heard wherever an un- 
 popular truth needed defense, wherever 
 a popular evil needed to be testified 
 against, wherever a wronged man or 
 woman needed a champion. There she 
 ■.stood, there she spoke the word that the 
 spirit of truth and right bade her speak. 
 How tranquil and serene her presence in 
 the midst of multitudes that might be- 
 come mobs. How calm yet how search- 
 ing her judgment against wrong-doing. 
 No whirlwind of passion or lightning 
 of eloquence; it was rather the dawn 
 of clear day upon dark places and 
 hidden." 
 
 Narcotics, strictly speaking, are 
 paralyzing poisons, whose effect when 
 taken in certain moderate quantities is 
 to induce languor, and in larger quanti- 
 ties lethargy, complete insensibility and 
 
 death. The most prominent types are 
 opium, morphia, Indian hemp, bella- 
 donna, atropia and henbane. Hops, to 
 which the stupefying effects of beer are 
 due, are also classed with the character- 
 istic narcotics. There is much conflict 
 of opinion among medical authorities 
 as to the proper limitations of the term 
 "narcotic." Some are even disinclined 
 to apply it to such substances as ether, 
 chloral, cocaine and chloroform, since 
 these are volatile anaesthetics whose influ- 
 ence passes away after a comparatively 
 brief period of time. Still more unwill- 
 ing are other authorities to rank alcohol 
 and tobacco with the narcotics ; for there 
 is a tendency to regard the immediate 
 effects of these articles as essentially 
 stimulating or exhilerating and there- 
 fore deserving of separate classification. 
 But the growing recognition that the so- 
 called stimulating properties of alcohol 
 are deceptive and treacherous, and that its 
 paralyzing and poisonous nature is really 
 its distinctive quality, causes an increas- 
 ingly persistent application to it of the 
 definition " narcotic." 
 
 Indeed, in the popular acceptation of 
 the term, the suggestion of a diseased 
 craving and appetite is always implied 
 when allusion is made to the narcotic 
 effect. Any drug that excites morbid 
 desire for repetitions of that drug and so 
 gives development to the poison vice, is 
 popularly regarded as a narcotic. The 
 term, as applied to inebriants and en- 
 slaving poisons of all kinds, has the ad- 
 vantage of superior descriptiveness and 
 comprehensiveness, and is not subject to 
 the qualifications and restricted mean- 
 ings that attach to such a word, for ex- 
 ample, as "intoxicant," which refers 
 peculiarly to alcohol and can hardly 
 be extended to substances like opium, . 
 hasheesh and chloroform. The distinc- 
 tions involved in the employment of 
 words of comparatively narrow applica- 
 tion, like " intoxication " and even " in- 
 ebriety," call for a broader scientific 
 name which will convey a general im- 
 pression of all forms of alcoholism, in- 
 temperance, intoxication, opium-eating, 
 tobacco-craving, etc.; and Dr. Norman 
 Kerr has accordingly coined the new 
 
 term "narcomania" 
 
 ■' in other wore 
 
 says he, " a mania for narcotism of every 
 kind, an inexpressibly intense involuntary 
 morbid crave for the temporary anses- 
 
National Prohibition.] 
 
 439 
 
 [National Prohibition. 
 
 thetic relief promised by every form of 
 narcotic." 1 
 
 National Prohibition. — The traffic 
 in alcoholic beverages is recognized as 
 an existing and integral part of the 
 general business of the country by the 
 Constitution and laws of the United 
 States; and, subject to such disabilities 
 as may have been imposed upon it by 
 statutes of the United States and Terri- 
 torial enactments and by the legislation 
 of the States within their several juris- 
 dictions (which are limited both in legal 
 scope and geographical boundaries), this 
 trade has all the presumptions in its favor 
 which belong to traffic in the necessa- 
 ries of life. Like other occupations and 
 their productions it is the subject of 
 local law in the States so far as the 
 National Government is not directly or 
 indirectly supreme under the powers 
 vested in the National Constitution. By 
 Section 8 of the first Article of the Con- 
 stitution Congress has power to regulate 
 (not to destroy) commerce with foreign 
 nations and among the several States 
 and with the Indian tribes; therefore the 
 property rights growing out of this occu- 
 pation are under the protection of the 
 general Goverment, both at home and 
 abroad, and there is no legal presumption 
 whatever against it any more than there 
 would have been against the slave trade 
 had there been no reference made to it 
 in the Constitution. The Constitution 
 applies to trades, occupations and rights 
 of all kinds as it finds them, and pro- 
 tects whatsoever by express provision or 
 necessary implication it does not destroy. 
 In other words, there being nothing in 
 the Constitution referring to the traffic 
 in alcoholic beverages, either domestic or 
 foreign, all legal presumptions are in its 
 favor, just as they are in favor of any 
 other existing and regular business, and 
 the national powers, legislative, judicial 
 and executive, are and will be in its favor 
 lintil their action is reversed or modified 
 by laws which may be properly enacted 
 under the Constitution as it is or shall be- 
 come by changes made by the people in 
 the Constitution itself and by statutes 
 thereafter enacted by Congress in accord- 
 ance with such Amendments of the fun- 
 damental law. Property subject to taxa- 
 tion is entitled to protection and cannot 
 
 1 Inebriety, p. 34. 
 
 be destroyed unless it be done by express 
 authority of law and by due process of 
 law. 
 
 The Constitution itself already pro- 
 vides methods for its peaceful amend- 
 ment. Were this not so a written Con- 
 stitution would be intolerable. Every im- 
 portant change which might become 
 necessary would imply revolution and 
 oftentimes war. The methods of its 
 amendment are prescribed as follows in 
 the 5th Article : 
 
 "The Congress, whenever two- thirds of 
 both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall pro- 
 pose Amendments to thi3 Constitution, or on 
 application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of 
 the several States shall call a Convention for pro- 
 posing Amendments, which in either case shall 
 he valid to all intents and purposes as part of 
 this Constitution when ratified by the Legisla- 
 tures of three-fourths thereof, as the one or the 
 other mode of ratification may be proposed by 
 the Congress." 
 
 So far all Amendments, 15 in number, 
 have been proposed by Congress and 
 ratified by the Legislatures of the several 
 States pursuant to the above-quoted pro- 
 visions. 
 
 The object of National Prohibition is 
 to secure the absolute Prohibition by the 
 National Constitution and the necessary 
 legislation in pursuance thereof of the 
 manufacture, sale, importation, exporta- 
 tion and transportation of alcohol, in all 
 its forms, preparations and adulterations, 
 for use by human beings as a drink; and 
 a perfect measure should include all pos- 
 sible methods of consumption by the 
 human organism, whether as a beverage 
 or otherwise, except as a medicine or 
 under those conditions when the admin- 
 istration of a poison is justified. The 
 individual should not be at liberty to 
 poison himself according to law. Some 
 believe that National Prohibition should 
 include every poison as well as alcohol, 
 and the personal use as well as the traffic. 
 This is but the application of the com- 
 mon law in the prohibition of suicide 
 and voluntary self-inflicted injuries to 
 life and health. Sumptuary laws do not 
 relate to the use of poisons, and the hurt- 
 ful personal use as well as the traffic in 
 any poison should be prohibited by an effi- 
 cient law of the land. The efforts of the 
 friends of National Constitutional Pro- 
 hibition, however, have not so far been 
 carried to that extent. It is doubted by 
 many whether the national power should 
 
National Prohibition.] 
 
 440 
 
 [National Prohibition. 
 
 be exerted beyond the manufacture and 
 traffic in the poisonous article. In prac- 
 tical measures we must consider not only 
 what is right but what is in our time 
 possible. 
 
 Up to the present time three joint 
 resolutions proposing Federal Prohibi- 
 tory Amendments have been introduced 
 in Congress. The first was offered by the 
 writer of this article, as a member of the 
 House of Eepresentatives of the 44th 
 Congress, Dec. 12, 1876. The proposed 
 Amendment was in the following words : 
 
 "Article — . 
 
 " Sec. 1. — From and after the year of our 
 Lord 1900 the manufacture and sale of distilled 
 alcoholic intoxicating liquors, or alcoholic 
 liquors any part of which is obtained by distilla- 
 tion or process equivalent thereto, or any intoxi- 
 cating liquors mixed or adulterated with ardent 
 spirits or with any poison whatever, except for 
 medicinal, mechanical, chemical and scientific 
 purposes, and for use in the arts, anywhere 
 within the United States and the Territories 
 thereof, shall cease; and the importation of such 
 liquors from foreign states and countries to the 
 United States and Territories, and the exporta- 
 tion of such liquors from and the transportation 
 thereof within and through any part of this 
 country, except for the use and purposes afore- 
 said, snail be, and hereby is, forever thereafter 
 prohibited. 
 
 "Sec. 2. — Nothing in this Article shall be 
 construed to waive or abridge any existing power 
 of Congress, nor the right, which is hereby rec- 
 ognized, of the people of any State or Territory 
 to enact laws to prevent the increase and for the 
 suppression or regulation of the manufacture, 
 sale and use of liquors and the ingredients there- 
 of, any part of which is alcoholic, intoxicating 
 or poisonous, within its own limits, and for the 
 exclusion of such liquors and ingredients there- 
 from at any time, as well before as after the 
 close of the year of our Lord 1900;. but until 
 then, and until 10 years after the ratification 
 hereof as provided in the next section, no State 
 or Territory shall interfere with the transporta- 
 tion of said liquor or ingredients, in packages 
 safely secured, over the usual lines of traffic, to 
 other States and Territories whei'ein the manu- 
 facture, sale and use thereof for other purposes 
 and use than those excepted in the 1st Section 
 shall be lawful ; provided that the true destina- 
 tion of such packages be plainly marked thereon. 
 
 "Sec 3. — Should this Article not be ratified 
 by three-fourths of the States on or before the 
 last day of December, 1890, then the 1st Sec- 
 tion hereof shall take effect and be in force at 
 the expiration of 10 years from such ratification; 
 and the assent of any State to this Article shall 
 not be rescinded nor reversed. 
 
 " Sec. 4. — Congress shall enforce this Article 
 by all needful legislation." 
 
 The second proposition was submitted 
 in the Senate during the 46th Congress by 
 the Hon. Preston B. Plumb of Kansas. 
 
 It was prepared by Mr. A. M. Powell for 
 the National Temperance Society, and 
 was essentially the Kansas State Consti- 
 tutional Amendment applied to the whole 
 country. It provided for Prohibition 
 of both distilled and fermented liquors. 
 
 The third joint resolution was intro- 
 duced by the writer in the Senate of 
 the 50th Congress, Dec. 12, 1887, and 
 the text of it was agreed upon "in. 
 personal conference between Mr. Powell, 
 Mr. John N. Stearns and Mr. Blair upon 
 two occasions, and by correspondence 
 with Miss Frances B. Willard, John B. 
 Finch and other leading Prohibitionists." 
 It was a compromise of differences of 
 opinion as to the form of the proposed 
 Amendment, in order that there might 
 be united effort to secure the substance 
 of what was desired by all. It was as 
 follows : 
 
 "Article — . 
 
 "Sec. 1. — The manufacture, importation, ex- 
 portation, transportation and sale of all alco- 
 holic liquors as a beverage shall be, and hereby 
 is, forever prohibited in the United States and 
 in every place subject to their jurisdiction. 
 
 " Sec. 2. — Congress shall enforce this Article 
 by all needful legislation." 
 
 Keports prepared by the writer favor- 
 ing the submission of the Amendment to 
 the States were made by the Senate Com- 
 mittee (upon the first of the three joint 
 resolutions) in the 49th Congress, and by 
 the Senate Committee (upon the third, 
 proposition) in the 50th Congress. But 
 neither the Senate nor the House, as a 
 body, has yet given the requisite vote. 
 The Amendment in its present form 
 (as last quoted above) seems to be satis- 
 factory to all the supporters of the 
 movement and will probably be pressed 
 by the temperance sentiment of the 
 country until it becomes a part of our 
 fundamental legislation. 
 
 It is not possible to enter upon even a 
 summary statement of the arguments in 
 favor of National Prohibition in this 
 article, but these considerations may be 
 noted : 
 
 1. — That the traffic in alcohol is a unit 
 and diffused like poison in the atmos- 
 phere throughout the whole nation. It 
 is as impossible for States alone to con- 
 trol it even within their own borders a» 
 it would be for them to deal effectually 
 with a permanent pestilence already es- 
 tablished in all parts of the country. 
 There must be a national quarantine, 
 
National Prohibition.] 
 
 441 
 
 [National Prohibition. 
 
 and both national and State effort 
 throughout our whole geographical ex- 
 tent. There should also be international 
 combination to suppress the traffic. The 
 business should everywhere be out- 
 lawed. It does more harm than the 
 slave trade ever did and there should be 
 no delay on the part of any single nation 
 to demand of all others the suppression 
 of this pernicious traffic in human bodies 
 and souls. 
 
 2. — It is manifestly impossible for one 
 or for several States fully to prohibit, 
 prevent or punish as a crime that which 
 is sanctioned and protected as a legiti- 
 mate business by the remaining States, 
 in the Territories and District of Colum- 
 bia, and by the overshadowing power of 
 the general Government everywhere. 
 This national recognition of the traffic is 
 the destruction of the rights of the 
 States in their efforts to secure Prohibi- 
 tion within their own borders. If Pro- 
 hibition in the States does not prohibit 
 it is because the national power every- 
 where prevents, and in effect prohibits 
 Prohibition. The Constitution of the 
 United States is practically a supreme 
 law of the land in favor of free rum. A 
 poison gas which escapes anywhere 
 is confined nowhere. Besides, it 
 should be remembered that the dignity 
 and power pertaining to the national 
 administration of the law render the 
 nation a much more formidable antago- 
 nist to this tremendous alcoholic power 
 than are the people, officers and tribu- 
 nals of the States. 
 
 3. — National Prohibition is necessary in 
 order to protect and preserve the very 
 existence of the police power of the 
 States. The police power, which be- 
 longs to the States, is for the preserva- 
 tion of order and the protection of the 
 life, health and safety of the people; 
 but the protection of the liquor trade 
 by the nation and by the surrounding 
 States renders null and void the efforts 
 of those States which would exercise 
 their admitted right within their own 
 borders to suppress the traffic in order 
 that they may preserve the life, health 
 and property of their citizens. This 
 shows the unsoundness of the pretended 
 objection to such an Amendment that it 
 would be an interference with or viola- 
 tion of the police rights of the States. 
 It would only be a guaranty of their ex- 
 
 istence and complete exercise against 
 the wprst enemy which assails public 
 order, life, liberty, health and property 
 in any State. It might as well be said 
 that the existing national guaranty of a 
 republican form of government to the 
 States is a violation of their right to 
 governments republican in form. 
 
 4. — Should it be conceded that Con- 
 gress may so regulate commerce that 
 there shall be no infringement by na- 
 tional statutes upon the local police 
 power in a State, still so long as any 
 State is permitted to manufacture and sell 
 it will be practically impossible to sup- 
 press the traffic even in the States which 
 enact the most stringent Prohibitory 
 laws. Besides, should Congress by stat- 
 ute prohibit the importation from other 
 countries and also the importation from 
 one State to another in which the traffic 
 were prohibited such national legislation, 
 like that in the States, would be fluctu- 
 ating and transitory and could be per- 
 manently secured only by constitutional 
 law. 
 
 5. — Even if the National Constitution 
 were a blank upon the subject and 
 every State were like an independent 
 nation, with absolute legal power over 
 the liquor traffic within its own borders, 
 still there should be a National Consti- 
 tutional Amendment for its prohibition 
 because no State, any more than an indi- 
 vidual, should be permitted to so vise its 
 real or personal property or its powers 
 of any kind as to injure other States and 
 their people. No State should be al- 
 lowed to create and trade in a universal 
 calamity. Unless there be assistance af- 
 forded rather than opposition made by 
 the National Constitution and laws to the 
 States in the exercise of the local police 
 power for the protection of their people, 
 those States which enact Prohibitory 
 laws will be justified in resorting to the 
 war power which is inherent as the es- 
 sence of the police power and in a State 
 is the right of self-defense — whenever, 
 after exhausting all peaceable efforts, it 
 shall plainly be necessary in order to 
 protect the lives, health and property of 
 the people. Therefore in order to pre- 
 serve the national peace in the last resort 
 there should be National Prohibition. 
 
 6. — No one nation can wholly extin- 
 guish even within its own borders this 
 great crime against civilization. Prohibi- 
 
National Temperance League.] 442 [National Temperance Society. 
 
 tion by the world is necessary. But in 
 order to secure this greatest end there 
 must be action by individual nations. 
 Let the United States be the first. As 
 England abolished the slave trade, so let 
 America abolish the still worse trade in 
 poison-drink, first within her own bor- 
 ders and then by a dignified but deter- 
 mined demand of the nations of the earth 
 that the international traffic in alcoholic 
 "beverages shall cease. 
 
 The subject is more fully discussed in 
 "The Temperance Movement, or, The 
 Conflict of Man with Alcohol," and in 
 the speeches and reports made by the 
 writer in the House and Senate of the 
 United States. 
 
 Henet W. Blair. 
 
 National Temperance League 
 
 (England). — Organized in 1856 through 
 a consolidation of the National Temper- 
 ance Society and the London Temper- 
 ance League. Its avowed object is "The 
 promotion of temperance by the practice 
 and advocacy of total abstinence from 
 intoxicating beverages." A person of 
 ■either sex is eligible to membership who 
 .signs the total abstinence pledge and 
 pays 2s 6d per annum. " The League's 
 agencies are comprehensive and un- 
 sectarian. It assists local societies and 
 individual workers, and seeks to ac- 
 complish its great object by means of 
 public meetings, lectures, sermons, tract 
 distribution, domiciliary visitation ; con- 
 ferences with the clergy, medical practi- 
 tioners, schoolmasters, magistrates and 
 other persons of influence; deputations 
 to teachers and students in universities, 
 ■colleges,training institutions and schools ; 
 missionary efforts among sailors, soldiers, 
 the militia, the police and other classes." 
 Besides securing many thousand pledges 
 at the military and naval stations, the 
 League has issued valuable temperance 
 school-books that have been widely cir- 
 culated. Its influence on the medical 
 profession is worthy of special notice. 
 In 1871 it secured the signatures of 209 
 eminent physicians to an important and 
 aggressive declaration touching the true 
 nature of alcohol. Another result was 
 the arrangement of a course of lectures 
 by Dr. B. W. Richardson to the medical 
 students of metropolitan hospitals in 
 1887, and the organization of the British 
 Medical Temperance Association, num- 
 
 bering (in 1889) 387 medical abstainers, 
 with 115 associated students. The news- 
 papers published are the Temperance 
 Record and the Medical Temperance 
 Journal. The headquarters are at 33 
 Paternoster Bow, London, E. 0. Chief 
 officers (1889): President, Eight Rev. 
 Frederick Temple, D.D., Lord Bishop of 
 London; Secretary, Mr. Robert Rae. 
 
 National Temperance Society 
 and Publication House. — The most 
 important general temperance organiza- 
 tion in the United States. It was founded 
 in 1865, "for the special work, of creat- 
 ing and circulating a sound temperance 
 literature, to promote the cause of total 
 abstinence from the use, manufacture 
 and sale of all alcoholic beverages, and 
 to unify and concentrate the temperance 
 sentiment of the nation against the 
 drink and the drink traffic." It has 
 uniformly and uncompromisingly ad- 
 vocated total abstinence for the individ- 
 ual and Prohibition for the State; but 
 it has no connection with partisan pol- 
 itics and is strictly non-sectarian in 
 religion, and among its Vice-Presidents 
 (including representative leaders in all 
 the States and Territories) are persons 
 attached to all political organizations 
 and creeds. The life-membership fee is 
 $20; and anyone in agreement with the 
 purposes of the Society may become a 
 Life-Director and have a life-voice and 
 vote in all the meetings by paying 1100. 
 Its income is derived from subscriptions, 
 bequests and the sale of publications; 
 for the year 1889-90 the receipts aggre- 
 gated $48,843.23 and the expenditures 
 $49,512.09. More than 1,850 different 
 publications are included in its catalogue. 
 Its chief periodical is the National Tem- 
 per -ance Advocate (monthly), an able 
 journal. The Youth's Temperance Ban- 
 ner, for children, has a monthly circula- 
 tion of more than 100,000. The Water 
 Lily, another periodical for children, has 
 40,000 subscribers. 
 
 The Society has been prominently and 
 actively identified with nearly all the 
 important work done for total abstinence 
 and Prohibition in the United States in 
 the last 25 years. It has given particular 
 attention to the cultivation of temper- 
 ance sentiment among the freedmen of 
 the South, sending to them speakers, 
 missionaries and great quantities of lit- 
 erature. The fundamental interests of 
 
Nazarites.] 
 
 443 
 
 [Nebraska Campaign. 
 
 the temperance cause have also been 
 promoted by holding conventions, conf er- 
 «nces and mass-meetings, introducing 
 temperance text-books into the schools 
 and scattering literature in jails, hospitals, 
 •etc. It has taken especial interest in the 
 Prohibitory Amendment campaigns in 
 the various States, providing literature 
 in abundance and furnishing speakers. 
 The Society has drafted and urged the 
 passage of several of the representative 
 measures introduced in Congress — no- 
 tably the proposed Federal Prohibitory 
 Amendment and the bill to qreate a 
 Federal Commission- to investigate the 
 ■drink traffic. " In the political arena," 
 says the twenty-fifth annual report, " the 
 agitation has become intense, as never 
 before during the history of our Society, 
 and awakened largely by our energies." 
 
 The first President of the Society was 
 William E. Dodge. Mr. Dodge died in 
 1883, and was succeeded by Mark Hop- 
 kins, D.D. In 1885 Theodore L. Cuy- 
 ler, D.D., was chosen President, and he 
 is still at the head. The Secretary is 
 J. N. Stearns ; Treasurer, W. D. Porter. 
 
 Nazarites were those persons in 
 ancient Israel who were either separated 
 to God by consecration from birth, as 
 in the cases of Samson (Judg. 13 : 7), 
 Samuel (I Sam. 1: 11, 22, 28) and John 
 the Baptist (Luke 1: 15), or by vow for 
 a definite period, as provided in Numbers 
 6 : 3-6, where the law of the Nazarite is 
 given as follows : " When either man or 
 woman shall separate themselves to vow 
 a vow of a Nazarite, to separate them- 
 selves unto the Lord, he shall separate 
 himself from wine and strong drink, and 
 shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vine- 
 gar of strong drink, neither shall he 
 drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist 
 grapes, or dried. All the days of his 
 separation shall he eat nothing that is 
 made of the vine-tree, from the kernels 
 even to the husk. All the days of the 
 vow of his separation there shall no razor 
 come upon his head ; until the days be 
 fulfilled, in the which he separateth him- 
 self unto the Lord, he shall be holy, and 
 shall let the locks of the hair of his head 
 grow. All the days that he separateth 
 himself unto the Lord he shall come at 
 no dead body." In the case of a Nazarite 
 separated for life the prohibition of all 
 intoxicants extended to the mother dur- 
 
 ing the period of pregnancy as well as to 
 the child after birth. Thus in Judg. 13:7, 
 the command to the mother of Samson 
 was : " Behold, thou shalt conceive, and 
 bear a son; and now drink no wine nor 
 strong drink, neither eat any unclean 
 thing, for the child shall be a Nazarite to 
 God from the womb to the day of his 
 death ; " while the precaution was taken 
 of repeating these instructions to Ma- 
 noah, the woman's husband (verses 13 
 and 14) : " Of all that I said unto the 
 woman let her beware. She may not eat 
 of anything that cometh of the vine, 
 neither let her drink wine or strong 
 drink, nor eat any unclean thing ; all that 
 I commanded her let her .observe." So 
 also Hannah, the mother of Samuel, after 
 her prayer in the temple that a child 
 might be given her whom she should 
 consecrate to the Lord, being charged 
 with drunkenness by Eli the priest, re- 
 plied (I Sam. 1:5): " No, my lord, I am 
 a woman of a sorrowful spirit : I have 
 drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but 
 have poured out my soul before the 
 Lord." The importance of total absti- 
 nence in the service of a Nazarite is clearly 
 shown in God's reproach to Israel,throua:h 
 the prophet Amos (2 : 10-12) : " I brought 
 you up from the land of Egypt, and led 
 you 40 years through the wilderness, to 
 possess the land of the Amorites. And I 
 raised up of your sons for prophets, and 
 of your young men for Nazarites. Is it 
 not even thus, ye children of Israel ? 
 saith the Lord. But ye gave the Naza- 
 rites wine to drink; and commanded the 
 prophets, saying, Prophesy not," Jeremi- 
 ah (Lam. 4 : 7) describes Israel's Nazarites 
 as they were in the sight of God before 
 the time of her idolatrous abominations : 
 "Her Nazarites were purer than snow, 
 they were whiter than milk, they were 
 more ruddy in body than rubies, their 
 polishing was of sapphire." 
 
 The word "Nazarite" should not be 
 confounded with " Nazarene." The lat- 
 ter had no special significance in the 
 early history of the Jews, and in Christ's 
 time and for many years after was used 
 simply as a name for a person born in 
 Nazareth. 
 
 Nebraska Campaign. — Since the 
 article on Constitutional Prohibition 
 was finished the Prohibitory Amend- 
 ment campaign in the State of Nebraska 
 
Nebraska Campaign.] 
 
 444 
 
 [Nebraska Campaign. 
 
 has been fought, resulting in the defeat 
 of the measure by a considerable major- 
 ity. This contest overshadowed in im- 
 portance all that had preceded it : even 
 in the Massachusetts and Pennsylvania 
 campaigns of 1889 there was not so 
 much at stake. Nebraska was the first 
 State to adopt the $1,000 license system, 
 and a repudiation of that policy by pop- 
 ular vote after a nine years' trial would 
 have gone far toward putting an end to 
 the High License compromise. Success 
 there would have established State Pro- 
 hibition throughout a wide strip of ter- 
 ritory from the Canadian border to 
 Texas. This would have been of im- 
 mense advantage to the movement for 
 permanent and comprehensive rather 
 than experimental and local Prohibition, 
 and for rigid enforcement over a great 
 area of the country; since the anti- 
 liquor interests of the five States of 
 North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, 
 Nebraska and Kansas, and the Indian 
 and Oklahoma Territories, would have 
 become identical, and the possibility of 
 repeal would have been practically re- 
 moved in each of them by the moral and 
 political effect of so significant a 
 victory. This was also the most in- 
 structive of Prohibition campaigns, 
 showing, more convincingly than had 
 ever been done, the artfulness and cow- 
 ardice of the liquor traffic, the decep- 
 tion^ and unscrupulousness of its de- 
 fenders and their absolute inability to 
 contend with the Prohibitionists by legit- 
 imate methods; the corruption of the 
 press, the servility of politicians and the 
 comparative feebleness of a righteous 
 cause when resisted determinedly by 
 well-organized combinations of desper- 
 ate, selfish and shrewd men. 
 
 The circumstances leading to the 
 enactment of Nebraska's liquor law, and 
 much evidence of its entire failure as a 
 temperance measure, are presented in 
 High License. Dissatisfaction with the 
 act began to develop after two or three 
 years, and increased steadily. The de- 
 mand for submission of a Prohibitoiy 
 Amendment, first urged in 1881, was 
 renewed in 1883, and was made a lead- 
 ing feature of political agitation in each 
 subsequent year. The defeat of the sub- 
 mission resolution in the Republican 
 Legislature of 1883 led to the organiza- 
 tion of the Prohibition party in 1884 and 
 
 the polling of 2,899 votes for St. John. 
 In 1885 the Prohibition vote rose to 
 4,445. By 1886 the movement had be- 
 come so strong that the rural element 
 compelled the Republican State Conven- 
 tion, despite the opposition of the most 
 prominent party leaders, to pledge sub ■ 
 mission. This action did not check the 
 Prohibition party, which increased its 
 vote to 8,175. In the Legislature of 
 1887 the pledge was repudiated and sub- 
 mission was again voted down. The 
 question was excitedly debated in the 
 Republican Convention of 1887, and the 
 anti- Prohibition managers of that body 
 persuaded the temperance people to omit 
 the pledge from the platform and refer 
 the subject for final decision to the Re- 
 publican primaries of 1888. The Prohi- 
 bition party once more showed respect- 
 able strength, polling 7,359 votes at the 
 State election of 1887. In 1888 great 
 efforts were made by the liquor element 
 of the Republican party to secure a 
 majority of the delegates to the State 
 Convention, and the pro-liquor leaders 
 carefully organized the Committee on 
 Resolutions so as to defeat the Submis- 
 sionists. This Committee accordingly 
 brought in a report in which submission 
 was ignored. But the sentiment for 
 Prohibition prevailed against all the arts 
 of the " bosses ;" an appeal was taken to 
 the Convention, and after an all-night 
 debate the pledge of 1886 was re-adopted 
 by a vote of 310 to 290. At the Presi- 
 dential election the Prohibition party 
 had a larger following than ever before, 
 and cast 9,429 votes for Fisk. The 
 Legislature of 1889 was so cunningly 
 manipulated by the saloon politicians 
 that submission barely escaped a fifth 
 defeat ; although the Republicans had 76 
 votes in the House in a total of 100, and 
 27 of the 33 Senators, the Submission 
 resolution carried in the House by a 
 majority of only one vote (given by a 
 Democrat), and even then the Submis- 
 sionistswere compelled toagree to an alter- 
 native Amendment providing for license. 
 It cannot be doubted that the popu- 
 lar feeling in Nebraska was overwhelm- 
 ingly in favor of Prohibition up to the 
 time of submission in 1889. The growth 
 of the Prohibition party and the uncom- 
 promising utterances of the religious de- 
 nominations (see pp. 214-15) were most 
 significant. The bitterness with which 
 
Nebraska Campaign.] 
 
 445 
 
 [Nebraska Campaign. 
 
 the liquor men and their political sup- 
 porters fought the demand for a vote on 
 the question was a tacit acknowledge- 
 ment that submission and Prohibition 
 were equivalent terms. And when the 
 character of this opposition is considered, 
 it is hard to resist the conclusion that 
 the submission majorities in the Eepub- 
 lican Conventions of 1886 and 1888 were 
 given on the merits of the Prohibition 
 question itself as understood by a ma- 
 jority of the people. The Eepublican 
 party had for years been dominated by a 
 number of very able and aggressive anti- 
 Prohibitionists, like John M. Thurston, 
 Governor Thayer and Edward Rosewater 
 (editor of the Omaha Bee) ; Peter E. Her, 
 the noted Omaha distiller, was also one 
 of the recognized Eepublican leaders. 
 These men, with others equally hostile 
 to Prohibition, were accustomed to shape 
 the party's policy. From the first they 
 fought submission not so much because 
 they denied the right of the people to 
 vote on the subject as because they rec- 
 ognized that Prohibition would probably 
 carry if a vote were taken. Throughout 
 Nebraska it was understood that this 
 reason animated the anti-Submissionists; 
 and certainly no one really opposed to 
 Prohibition could have afforded to ignore 
 the opinions of these experienced poli- 
 ticians or to regard the submission plan 
 with approval or indifference. To stifle 
 the submission sentiment very disrepu- 
 table work was done. It was testified by 
 Mr. Her, in a legislative bribery investi- 
 gation in 1889, that in order to prejudice 
 the minds of Nebraska voters he induced 
 the proprietor of the Omaha Bee to print 
 a number of letters from Iowa discredit- 
 ing the effects of Prohibition (these let- 
 ters having been prepared with the 
 greatest unfairness), and sent many 
 copies of the Bee containing them to the 
 constituents of legislators, expending 
 $4,000 for this purpose; that in the 
 legislative campaigns of 1888 he spent 
 from $4,000 to $5,500 to elect men 
 pledged against submission, and that at 
 the legislative session of 1889, when the 
 Submission bill was up for final passage, 
 he secretly went to Lincoln (the State 
 capital) and gave to a professional 
 lobbyist the sum of $3,500, to be used 
 (without limitations or conditions) for 
 strengthening the anti-submission fol- 
 lowing in the Legislature. 
 
 The proposed Prohibitory Amendment 
 was as follows : l 
 
 " The manufacture, sale and keeping for sale 
 of intoxicating liquors as a beverage are for- 
 ever prohibited in this State, and the Legisla- 
 ture shall provide by law for the enforcement of 
 this provision." 
 
 Concurrently with this there was submit- 
 ted another Amendment providing that 
 
 " The manufacture, sale and keeping for sale 
 of intoxicating liquors as a beverage shall be 
 licensed and regulated by law." 
 
 The two Amendments were to be voted 
 on separately, the 4th day of November, 
 1890. Eor the adoption of either prop- 
 osition it was necessary to poll a ma- 
 jority of all the votes cast for State 
 officers the same day. 
 
 Preparations for the campaign began 
 soon after the fall elections of 1889. To 
 insure harmony a union of the Pro- 
 hibition party, Good Templars and 
 Woman's Christian Temperance Union 
 was effected. Early in 1890 an Inter- 
 State League of friends of Prohibition 
 in Iowa, Kansas, the Dakotas and Ne- 
 braska was formed to assist the Ne- 
 braska agitation. The chief work of the 
 campaign was done by the Prohibition 
 party, under the direction of A. G. Wol- 
 fenbarger, A. Eoberts, H. C. Bitten- 
 bender and others, with the co-operation 
 of the W. C. T. IT. and Good Templars. 
 The Inter-State League held important 
 meetings, addressed by eminent public 
 men from Kansas and Iowa, and the 
 testimony that they bore to the success 
 of Prohibition in practice was very help- 
 ful to the cause. The League also cir- 
 culated considerable literature. A non- 
 partisan State organization performed 
 some good service, but the results of its 
 labors were disappointing to those who 
 looked to it to take the lead. The New 
 York Voice, by appeals to the temper- 
 ance people of the country, raised about 
 $34,000 for the campaign, of which a part 
 was used for sending that newspaper to a 
 selected list of names and the remainder 
 was paid over to the Nebraska organiza- 
 tions. The State was thoroughly can- 
 vassed by the best Prohibition speakers 
 and earnest support was given by the 
 clergy and other classes of conscientious 
 and intelligent citizens. 
 
 From the beginnin g there were sig- 
 
 1 See the " Nebraska House. Journal for 1889," pp. 1,339- 
 70; also the Voice, March 13, 1890. 
 
Nebraska Campaign.] 
 
 446 
 
 [Nebraska Campaign. 
 
 nificant indications of the determination 
 of the liquor leaders to hazard any 
 amount of money and resort to any prac- 
 tices necessary for winning the election 
 in Nebraska. The national organs of the 
 traffic, as early as January, 1890, showed 
 full appreciation of the importance of the 
 contest, the Brewers' Journal declaring 
 that it was to be "a fight for life and death 
 of Prohibition." The United States 
 Brewers' Association, at its annual Con- 
 vention in 1890, amended its constitu- 
 tion so as to double the rates of 
 assessment upon members and thus pro- 
 duce a doubled income (see foot-note, 
 p. 381) ; and there can hardly be a doubt 
 that this action was taken with a view 
 to making a great contribution to the 
 anti-Prohibition fund in Nebraska, since 
 there was no other important emergency 
 then before the " trade." 
 
 In the winter months of 1890 a letter 
 was sent from Lincoln, Neb., to repre- 
 sentative distillers, brewers and liquor- 
 sellers in various States, defining the 
 issues at stake and asking for opinions 
 and suggestions. The writer was a Pro- 
 hibitionist, and his object was to test the 
 views of the " trade " at large as to the 
 situation and as to the methods that 
 ought to be used by the foes of Prohibi- 
 tion. Many answers were received, all 
 exhibiting lively interest ; and the plain- 
 est intimations were given that it would 
 be unwise to make the contest in a 
 straightforward way, to engage in a dis- 
 cussion of the question on its merits or 
 to permit the rumsellers to take any 
 prominent part publicly in the agitation, 
 that strenuous appeals should be made to 
 the selfishness of voters by dwelling upon 
 the revenue aspects of High License, 
 that no pains should be spared to bribe 
 the newspapers of the State and the 
 politicians of both the leading parties, 
 and that, in general, the hopes of the 
 traffic depended entirely upon suppressing 
 fair argument and employing large sums 
 of money shrewdly and unscrupulously. 
 The success attending such tactics in 
 former Amendment struggles was frankly 
 described and much secret information 
 was imparted. (Quotations from the let- 
 ters are made in various articles in this 
 work. See especially pp. 119, 125-6 
 and 219-20. For the letters in detail 
 see the Voice for April 3 and 17, and 
 May 8, 1890. The Crowell-Oheves rev- 
 
 elations [see pp. 120-2] were among 
 the results of this correspondence.) 
 
 Another interesting exposure was made 
 in April. Nebraska is an agricultural 
 State, and it was necessary for the liquor 
 advocates to propagandize among the 
 farmers. Before the campaign had fairly 
 opened thousands of Nebraska farmers 
 received in their mails copies of a pre- 
 tended agricultural newspaper, the Farm 
 Herald. This journal was filled with 
 anti-Prohibition pleas. To the ordinary 
 reader, however, it appeared to be issued 
 by disinterested men, for there was noth- 
 ing to show that it emanated from 
 liquor sources ; the name of " The Amer- 
 ican Printing Company, Louisville, 
 Ky.," was given as that of the responsi- 
 ble publisher. Investigation proved, that 
 this company had no separate identity, 
 but was a mere disguise for the great 
 whiskey organization known as the Na- 
 tional Protective Association, while the 
 Farm Herald had no list of bona fide 
 subscribers and was edited in a whiskey 
 establishment in Louisville. (See the 
 Voice, April 17, 1890.) 
 
 The ardor and intolerance with which 
 the drunkard-makers' cause was cham- 
 pioned by the leading newspapers of 
 Nebraska excited suspicions ; and to as- 
 certain the motives of their attitude a 
 letter was mailed from Louisville in May 
 to Nebraska editors, asking them to name 
 the rates for which they would print in 
 their editorial and news columns such 
 anti-Prohibition matter as should be fur- 
 nished them by the negotiator. Accom- 
 panying the letter was a printed slip con- 
 taining glaringly unfair and dishonest 
 anti-Prohibition statistics : this was sub- 
 mitted as a specimen of the articles that 
 would be provided. About 60 newspaper v .. 
 proprietors responded, 1 eagerly offering 
 
 1 This revelation gave rise to one of the popular songa 
 of the campaign: 
 
 "Dear Sir: I'll print your whiskey views for 40 cents a 
 
 line; 
 I'll print them, too, dear sir, as news, for 40 cents a line. 
 I'll sell out home, and country, too, for 40 cents a line, — 
 Yes, everything for revenue,— just 40 cent6 a line. 
 
 " For editorial I must have 50 cents a line; 
 This business may my paper buBt, this 40 cents a line. 
 The Journal I will sell to you at 40 cents a line, — 
 To fight the rummies 1 battle thro', for 40 cents a line. 
 
 u And hearts may bleed, and mothers sigh, yet 40 cents a 
 
 line 
 Will close my ear to every cry, just 40 cents a line. 
 All hail the man who can't be bought, for 40 cents a 
 
 line — 
 Whom Turner letters never caught, for 40 cents a line I" 
 
Nebraska Campaign.] 
 
 447 
 
 [Nebraska Campaign. 
 
 to sell their columns to the liquor men, 
 without regard to the character of the 
 "matter." Among the journals repre- 
 sented were the most influential dailies of 
 the State, including the Lincoln State 
 Journal and the Omaha Bee and Repub- 
 lican. (See the Voice, May 29, June 5 
 and 12, 1890.) The liquor leaders took 
 advantage of the greed of the press. 
 Several prominent journals that favored 
 Prohibition at the start found it impossi- 
 ble to resist the tempting bribes that 
 came to them from saloon headquarters. 
 Most of the representative newspapers 
 ranked with the dramshops themselves 
 as partisan promoters of the cause of 
 rum; no quarter or courtesy was shown 
 to the Prohibitionists; the most impres- 
 sive evidence ever presented touching 
 the practical benefits of a scheme of pub- 
 lic policy was ignored, and false and dis- 
 torted figures, reports and claims were 
 deliberately paraded. Against this news- 
 paper opposition the advocates of the 
 Amendment were all but powerless. The 
 printed exposures, while circulated exten- 
 sively by such papers as the Voice, the 
 Chicago Lever, the Lincoln New Republic 
 and the Lincoln Daily Gall (the only im- 
 portant daily that favored Prohibition), 
 either did not reach the masses of the 
 people or were regarded by the average 
 reader as less authoritative than the de- 
 clarations of organs whose statements 
 and opinions had always been respected. 
 In the conduct of the campaign the 
 example set by the Eastern liquor organi- 
 zations was carefully copied. The liquor- 
 dealers, as such, did not engage openly 
 in the fight. They effected preparations, 
 however, early in the spring, and com- 
 .nitted the work to a so-called " Business 
 Men's and Bankers' Association." This 
 name was chosen to mislead the public 
 and to secure the co-operation of respect- 
 able citizens. It was afterward shown 
 that 63 per cent, of the Nebraska bank- 
 ers were for the Amendment (see the 
 Voice, Oct. 3, 1890), while more than 
 2,700 business men (including many in 
 Omaha and other important centers) 
 signed either the following statement or 
 a similar one : 
 
 " Whereas, The defenders and apologists of 
 the licensed liquor traffic in Nebraska and the 
 nation have organized a so-called ' Business 
 Men's and Bankers' Association ' to serve the 
 interests of the brewers, distillers and saloon- 
 
 keepers in a desperate effort to defeat Consti- 
 tutional Prohibition in this State; and 
 
 " Wltereas, The" various branches of legiti- 
 mate business are associated in the declarations of 
 this society with the opposition to Constitutional 
 Prohibition, therefore 
 
 "We, the undersigned business men and 
 bankers of the State of Nebraska, do hereby 
 protest against the unwarranted assertion of the 
 friends of the licensed liquor traffic that * Pro- 
 hibition is inimical to the material welfare of 
 the State,' and assert as our deliberate judgment 
 and belief: 
 
 "1. That Constitutional Prohibition, in out- 
 lawing and abolishing the saloon, will greatly 
 stimulate and benefit all lines of legitimate busi- 
 ness. 
 
 "2. That the vast amount of money, amount- 
 ing to many millions of dollars annually, now 
 being squandered for drink in the saloons of 
 Nebraska, will by the adoption of the pend- 
 ing Prohibitory Amendment be turned into the 
 proper channels of trade, resulting in untold 
 benefits to the business man and banker, as well 
 as to the toiling thousands on whom the finan- 
 cial prosperity of this country depends. 
 
 "We therefore advise all who would con- 
 serve the material, educational and moral wel- 
 fare of Nebraska, and who would invite to our 
 State the most desirable classes of immigrants, 
 to work and vote for Constitutional Prohibition 
 Nov. 4, 1890." ' 
 
 The arrogance with which it was 
 claimed that the material interests of 
 Nebraska would be promoted and her 
 moral and religious interests would not 
 be injured by the rejection of the Amend- 
 ment induced the Prohibitionists to 
 seek opinions from highly represent- 
 ative leaders of special classes, like the 
 workingmen, farmers, clergy and teach- 
 ers. The following appeal to wage- 
 workers was issued, signed by 42 of the 
 foremost leaders of organized labor: 2 
 
 " To the Workingmen of Nebraska: 
 
 " We believe that the saloon system is no 
 help to organized labor in its endeavors to secure 
 the just demands of the workingmen; that the 
 abolition of the corrupting influences of the 
 saloon in politics would help in the endeavor to 
 elect honest men to office who will act as the 
 representatives of the whole people and not as 
 the tools of individuals or a particular class. 
 
 "We believe that the prosperity of a people 
 
 ' See the Voice, Oct. 3, 1890. 
 
 2 Among others, by the Grand Chief Conductor of the 
 Brotherhood of Railway Conductors, the General Secre- 
 tary of the Hatmakers 1 National Association, the Presi- 
 dent, Secretary and Treasurer of the United Mine-Work- 
 ers of America, the General Secretary of the Boot and 
 Shoemakers 1 International Union, the President of the 
 Tackmakers 1 Protective Union, the President of the 
 Journeymen Barbers' Independent National Union of 
 America, the General Secretary of the Amalgamated 
 Carpenters 1 National Union, the General Secretary of the 
 United Brotherhood of Printers and Decorators of America > 
 the General Secretary of the Horse Collarmakers 1 Na- 
 tional Union, a General Organizer of the American Federa- 
 tion of Labor and 30 influential Knights of Labor. (See 
 the Voice, Oct. 23, 1890,) 
 
Nebraska Campaign.] 
 
 448 
 
 [Nebraska Campaign. 
 
 does not depend upon retaining an institution 
 which tends to corrupt and weaken its indi- 
 vidual members, and that the power of organized 
 labor would be greater to-day were it not for 
 the debauching influence of saloons. 
 
 " Workingmen of Nebraska need not hesitate 
 to vote for the abolition of the saloon through 
 fear of the infringement of 'personal liberty.' 
 On the contrary, there is reason to believe that 
 with the saloon system abolished and the work- 
 ingmen sober, united and steadfast, our liberties 
 will become more secure and our advancement 
 toward justice more certain." 
 
 This address to the farmers received 
 the signatures of 31 leaders of agricul- 
 tural organizations : J 
 
 " To the Farmers of Nebraska: 
 
 "We believe that Prohibition of the liquor 
 traffic would benefit the farmer by removing 
 one of the principal causes of crime and thus 
 tending to reduce his taxes; by increasing the 
 demand for food and clothing (the raw materials 
 for which are produced by the farmer) among a 
 large class who now spend their money in the 
 saloons, and by destroying one of the main 
 sources of corruption in politics — the purchas- 
 able saloon vote. 
 
 ' ' A sober people can be more readily brought 
 to consider and right the wrongs of the farmers 
 and other unjustly treated classes than a people 
 a considerable portion of which, owing to the 
 debasing influence of the saloon, can be con- 
 trolled for private purposes on election day. 
 
 ' ' "We have no faith in the reports which have 
 been circulated that Prohibition is the cause of 
 the depressed condition of agriculture in States 
 that have outlawed the saloon. The causes of 
 depressed agriculture are other and exist in li- 
 cense as well as Prohibition States. 
 
 "We believe that the farmers of Nebraska 
 can vote for the pending Prohibitory Amend- 
 ment without fear of injury to their interests, 
 but rather in the belief that good will result to 
 them through this proposed outlawing of the 
 liquor traffic." 
 
 Distinguished leaders of religious 
 denominations showed their interest 
 by issuing the following (to which 55 
 names were signed) : 2 
 
 " To the Christian Voters of Nebraska: 
 "We, the undersigned, Christian ministers 
 and officers of various denominations, unite in 
 urging the Christian citizens of Nebraska to ex- 
 
 1 Including the Secretary of the American Shorthorn 
 Breeders' Association, the ex-Secretary of the Northwest- 
 ern Dairymens' Association, the Secretary of the Ameri- 
 can Horticultural Society, the Secretary of the American 
 Galloway Breeders' National Association, the Secretary 
 of the Ayreshire Breeders' National Association, the 
 Superintendent of Advanced Registry of the Holstein- 
 Friesian Association of America, the Presidents or Secre- 
 taries of State Grangers or Farmers' Alliances for the 
 States of Nebraska, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, 
 Texas, North Dakota, Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, 
 Colorado. Kentucky, North Carolina, and the Indian and 
 New Mexico Territories, as well as editors of prominent 
 agricultural journals. (See the Voice, Oct. 28, 1890.) 
 
 2 Including ten Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church, two Bishops of the United Brethren Church, 
 three Presidents of colleges, and Secretaries, Vice-Presi- 
 dents, etc., of very prominent societies and boards. (See 
 the Voice, Oct. 30, 1890.) 
 
 ert their influence against the further legali- 
 zation of the saloons, and to vote for the Pro- 
 hibitory Amendment. We believe that the 
 moral and religious inteiests not only of Ne- 
 braska but of the entire country are involved in 
 the issue of the present campaign in Nebraska. 
 The triumph of the saloons must ever be a 
 calamity to the church as well as to the State. 
 Intemperance is something more than a politi- 
 cal evil ; it is a sin against God, and the licensed 
 saloon is a legalized and organized temptation 
 to commit that sin. As the New York Tribune 
 said several years ago: 
 
 " ' There is to-day in the English-speaking countries no 
 such tremendous, far-reaching, vital question as that of 
 drunkenness. In its implications and effects it over- 
 shadows all else. It is impossible to examine any sub- 
 ject connected with the progress, the civilization, the 
 physical well-being, the religions condition of the masses, 
 without encountering this monstrous evil. It lies at the 
 center of all social and political mischief. It paralyzes all 
 beneficent energies in every direction. It neutralizes edu- 
 cational agencies. It silences the voice of religion.' 
 
 " There is, therefore, an irrepressible conflict 
 between the church and the liquor traffic. 
 License, high or low, provides for the continu- 
 ance of the traffic and offers no adequate bar- 
 riers against its evils. The duty of the Chris- 
 tian seems to us to be clear. It is to assist in 
 every legitimate way to put an end to a legal- 
 ized traffic which can prosper only by debauch- 
 ing men, wreaking untold misery upon the 
 homes of the community." 
 
 Twenty-four County Superintendents 
 of Public Instruction in Nebraska joined 
 in this appeal : 
 
 " To the Friends of Education in Nebraska: 
 
 " We believe in the long run that the cause 
 of public education would be greatly benefited 
 by the abolition of the saloon system. Under 
 Prohibition enforced a large per cent, of our 
 school children would be better fed, better 
 clothed, better trained at home, better supplied 
 with books and consequently better fitted to re- 
 ceive and profit by the instruction given in the 
 schools. 
 
 "Prohibition would tend to increase the 
 attendance at the schools. Teachers would be 
 more respected, because they would be able to 
 attain better results with pupils freed from the 
 curse of ruined homes and drunken parents. 
 
 "We have no sympathy with the cry that 
 the license money paid by the saloon is neces- 
 sary to sustain an efficient public school system. 
 On the contrary we believe that were the saloon 
 system utterly abolished it would result in a 
 greatly increased interest in the support and 
 development of our schools. 
 
 "The friends of our public school system 
 need not hesitate to vote for Prohibition at the 
 coming election through any fear of injuring 
 the cause of education." 
 
 It became evident in the closing month 
 of the canvass that the liquor managers 
 were engaged in systematically purchas- 
 ing the services of the political workers. 
 The chief party leaders, with few excep- 
 tions, were already on their side. And 
 now it was discovered that throughout 
 the State politicians of local influence 
 
Nebraska Campaign.] 
 
 449 
 
 [Nebraska Campaign. 
 
 were to be bribed to work against the 
 Amendment at the polls. This was re- 
 vealed in statements made in confiden- 
 tial letters from Dr. George L. Miller, of 
 the Executive Committee of the Business 
 Men's and Bankers' Association, to an 
 Albany, (N. Y.) correspondent. Dr. Mil- 
 ler wrote, in part : 
 
 "We can understand the importance to you ' 
 of success here in the contest before us which 
 is now on and in full activity, but on our part 
 not noisy activity. . . . Our policy has been to 
 reserve our closing-in fire until the later days of 
 the contest, and for this we shall need every 
 dollar we can lay our hands on. This is equiv- 
 alent to saying that we shall be glad to receive 
 from you the amount you suggest, and we need 
 not say how much we appreciate your thought 
 of us. . . . Our Treasurer, Mr. Coe, recently 
 returned from a visit to Peoria to meet the mag- 
 nates of the "Whiskey Trust, with a view to ob- 
 taining instant aid. ... A Mr. Turner, of the 
 Louisville bureau, and Mr. P. B. Her, of this 
 town, had led us to rely upon large help from 
 that quarter. . . . As to the brewers, within the 
 last past 10 days the Omaha brewers have 
 secured a conditional subscription of $25,000 
 from the brewers in Omaha and outside of the 
 State. I understand the condition of the sub- 
 scription to have been that the Whiskey Trust 
 shall subscribe an equal amount. . . . 
 
 " I regret that my letter was defective in not 
 being sufficiently explicit as to our plan of cam- 
 paign. I assume that when you were assured 
 that the conditions upon which your proposed 
 contributions would be made would be care- 
 fully observed, you could trust us to do the 
 best that could be done in placing the money 
 where it would do the most good in getting the 
 greatest number of anti- Amendment votes into 
 the ballot-boxes. I make amends by stating 
 that our plans are well matured to do with our 
 money precisely what I understand you would 
 do with it were you and your Association on the 
 ground in person, with the exception, viz. : Our 
 plan employs two managing politicians in each 
 Congressional District (we have three districts, 
 and our voting territory covers 70,000 square 
 miles), whose duty it is to direct the local con- 
 tests on non-partisan lines ; these men, care- 
 fully chosen, aid the Executive Committee in 
 choosing men in the 1, 800 voting precincts of the 
 State whose duty it will be to work at the polls 
 to the last hour on election day for our cause — 
 one man from the Republican party and one 
 from the Democratic party. This is the plan. 
 As you may justly infer, our plan is a wise one. 
 Our whole trouble is to get enough money to 
 carry it out. . . . 
 
 "As you will see by the printed statement 
 I send you we are reserving every dollar for 
 the closing days of the contest, fully appre- 
 
 1 Dr. Miller cherished the impression that his corre- 
 spondent was a representative or a New York liquor or- 
 ganization which was considering the advisability of 
 contributing $5,000 to the Nebraska anti-Prohibition 
 campaign fund, in the hope that the defeat of the Amend- 
 ment in Nebraska would check the Constitutional Pro- 
 hibition agitation in New York, 
 
 ciating all you say on this head. We are not 
 novices in politics in Nebraska. . . . 
 
 "Two or more non-partisan workers are to be 
 employed at the voting places. 
 
 " Mr. P.E. Her, our chief distiller, telegraphs 
 Mr. Davis of our 1st National Bank to-day 
 that the Peoria gentlemen (the Whiskey Trust) 
 have made an appropriation to our cause, but 
 we know nothing about the amount. . . . 
 
 " Good judgments here concur in the belief 
 that by reserving our fire until the last we can 
 beat the Amendment. . . . Any who doubt our 
 ability can send prudent men to see the things 
 done, but in no event can we consent to any- 
 thing like an open association with the liquor 
 interests of the country." 2 
 
 The naturally powerful rum element 
 in the cities of Nebraska had been stead- 
 ily and materially strengthened by the 
 immigration of ex-saloon keepers and 
 foreign-born citizens from Iowa and 
 Kansas. Omaha had become the great- 
 est liquor center between Kansas City 
 and the Pacific coast. It was generally 
 expected that the United States Census 
 for 1890 (taken in June) would accredit 
 to all the Nebraska cities large gains in 
 population; but few were prepared for 
 the startling figures announced by the 
 Census Bureau. The population of 
 Omaha, which had been only 30,518 in 
 1880, was now placed at 139,405 ; 3 and 
 Lincoln, containing only 13,003 inhab- 
 itants in 1880, was given 55,273. Sys- 
 tematic canvasses of the two cities, made 
 by the Prohibitionists in the fall, re- 
 sulted in the discovery that the Census 
 enumerators had added many thousands 
 to the actual totals. It was charged that 
 the officials had deliberately conspired 
 with the saloon managers to so swell the 
 returns that great frauds might be per- 
 petrated with impunity at the Amend- 
 ment election. (See the Voice, Oct. 16 
 and 23, 1890.) The Democratic party 
 placed in its State platform a declara- 
 tion against Prohibition, and the Demo- 
 cratic speakers antagonized the policy 
 with great zeal. The Chairman of the 
 Republican State Committee publicly 
 
 2 See the Voice, Oct. 2, 1890. 
 
 J. B. Greenhut, President of the Whiskey Trust, in a 
 confidential letter printed in the Voice for Oct. 9, 1890, 
 wrote : 
 
 " We claim that we have done more toward carrying 
 on the legitimate expenses of that [Nebraska] campaign 
 than any other institution in .the country. . . . We 
 may not have contributed as much as some people out 
 there think we should have, but if we should pay out 
 such enormous sums as are sometimes demanded from us 
 we might as well go to the poor-house at once as attempt 
 to meet such demands." 
 
 3 Even the Mayor of Omaha had estimated the popula- 
 tion in 1889 at only 110,000. (See the " World Almanac for 
 1889." p. 171.) 
 
Negroes.] 
 
 450 
 
 [Negroes. 
 
 used his influence to the same end. On 
 the ballots distributed by the organiza- 
 tions of all the political parties ex- 
 cept the Prohibition party the Prohibi- 
 tory Amendment proposition was printed 
 in the negative only; so that these bal- 
 lots, if voted just as they were received 
 by the citizens, were certain to count 
 against Prohibition. At many poll- 
 ing-places on election day the Prohibi- 
 tionists were assaulted, mobbed and per- 
 secuted; in Omaha there was riot and 
 bloodshed in nearly every ward. (See the 
 Voice, Nov. 6, 13 and 27, and Dec. 4 and 
 18, 1890.) No element of violent and un- 
 fair hostility was lacking : even the post- 
 office officials in Omaha refused to de- 
 liver copies of the Voice that came regu- 
 larly through the mails. 
 
 The returns gave an aggregate vote of 
 82,292 for Prohibition and 111,728 
 against. The License Amendment re- 
 ceived 75,462 votes, and 91,084 were 
 cast against it. 
 
 Negroes. — Bemembering the cir- 
 cumstances in which the Afro-American 
 was placed by the dreadful institution of 
 slavery it is not to be wondered at that 
 he now cultivates a taste, even a love, for 
 alcohol. Yet it is remarkable to note 
 the progress toward sobriety that the 
 race has made in the later years of its 
 emancipation. A colored total abstainer 
 is not a rare person in any community 
 nowadays. The various temperance so- 
 cieties and nearly all the other secret 
 organizations supported by the Afro- 
 American race uniformly require those 
 who seek admission to pledge themselves 
 to be sober men and women, and in most 
 cases to be total abstainers. The drift 
 is more and more in this direction, and 
 hence soberness in the race is constantly 
 on the increase. It is remarkable, too, 
 to observe the steadfastness and persist- 
 ency with which colored teachers, as a 
 rule, hold to the idea that the race is to 
 be uplifted morally, as well as materially 
 and religiously improved, through total 
 abstinence as a chief instrument. It is 
 the rare exception, not the rule, to find 
 a colored teacher who does not hold to 
 this doctrine. The result is that many 
 boys and girls in the school-room all over 
 the South and in other sections as well 
 are being trained to habits of temper- 
 ance, and will in all probability develop 
 
 into consistent temperance men and 
 women. And it must not be forgotten 
 that the true and most influential leaders 
 of the race, the ministers, are moulding 
 and shaping the opinions of both old 
 and young in favor of soberness and 
 total abstinence. The unanimity with 
 which the churches of all denominations, 
 declare for the temperance reform is 
 most encouraging. It is a very rare- 
 thing to find any considerable proportion 
 of the ministry of any religious denom- 
 ination exerting an influence in behalf 
 of the extension and perpetuation of the 
 liquor traffic. The church as a factor in 
 this race development and elevation is 
 laboring steadfastly and earnestly for the 
 right. It is the one force that checks 
 and holds the individuals of the race 
 from following the evil propensities of 
 their own hearts when every other force 
 proves unavailing. In it is the chief 
 hope for the present as well as the eternal 
 salvation of the negro. If the church is 
 kept pure it can lift up and give honor 
 and perfect freedom to the freedmen. 
 The race has implicit confidence in the 
 truth and value of God's Word. This 
 confidence must not be shaken but must 
 be cultivated by the selection of clergy- 
 men well qualified by special training to 
 teach wisely, acceptably and properly. 
 Along with such cultivation will inevit- 
 ably go a determination to strengthen 
 the temperance cause more and more. 
 
 I have watched closely the men who are 
 recognized as the race leaders in vari- 
 ous States and localities. It is acknow- 
 ledged that they are generally shrewd, 
 calculating and hard to circumvent when 
 they attempt political manoeuvres. It is. 
 my observation that these leaders are 
 strictly reliable and trustworthy when 
 confided in and — however surprising the 
 statement may be to some — that they are 
 generally sober, upright and honest. I 
 confess that in some localities this rule 
 does not apply, but on the whole a more 
 sober class of leaders does not exist in 
 any race than in the Afro-American. 
 
 One of the evils against which our 
 people have to contend is the cross-roads 
 grocery-store, to be found all over the 
 Southland — the bane of this section. 
 Here, with no city or town ordinance to 
 make drunkenness an offense and to 
 threaten certain punishment, they con- 
 gregate and drink their fill, carouse, en- 
 
Negroes.] 
 
 451 
 
 [Non-Partisanship. 
 
 gage in free fights and do other hurtful 
 and equally unlawful things, while no 
 one dares molest or make afraid, and the 
 grocery-keeper, finding his trade bene- 
 fited, encourages the debauchery. This 
 evil instead of becoming less increases. 
 The business of many prosperous towns 
 and villages is being injured seriously by 
 the competition at the cross-roads and 
 the resulting vice, violence and impover- 
 ishment. The records of the Courts 
 would show that crime among our people 
 is traceable in a large majority of cases 
 to a too free exercise of the liquor habit. 
 Of the men belonging to the race who 
 are hanged, I think it entirely reasonable 
 to say that at least four-fifths committed 
 their offenses while under the influence 
 of liquor. But speaking of the race 
 broadly, and duly considering all the un- 
 usual circumstances that ought to be 
 taken into consideration, I think it can- 
 not fairly be charged with anything like 
 gross intemperance. It is something out 
 of the usual order to come upon a case of 
 delirium tremens among the negroes. 
 Comparatively few of them drink any- 
 thing of consequence during the week, 
 but excessive imbibition is mostly in- 
 dulged in on Saturdays. With their 
 vigorous physical constitutions they are 
 able, in six days of comparative temper- 
 ance, to resist the undermining effects of 
 the seventh day's spree. Therefore this 
 is not a race of drunkards, and there is 
 abundant reason for believing that with 
 proper education and training it may be 
 made a race of sober people and ab- 
 stainers. 
 
 In all the Prohibition and Local 
 Option contests in the South numbers 
 of colored men have been on the 
 side of temperance and fought valiantly 
 for its success. Many others would 
 have thrown their influence the same 
 way had they not been duped by mis- 
 guided leaders who raised false cries 
 of alarm, declaring that Prohibition was 
 a device to take away the dearly-bought 
 liberty. It is customary to blame the 
 negroes for the defeats of Prohibition in 
 Texas, in the second Atlanta contest, 
 etc.; but it must be remembered that 
 without a large share of the negro vote 
 Prohibition could not have carried in 
 Atlanta at the first trial and would 
 have been lost in hundreds of other 
 fights. 
 
 In order to strengthen the cause of 
 temperance in the South nothing is more 
 important than to treat the negro fairly, 
 to keep faith with him, to permit no 
 pledge to be broken. Once won, the 
 colored man is the most faithful and 
 reliable of allies. It is of course needless 
 to add that the supply of temperance 
 literature should be kept up and in- 
 creased. Especially valuable is the work 
 of arousing total abstinence enthusiasm 
 among the students in the various edu- 
 cational institutions — young men (and 
 women, too) upon whom the future of 
 the race and its influence for good or evil 
 so largely depends. The tracts and other 
 publications of the National Temperance 
 Society have had and are having a most 
 helpful effect ; and the literature ema- 
 nating from the publishers of the Voice, 
 from the Woman's Christian Temperance 
 Union and from other societies and 
 organizations bears good fruit. 
 
 I am indeed hopeful for the future of 
 the Afro-American race, and particu- 
 larly hopeful that it will become a posi- 
 tive and influential contributor to the 
 triumph of the temperance reform. 
 
 J. C. Price. 
 
 (President National Afro-American 
 League.) 
 
 [The editor is also indebted to W. H. Crog- 
 man, Clark University, and to Frances E. "W. 
 Harper. For statutory prohibitions of the sale of 
 liquor to negroes in the slavery days, see the 
 digests of Southern State laws in Legislation.] 
 
 Nevada. — See Index. 
 
 New Hampshire. — See Index. 
 
 New Jersey. — See Index. 
 
 New Mexico. — See Index. 
 
 New York. — See Index. 
 
 Non-Partisanship.— The opinion is 
 held by many that sentiment, legislation 
 and the enforcement of law against 
 drink and the drink traffic will be most 
 judiciously and successfully promoted by 
 carefully cultivating the favor of all 
 political organizations, refraining from a 
 general policy of partisan exclusiveness, 
 patiently watching for local as well as 
 wider opportunities to control the action 
 of the powerful political parties, and 
 seeking to encourage and reward indi- 
 vidual friends and punish and defeat in- 
 dividual foes in a discriminating way 
 rather to urge an uncompromising de- 
 
Non-Partisanship.] 
 
 452 
 
 [Non-Partisanship. 
 
 mand for complete and uniform acqui- 
 escence. At present the adherents of 
 the " non-partisan " view outnumber by 
 far its opponents. A fair comparison 
 may be obtained from the election sta- 
 tistics of Pennsylvania : in June, 1889, 
 296,617 Pennsylvanians voted for the 
 principle of Prohibition, but five months 
 later only 21,308 votes were 'cast for 
 the State ticket of the Prohibition 
 party. Thus of the avowed friends of 
 the cause in that State, 275,000 as against 
 21,000 seemed to disapprove uncom- 
 promising partisan advocacy of it. 
 
 It is claimed, however, by the repre- 
 sentative " non-partisans," that their in- 
 terest in the political advancement of 
 Prohibition is no less earnest than that 
 of the party Prohibitionists. They rec- 
 ognize with equal willingness that Pro- 
 hibitory measures can be won and en- 
 forced only through the employment of 
 political agencies. But they believe that 
 it is inexpedient in the existing condi- 
 tion of American politics to set up a dis- 
 tinctive Prohibition party, especially 
 since such a party has hitherto been un- 
 able to elect its candidates in any State 
 or Congress District. 
 
 On the other hand it is pointed out 
 that every important policy, to win its 
 way to success, must have responsible 
 and faithful championship; that such 
 championship has not been accorded to 
 Prohibition by either of the great politi- 
 cal parties; that local popular victories 
 for the principle, however significant, 
 will be more or less unavailing so long 
 as the dominant party is not bound to 
 the principle unmistakably; that even 
 hearty local support of Prohibition by 
 the party that is locally dominant is not 
 satisfactory so long as the same party in 
 adjoining localities and in the country 
 at large manifests hostility or indiffer- 
 ence; that the anti-saloon issue can be 
 best kept before the attention of the 
 people by the consistent insistence of 
 those who understand the fruitlessness 
 •of half-way measures in dealing with such 
 an institution as the liquor traffic, and 
 who are frank enough to avow their en- 
 tire programme and demand conformity 
 to it rather than mild concessions, and 
 that the existence of an aggressive Pro- 
 hibition party, however feeble, being a con- 
 stant menace to the more powerful par- 
 ties, will discipline them more effectually 
 
 than unorganized individuals can possi- 
 bly do, impel them to grant more pro- 
 gressive legislation than they would 
 otherwise enact and ultimately divide 
 party lines on the Prohibition question. 
 Experience has not justified the "non- 
 partisan" idea, or at least has not done 
 so on broad grounds. Eesults bear a 
 close resemblance to those that came 
 from the " non-partisan " method during 
 the Anti-Slavery agitation. Opposition to 
 slavery was undoubtedly cherished, ab- 
 stractly, by a majority of the followers of 
 both the leading parties at the North long 
 before the war ; but these followers, esteem- 
 ing supposed prudence above radicalism, 
 did not favor a partisan effort in behalf of 
 Abolition; and, striving to cope with the 
 slave power by artful devices, found 
 themselves totally unable to do so, until 
 the Fugitive Slave law and the Dred 
 Scott decision were given them for their 
 pains. The sentiment against the drink 
 traffic is probably as strong as was the 
 feeling for Abolition before the crisis of 
 1860, but not being identified with 
 general party policy it has enjoyed only 
 local and partial success, while the 
 national political strength of the '' rum 
 power " has increased. Among the 
 characteristic " non-partisan " methods 
 are the petitioning of Legislatures, the 
 influencing of primaries, caucuses and 
 conventions, efforts to elect friendly 
 Republican and Democratic legislators, 
 and struggles for the triumph of Pro- 
 hibition in Local Option and Amend- 
 ment campaigns. Petitions, though 
 signed by tens and hundreds of thou- 
 sands of names, have almost invariably 
 been disregarded by legislative bodies 
 unless reinforced by strong Prohibition 
 party votes: in 1883 50,000 persons 
 petitioned the Massachusetts Legislature 
 to submit a Constitutional Amendment 
 to the people, and in 1884 there were 
 106,000 signatures to the petitions, yet 
 the request was refused each time. 
 Similarly, deputations to Legislatures 
 and Congress, however respectable, 
 have accomplished nothing. As manipu- 
 lators of primaries, caucuses and con- 
 ventions the temperance people have 
 seldom been able to match the rumsellers, 
 and when critical decisions have depended 
 on the outcome of such preliminary 
 manipulation their enemies have nearly 
 always outgeneraled them. Attempts to 
 
Non-Partisanship.] 
 
 453 
 
 [Non-Partisanship. 
 
 secure majorities in Legislatures by con- 
 centrating the temperance vote in each 
 district in favor of the candidate (whether 
 Eepublican or Democratic) whose at- 
 titude on the Prohibition question is 
 most satisfactory, seem to be at first 
 glance both reasonable and hopeful. But 
 such attempts have been inglorious 
 failures. In Ohio, in 1883, a State or- 
 ganization was founded whose objects 
 and fate have been described as follows 
 by its President, Mills Gardner : 
 
 " The Voters' Union in Ohio was formed for 
 the purpose of uniting the voters of Ohio 
 friendly to temperance and Sabbath, laws in a 
 non-partisan manner to compel all political par- 
 ties to respect, by throwing their vote solid for 
 any parties pledged to their support, and also in 
 favor of the Prohibitory Amendment. This 
 Union only continued two years. "We found it 
 impossible to unite the voters. Political ties 
 and party bias were too strong, and the thing 
 of course failed." ' 
 
 In Pennsylvania, in 1889, the Union 
 Prohibitory League was established, on a 
 similar basis. Its friends made fervid 
 pleas on the ground of its "practica- 
 bility," but no success attended its work. 
 Like failures were encountered by the 
 Citizens' Union of Michigan (1887), 
 which declared, in behalf of its members, 
 " That we will use our utmost influence 
 by personal attendance to reform the 
 political caucus and convention, and 
 pledge ourselves to support as candidates 
 for the Legislature those men only who 
 are in favor of Prohibition ; " and by the 
 State organization formed in Texas after 
 the defeat of Constitutional Prohibition, 
 whose creed was expressed in these 
 words : " The non-partisan plan of oppo- 
 sition to the traffic is in our judgment 
 the wisest and best; we have seen no 
 reason to distrust this method of work." 
 The lamentable weakness of the " non- 
 partisan" plan is most instructively 
 demonstrated by the results of recent 
 Amendment campaigns. Before syste- 
 matic opposition to the Prohibitory 
 movement was aroused it was possible 
 to secure large State majorities for the 
 principle of Prohibition. This was 
 chiefly because the great political parties 
 were then comparatively neutral. But 
 when issues became better defined and 
 determined battle was offered by the 
 " rum power," this neutrality was natur- 
 ally at an end. The favor of politcal 
 
 i The Voice, Aug. 89, 1889. 
 
 leaders and the influence of political 
 "machines" was then zealously sought- 
 by both the temperance and the liquor 
 elements of each party. The masses of' 
 the temperance people ' had held aloof 
 from the " third " party, and they could 
 consistently appeal to the Eepublican 
 and Democratic managers for friendly or 
 fair action. But it was speedily found 
 that their pleas were without weight : 
 the "non-partisan" Amendments were 
 subjected to the concentrated antagonism 
 of the very men who were responsible for 
 their submission and were ignominiously 
 beaten in State after State. The earlier 
 victories were not "non-partisan" but 
 popular victories, due to the absence of 
 political interest ; the later defeats were 
 brought about by nothing more than by 
 the machinations of cold-blooded and 
 unscrupulous politicians, who were able 
 to count upon the continued timidity of 
 the conservative temperance advocates 
 but not upon the submissiveness of the 
 liquor-dealers. 
 
 " Non-partisanship " should properly 
 imply lofty, conscientious and persever- 
 ing independence of and indifference to 
 party. But, as will be conjectured from 
 what precedes, the term, as understood in 
 the Prohibitory agitation, has no Euch 
 meaning. It signifies, in some excep- 
 tional instances, independence of and 
 indifference to all political organizations ; 
 but more frequently an intensely partisan 
 opposition to the Prohibition (or "third") 
 party and loyalty to the Republican or 
 •Democratic party are suggested. Gen- 
 erally speaking, then, the "non -parti- 
 sans " are those who object to the par- 
 ticular organization known in American 
 politics as the Prohibition party, and 
 who, far from being without distinct pref- 
 erences for other organizations, are often 
 heated supporters of them. The claim 
 made by them, that the Prohibition 
 party is an impediment to the cause of 
 temperance, is examined in another arti- 
 cle. (See Prohibition" Paety — Results.) 
 
 Although among the people at large a 
 majority of the friends of temperance 
 are "non-partisans" in the sense just de- 
 fined, there is relatively little sympathy 
 for this species of " non-partisanship " 
 among the recognized leaders and the 
 active agitators. Efforts to organize the 
 opponents of the Prohibition party, as 
 such, into effective working forces, have 
 
North Carolina.] 
 
 454 
 
 [Norway. 
 
 uniformly been unsuccessful. After the 
 Presidential election of 1884 many emi- 
 nent individuals, headed by Daniel Dor- 
 chester, D.D., and Mrs. J. Ellen Foster, 
 joined in setting on foot a society that 
 became known as the " National Non- 
 partisan League." Though started under 
 the most encouraging auspices it achieved 
 nothing for the temperance reform, and 
 after issuing a few pamphlets attacking 
 the "third" party it collapsed. A more 
 energetic and longer-lived movement was 
 that inaugurated by the Anti-Saloon Ee- 
 publicans in 1885, distinguished from 
 the other so-called "non-partisan" en- 
 terprises, however, by the frankness with 
 which its promoters avowed a strictly 
 partisan design. After a stubborn con- 
 test its supporters were forced to dis- 
 band. (See Anti-Saloon Keptjblicans.) 
 The latest organization is the Non-Par- 
 tisan Woman's Christian Temperance 
 Union, instituted in 1889 and regarded 
 with warm approval by certain sympa- 
 thizers, but not yet a very potent factor 
 in the anti-liquor cause. (See Woman's 
 Christian Temperance Union.) 
 
 There exist numerous temperance and 
 Prohibition orders and societies, like the 
 'Good Templars, Sons of Temperance, 
 'National Temperance Society and State 
 and local organizations, that have a 
 purely educational duty to perform, en- 
 gage in no partisan recriminations and 
 are absolutely neutral in politics. To 
 these also the name " non-partisan " is 
 given, and their work and objects are not 
 criticised or deprecated in any quarter; 
 their success is steady and gratifying and 
 there is no desire that they shall relin- 
 quish the genuine non-partisanship that 
 .characterizes them. 
 
 North Carolina. — See Index. 
 
 North Dakota. — See Index. 
 
 Norway. — This country was sepa- 
 rated from Denmark and united with 
 Sweden in 1814. Under the Danish do- 
 minion distillation had been prohibited 
 in Norway, and only those distilleries 
 that were in existence at the time of the 
 decree were permitted to operate. Con- 
 sequently in 1814 there was scarcely a 
 distillery in the land. The Government 
 had also prohibited the importation into 
 Norway of all distilled liquors except 
 those shipped from Denmark. The 
 
 consumption of spirits in 1814 was 
 about -J- gallon per capita. The restric- 
 tions on distilling were speedily swept 
 away by the new home Government and 
 in 1816 a policy ol free trade in liquor was 
 inaugurated, although the law prohibit- 
 ing importations of spirits from foreign 
 countries was retained, and made to ap- 
 ply to Denmark. In accordance with 
 the prevailing ideas of political economy 
 the object of these measures was to help 
 the agricultural people of Norway. 
 Within a few years stills were found 
 everywhere, and the rural districts were 
 overrun with them. In 1833 there were 
 9,727 distilleries, and the annual con- 
 sumption of liquors was estimated at 
 nearly 4 gallons per capita. 
 
 Both the people and the Government 
 began to realize the appalling effects of 
 intemperance. As a consequence the 
 liquor question was discussed in the 
 Storthing (National Parliament) in 1833, 
 and laws were enacted regulating and 
 restricting the traffic. Public conscience 
 was awakened and the agitation continu- 
 ed. In 1842 the Storthing passed an act 
 prohibiting the manufacture, importa- 
 tion and sale of distilled liquors. The 
 leader in this Prohibition movement in 
 the Storthing was Prof. Schweigaard of 
 the University of Norway. But the king 
 vetoed the bill in compliance with the 
 wishes of a small majority of his cabinet. 
 A heavy tax was then imposed on distil- 
 leries, greatly reducing the number of 
 the smaller ones. 
 
 The law of 1845 with the amenda- 
 tory statutes of 1848 was the foundation 
 for all the subsequent liquor legislation 
 of Norway. It was practically a license 
 act, vesting the right to sell spirits in a 
 limited number of individuals and pro- 
 viding certain restrictions. -It did not 
 touch malt liquors. But about 1840 Ger- 
 man beer began to gain favor in Norway, 
 and its consumption increased alarmingly. 
 Accordingly the acts amendatory of 
 the law of 1845 have gradually been 
 extended to beer and wine, and the 
 sentiment of the Norwegian public 
 has kept well ahead of the tendency 
 of the statutes. The most notable 
 additional acts are those of 1857, 
 1866, 1877 and 1884; and taking advan- 
 tage of the privileges conferred by them, 
 nearly all the rural communities of the 
 kingdom have adopted local Prohibition 
 
Norway.] 
 
 455 
 
 [Norway. 
 
 of the sale of all intoxicating beverages. 
 Now (1890) only 29 places outside the 
 cities license the traffic, and these are 
 mostly small fishing and tourist stations. 
 
 The general effect of license and Local 
 Option in Norway is very similar to that 
 witnessed in the United States. The 
 traffic is entrenched in the cities, from 
 which, apparently, it cannot be dislodged 
 without making a much harder battle 
 than any yet waged. At present only 
 one city, Haugesund (population, 5,000), 
 absolutely prohibits all intoxicants. The 
 arts of politicians have been spent upon 
 these compromise measures not so much 
 with a view to destroying the liquor traffic 
 as for the purpose of checking the 
 radical temperance agitators. And a 
 peculiar system adopted in 1871 (amend- 
 ed in 1884), the so-called Bolag or 
 Samlag system (copied from the Gothen- 
 burg plan of Sweden), seems to increase 
 the difficulties under which the Prohibi- 
 ' tionists labor. The fundamental object 
 of its projectors was to eliminate from 
 the saloon traffic all incentives to per- 
 sonal gain. In any city a " Bolag " (i.e., 
 stock company) may be organized by the 
 leading business men, and obtain from 
 the City Council exclusive right to sell 
 distilled liquors for a specified number of 
 years in a specified number of saloons. 
 The Bolag drink-shops are kept by sala- 
 ried officers of the company, who have no 
 interest in the profits arising from sales. 
 Neither have the managers of the Bolag 
 any such interest, directly, for the law 
 requires them to pay into the city Treas- 
 ury all their net profits ; and the city in 
 turn distributes the receipts for chari- 
 table and like purposes. At the be- 
 ginning of 1890 there were 17 Bolag 
 whiskey-saloons in the city of Christiania, 
 besides 11 branch establishments, con- 
 trolled by the Bolag, in hotels and res- 
 taurants. But the right to sell beer and 
 wine is not subject to these restrictions. 
 A beer and wine-shop may be opened in 
 any place not prohibiting the traffic upon 
 payment of a license fee, generally not in 
 excess of $10. In 1890 there were 240 
 such shops in Christiania. 1 The gross 
 receipts of the Bolag companies of Nor- 
 way for the year ending June, 1889, were 
 2,814,113 kroner, or about $760,000. 
 
 The Bolag system has been in force 
 
 i See the Voice, Feb. 13, 1890. 
 
 long enough to afford an indication as to 
 its value as a temperance measure. The 
 statistics of the leading cities of Norway 
 show that the drink revenues have 
 steadily increased under it. And the 
 police returns are not encouraging. 
 Here, for instance, are the figures of 
 .arrests for drunkenness and disorderly 
 conduct in Christiania for seven years : 3 
 
 Years. 
 
 Drunken- 
 ness. 
 
 Disorderly 
 Conduct. 
 
 Totals. 
 
 1882 
 
 6,138 
 6",327 
 5,782 
 7,453 
 5,351 
 5,877 
 5,616 
 
 1,869 
 1.900 
 1,918 
 1,822 
 1,602 
 1,877 
 1,689 
 
 8,007 
 8,227 
 7,700 
 9 275 
 6,953 
 7,773 
 7,305 
 
 1883 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 
 As already indicated, many of the present 
 restrictions were added to the law of 
 1871 by the act of 1884. Omitting the 
 year 1885 from the above table, the 
 arrests for drunkenness and disorderly 
 conduct do not exhibit any striking 
 changes since the adoption of the Bolag 
 scheme. And the ratio of such arrests 
 to the total population (about 130,000) 
 continues very large — in fact, above the 
 ratio found in most American cities. 
 
 But the general temperance outlook 
 appears to be far more cheering in Norway 
 than in any other European country. 
 All comparative estimates of the con- 
 sumption of intoxicants that the writer 
 has seen show that Norway consumes 
 less drink per capita than any other 
 nation of Europe. Nearly all the officers 
 and influential leaders in the temperance 
 organizations — now containing more 
 than 100,000 members — are strong 
 advocates of National Prohibition of all 
 intoxicants. In 1885 petitions for a 
 thorough Prohibition law, circulated 
 mainly in only two of Norway's six 
 dioceses, received the signatures of 65,- 
 604 persons over 21 years of age. 
 
 Eor 10 or 15 years after the first dis- 
 cussion in the Storthing in 1833, there 
 was considerable interest shown in the 
 anti-spirits crusade, and various tem- 
 perance societies (discriminating in favor 
 of beer and wine) were begun in that 
 period. In 1840 Robert Baird, the 
 American propagandist, visited Norway, 
 and his work against distilled liquors 
 received some recognition. The first 
 
 a Ibid. 
 
Norway.] 
 
 456 
 
 [Nott, Eliphalet. 
 
 total abstinence society was founded 
 Dec. 29, 1859, in Stavanger, by Asbjorn 
 Kloster. It began with 30 members and 
 two years later had 500. It became the 
 nucleus of the present influential Total 
 Abstinence Association of Norway, whose 
 organ, Menneskevennen (the Philan- 
 thropist), now in its twenty-ninth year, , 
 was also established by Mr. Kloster. 
 The various local societies held their first 
 general Convention in Bergen in 1862 
 and organized the Norwegian Total 
 Abstinence Association, with headquar- 
 ters at Stavanger (removed to Christiania 
 in 1879). Its first President was Mr. 
 Kloster, who held the office until his 
 death in 1876, when the total member- 
 ship was about 8,000. Kloster eminently 
 deserves the name of the Father Mathew 
 of Norway, her first apostle of temper- 
 ance — earnest, patient, generous, self- 
 sacrificing, the founder of the present 
 Prohibition work. He labored 10 long 
 years before the society in Stavanger had 
 birth ; he travelled, lectured, distributed 
 tracts and organized societies from 
 Lindesnes to North Cape, and also visited 
 Iceland, the Faroe Islands, England and 
 Denmark. Since Kloster's death the 
 Norwegian Total Abstinence Association 
 has enjoyed phenomenal growth, especi- 
 ally during the last 10 years, under the 
 leadership of Dr. Oscar Nissen and Sven 
 Aarrestad. This development is in no 
 small measure due to the national recog- 
 nition given its work, the Storthing hav- 
 ing voted an annuity of 6,000 kroner 
 (increased to 8,000 kroner) to be used in 
 the temperance cause. (One krone= 
 about 27 cents.) At present the Asso- 
 ciation embraces more than 700 local 
 societies with a membership of from 
 75,000 to 80,000. 
 
 The Good Templars, organized nation- 
 ally in 1878, have nearly 15,000 mem- 
 bers in Norway. Their chief is Torjus 
 Hansen. The Blue Ribbon Band was 
 started in 1882 by S. Urdahl, who is still 
 its President ; estimated membership, 
 about 5,000. During the last few years 
 Prohibition societies have sprung into 
 existence everywhere. They are mainly 
 political clubs working to secure National 
 Prohibition. On Feb. 19, 1889, these 
 clubs effected a national organization in 
 Horten, with Dr. Oscar Nissen as Presi- 
 dent. Men prominent in church and 
 state have enlisted in the ranks of the 
 
 active workers. In 1887 23 members of 
 the Storthing were total abstainers. 
 
 T. S. Rbimestad. 
 
 The liquor revenue is not so formid- 
 able a feature of Government income in 
 Norway as in the English-speaking coun- 
 tries. For the year ending June 30, 1889, 
 the revenue from all sources was 43,132,- 
 205 kroner (about $11,645,000), of which 
 2,800,000 kroner (about $756,000) came 
 from the excise on spirits and 1,800,000 
 kroner (about $486,000) from the malt 
 duty — total from liquors, about $1,242,- 
 000. Apparently the liquor revenue is 
 decreasing: in 1881 it was about $1,560,- 
 000 ($945,000 from spirits and $615,800 
 from beer). The Government tax on dis- 
 tilled liquors is high — from 70 to 85 
 cents per gallon according to strength. 
 The imports of liquors, relatively, are in- 
 considerable : in 1889 the spirits im- 
 ported were valued at only about $700,- 
 000. The sanguine hopes of the Norwe- 
 gian Prohibitionists are encouraged by 
 the fact that the rural population of the 
 kingdom is four times as great as the 
 town population. Statistics show an 
 unusually small percentage of crime, as 
 might be expected for a country so gen- 
 erally under Prohibitory law : in 1885 
 (in a total population of about 2,000,000) 
 only 3,126 persons were accused of crime, 
 and 2,803 were convicted. There were 
 150,208 paupers in 1885. 
 
 The late well-known Dr. Broch esti- 
 mated that the annual expenditure for 
 drink in Norway is about $11,000,000, 
 and that each year 7,000 homes are 
 broken up by drink, while the number of 
 drunkards is 15,000, and of those who 
 occasionally become drunk 100,000. Ac- 
 cording to official reports from the prison 
 directors in Sweden and Norway, 70 to 
 75 per cent, of the criminals attribute 
 their downfall to drink. 
 
 Nott, Eliphalet. — Born in Ash- 
 ford, Conn., June 25, 1773; died in 
 Schenectady, N. Y., Jan. 29, 1866. Left 
 an orphan at an early age, he was reared 
 in the family of a brother. He taught 
 school to obtain the means to support 
 himself at college. He graduated from 
 Brown University in 1795, studied the- 
 ology and was licensed to preach by the 
 New London Congregational Association 
 and by it sent as a missionary into cen- 
 tral New York. Soon afterward he ac- 
 
Nott, Eliphalet.J 
 
 457 
 
 [Nott, Eliphalet. 
 
 cepted a call to the Presbyterian Church 
 in Cherry Valley, N. Y., where in addi- 
 tion to his ministerial work he estab- 
 lished an academy and became its prin- 
 cipal. Prom 1798 to 1804 he had charge 
 of the 1st Presbyterian Church in Al- 
 bany, preaching, in the last year of his 
 pastorate, the funeral sermon of Alexan- 
 der Hamilton which was published in 
 several editions, widely circulated and 
 attracted considerable notice for its elo- 
 quence. During the same year (1804) 
 he was chosen President of Union Col- 
 lege at Schenectady, and he held this 
 position until his death in 1866, making 
 an uninterrupted term of 62 years. In 
 this period 3,700 to 4,000 young men 
 were graduated from the college. Dr. 
 Nott's investigations in physical science 
 and especially concerning the nature of 
 heat were of a practical nature and re- 
 sulted in many inventions, for about 30 
 of which he obtained patents. The first 
 stove devised for burning anthracite coal 
 was his invention and bore his name. 
 
 As early as 1811 he made speeches 
 against slavery, and in 1836-7 he deliv- 
 ered a series of ten lectures on temperance 
 before the students of Union College. 
 In these lectures (published in 1846 in 
 No. 4 of Mr. B. C. Delavan's journal, the 
 Enquirer, of which an edition of 20,000 
 copies was issued), Dr. Nott was the 
 first to assert in a serious way the claim 
 that the Bible recognized both a fer- 
 mented and an unfermented wine, sanc- 
 tioning the use of the latter only; and 
 from his advocacy of this opinion dates 
 the Bible Wine controversy. Republished 
 in book form the lectures passed through 
 repeated editions both in this country 
 and Great Britain. The following is a 
 specimen of Dr. Nott's pleas to Chris- 
 tians to give up " moderate " drinking : 
 
 "The ragged, squalid, brutal rum-drunkard, 
 who raves in the barroom, consorts with swine 
 in the gutter or fills with clamor and dismay the 
 cold and comfortless abode to which in the 
 spirit of a demon he returns at night, much as 
 he injures himself, deeply wretched as he ren- 
 ders his family, exerts but little influence in be- 
 guiling others into an imitation of his revolting 
 conduct. On the contrary, as far as his exam- 
 ple goes, it tends to deter from rather than al- 
 lure to criminal indulgence. . . . But rep- 
 utable, moderate, Christian wine-drinkers, — 
 that is, the drinkers of brandy or whiskey in 
 admixture with wine or other preparations 
 falsely called wine, the product not of the vine- 
 yard but of the still or the brew-house, — these 
 are the men who send forth from the high 
 
 places of society, and sometimes even from the 
 hill of Zion and the portals of the sanctuary, an 
 unsuspected, unrebuked but powerful influence, 
 which is secretly and silently doing on every 
 side, among the young, among the aged, 
 among even females, its work of death. It is 
 this reputable, authorized, moderate drinking 
 of these disguised poisons under the cover of an 
 othodox Christian name, falsely assumed, which 
 encourages youth in their occasional excesses, 
 reconciles the public mind to holiday revelries, 
 shelters from deserved reproach the barroom 
 tippler and furnishes a salvo even for the occa- 
 sional inquietude of the brutal drunkard's con- 
 science." ' 
 
 In comparing the efforts that had 
 been made in the past to check intem- 
 perance by moderation in the use of in- 
 toxicants with the efforts then being put 
 forth to enforce total abstinence, Dr. 
 Nott said : 
 
 "During the ages gone by the ruinous, loath- 
 some and brutalizing effects of intemperance 
 were extensively experienced and deplored and 
 counteracted. Governments legislated, moral- 
 ists reasoned, Christians remonstrated, but to 
 no purpose. In the face of this array of influ- 
 ence intemperance not only maintained its 
 ground but constantly advanced, and advanced 
 with constantly increasing rapidity. Death in- 
 deed came in aid of the cause of temperance 
 and swept away, especially during the preval- 
 ence of the cholera, crowds of inebriates with 
 a distinctive and exemplary vengeance. Sud- 
 denly the vacancies thus occasioned were filled 
 up; and as if the course of life whence these 
 supplies were furnished was exhaustless, all the 
 avenues of death were not only reoccupied but 
 crowded with augmented numbers of fresh re- 
 cruits. The hope even of reclaiming the world 
 by any instrumentalities then in being departed, 
 and fear lest Christendom should be utterly 
 despoiled by so detestable a practice took pos- 
 session of many a reflecting mind. In that 
 dark hour the great discovery that drunkenness 
 is caused by drinking — moderate, temperate, 
 continuous drinking, — and that entire sobriety 
 can be restored and maintained by abstinence, 
 in that dark hour this great discovery was 
 made and promulgated to the world ; a discovery 
 which, simple and obvious as it seems to be, 
 had remained hid for ages, during which no 
 one dreamed that mere drinking, regular, rep- 
 utable, temperate drinking, injured anyone, 
 much less that it produced, and by a necessity of 
 nature produced, that utter shameless drunken- 
 ness which debased so many individuals, beggar- 
 ed so many families and brought such indelible 
 disgrace on the community itself. This dis- 
 covery, though not even yet generally known 
 throughout the community, has relieved more 
 misery, conduced to more happiness, prompted 
 to more virtue and reclaimed from more guilt, 
 ■ — in one word it has already shed more bless- 
 ings on the past and lit up more hope for the 
 future than any other discovery, whether phys- 
 ical, political or moral, with which the land 
 
 1 Ten Lectures on Temperance (New York, 1857). pp. 
 204-5. 
 
Nuisance.] 
 
 458 
 
 [Opium. 
 
 and the age in which we live have been signal- 
 ized. By this great discovery it has been made 
 apparent that it is not drunkards but moderate 
 drinkers with whom the temperance reforma- 
 tion is chiefly concerned; for it is not on a 
 change of habit in the former, but the latter, on 
 which the destiny of the State and the nation 
 hangs suspended. Drinking, and the manufac- 
 ture and sale of that which makes drunkards, 
 operate reciprocally as cause and effect on all 
 the parties concerned. The manufacturer and 
 vendor furnish the temptation to the drinker, 
 and the drinker in return gives countenance and 
 support both to the manufacturer and the vendor. 
 All these classes must be reformed before the 
 triumph of the temperance cause will be com- 
 plete; and the reformation of either contributes 
 to the reformation of all. Every dramshop 
 that is closed narrows the sphere of temptation, 
 and every teetotaler that is gained contributes 
 to the shutting up of a dramshop, and they 
 must all be shut up — the rum and the wine and 
 the beer-selling grocery, — and temperate drink- 
 ing relinquished, or drunkenness can never be 
 prevented, society purified from crime, relieved 
 from pauperism, freed from disease, and human 
 life extended to its allowed limits." ' 
 
 The following declaration for the legal 
 Prohibition of the liquor traffic was made 
 in an address at the annual meeting of 
 the New York State Temperance Society, 
 in Albany, Jan. 18, 1856 : 
 
 "It is in these public and long-established 
 rendezvous of vice [saloons] that the occasion is 
 furnished and the temptation presented. Here 
 the elements of death are collected, here are 
 mingled, and here the fatal chalice that contains 
 them is presented to unsuspecting and confiding 
 guests, as containing an innocent, cheering and 
 even healthful beverage; and, by being so pre- 
 sented in the midst of boon companions, an ap- 
 peal is made, guilefully made, to the kindly 
 instincts and generous impulses of man's social 
 nature, — an appeal which few long subject to 
 its seductive influences are able to withstand. 
 Merely to shut up these moral Golgothas, these 
 shambles of the soul, would be a noble triumph. 
 But how are these progressive triumphs to be 
 accomplished, this final victory achieved ? How ? 
 By the force of public opinion — settled, decided 
 public opinion — and such opinion embodied and 
 •expressed in the form of authoritative public 
 law, — and thus embodied and expressed as fast 
 and as far as it is formed. " 
 
 Nuisance. — See Injunction Law. 
 
 Nutrition. — See Food. 
 
 Ohio. — See Index. 
 
 Oklahoma. — See Index. 
 
 Ontario. — See Canada. 
 
 Opium. — The chief of the narcotic 
 ■drugs, manufactured from the juice of 
 the poppy, which is cultivated on a large 
 scale in most of the Oriental countries — 
 
 i Ibid, pp. 240-3. 
 
 notably India and China — but not in 
 Europe or America. It is a powerful and 
 speedily fatal poison. From opium 
 morphia is obtained ; the liquid laudanum 
 is another preparation. The principal 
 medicinal uses are to relieve pain and to 
 cause sleep. The habitual employment 
 of opium, even for innocent objects, is 
 almost certain to enslave the user and to 
 create an intemperate and insatiable 
 appetite, leading to physical, intellectual 
 and moral ruin. Such are the terrible 
 fascinations of the drug that its victims, 
 when asked why they do not relinquish it 
 as others relinquish liquor and tobacco, 
 declare : " Yes, whiskey and tobacco may 
 be given up ; but opium, never." Coler- 
 idge, De Quincy and other famous men 
 have confessed its powers and its evils. 
 The vices of opium-eating and opium- 
 smoking afflict many millions of the 
 human race, and the responsibility for 
 their vast development during the pres- 
 ent century is to be charged in no small 
 measure to England, which has steadily 
 sanctioned, fostered and protected opium 
 production and the opium traffic in the 
 East for revenue purposes, and by two 
 bloody wars has compelled China to 
 abandon her policy of opium prohibition. 
 (See China and India.) 
 
 In some parts of the United States the 
 opium habit is reaching considerable pro- 
 portions, and there is reason for believing 
 that it is generally on the increase in 
 this country. This seems to be due most 
 of all to Chinese immigration. Many 
 Chinamen bring the opium habit with 
 them and introduce it here by the force 
 of example and for gain. In the Chinese 
 quarters of San Francisco, New York and 
 other cities opium dens or "joints" are 
 operated and receive patronage from the 
 inebriate, depraved, unfortunate and 
 weak-minded classes of all ranks of so- 
 ciety, all nationalities and both sexes. 
 Perhaps no other element of the peopfe 
 constitute so large a proportion of the 
 habitues of these places as the prostitutes. 
 In the opium dens the article is consumed 
 by smoking; a peculiarly made pipe is 
 used, which is the possession of the pro- 
 prietor; the smoker reclines on a couch 
 and after manipulating the opium so that 
 it will burn satisfactorily lights the pipe 
 and whiffs it, taking the smoke into his 
 lungs and exhaling it through the nose 
 and mouth; lethargy follows, lasting for 
 
Opium.] 
 
 459 
 
 [Opium. 
 
 an hour or a number of hours. By the 
 term " opium-eating " is meant the direct 
 consumption of opium or its preparations 
 by swallowing ; to gratify the appetite by 
 this means it is not necessary to frequent 
 a " joint," provided the victim is able to 
 secure the opium, morphia or laudanum 
 at a drug-store and to retire to a place of 
 his own where he may sleep off the 
 effects. 
 
 The opium habit is looked upon with 
 horror by all thinking Americans and 
 Europeans. Yet it may well be doubted 
 whether its consequences to the individ- 
 ual and society, however shocking, are in 
 all respects so disastrous as those result- 
 ing from alcoholic liquors. A man under 
 the influence of opium is not violent, 
 destructive or disorderly ; life and prop- 
 erty are not put in constant danger from 
 ihe unforeseen caprices of opium narco- 
 maniacs. The repugnance with which 
 the opium habit is viewed by the alcohol- 
 drinking Christian nations may probably 
 be ascribed to the supposedly greater 
 tyranny that it exercises and enervation 
 that it causes, as well as to the fact that 
 it is a peculiarly Oriental vice. Yet this 
 habit, the same as the alcohol habit, has 
 been acquired by many good people; 
 they desire the drug, and must and will 
 have it under any circumstances. In 
 view of such conditions the logic of those 
 who oppose Prohibition of the liquor 
 "traffic may be cited with equal or per- 
 haps (considering the superior pleasure 
 said to be conferred by opium and the 
 relatively smaller injury that it inflicts 
 from certain points of view) with even 
 greater justification in behalf of legaliz- 
 ing the sale of opium. If it may reason- 
 ably be argued that recourse to Prohibi- 
 tion of alcoholic drink is likely to be in- 
 expedient or ineffectual, why may we not 
 expect to find this argument sustained 
 by the practical results of Prohibition of 
 opium, an article confessedly no less pas- 
 sionately loved than alcohol ? And why 
 may not the claim that Prohibition of 
 liquor would fail to diminish the evils of 
 the liquor traffic be tested with some 
 degree of fairness by the fruits of exper- 
 iments in opium prohibition? 
 
 Despite the increase of the habit in 
 certain American cities, it is undoubted 
 that the opium vice, as compared with 
 other vices (and giving due consideration 
 to the extraordinary temptations offered 
 
 by this drug) plays, on the whole, but an 
 insignificant part in the United States. 
 No reputable person will- sell opium for 
 any but medicinal purposes ; there is no 
 native production of it; no individual 
 who has a character to maintain will 
 admit that he indulges in it; when the 
 discovery is made that an estimable man 
 or woman is addicted to the practice, in- 
 expressible surprise, grief or condemna- 
 tion is occasioned ; the opium resort is a 
 veritable hell, which no respectable per- 
 son can afford to patronize; no public 
 temptations of any magnitude are held 
 out to the young or innocent oy the 
 opium-dealers; the crime, pauperism, 
 etc., of the community are not traceable 
 to opium to any ajipreciable extent; the 
 prevailing political evils, misfortunes to 
 families, and the like, are attributed to 
 the opium traffic only in exceptional in- 
 stances and within narrow limits. The 
 possibility that this traffic may allure 
 and enslave the American public at large 
 is remote in proportion to the hideous- 
 ness of the pestilent places in which it is 
 conducted and to the emphasis and 
 unanimity with which opium itself is con- 
 demned by all intelligent opinion and all 
 statute definitions — condemned without 
 any disposition whatever to admit that it 
 is "one of the good things of God" if used 
 in " moderation." Advocacy of a license 
 system for the retail opium business, as 
 a means of diminishing present evils 
 and deriving a revenue from a vice that 
 manifestly cannot be entirely suppressed, 
 would excite mingled wonder, derision 
 and indignation. It is true that the 
 British Government licenses opium-shops 
 in India; but this course is in keeping 
 with the heartless indifference to the moral 
 welfare of her heathen subjects that Eng- 
 land has too frequently displayed : a prop- 
 osition to license opium-vending at 
 home would never be tolerated by Eng- 
 lishmen. 
 
 By the existing treaty of the United 
 States with China it is agreed that no 
 citizen or subject of either country shall 
 be permitted to import opium into the 
 other country; ana this absolute pro- 
 hibition extends to vessels owned and 
 foreign vessels employed by both Ameri- 
 can citizens and Chinese subjects. (See 
 p. 79.) But the principle of opium pro- 
 hibition is not embodied in the general 
 statutes of the United States. The 
 
Opium.] 
 
 460 
 
 [Opium. 
 
 Tariff laws permit the importation of 
 opium in its various forms, although a 
 heavy duty is Jaid upon "opium pre- 
 pared for smoking." The present Mc- 
 Kinley Tariff act (in force October, 1890) 
 makes the following provisions : 
 
 "Opium, aqueous extract of, for medicinal 
 uses, and tincture of, as laudanum, and all 
 other liquid preparations of opium, not specially 
 provided for in this act, 40 per centum ad va- 
 lorem." (The same duty was charged under the 
 former tariff.) 
 
 " Opium containing less than 9 per centum of 
 morphia, and opium prepared for smoking, 
 $12 per pound ; but opium prepared for smok- 
 ing and other preparations of opium deposited 
 in bonded warehouses shall not be removed 
 therefrom without payment of duties, and such 
 duties shall not be refunded." (The former 
 duty was $10 per pound.) 
 
 "Opium, crude or manufactured, and not 
 adulterated, containing 9 per centum and over 
 of morphia, free." (Under the former tariff 
 opium of this variety was taxed $1 per pound.) 
 In the year ending June 30, 1889, no 
 aqueous opium was imported into the 
 United States. Of opium prepared for 
 smoking, 96,678 lbs. were imported, 
 valued at $644,204 — all from China, and 
 all brought by American vessels or ves- 
 sels not owned or operated by Chinese. 
 The quantity of crude opium imported 
 in the same year was 391,563 lbs., valued 
 at $809,893; of this amount 218,637 lbs. 
 (valued at $370,006) came from Turkey 
 in Asia, 99,006 lbs. (valued at $268,355) 
 from England, 35,981 lbs. (valued at 
 $75,857) from Turkey in Europe, 17,951 
 lbs. (valued at $52,949) from China, 17,- 
 448 lbs. (valued at $36,808) from Canada, 
 and the remainder from Erance, Ger- 
 many and Turkey in Africa. Thus the 
 annual supply of " opium prepared for 
 smoking," at present available, is less 
 than 100,000 lbs.; and reckoning that 
 2 lbs. per year is used by each smoker — cer- 
 tainly a very low average if the estimates 
 of per capita consumption of opium in 
 China given on p. 77 are within bounds, — 
 it appears that the number of persons 
 in the United States using the smoking 
 opium imported from China cannot be 
 in excess of 50,000. But it is certain 
 that a considerable part of the nearly- 
 400,000 lbs. of "crude opium" that we 
 import annually is employed purely to 
 gratify the opium habit. However, 
 making the most liberal allowances, it 
 seems highly improbable that the num- 
 ber of habitual opium-users is above 
 250,000. 
 
 The Penal Code of New York has the 
 following provision (§ 388, as amended 
 by Laws of 1889, c. 8, § 1) : 
 
 " A person who (1) lets or permits to be used 
 a building or portion of a building, knowing 
 that it is intended to be used for committing a 
 public nuisance, or (2) opens or maintains a 
 place where opium or any of its preparations is 
 smoked by other persons, or (3) at such place 
 sells or gives away any opium or its said pre- 
 parations, to be there smoked or otherwise 
 used, or (4) visits or resorts to any such place for 
 the purpose of smoking opium or any of its said 
 preparations, is guilty of a misdemeanor." 
 
 The California Penal Code declares 
 (§307): 
 
 ' ' Every person who opens or maintains, to be 
 resorted to by other persons, any place where 
 opium or any of its preparations is sold or given 
 away, to be "smoked at such place; and any per- 
 son who at such place sells or gives away any 
 opium or its said preparations, to be there 
 smoked or otherwise used; and every person who 
 visits or resorts to any such place for the pur- 
 pose of smoking opium or its said preparations 
 is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction 
 thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 
 $500 or by imprisonment in the County Jail not 
 exceeding six months, or by both such fine and 
 imprisonment." 
 
 In Oregon selling or giving away 
 opium, except to or by druggists, is pro- 
 hibited, and selling it to be smoked on 
 the premises is also prohibited. Any 
 building where opium is smoked is an 
 opium den. Frequenting opium dens is 
 prohibited. Violations of these prohibi- 
 tions are punished by imprisonment not 
 less than six months or more than two 
 years in the Penitentiary, by imprison- 
 ment in the County Jail not less than 
 one month or more than six months, or 
 by fine of not less than $50 or more than 
 $500. (Oregon Gen. Laws, 1887, §§ 1919- 
 23.) The law of Nevada is similar to that 
 of Oregon, and is worded in very strong 
 language; it prescribes a penalty of a fine 
 not exceeding $1,000, or imprisonment 
 not exceeding two years, or both fine and 
 imprisonment. Other State acts pro- 
 hibit the traffic in the same unqualified 
 terms. 
 
 There is an intimate connection be- 
 tween the opium and drink habits. It 
 is true opium entraps many who are es- 
 teemed temperate in the use of alcoholic 
 liquors — nervous and suffering persons 
 who resort to the drug thoughtlessly or 
 for temporary relief, without any in- 
 tention of acquiring the habit. But 
 probably the great majority of those who 
 frequent the opium dens are individuals 
 
Opium.] 
 
 461 
 
 [Palestine. 
 
 whose lives have already been blasted by 
 alcohol. A more potent poison is craved. 
 Indeed, in an enlightened country, 
 where opium has no defenders, a resort 
 to it necessarily implies a singular per- 
 sonal recklessness — such a recklessness as 
 is characteristic of the drunkard. 
 
 It is claimed by some designing or 
 misinformed persons that Prohibition of 
 liquor in this country would stimulate 
 the opium habit ; and it is even unscrupu- 
 lously asserted that the use of opium is 
 most prevalent where the liquor traffic 
 is most strictly repressed. In truth, this 
 is one of the favorite arguments of the 
 rumsellers who seek full liberty to pur- 
 sue their murderous business. It may 
 be granted that if the present' intemper- 
 ate users of drink were unable to obtain 
 liquor some of them who are not now 
 victims of opium would seek this drug ; 
 and among a certain class, therefore — a 
 class of unfortunates already slaves to 
 appetite and practically irreclaimable so 
 long as it is possible for them to procure 
 poison,— the opium habit might increase. 
 But even making this trifling and imma- 
 terial admission it is yet to be shown 
 that such a substitution of opium for 
 alcohol would in any way aggravate ex- 
 isting evils; while it is certain that a 
 public sentiment so far aroused as to ban- 
 ish beverages hitherto regarded as useful, 
 would stiffen rather than relax the strin- 
 gent prohibitions against an article 
 always pronounced unqualifiedly injuri- 
 ous. And all experience shows that the 
 prediction made by anti-Prohibitionist 
 alarmists is without foundation. The 
 cities in which the illicit opium traffic is 
 most threatening are those whose liquor 
 policy is especially liberal, like New 
 York and San Francisco ; while in the 
 cities where saloons are prohibited and 
 the law is enforced there is absolutely no 
 public development of the opium curse. 
 The Philadelphia Press recently address- 
 ed a number of questions to the Chiefs of 
 Police of leading American cities, includ- 
 ing an inquiry as to the extent of the 
 opium habit. The reports from Prohib- 
 ition cities showed that in them the 
 opium traffic was so insignificant as to 
 be practically unknown to the police. 
 "The opium habit is not on the in- 
 crease," wrote the Chief of Police of 
 Augusta, Me.; "The opium or chloral 
 habit is not known in our city," was the 
 
 report from Topeka, Kan.; the Cedar 
 Rapids (la.) Chief declared that "The 
 opium habit is not a feature here," and 
 from Leavenworth, Kan., the information 
 was given that " The opium habit does 
 not prevail." 1 
 
 Oregon. — See Index. 
 
 Original Packages. — See United 
 States Government and the Liquor 
 Traffic. 
 
 Palestine. — The Turkish Govern- 
 ment takes no notice of the sale of liquor 
 in Palestine from any question of right 
 or wrong involved. A revenue can be 
 derived from its manufacture and sale, 
 and hence a tax is levied upon all who 
 engage in the traffic in any way. In fact 
 the question as to the moral right to 
 make or sell this article is quite foreign 
 both to the minds of private individuals 
 and to public sentiment. Every seller 
 of any and every description of liquor 
 must obtain a license, and curiously 
 enough he must obtain this from the 
 custom-house authorities. Moreover the 
 revenue thus derived is not accounted 
 for to the local Government, either mu- 
 nicipal or provincial, but is sent by the 
 custom-house officers direct to Constanti- 
 nople. The sum which the applicant for a 
 license pays for his shop as rent is ascer- 
 tained, and an amount equal to one- 
 fourth of this is charged for the license. 
 This rule holds good even among the 
 Jews where many such shops are kept by 
 Jewish women, and the shop is a part of 
 the house where the woman lives. 
 
 In the year 1886 there were in Jeru- 
 salem alone 130 places where liquor was 
 sold. There are no purely wholesale 
 stores, for the largest liquor merchant 
 sells also by the glass or bottle. Liquor- 
 shops are not open in the evening. The 
 rule for them, as for all other stores, is 
 to close at sunset, and none remain open 
 after 8 o'clock. While liquor is sold 
 openly it should be said that a public 
 "barroom," as that term is understood 
 in America, does not exist in Palestine. 
 This will be partly explained when it is 
 stated that the general custom of the 
 country is for people to purchase liquor, 
 take it home and use it there. On this 
 account fewer drunken persons are seen 
 
 1 Philadelphia Press, Feb. 24, 1889. (See also the Toic) 
 for March 21, 1889.) 
 
Palestine.] 
 
 462 
 
 [Passover Wine. 
 
 on the streets than in our own towns and 
 cities. 
 
 Among the non-Moslem part of the 
 population those who take to liquor-sell- 
 ing most readily are Jews and Greeks. 
 In Jaffa Italians should be added to the 
 list. All about the eastern end of the 
 Mediterranean the common Levantine is 
 a low type of character morally speak- 
 ing, and when persons of that class think 
 of employment a drinking-shop or a 
 gambling-house is the first thing that 
 occurs to them in the way of business. 
 
 Palestine is a land of grapes and the 
 drink of the country is wine. The 
 only liquor which can be mentioned 
 as a rival of wine is arak (called also 
 rakee), a distilled article of which there 
 are several grades. It is manufactured 
 largely by Jews from the pomace of 
 grapes after the juice has been extracted 
 for wine, and of refuse figs. The ordinary 
 qualities are very injurious even when 
 taken in moderation. In 1886 it was 
 officially estimated that 1,600 bottles of 
 wine were consumed daily in Jerusalem, 
 and a like number of bottles of arak. 
 Common arak costs 7 cents a bottle, 
 while the better grades cost 15 or 20 
 cents. Ten per cent, of the amount of 
 arak consumed in Jerusalem is manu- 
 factured there; the rest is brought from 
 Cyprus and the Greek islands. Of the 
 wine used 70 per cent, is made there or 
 in Bethlehem, and the rest is imported 
 chiefly from Cyprus. The wine of the 
 country is as a rule pure and very cheap, 
 5 to 10 cents a bottle being a fair price. 
 This applies of course only to native 
 wines and not to the choicer kinds that 
 are imported. In addition to wine and 
 arak there were in the year referred to 
 as many as 10,000 bottles of beer sold in 
 Jerusalem, besides the amount made at 
 a German brewery near the city and the 
 product of two breweries managed by 
 Italians at Jaffa. This imported beer 
 comes from Odessa and Germany in small 
 quantities, but by far the largest part 
 comes from Austria. The amount of 
 beer that is imported is increasing every 
 year, although the German colonists and 
 the natives who have fallen into the 
 habit of beer-drinking find that in the 
 very hot climate of Palestine they can- 
 not use it with impunity. 
 
 Probably 15 per cent, of the Moslem 
 population of Jerusalem drink habitu- 
 
 ally. The Jews universally use liquor, 
 and the practice is indulged in by a large 
 majority of the Christian population. 
 Indeed, it is rare to find a person who 
 does not use wine or other liquors to a 
 certain extent. Cases of excess and intox- 
 ication are far more frequent than is 
 supposed, and among those of whom 
 such a charge would be true are many 
 of the Turkish officers who are from 
 time to time stationed at Jerusalem with 
 its garrison. Details which have been 
 mentioned as true of Jerusalem are 
 equally true of Jaffa, although similar 
 statistics for that city cannot here be 
 given. In towns where the population 
 is exclusively Mohammedan drinking is 
 not common. Whatever may have been 
 true of this class in former times it is a 
 lamentable fact at present that the use 
 of liquor among them is on the increase. 
 In England and America it is frequently 
 alleged that the people of Palestine are 
 comparatively free from intemperance 
 and drunkenness. Statements are made 
 even that the wine of the country, being 
 so pure, will not readily intoxicate. Such 
 statements are pure fictions. 
 
 As to efforts in Palestine to check the 
 use of liquor, to show people the evils of 
 the drink habit or to reform those who 
 have come under its curse, none are 
 made. The Mohammedans, who are all 
 fatalists, have no inclination to engage 
 in such work, nor (but for other reasons) 
 have the Jews. Among the handful of 
 Protestants in that country a missionary 
 here and there uses his influence for the 
 correction of the vice, but he reaches 
 only a few isolated individuals. In the 
 Holy Land as in other countries drink is 
 a curse, and neither Government officials 
 nor people have as yet been aroused to 
 remove it. Selah Merrill. 
 
 Passover Wine.— A full and connect- 
 ed examination of the truth as to Passover 
 wine demands careful observation of the 
 following order of consideration : (1) of 
 feasts anticipatory, in connection with 
 which wine is not mentioned ; (2) of the 
 early observances without wine; (3) of 
 the successive statutes and observances 
 where wine is mentioned ; (4) of the two 
 other Hebrew feasts, namely, the Feast of 
 Weeks or Pentecost, at which the use of 
 wine is implied, and the Feast of Taber- 
 nacles, where it is described, and (5) of 
 
Passover Wine.] 
 
 463 
 
 [Passover Wine. 
 
 the corruption of ancient Hebrew cus- 
 toms among non-conforming Jews and 
 their preservation among conforming 
 Jews since the final destruction of Jeru- 
 salem and of the Jewish State. 
 
 It is noteworthy that feasts of families 
 and tribes are mentioned as having been 
 general customs in the earliest ages, as 
 those of Job's sons (Job 1 : 4, 13), at 
 which the use of wine is mentioned; of 
 Lot where it is implied (Gen. 19 : 3, 
 32); of Abraham, Isaac and Laban 
 (Gen. 18:6; 21:8; 26:30; 29:22), at 
 which the use of wine is not men- 
 tioned, and of Pharoah, where the use of 
 wine is mentioned (Gen. 40 : 11, 20, 
 21). Prior, moreover, to any appoint- 
 ment of a Hebrew feast Moses mentions 
 the religious banquet as a custom appa- 
 rently then existing (Ex. 5: 1; 10:9). 
 The absence of mention of the use of 
 wine at most of these feasts must be ob- 
 served in order to impartially study the 
 early history of the Passover where no 
 wine is mentioned, and also to judge in- 
 telligently of the character of the wine 
 used at feasts before and after Moses's 
 appointment. (See the second part of 
 Bible Wines.) 
 
 The early history of the Passover, 
 from the Exodus to its first observance 
 in the land of promise, makes no men- 
 tion of wine, the emphasis always being 
 on the provision that there shall be no 
 "leaven." The first appointment fixes 
 the day as the " beginning " of the civil 
 year, corresponding to that noted in all 
 American proclamations; it indicates 
 that the three provisions, roast lamb, bit- 
 ter herbs or uncooked salads, and un- 
 leavened bread, were provisions of haste, 
 as in camps; and it provides that all 
 refugees who had by circumcision united 
 with the Jewish people, and none others, 
 should partake of the feast (Ex. 12: 8, 
 11, 15, 38, 41). This original appoint- 
 ment makes the special emphasis to rest 
 on the exclusion of everything " leaven- 
 ed " from the house (v. 19), while later 
 history teaches that the first perversion 
 of the feast brought down a social 
 curse (Ex. 32 : 1-6). It is specially to 
 be observed that the use of wine seems 
 to have been directly deferred until they 
 came into the " land flowing with milk 
 and honey" or grape-syrup (Ex. 13:5; 
 22:29 and 23:14-19; Lev. 23: 5, 6, 
 10, 13). The time of these three antici- 
 
 patory provisions is noteworthy : the first 
 immediately upon the original appoint- 
 ment, the second made by the statute a 
 part of the brief civil code to rule Israel 
 in the camp-life of 40 years, and the 
 third written during the year preceding 
 the second Passover (Lev. 27 : 34). The 
 first allusion to wine (Ex. 22 : 29) in the 
 Hebrew term " demagh " (in the Greek 
 " aparchas lenou "), only once found, is 
 specially noteworthy ; the word "demagh" 
 (as the Greek translation made by He- 
 brews, the English translation "liquors," 
 and the statement of Euerst, the ablest 
 Hebrew archaeologist, all indicate) alludes 
 to the juice that bursts the grape-skins and 
 trickles in tear-drops — the Greek " pro- 
 tropos " or " dakraon," the Roman " pro- 
 tropum " or " lachrymae " and the " lach- 
 rymse Christi" or tears of Christ of the 
 Middle Ages, — which was the purest of 
 unfermented wine. 
 
 In the record of the second Passover, 
 observed at Mt. Sinai at the close of their 
 year spent there (Num. 9 : 5), four im- 
 portant connected facts are presented. 
 In Num. 6: 1-21 the law of "Naza- 
 rites" is given as an already existing 
 order, bound in all future history to ab- 
 stain from fermented wine (Judg. 13: 
 4,7; 1 Sam. 1:11, 15; Jer. 35:6-8; 
 Luke 1 : 15) ; while also at seasons of spe- 
 cial care, lest as in the case of Noah an 
 intoxicant might be taken, abstinence for 
 a season from all products of the grape 
 was a part of their vow, from which they 
 might be released at festivals (Num. 6 : 
 2-4, 13, 15, 17; Judg. 13: 14). It is 
 manifest that this class could not be ex- 
 cluded from the Passover, whose observ- 
 ance immediately followed, while, too, the 
 wine provision alluded to in Ex. 22 : 29 
 is not excluded by the Nazarite vow. In 
 the observance immediately following, 
 though strict care as to unleavened bread, 
 fresh salad and lamb fresh and not left 
 until morning (Num. 9 : 11, 12) is to be 
 observed, no mention of wine is made. 
 
 Only a few days after this observance 
 a third illustration of provision for the 
 Passover occurs. The spies entering the 
 land of promise bring back a grape-clus- 
 ter so large and rich that two men are 
 needed to carry it on a pole between 
 them (Num. 13: 20-23), the "seasoD of 
 the first grapes" being manifestly de- 
 signed to enforce the law as to wine at 
 the Passover, not to be observed again 
 
Passover Wine.] 
 
 464 
 
 [Passover Wine. 
 
 until they reached the land where thi3 
 provision would be permanent. Immedi- 
 ately upon this hinted supply follows the 
 fourth fact, the statute requiring that all 
 offerings to the priest and at festivals of 
 vine-products be "fresh, unfermented 
 wine" (Num. 18:12). (See Unfbe- 
 mented Wine.) It is this cumulative 
 testimony , all to one point, that forbids 
 any idea that other than unfermented 
 wine was divinely appointed as Passover 
 wine. The next observance of the Pass- 
 over, 39 years later, and when they had 
 in the early spring just entered Canaan 
 (Josh. 5 : 10, 11), makes no mention of 
 any other than " unleavened bread " as 
 the provision made. In the renewed 
 statutes of Moses (Deut. 16 : 2-6) and in 
 successive allusions to the observance 
 (II Kings, 23:22,23; II Chron. 30 : 15 ; 
 35:1, 11, 18; Ezek. 45:21 and Ezra 
 6:19, 20), no mention of wine seems 
 necessary ; while its designation down to 
 Christ's day is simply as the "feast of 
 unleavened bread" (Ex. 12:7; 23:15; 
 34: 18; Lev. 23: 6; Deut. 16: 16; II Chron. 
 8 : 13 ; 30 : 13,21 ; 35 : 17 ; Ezra, 6:22; Ezek. 
 45; Matt. 27:17; Mark, 14 : 1 and Luke 
 22:1). 
 
 The emphasis with which "unleav- 
 ened bread " was required, with scarcely 
 an allusion to the wine, and the fact that 
 both statutes mentioning the wine to be 
 used declare it to be the " fresh, unfer- 
 mented juice of the grape," both justify 
 and compel the decision that the wine of 
 the Passover, by divine appointment, 
 must be free from ferment. 
 
 The provisions for the later feasts add 
 confirmation to this manifest appoint- 
 ment. The Passover came in the spring 
 before the grapes which furnished fresh 
 wine ripened, but the methods of preserv- 
 ing " unfermented wines " in Egypt were 
 of Egyptian origin, and were practiced at 
 least three or four centuries before Moses 
 lived and became master of " the wisdom 
 of Egypt." 
 
 The second, or "Eeast of Weeks" (Ex. 
 34 : 2 ; Deut. 16:10; II Chron. 8:13), called 
 in the Greek Apocryphal books written 
 after Alexander's day the " Pentecost " or 
 Fiftieth Day Feast, occurring seven 
 weeks or 49 days after the Passover, was 
 at the season of early vintage, for it was 
 at this feast, three times mentioned in 
 the New Testament (Acts, 2 : 1 ; 20 : 16 ; I 
 Cor. 16 : 8), that Peter and his brother 
 
 Apostles were charged with being full of 
 "new wine" (Greek "gleukos"). 
 
 The Feast of Tabernacles came in the 
 autumn, at the "in-gathering" of the 
 later vintage (Lev. 23: 3, 4, 43; Deut. 
 16:16; Neh. 8 : 4-18) ; the only mention of 
 the wine used being (Neh. 8 : 10) in the 
 Hebrew word "mamthagim" (Greek 
 "glukasmon"), or the rich, "sweet" 
 juice of the grape-clusters pressed out 
 when the skins begin to shrivel from the 
 evaporation of the water, which makes 
 the juice syrup-like. Thus every allu- 
 sion to the wine of the three Hebrew 
 feasts indicates that it is unfermented. 
 The final confirmation is found in the 
 fact that Jesus, speaking of the Passover 
 cup (Luke 22 : 18) which preceded the 
 breaking of the bread and became the cup 
 of his new ordinance (vs. 19-20) says : 
 " apo tou genematos tes ampelou " — " of 
 the fruit of the vine." 
 
 The Talmud has often been, quoted as 
 indicating that intoxicating wine was 
 used at the Passover by the Hebrews 
 after the final fall of their city and State ; 
 but these facts and principles are 
 noteworthy: (1) The divine ordinances, 
 as all of the Prophets and as Jesus and 
 Paul declare, were grossly violated in the 
 days both of prosperity and adversity, 
 and the question is not what some He- 
 brews did, but whether the law of the Old 
 Testament, just considered, justified such 
 actions — whether when drunkenness is 
 declared a sin, intoxicating wines — and 
 these drunk to intoxication — were God's 
 appointment for his solemn feast; (2) 
 While the Talmud would never be quoted 
 as authority by any Christian teacher 
 who realizes his responsibility, the fact 
 should be stated that in the very age of 
 the Talmud and in every generation 
 since, its authority with " orthodox " 
 Eabbis has not been decisive; and (3) 
 Though studious efforts have been made 
 to draw from non-conforming Eabbis 
 statements that the wines of their Pass- 
 over are now and have ever been intoxi- 
 cating, the following statement of Judge 
 Joachimsen (so long and highly es- 
 teemed in New York and lately de- 
 ceased) has not only not been contravened 
 but has been confirmed by even the most 
 liberal Rabbis. In response to a request 
 for a written statement of a former ver- 
 bal declaration the following note was 
 received by the writer of this article : 
 
Pauperism.] 
 
 465 
 
 [Pauperism, 
 
 "336 East 69th Street, New York, Feb. 
 15, 1881. — Rev. and Dear Sir: In answer to 
 your favor of yesterday's 'date, I repeat that the 
 .great majority of conforming Jews in this city 
 use wine made from raisins at the Passover 
 Feast. Of course the raisins are fresh. Such 
 raisin- wine is used in all conforming synagogues 
 for the sanctiflcation of the Sabbath and holy 
 •days, i.e., for Riddush and also for services at 
 circumcisions and weddings. Some, but not 
 many, people use imported wine — Italian, Hun- 
 garian or German, — which is certified as 'Perach' 
 or ' Kosher wine.' — I am most truly yours, 
 
 "P. J. Joaohimsen." 
 
 It thus appears that the wines used by 
 all conforming Jews are free from fer- 
 ment, and Judge Joachimsen in a subse- 
 quent note refers to synagogues of New 
 York City Jews from "Tangiers, Morocco, 
 Tunis " on the African coast ; from " Gib- 
 raltar, Spain and Portugal ;" also "French, 
 Hollandish, English, German, Eussian 
 and Bohemian, Polish and Lithuanian," 
 — all conforming synagogues. 
 
 Among the very few non-conforming 
 Eabbis who replied to Dr. Howard 
 Crosby's circular in the summer of 1888, 
 Eabbi Gottheil writes as follows, on be- 
 half of his "liberal" as distinguished 
 from his " orthodox " f ellow-Eabbis : 
 
 "It is proper to use fermented wine. . . . 
 Unfermented wine is permitted, in case the 
 former (or Kosher wine) cannot be obtained, or 
 is forbidden for sanitary reasons. So is it with 
 mead, raisin- wine and spiced wine." 
 
 It is again to be recalled that in every 
 Old Testament mention that is specific, 
 nnfermented wine is that required at 
 Hebrew feasts, and it is to be noted that 
 Eabbi Gottheil admits the existence and 
 proper use of both unfermented and 
 raisin-wine. The latter (we may confi- 
 dently allege) has been universally used 
 by Jews who adhere to the letter of their 
 law. No one questions that Jesus' was a 
 " conforming Jew," and he characterized 
 the wine of the Passover as " the fruit 
 of the vine." G. "W. Samson. 
 
 Pauperism. — The responsibility of 
 drink for extreme poverty is one of 
 the chief grounds for assailing the traf- 
 fic in liquors and seeking its extinction. 
 It is impossible to allude to the evils 
 caused by alcohol without placing pau- 
 perism well at the front : indeed, in 
 enumerating these evils it is customary 
 to mention crime first and pauperism 
 second. 
 
 The statistics of pauperism given by 
 the United States Census for 1880 are 
 
 defective and practically valueless. The 
 total number of paupers in the country 
 during that year is placed at only 88,665, 
 of whom 67,067 were inmates of institu- 
 tions, and 21,598 were "out-door pau- 
 pers." As an example of the unreliability 
 of these returns, the aggregate for 
 Massachusetts is only 5,423; but the 
 Massachusetts State Census for 1885 re- 
 ports 8,394 adult paupers and 5,332 
 homeless children — a total of 13,726. It 
 is impossible, therefore, to determine, 
 even with reasonable approximation, how 
 many paupers there are in the United 
 States. The stated number of inmates of 
 almshouses in 1880 (67,067) may probably 
 be accepted as sufficiently accurate; but 
 there is no doubt that this is greatly ex- 
 ceeded by the number of persons not 
 lodged" in public institutions (including 
 tramps and vagrants) who depend more 
 or less upon charity and are to be re- 
 garded as practically in a state of pauper- 
 ism. Neither do the Government returns 
 show the causes of pauperism. To ar- 
 rive at an intelligent understanding of 
 these causes, and especially of the part 
 played by drink, it is necessary to con- 
 sult expert testimony; and fortunately 
 this is to be had in abundance. 
 
 While there are no satisfactory figures 
 for the United States at large, some 
 valuable investigations have been made 
 in separate States and localities. For 
 years the social statistics of Massachusetts 
 have had a very high reputation for 
 trustworthiness. This is one of the 
 richest and most intelligent States of the 
 Union, where the percentage of pauper- 
 ism chargeable to drink is probably not 
 uncommonly high. The results of official 
 inquiries in Massachusetts are thus sum- 
 marized by a writer occupying one of 
 the most prominent judicial positions in 
 the Commonwealth i 1 
 
 ' ' The pauper returns, made annually for a 
 long time to the Secretary of State, show an 
 average of about 80 per cent, as due to this 
 cause in the county of Suffolk (mainly the city 
 of Boston). Thus, in 1863, the whole lumber 
 relieved is stated at 12,248. Of these the num- 
 ber made dependent by their own intemperance 
 is given as 6,048, and the number so made by 
 the intemperance of parents and guardians at 
 3,837, making an aggregate of 9,885. The 3d 
 report of the Board of State Charities, p. 202 
 (January, 1867), declares intemperance to be 
 ' the chief occasion of pauperism, ' and the 5th 
 
 1 Robert C. Pitman, in ' 
 York, 1886), pp. 30-33. 
 
 Alcohoi and the State" (New 
 
Pauperism.] 
 
 466 
 
 [Pauperism. 
 
 report says : ' Overseers of the Poor variously 
 estimate the proportion of crime and pauperism 
 attributable to the vice of intemperance from 
 one-third in some localities up to nine-tenths in 
 others. This seems large, but is, doubtless, 
 correct in regard to some localities, and partic- 
 ularly among the class of persons receiving 
 temporary relief, the greater proportion of 
 whom are of foreign birth or descent.' In the 
 6th annual report of the Board of Health (Jan- 
 uary, 1875), p. 45, under the head ' Intemper- 
 ance as a Cause of Pauperism,' the Chairman, 
 Dr. Bowditch, gives the result of answers re- 
 ceived from 282 of the towns and cities to the 
 two following questions: '1. What proportion 
 of the inmates of your almshouses are there in 
 consequence of the deleterious use of intoxi- 
 cating liquors ? 2. What proportion of the 
 children in the house are there in consequence of 
 the drunkenness of parents 1 ' While it appears 
 that in the country towns the proportion is quite 
 variable and less than the general current of 
 statistics would lead one to expect, which is 
 fairly attributable jn part, at least, to the extent 
 to which both law and public opinion has re- 
 stricted the use and traffic in liquors, yet we 
 have from the city of Boston, the headquarters 
 of the traffic, this emphatic testimony from the 
 Superintendent of the Deer Island Almshouse 
 and Hospital : ' I would answer the above by 
 saying, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 
 90 per cent, to both questions. Our register 
 shows that full one-third of the inmates received 
 for the last two years are here through the 
 direct cause of drunkenness. Very few inmates 
 (there are exceptions) in this house but what 
 rum brought them there. Setting aside the 
 sentenced boys (sent here for truancy, petty 
 theft, etc.), nine-tenths of the remainder are 
 here through the influence of the use of intoxi- 
 cating liquors by the parents. The great and 
 almost the only cause for so much poverty and 
 distress in the city can be traced to the use of 
 intoxicating drink either by the husband or 
 wife, or both.' ' A startling testimony as to the 
 effect of this cause in producing the allied evil 
 and even nuisance of vagrancy is given in the 
 answer from the city of Springfield : ' In addi- 
 tion to circular I would say that we have lodged 
 and fed 8, 052 persons that we call "tramps," and 
 I can seldom find a man among them who was 
 not reduced to that condition by intemperance. 
 It is safe to say nine-tenths are drunkards, 
 though we have not the exact records.' " 
 
 The report of the Secretary of State 
 of New York for 1863 says that during 
 the year " The whole number of paupers 
 relieved was 261,252; during the preced- 
 ing year, 257,534. These numbers 
 would be in the ratio of one pauper an- 
 nually to every 15 inhabitants through- 
 
 1 The " Associated Charities of Boston," an organi- 
 zation composed of 51 charitable societies and 29 similar 
 church institutions of the city, say in their second annual 
 report : u In the following reports from the Ward Con- 
 ferences there is universal testimony that drunkenness is 
 the cause of nine-tenths of the pauperism in Boston. 
 How to counteract this evil is the first subject presented 
 to this body for consideration."— Alcohol in Society, 
 p. 111. 
 
 out the State. In an examination made 
 into the history of those paupers by a 
 competent committee, seven-eighths of 
 them were reduced to this low and de- 
 graded condition, directly or indirectly,, 
 through intemperance." And the Com- 
 missioners of Charity and Correction for 
 New York City said in their report for 
 1880: 
 
 "The causes of pauperism and consequent 
 disease and crime have received careful and 
 thorough investigation by those long enjoying- 
 favorable advantages of observation. Many 
 reasons for this painful and rapidly increasing 
 pauperism among the people have been as- 
 signed, but that which takes precedence above 
 and beyond all others is the curse of intemper- 
 ance. It is this which robs the pockets of the. 
 poor man; it is this which benumbs his brain, 
 and destroys his faculties, and this which pre . 
 disposes himself and his children to fatal 
 disease. It is this which breeds sensuality 
 in all its protean and disgusting forms, this 
 which induces shiftlessness and irresponsibility 
 among the masses, and it is this which saps the 
 life from those who would otherwise be healthy 
 and vigorous. The statistics of almshouses, 
 workhouses, penitentiaries, asylums and hospi- 
 tals all attest this dark and gloomy fact. . . . 
 If the malignant character of this enemy of the 
 people's health, and its far-reaching tendencies, 
 toward disease and death, were more thoroughly 
 understood, a revolution in sentiment on the 
 question might the more speedily be inaugu- 
 rated." 
 
 Howard Crosby, D. D., one of the men 
 least disposed to indulge in exaggerated 
 statements, has made this declaration: 
 " I have been watching for 35 years and 
 in all my investigations among the poor 
 I never yet found a family borne down 
 by poverty that did not owe its fall to- 
 rum." * And Horace Greeley, in a Tri- 
 bune editorial, said : " Most of our 
 paupers have become such through 
 the use of alcoholic liquors — often by 
 themselves, sometimes by their parents 
 or other guardians. We estimate that 
 nine-tenths of the paupers in our country 
 were made so directly by strong drink." 3 
 
 The Voice, in 1886, sent letters to a. 
 large number of Superintendents of 
 Almshouses and Poor Directors con- 
 cerning the relations existing between 
 destitution and drink. William Murray, 
 Superintendent for 19 years of the 
 Kings County Almshouse (Brooklyn, 
 N. Y.), said : " My opinion is that liquor 
 is the principal cause of pauper- 
 ism. If there had been no liquor drank,. 
 
 * The Voice, Dec. 9, 1886. 
 8 Alcohol in Society, p. 108. 
 
Pauperism.] 
 
 467 
 
 [Penalties. 
 
 say for the past 100 years, there would 
 be almost no pauperism and there would 
 be no poor-houses." Among the esti- 
 mates given from various cities and 
 towns of the percentage of pauperism 
 occasioned by drink were the following : 
 
 Worcester, Mass. : Among the males, 90 per 
 cent. ; females, 70 per cent. 
 
 Albany, N. Y. : About nine-tenths. 
 
 Meadville, Pa. : Nine-tenths. (Estimated by 
 O. H. Hollister, who had been Clerk of the 
 Directors of the Poor of Crawford County for 
 15 years. ) 
 
 Lanesborough, Mass.: Nine-tenths. 
 
 North Brookfield, Mass. : Fully two-thirds. 
 
 Lima, Pa. : Not less than 75 per cent. 
 
 St. Charles, Mo. : Prom 75 to 85 per cent. 
 
 Shelly, N. C. : At least two-thirds. 
 
 Bowling Green, O. -. Nine-tenths. 
 
 Minneapolis, Minn. : At least 80 per cent. 
 
 Hamilton, O.: Three-fourths. ' 
 
 Strong light has been thrown upon 
 this subject in England. Sir Wilfrid 
 Lawson is authority for the statement 
 that in Glasgow the Lord Provost, during 
 a certain number of weeks in which he 
 had administered relief to the distressed, 
 " had asked every applicant if he was a 
 teetotaler, and found he had not one 
 teetotaler come before him for relief." a 
 In 1864 a careful inquiry was made into 
 the circumstances of 611 paupers in the 
 Edinburgh City Poor-house, these 611 
 being all the persons contained in that 
 institution at the time, "and it was 
 found that among them all there was not 
 a single abstainer and that 407 of them 
 had been ' reduced to their impoverished 
 condition through drink.' " 3 The fol- 
 lowing extract is made from a report of 
 a Convocation of Canterbury: "It can 
 be shown that an enormous proportion of 
 the pauperism, which is felt to be such a 
 burden and discouragement by the in- 
 dustrious and sober members of the com- 
 munity, and has such a degrading and 
 demoralizing effect upon most recipients 
 of parochial relief, is the direct and com- 
 mon product of intemperance. It ap- 
 pears, indeed, that at least 75 per cent, of 
 the occupants of our workhouses and a 
 large proportion of those receiving out- 
 door pay have become pensioners on the 
 public directly or indirectly through 
 drunkenness and the improvidence and 
 absence of self-respect which this pesti- 
 
 1 The Voice, Nov. 25, Dec. 9 and Dec. 16, 1886, and 
 Jan. 6. 1887. 
 ' Foundation of Death, p. 242. 
 s Alcohol in Society, pp. 112-13. 
 
 lent vice is known to engender and per- 
 petuate." 4 Gen. Booth of the Salvation 
 Army, in his book, "In Darkest Eng- 
 land " (1890), gives the following esti- 
 mates of the numbers of paupers, desti- 
 tute and nearly destitute persons in the 
 city of London: Paupers, 51,000; home- 
 less, 33,000; starving, 300,000; the very 
 poor, 609,000 — total, 993,000. Gen. 
 Booth lays stress upon drink as one of the 
 great causes of all this poverty. 
 
 Penalties. — The penalties against the 
 unlawful sale of intoxicating drink im- 
 posed in the different States have to a 
 great extent been copied from the statutes 
 of New York, and it is remarkable that 
 the New York penalties have not been 
 essentially changed in 50 years. While 
 public sentiment has been altered mater- 
 ially and the habits of the people have 
 undergone a still more striking alteration 
 the penalties imposed for violating the 
 liquor laws are to-day substantially the 
 same as they were when it would have 
 been considered an affront or an act of 
 inhospitality not to offer the social glass. 
 The merchant in the olden time peddled 
 out his rum with his groceries and dry- 
 goods. The clergyman and the flock 
 were social drinkers, and not infrequently 
 the distillery was side by side with the 
 flour-mill and close by the house of wor- 
 ship. It was not a sin to drink, or a crime 
 to become intoxicated, in any person's 
 estimation. Yet to sell drink without 
 first obtaining a license, under these easy 
 conditions, notwithstanding the poverty 
 of our ancestors, was severely punished 
 by a fine of $50. Now all is changed — 
 except the penalty. In those days the 
 public inn barely supported the family of 
 the host. Now a public bar can be run 
 almost anywhere and its owner pay a $50 
 fine once a month, if necessary, and reap 
 besides a large profit. Fortunes were 
 not made in a day, and $50 was a large 
 amount to be taken from the income. 
 Now a " fast " man will spend much more 
 than this in a night's carouse. Then 
 crime, poverty, insanity and pauperism 
 had not been laid with statistical accu- 
 racy at the door of the traffic. Saloons 
 were unknown. The politics of the 
 country was not ruled by an oligarchy of 
 brewers and distillers. It is not wonder- 
 ful that under such circumstances a fine 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
Penalties.] 
 
 468 
 
 [Penalties. 
 
 of $50 for an unlicensed sale, and one of 
 $10 for selling to a minor, were deemed 
 sufficient penalties. But it seems inex- 
 plicable that in these closing years of the 
 19th Century, with the iniquity of so 
 devilish a traffic standing out in a blazing 
 light, the penalties even against the un- 
 lawful sale of intoxicants remain practi- 
 cally as they were 50 years ago. And the 
 belief that no Prohibitory legislation can 
 be enforced is entertained by intelligent 
 persons, forgetting the undeniable fact 
 that for offenses against the public weal 
 no penalties are so weak, no charges so 
 difficult to prove and finally no prosecu- 
 tions so expensive to the complainants as 
 in cases of violations of Excise laws. 
 
 The law in a certain locality forbids 
 the sale of intoxicating drink. But what 
 is intoxicating drink ? Are cider, small 
 beer, cordials, etc., etc., intoxicating? 
 Suppose we admit that they are in- 
 toxicating. How can you prove that the 
 glass of cider sold was not vinegar — both 
 being of the same color? From the 
 nature of the case a witness cannot 
 swear positively unless he drinks from 
 the same glass. Of course with a tem- 
 perance jury mere quibbles would not 
 avail, but that it is almost impossible to 
 obtain a conviction for illicit sale in 
 many places is notorious. The pigeon- 
 holes of District Attorneys are packed 
 with untried indictments, often untried 
 for want of evidence. There is one 
 witness, however, seldom called by the 
 prosecution, for obvious reasons, who 
 does know the character of the drink 
 he sells. He can tell, if cold tea has the 
 color of brandy, whether he sold brandy 
 or tea. He may say that he cannot tell 
 whether small beer or cordial is in- 
 toxicating, but the law can meet such 
 instances of ignorance. The difficulty 
 is a very serious one where only an ex- 
 cuse is wanted in the mind of one juror 
 to acquit. But matters would have a 
 different aspect if such an addendum as the 
 following, for example, were attached to 
 the statute : " Provided that if the sub- 
 stance sold or given away shall have the 
 appearance of brandy, cider, etc., etc., 
 such appearance shall be deemed prima 
 facie evidence that such substance was 
 brandy, cider, etc., etc., and intoxicating 
 under this statute." The burden of 
 proof would then be shifted. The dealer 
 would have to prove that the substance 
 
 sold or given away was unintoxicating, or 
 suffer conviction. Trials would be 
 simplified wonderfully. There are 
 abundant precedents for asking for a 
 provision of this nature. For instance, 
 the finding of game out of season in the 
 possession of a person is prima facie 
 evidence of unlawful killing. On trial 
 he may prove that the alleged partridge 
 or grouse was only a tame chicken. The 
 liquor-dealer may prove that the alleged 
 brandy was only tea. No wrong is done 
 in either case, and no one can justly 
 complain. 
 
 The experience gained under the 
 United States Revenue laws removes all 
 doubt as to the character of the penalties 
 that should be embraced in Prohibitory 
 laws. This experience proves that Pro- 
 hibition can be enforced. The minimum 
 penalty should be $200 for the first 
 offense ; for the second, after one con- 
 viction, double, with three months' im- 
 prisonment, and a corresponding increase 
 for each new offense. No indictment 
 should be necessary, but a civil action 
 should lie in any Court of competent 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 There are certain offenses that shock 
 or endanger the public and are punished, 
 but it is a lamentable fact that we are a 
 nation of law-breakers. Murder, arson 
 and the like are followed by arrest and 
 punishment. But the statute-books are 
 full of laws that are obsolete or habitu- 
 ally disregarded, and none so conspicu- 
 ously as Excise laws. The reason for the 
 disregard of the latter grows out of the 
 difficulty already hinted at, of proof and 
 conviction, but this is not the main diffi- 
 culty. The liquor business is entrenched 
 behind ample capital. Its profits enable 
 it, in case of complaint, to procure the 
 best legal talent in defense. The prose- 
 cution generally begins by way of indict- 
 ment, and if a bill is found a year or 
 more may elapse before the trial, which, 
 if favorable to the complainant, is usually 
 appealed from, and another year may be 
 consumed. Meanwhile the dealer's profits 
 enable him to pay the cost of the law's 
 delay. And so long as rum rules poli- 
 tics there will be no haste to convict, even 
 in instances of undoubted guilt — in short, 
 the dice are loaded and the law is defied. 
 During all this time the good citizen who 
 complained, moved by a laudable desire 
 to protect society and see that law is re- 
 
Penalties.] 
 
 469 
 
 [PersiaJ 
 
 spected and obeyed, is subject to perse- 
 cution and insult and must out of his 
 own pocket defray numerous expenses, 
 with no reimbursement, even if he gains 
 a conviction. Is it any wonder that Pro- 
 hibition sometimes does not prohibit 
 under such circumstances ? The late Mr. 
 Bergh, who did so much to secure laws 
 to protect animals from cruelty, told the 
 writer that no matter what laws he pro- 
 cured, for years he was obliged to hire 
 attorneys, get witnesses and pay other 
 expenses from his own purse before he 
 could complete the work of justice, and 
 that his difficulties continued until the 
 law was amended so as to provide for 
 moieties. The fact is, the expense of 
 conviction is the one immovable barrier 
 to the complete triumph of Prohibition 
 wherever enacted. The experience of the 
 United States, based upon the experience 
 of the Old World, demonstrates that it is 
 absolutely necessary for the Government 
 to make special inducements for the en- 
 couragement of those interested in the 
 prosecution of evil-doers. One plan is to 
 hire detectives by the year or month and 
 compensate them from the public funds, 
 but this method is not wholly satisfactory. 
 Another is to give the informer or pros- 
 ecutor one-half the fine recovered. 
 There is also great propriety in the policy 
 of making the guilty offender — enriched 
 by his illicit traffic — pay the cost incurred 
 in convicting him. Let the citizen 
 understand that his necessary expenses 
 will be reimbursed if a conviction is had, 
 and he will be better able to cope with 
 the habitual law-breaker. Leave him 
 without such an assurance and he is 
 handicapped from the start — weak where 
 his opponent is strong. These sugges- 
 tions are not new. Provisions for giving 
 half the fine to the informer and for 
 assessing the costs of prosecution against 
 the convicted rumseller have been em- 
 bodied in not a few liquor laws. But 
 there has been a strange tendency toward 
 eliminating them — not so strange, either, 
 when it is remembered that the liquor 
 element has always been keenly alive to 
 the importance of escaping severe penal- 
 ties and that the temperance people have 
 frequently been content with mere nomi- 
 nal Prohibitions. 
 
 The drugstore sales of liquor are 
 among the most difficult to deal with. 
 So long as people take whiskey for medi- 
 
 cine and drugstores are permitted to 
 vend without effective restraints, so long 
 will anti-liquor acts fail. The rigid pro- 
 visions of the Kansas Pharmacy law 
 should be applied to the drugstore traffic 
 everywhere— that is, no druggist should 
 have the right to sell, give away or sup- 
 ply any intoxicating beverage except 
 upon written prescription of a practicing 
 physician, and each prescription should 
 be pasted in a book kept for the pur- 
 pose, the book to be always open to pub- 
 lic inspection; while the penalty im- 
 posed for illicit selling should be pro- 
 vided and the moiety clause should be 
 added. 
 
 A wholesome effect would also be pro- 
 duced if the Kansas plan of requiring 
 Sheriffs, Prosecuting Attorneys, Judges 
 and. all officials connected with the ad- 
 ministration of law to promptly arrest 
 and try liquor offenders and perform 
 their whole duty as defined by the stat- 
 utes, on pain of heavy fine and loss of 
 office. Civil Damage acts also should be 
 strengthened. Indeed, there is probably 
 no graver need indicated by present con- 
 ditions than that of the stiffening of pen- 
 alties all along the line. Prohibitory 
 laws are not, but penalties are, lamenta- 
 ble failures. Cure the latter and the 
 former will take care of themselves. 
 John O'Donnell. 
 
 [The editor is also indebted to Edwin C. 
 Pierce. For penalties prescribed in present and 
 former liquor laws, see Legislation, South 
 Dakota and United States Government 
 and the Liquor Traffic] 
 
 Pennsylvania. — See Index. 
 
 Permissive 
 
 Local Option. 
 
 Prohibition. — See 
 
 Persia. — Malcolm, in his "History 
 of Persia," relates (vol. 1, p. 10) that wine 
 was discovered in that kingdom in the 
 reign of Jamsheed. He attempted to 
 preserve grapes in a large vessel. Fer- 
 mentation ensued and the king believed 
 that the juice was poison and bottled 
 and labeled it as such. A lady of the 
 palace, wishing to commit suicide, drank 
 from it. She was pleased with the stupor 
 that followed and repeated the experi- 
 ment until the supply was exhausted. 
 She imparted the secret to the king and 
 a new quantity was made that sufficed 
 for all. Hence wine is called in Persia 
 
Persia.] 
 
 470 
 
 [Persia. 
 
 the zahar-i-khosh, or " delightful poison." 
 Wine was a common beverage of the an- 
 cient Persians. Cyrus set a trap for the 
 Massagetse by deserting his camp and re- 
 tiring into ambush, taking care to leave 
 a plentiful supply of wine. The intoxi- 
 cated enemy were easily vanquished. The 
 cup was freely used in the palace of 
 Xerxes. (Esther 1 : 4-10 ; 7:2-7.) The 
 vineyards of Lebanon and of distant 
 provinces were laid under contribution 
 by the Persian monarchs. 
 
 Drunkenness was checked by the Mo- 
 hammedan conquest. The Koran de- 
 clares that in wine " is great sin," and 
 that it is an "abomination of Satan's 
 ■work." According to tradition, one of 
 the precepts of Mohammed was, " Who- 
 sqever drinks wine, let him suffer cor- 
 rection by scourging." For 1,200 years 
 the law of Persia has prescribed penalties 
 of 80 lashes for a free man and 40 lashes 
 for a slave; if the offender is seized 
 while intoxicated or while his breath 
 smells of wine, and two witnesses testify 
 that he has drunk wine, the stripes are to 
 be administered. These provisions have at 
 no time prevented the use entirely. Even 
 ,'some of the Caliphs of Bagdad scandal- 
 ized the faithful by their intemperate 
 habits. The poets Hafiz, Sa'di and others 
 praise the wine-cup and sing its delights. 
 Yet during these centuries total absti- 
 nence has been adhered to by the people 
 in general. In the last 30 years there 
 has come a deplorable change for the 
 worse. Statistics of the number of drink- 
 ers and the consumption of liquors are 
 unobtainable, but no one can doubt that 
 the increase of the evil has been marked. 
 The official, military and wealthy classes 
 are becoming more and more inclined to 
 disregard prohibitions and restraints. On 
 the other hand, tens of thousands of vil- 
 lagers have never tasted liquor in any 
 form and would rather die than take it; 
 they believe that alcoholic drink renders 
 one unclean in the sight of Allah and 
 unfit for paradise. Besides the hundreds 
 of towns where no liquor can be procured, 
 there are several Prohibition cities, no- 
 tably the sacred cities of Meshed and 
 Koorn. Arthur Arnold says : "InKoorn 
 we found it impossible to refill our 
 empty wine-bottles. Intoxicating liquors 
 appear to be absolutely unobtainable." 
 
 In general, the Persian who drinks 
 goes to excess. His idea is that the 
 
 pleasure consists in the intoxication, and 
 that "there is as much sin in a glass as a 
 flagon." He sees no stopping-place be- 
 tween total abstinence and intemperance. 
 In the cities wine is used by the rich, 
 while the poor drink arrack (a crude 
 spirit). In the villages where the Chris- 
 tians own vineyards seven or eight barrels 
 of wine are often set aside as the winter 
 supply of a family. There are frequent 
 carousals in the long winter months. The 
 Armenian, Nestorian, Jewish and Chris- 
 tian inhabitants, with few exceptions, 
 are drinkers, many indulging in " mod- 
 eration" but great numbers excessively. 
 Of one town on the Oroomish plain it is 
 said that even the walls get drunk and 
 reel. This rural debauchery is caused by 
 wine, not by distilled liquors. At the 
 New Year, Easter and other festivals it 
 is a common custom to offer guests in- 
 toxicants, though tea and coffee are al- 
 ways at hand. 
 
 The liquor-vendors in Persia are Jews 
 and Armenians, with some Nestorians. 
 The professing Christians are responsible 
 for much of the corrupting influence 
 that is being exerted. The scattered 
 Armenian communities, which should be 
 centres of gospel effort and virtues, are 
 at the front in the drink propaganda. 
 In many a city the Christian quarter is 
 the drunkard-making quarter. Until re- 
 cently it has been all but impossible to 
 find a Mussulman wine-seller, and to- 
 day no follower of the Prophet can en- 
 gage in the business without danger of 
 being despised and disgraced. But love 
 of money tempts Mohammedans to carry 
 on the traffic where no Jews or Arme- 
 nians live. 
 
 " Open saloons " are rare. In most in- 
 stances liquor is sold in private houses, 
 out of the public view. Some shops in 
 the bazaars sell bottled European wines 
 and have back rooms in which dram- 
 drinking is permitted. Most of the 
 Mussulmans addicted to the habit carry 
 the stuff home with them and consume 
 it there. 
 
 The change that has been wrought will 
 seem the more striking when it is said 
 that the liquor trade is now practically 
 licensed by the Government. The tax is 
 4 shohis per bottle of arrack, which sells 
 for 12 or 15 shohis (10 cents). The police 
 extort backsheesh (or bribes) from each 
 dealer, aggregating, probably, a larger 
 
Persia.] 
 
 471 
 
 [Personal Liberty. 
 
 amount than the Government collects. 
 Thirty years ago, when the evil conse- 
 quences of the .traffic began to excite 
 public attention on account of rowdyism 
 and quarrels in the streets, a crusade was 
 made by Mussulmans in Tabriz against 
 the liquor-shops, the bottles and jars 
 were broken and the drink was spilled. 
 Under cover of the laudatory object, the 
 houses of many Armenians were looted. 
 The crusaders continued their work for 
 four or five years, when a firman from the 
 Shah gave the business legal standing. 
 Later a European resident of Tabriz im- 
 ported machinery and built a distillery, 
 intending to manufacture on a large 
 scale, but the Government speedily pro- 
 hibited it. Each seller of spirits, as a 
 Tule, produces his own supply. As in 
 America, the " trade " holds itself above 
 ordinary obligations : Friday and Sunday, 
 "the two holy days, are the days on which 
 the largest profits are made. 
 
 Nearly all of the vast vintage of Persia 
 is turned into raisins and grape molasses. 
 The native wines, with few exceptions, 
 are inferior in quality. They are manu- 
 factured by the primitive process, the 
 grapes being crushed by the feet and the 
 juice being put into large earthen jars to 
 ferment. The amount of wine con- 
 sumed is relatively small; the quantity 
 of distilled arrack used is undoubtedly 
 many times larger, in view of the fact 
 that the freest drinking is in the cities, 
 where practically all the common people 
 who drink at all are arrack-drinkers. 
 Here is another demonstration of the 
 failure of wine to prevent the develop- 
 ment of an appetite for the stronger in- 
 toxicants. The Persian arrack is almost 
 •colorless and is very strong in alcohol. 
 
 The American missionaries take a de- 
 cided stand for total abstinence and urge 
 this virtue upon all converts. Three- 
 fourths of the churches of the Evangeli- 
 cal Syriac Church present the teetotal 
 pledge to their adherents. The influence 
 of the evangelical churches with the 
 Mussulmans is greatly increased by their 
 anti-liquor policy. 
 
 Samuel G. Wilson. 
 (Tabriz, Persia.) 
 
 Opium culture is an. important indus- 
 try in Persia. Comparatively little of 
 the drug is consumed at home, but large 
 ■quantities are exported to China and 
 
 other countries. In 1872 only 870 cases 
 were exported, but in 1881 the number 
 had risen to 7,700. Pure Persian opium 
 is considered superior to the Indian 
 article and contains a larger percentage 
 of morphia. In the last few years its 
 popularity has suffered because of the 
 unscrupulous adulterations practiced by 
 the producers. Besides, the cultivation 
 of the poppy is now regarded with less 
 favor by the Persian Government, since 
 it has given rise to a tendency to aban- 
 don the cultivation of food crops. 
 
 Personal Liberty. — Objection is 
 made to Prohibition on the ground that 
 it is an unwarranted invasion of personal 
 rights. The objection has no basis in 
 philosophy or fact. Blackstone thus de- 
 fines natural liberty : 
 
 "Natural liberty consists properly in a power 
 of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint 
 or control, unless by the laws of nature." — 
 Blackstone' s Com., vol. 1, p. 125. 
 
 Of civil liberty he says : 
 
 "Political or civil liberty, which is that of a 
 member of society, is no other than natural lib- 
 erty so far restrained by human laws (and no 
 farther) as is necessary and expedient for the 
 general advantages of the public. Hence we 
 may collect that the law, which restrains a man 
 from doing mischief to his fellow-citizens, though 
 it diminishes the natural, increases the civil lib- 
 erty of mankind." — Blackstone' a Com., vol. 1, 
 p. 125. 
 
 Natural liberty, therefore, is that 
 which a man enjoys in a state of nature, 
 while civil liberty is that which is possible 
 in society — namely, natural liberty re- 
 stricted just so far as the public good re- 
 quires. To illustrate this : In the 
 exercise of natural liberty a man may 
 throw stones, but he violates civil liberty 
 if he throws stones at windows or travel- 
 lers. His natural liberty ends where the 
 rights of property and of persons begin. 
 In the exercise of natural liberty a man 
 may walk about in a nude condition, but 
 civil liberty restricts this privilege. His 
 natural liberty ends where the welfare of 
 society begins. In the exercise of 
 natural liberty a man may jump and 
 shout, but if he jump and shout in a 
 public assembly he disturbs the rights 
 of others, and the civil authorities pro- 
 vide for his punishment. In the exercise 
 of natural liberty the savage is without 
 restraint — he robs, kills and tortures ; but 
 in an organized social state the results 
 
Personal Liberty.] 
 
 472 
 
 [Personal Liberty. 
 
 of conduct must be considered, and the 
 public good is the supreme law. A man 
 cannot do as he pleases when he becomes 
 a member of society, but must give up 
 a part of his natural liberty to secure the 
 advantages of social intercourse. 
 
 The difference, therefore, between 
 natural and civil liberty indicates the 
 difference between the personal liberty 
 advocates and the believers in Prohibi- 
 tion. The Prohibitionists simply ask 
 that personal liberty shall be limited by 
 public interests. This is the fundamental 
 law of social existence. In obedience to 
 it nuisances are abated. The personal 
 liberty to inflict a nuisance upon the 
 community is not allowed. Towns are 
 put under quarantine; powder-houses 
 are removed; lotteries and the circula- 
 tion of obscene books are prohibited ; the 
 construction of wooden buildings in 
 populous districts and the casting of 
 refuse into the street are forbidden. 
 Personal or natural liberty cannot be 
 urged against these prohibitions, for the 
 public good demands them. 
 
 The people have a right, and the 
 Courts have so declared, to regulate or 
 destroy any business that threatens the 
 public welfare. The liquor business is 
 of that character, and in the interests of 
 civil liberty and the general good it 
 should be prohibited. The personal lib- 
 erty to sell liquor, if it injures society, is 
 no more to be considered than the per- 
 sonal liberty to circulate obscene books 
 or to store gunpowder in the heart of a 
 city. This is the law of the land, as 
 firmly established as the foundations of 
 our Republic and as any other principle 
 of our jurisprudence. It rests on the rec- 
 ognition that the public good is the first 
 thing to be provided for and protected. 
 There are certain rights reserved to indi- 
 viduals by the Constitution which can- 
 not be disturbed by majorities. The 
 Courts jealously guard these rights. The 
 framers of our Government made provi- 
 sion for the civil liberties of the people, 
 and if a law is passed that conflicts with 
 such liberties the judiciary department 
 declares it null and void. But the right 
 to carry on a business that debauches 
 society is not guaranteed by anything in 
 our fundamental law, and when the 
 Supreme Court of the United States was 
 asked to determine whether Prohibition 
 of the drink traffic could be esteemed an 
 
 undue interference with the privileges of 
 citizens that great and conservative tri- 
 bunal answered in • the negative — 
 answered not once but repeatedly, not by 
 a bare majority but without any dissent,, 
 not in view of a single aspect of techni- 
 cal legal questions but in view of all the 
 general and broad aspects in which the 
 subject can be presented; answered by 
 solemnly calling attention to the mighty 
 evils that result from this dirty and dam- 
 nable business, and by justifying Prohibi- 
 tion on grounds of public morality, health,, 
 etc. — in short, by declaring Prohibitory 
 law to be thoroughly in keeping with th& 
 paramount purpose of righteous and wise 
 government, . to minister to the public 
 welfare. And the sophistries of the per- 
 sonal liberty advocates were so lightly 
 esteemed that, although the brewers paid 
 fees aggregating $16,000 to have them 
 formulated by the cleverest lawyers, the- 
 Court decreed that all the enormous 1 
 capital of hundreds of millions of dollars 
 invested in the " trade " might be wiped 
 out and yet no dollar of compensation 
 could be legitimately claimed; that this 
 might be done and each individual 
 brewer and "poisoner-general" be sent 
 to jail summarily, without trial by jury; 
 that summary proceedings of this nature 
 would in fact be "salutary," and that 
 even the right to manufacture intoxicat- 
 ing drink exclusively for the maker's- 
 own use might be denied without possi- 
 bility of redress. After the question 
 had been under review for more than 40 
 years in the Supreme Court a decision 
 was handed down that surpassed for 
 radicalism and by the emphasis and 
 solemnity of its phraseology every former 
 deliverance from this bench; and in. 
 order that it might have the greatest pos- 
 sible weight and significance this deci- 
 sion was written by the member of the 
 Court 1 whose views were supposed to be 
 less satisfactory to the Prohibitionists 
 than those of any other of the older 
 Justices, and who was on record as hav- 
 
 1 Justice Stephen J. Field. (See p. 93.) 
 
 The decision was rendered in the case of Henry Chris- 
 tensen, November, 1890. Christensen was a saloon-keeper, 
 who had been arrested by the Chief of Police of San 
 Francisco for selling liquor without a license. The United 
 States Circuit Court for California had rendered a judg- 
 ment in favor of Christensen's right to sell, on the ground 
 that a city ordinance of San Francisco which made license 
 dependent upon the written consent of a certain number 
 of property-owners was in conflict with the Constitution- 
 of the United States. This judgment the Supreme Court 
 reversed. 
 
Personal Liberty.] 
 
 473 
 
 [Personal Liberty. 
 
 ing stood alone in opposition to certain 
 conclusions concerning the constitution- 
 ality of the law of Kansas. In this 
 last and crowning decision the Supreme 
 Court said : 
 
 " It is urged that as the liquors are used as a 
 beverage, and the injury following them, if 
 taken in excess, is voluntarily inflicted and is 
 confined to the party offending their sale should 
 he without restrictions, the contention being that 
 what a man shall drink, equally with what he 
 shall eat, is not properly a matter for legislation. 
 
 ' ' There is in this position an assumption of 
 fact which does not exist, that when the liquors 
 are taken in excess the injuries are confined to 
 the party offending. The injury, it is true, 
 falls first upon him in his health, which the 
 habit undermines; in his morals, which it 
 weakens, and in the self-abasement which it 
 creates. But as it leads to neglect of business 
 and waste of property and general demoraliza- 
 tion, it affects those who are immediately con- 
 nected with and dependent upon him. By the 
 general concurrence of opinion of every civilized 
 and Christian community, there are few sources 
 of crime and misery to society equal to the dram- 
 shop, where intoxicating liquors, in small quan- 
 tities, to be drank at the time, are sold indis- 
 criminately to all parties applying. The statistics 
 of every State show a greater amount of crime 
 and misery attributable to the use of ardent 
 spirits obtained at these retail liquor-saloons 
 than to any other source. 
 
 "The sale of such liquors in this way has, 
 therefore, been, at all times by the Courts of 
 every State, considered as the proper subject of 
 legislative regulation. Not only may a license 
 be exacted from the keeper of the saloon before 
 a glass of his liquors can thus be disposed of, 
 but restrictions may be imposed as to the class 
 of persons to whom they may be sold, and the 
 hours of the day, and the days of the week on 
 which the saloons may be opened. Their sale 
 in that form may be absolutely prohibited. It 
 is a question of public expediency and public 
 morality, and not of Federal law. The police 
 power of the State is fully competent to regulate 
 the business, to mitigate its evils or to suppress 
 it entirely. There is no inherent right in a cit- 
 izen to sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is 
 not a privilege of a citizen of the State or of a cit- 
 izen of the United States. As it is a business 
 attended with danger to the community, it may, 
 as already said, be entirely prohibited, or be 
 permitted under such conditions as will limit to 
 the utmost its evils. The manner and extent of 
 regulation rest in the discretion of the gov- 
 erning authority. That authority may vest in 
 such officers as it may deem proper the power 
 of passing upon applications for permission 
 to carry it on and to issue licenses for that 
 purpose. It is a matter of legislative will only. 
 As in many other cases the officers may not 
 always exercise the power conferred upon them 
 with wisdom or justice to the parties affected. 
 But that is a matter which does not affect the 
 authority of the State, or one which can be 
 brought under the cognizance of the Courts of 
 the United States." 
 
 It appears, then, that the men who raise 
 the cry of personal liberty against Pro- 
 hibition set their opinion against the 
 matured and often-enunciated opinion of 
 the Supreme Court of the United States 
 as well as against the necessary limita- 
 tions of civil liberty. This assurance is 
 characteristic. The brewers, many of 
 whom cannot speak English intelligently, 
 and who frequently find it necessary to 
 conduct their proceedings in a foreign 
 tongue, undertook, in national conclave, 
 after the famous decision in the Kansas 
 cases, to argue the principles of American 
 law laid down in those cases. The argu- 
 ment goes on, as a matter of course ; for 
 however it may be with barrooms, bar- 
 room argument is not so easily put to an 
 end by the action of the Courts. " Per- 
 sonal Eights " and " Personal Liberty " 
 Leagues have not died out. They propa- 
 gandize with considerable activity in the 
 large cities, particularly when lawless 
 business is afoot and when uncommon 
 fervor for reform is manifested by the 
 clergy, by the women and incidentally by 
 the police. The personal liberty for 
 which they clamor (although they may 
 not see the logic of their course) is the 
 liberty of the barbarian, the thug, the 
 robber — the liberty of the anarchist; a 
 form of liberty that cannot be tolerated 
 with safety to society. 
 
 The opponents of Prohibition misstate 
 the case by saying that the State has no 
 right to declare what a man shall eat or 
 drink. The State does not venture to 
 make any such declaration. A man may 
 debauch himself in private and the State 
 will not interfere, unless the debauchery 
 creates a public nuisance or disturbs the 
 peace. Blackstone covers this point in 
 the following words : 
 
 "Let a man, therefore, be ever so abandoned 
 in his principles or vicious in his practices, pro- 
 vided he keeps his wickedness to himself and 
 does not offend against the rules of public 
 decency he is out of the reach of human laws. 
 But if he makes his vices public, though they be 
 such as seem principally to affect himself (as 
 drunkenness, or the like), then they become, by 
 the bad example they set, of pernicious effects 
 to society; and therefore it is then the business 
 of human laws to correct them." — Blackstone's 
 Com., ml. 1, p. 122. 
 
 One of the pernicious effects to society 
 of the private appetite for liquor is the 
 public drinking-place. The drink habit 
 depends upon a public traffic for supply, 
 
Personal Liberty.] 
 
 474 
 
 [Petitions. 
 
 and the public sale of alcoholic beverages 
 creates a demand which produces wide- 
 spread mischief in the community. The 
 public traffic, as well as public drunken- 
 ness, comes within the reach of human 
 laws. It is not the private appetite or 
 home customs of the citizen that the 
 State undertakes to manage, but the 
 liquor traffic. That is a public institu- 
 tion, having certain relations to the pub- 
 lic good, and if the public traffic disturbs 
 social order and becomes an enemy of 
 the State it can be dealt with as such. 
 This is the ground of Prohibition. The 
 saloon has become a public enemy, a pub- 
 lic nuisance, and the public safety de- 
 mands its removal. Thus are defined 
 the lines on which the battle must be 
 fought. 
 
 If by abolishing the saloon the State 
 makes it difficult for men to gratify their 
 private appetites, there is no just reason 
 for complaint. Shall the State legislate 
 for the private appetite or for the public 
 good ? It strikes at the public traffic for 
 the public good, and must consider the 
 public welfare, not the private appetite. 
 It is difficult to see what ground the 
 State can have for prohibiting anything 
 for the general good, if its right and duty 
 to prohibit the liquor traffic be ques- 
 tioned. If the personal liberty of the 
 liquor-seller or drinker is paramount to 
 the public good, then to curtail the per- 
 sonal liberty of the thief or assassin is 
 tyranny. 
 
 Those who oppose Prohibition as an 
 invasion of individual rights are quite 
 willing that the traffic shall be restricted. 
 But restriction as well as Prohibition is 
 an abridgment of personal liberty. The 
 advocate of restriction surrenders his 
 case and logically commits himself to the 
 object of Prohibition; for why is restric- 
 tion urged ? For the public good. Pro- 
 hibition is established for the same rea- 
 son, and the question to be decided is, 
 Which best promotes the public good? 
 The consistent personal liberty advocate 
 must stand for a liquor trade as free and 
 imtrammelled as the trade in groceries or 
 dry-goods. The restrictionist, by de- 
 manding special legislation, admits the 
 dangerous and evil character of the 
 liquor traffic and the need of protecting 
 society. He abandons the doctrine of 
 personal liberty and legislates for the 
 general good. If a Prohibitory law gives 
 
 more protection to society than a restrict- 
 ive measure he cannot consistently with- 
 hold his support. To fulminate against 
 Prohibition in the name of personal 
 liberty, and at the same time approve a 
 burdensome restrictive law, is to be both 
 illogical and amusing. 
 
 In Texas in 1887 the liquor-dealers and 
 their friends held a great meeting at Port 
 Worth to oppose the Prohibitory Amend- 
 ment to the Constitution, and in order to 
 have a quiet, respectable time, and make 
 a good impression on the State, they pro- 
 hibited the sale of liquor on the grounds. 1 
 They unconsciously gave personal liberty 
 a grievous blow, and their followers can- 
 not reasonably take offense if the people 
 generally copy their example and like- 
 wise prohibit the traffic in the interest of 
 order and respectability. In their ex- 
 tremity the Texas liquor-dealers placed 
 themselves squarely upon the platform 
 of the Prohibitionists. 
 
 To sum the matter up : The opponents 
 of Prohibition contend for the liberty to 
 disregard moral and social laws. It is 
 the liberty that devils delight in. The 
 friends of Prohibition advocate the larg- 
 est possible freedom for every citizen, 
 consistently with the welfare of all. It 
 is the liberty that comes with truth and 
 virtue. Volnet B. Cushing. 
 
 Petitions. — Petition is an application 
 by a person or persons, or an association 
 of persons, for redress of private or pub- 
 lic grievances, addressed to an authority 
 having the power to afford relief. It also 
 sometimes takes the form of a prayer for 
 the establishment of a general policy for 
 the advancement of the health, morals or 
 comfort of the community. 
 
 The right of petition was recognized 
 in England as early as Magna Oharta. 
 But in early times the object was almost 
 exclusively to serve private or individual 
 purposes, and petition became so com- 
 mon among the subjects of the crown 
 that it soon encroached upon the domain 
 of equity jurisprudence. Men in power 
 sought out excuses for shifting responsi- 
 bility and referring complainants to 
 another quarter for relief. In those 
 times equity or chancery jurisprudence 
 was in its formative period, and seemed 
 to be so broad in scope and so well adapt- 
 ed to meet all such cases that private 
 
 1 See the Voice, Aug. 4, 1887. 
 
Petitions.] 
 
 475 
 
 [Petitions. 
 
 petitioners were naturally sent to Courts 
 of Chancery; hence the origin of peti- 
 tions in chancery. Along with petitions 
 grounded on private grievances came 
 applications of Lords and other titled 
 functionaries for the establishment of 
 the boundary lines of their estates, for 
 determining the number and duties of 
 their retainers and the like; but as it 
 was necessary that these petitions should 
 be in the form of legislative enactments 
 in order that adequate answers might be 
 given to them, they were usually worded 
 in the manner of bills or acts, thus: 
 " We, your Majesty's dutiful subjects, do 
 humbly beseech your Majesty that it may 
 be enacted ; and therefore be it enacted," 
 etc. "While those documents began as 
 petitions they concluded in the phrase- 
 ology of legislative acts or bills ; hence 
 the familiar "bills in chancery." Such 
 proceedings having been taken by dis- 
 tinguished citizens of the kingdom, and 
 having been recognized and acted upon 
 by the crown, the common people were 
 not slow to assert that they should en- 
 joy similar privileges, and so persistent 
 were their claims that Magna Charta 
 made the desired concession. But it was 
 not until the year 1688 that the general 
 privilege was definitely secured to the 
 people, and it was reaffirmed in the Bill 
 of Rights in 1689. Since that time no 
 one has had the temerity to deny the 
 people the right to petition those in 
 authority in behalf of private justice or 
 of public policy. In the United King- 
 dom the state of public sentiment upon 
 this subject for the last 200 years has 
 been such that a formal denial of the 
 right of petition, whether for private or 
 for public purposes, would inevitably have 
 stirred up a revolution that would have 
 shaken, if not overturned, the throne it- 
 self. 
 
 Among the provisions of the United 
 States Constitution is the following: 
 " Congress shall make no law abridging 
 . . . the right of the people ... to peti- 
 tion the Government for a redress of 
 grievances." The Courts, with practical 
 unanimity, have interpreted this clause by 
 declaring that " The Constitution having 
 expressly prohibited Congress from mak- 
 ing any law abridging the right of 
 petition, it follows that no power other 
 than Congress shall make any such law." 
 It would manifestly be a waste of words 
 
 to point out that the term " grievances " 
 applies not merely to personal but also 
 to public grievances, and covers public 
 nuisances and practices of a criminal 
 nature; while the right to petition for 
 redress includes the right to seek the 
 establishment of such a scheme of policy • 
 as will give redress. 
 
 Yet the history of petition in the 
 United States teaches that in prac- 
 tice the right is often substantially 
 denied in proportion to the gravity of 
 the emergency. What the men in au- 
 thority would not dare do directly they 
 have frequently accomplished indirectly. 
 In the long and heated agitation of the 
 slavery question the right of petition was 
 practically refused in numerous instances. 
 In 1836 Congress adopted a resolution 
 declaring that all petitions relative to 
 the abolition of slavery in the District of 
 Columbia be referred to a special com- 
 mittee, whose duty it should be to report 
 that Congress had no power to interfere 
 with slavery in the States and ought not 
 to do so in the District of Columbia. 
 This committee duly performed the work 
 set for it to do, and recommended that 
 all such petitions be laid on the table 
 without reference or debate. In 1837 the 
 resolution was substantially renewed and 
 a stronger one was passed in 1839. Great 
 excitement was occasioned throughout 
 the country, and demands were made 
 upon Congress to recede from its posi- 
 tion. These were responded to by an ex- 
 planatory resolution of the House of 
 Representatives, declaring that Congress 
 had no power to abolish slavery in the 
 States and affirming that the petitions 
 were a part of a scheme to induce Con- 
 gress to do away with the traffic in slaves 
 between the States and with the institu- 
 tion itself in the District and the Terri- 
 tories, and so to threaten and really 
 undermine slavery in the States, and 
 thus cause Congress to perform indirectly 
 what it could not do directly. In conse- 
 quence of this declaration and affirma- 
 tion the resolution provided that all 
 such petitions should be tabled with- 
 out being read, printed, referred or de- 
 bated. Subsequently Congress went a 
 step farther and decreed that none of 
 the petitions in question should be re- 
 ceived or noticed in any manner. To the 
 foreign reader it may seem astonishing 
 if not incredible that such a decision 
 
Petitions.] 
 
 476 
 
 [Petitions. 
 
 could be arrived at by the national Legis- 
 lature under our free Government ; but 
 it was indicated and made inevitable by 
 the logic of events. 
 
 In dealing with the petitions for re- 
 lief from the liquor curse, Congress and 
 ■ most of the State Legislatures have ex- 
 hibited scarcely less hostility and con- 
 tempt. Prohibitory legislation of every 
 kind has been petitioned for by many 
 thousands of citizens. For many years 
 petitions of no other class, relating to 
 public policy, have been received at 
 Washington in such numbers and with 
 such constancy as those calling for the 
 passage of temperance bills. The merits 
 of these measures have been rehearsed in- 
 numerable times in admirable and force- 
 ful language by representatives of the 
 petitioners before committees of Con- 
 gress. But the policy of both Houses 
 has been not to inquire candidly into the 
 subjects presented by the petitioners or 
 to ascertain the desires of the people at 
 large, but to suppress debate and prevent 
 votes. This policy has had remarkable 
 development in the House of Kepresenta- 
 tives, where for four successive years the 
 special Alcoholic Liquor Traffic Commit- 
 tee was organized for the express pur- 
 pose of destroying every temperance bill 
 and shielding the House from the possi- 
 bility of a formal report upon or an hon- 
 est discussion of the measures advocated 
 by the multitudes of earnest petitioners. 
 Geokge C. Christian. 
 
 Under a despotic government the right 
 of petition is a boon to be contended for 
 perseveringly and to be prized and exer- 
 cised freely when secured. But in the 
 United States, so far as it is used to 
 achieve political ends, it is used too much. 
 It is the weakest of weapons. The right 
 of political organization and operation 
 takes its place. When the supporters of 
 a public measure stand together in politi- 
 cal action their representatives will carry 
 out their will without the spur of a 
 petition. The man who signs a petition 
 for Prohibitory law too often thinks that 
 his duty ends with petitioning. He is 
 foolish enough to believe that his name 
 attached to a petition has a force equiva- 
 lent to that of a ballot in favor of the 
 same measure, forgetting that one demand 
 at the ballot-box is more powerful and 
 produces greater results than a dozen re- 
 
 quests to a faithless or an indifferent ser- 
 vant in legislative halls, and that it is 
 much easier and infinitely more logical to 
 elect a friend than to influence an enemy 
 when once the latter is secure in public 
 place and owes his place to opposition 
 votes. 
 
 It is not claimed, however, that 
 petition is at all times and under all 
 circumstances useless. In matters of 
 minor importance, such as the laying 
 out of a road, the building of an asylum, 
 the chartering of a bank or the promo- 
 tion of any object that is not conspicu- 
 ously or profoundly agitated, petition 
 may sometimes be productive of good 
 by acquainting a body like a County 
 Board or even a State Legislature with 
 the subject under consideration and the 
 wishes of the people concerning it. In- 
 deed, we may go far enough to say that 
 in the beginning of a great reform, as a 
 means of agitation and as one of the 
 methods adopted to arrest public atten- 
 tion and secure an expression of in- 
 dividual opinion, the time spent in circu- , 
 lating petitions and obtaining signatures 
 is not entirely lost. A kind of passive 
 support from influential citizens may 
 thus be won. Petitions to licensing 
 boards against the granting of license 
 to particular saloons may also be service- 
 able and sometimes effective. It may 
 be replied that the object of petition can 
 in such cases be advanced more effec- 
 tually by utilizing the public press. But 
 the press cannot always be relied on to 
 champion right and truth, and it is not 
 exempt from the corrupting and partisan 
 influences that so frequently determine 
 the course of legislators. 
 
 The limitations of petition in the gen- 
 eral conflict with the liquor traffic are 
 so many and so serious that it is hardly 
 too much to say that they neutralize, if in- 
 deed they do not more than neutralize, the 
 advantages. More than passive support is 
 required to overthrow a gigantic evil, to 
 overcome popular indifference and to 
 change a long-standing public policy. 
 Not by mere petitioning is a great pub- 
 lic wrong to be dealt with — a wrong that 
 is intrenched in law, that is sustained by 
 millions of money in these days of "boo- 
 dle" politics and whose apologists are 
 able to paralyze great historic parties and 
 prevent them from enacting remedial 
 legislation. To substitute the petitions 
 
Phillips, Wendell.] 
 
 477 
 
 [Phillips, Wendell. 
 
 for the ballot, mere personal favor for 
 positive law, an expression of individual 
 sentiment for a peremptory command, is 
 to invite disobedience and contempt. 
 When the evil is well-known and its 
 workings and results are perfectly under- 
 stood, when the agitation against it has 
 become general and the line of policy 
 has been definitely chosen, then is the 
 time for men to vote rather than to pe- 
 tition, to establish a loyal party rather 
 than to dally with deceitful ones, and to 
 elect friendly officials rather than to 
 humbly beseech neutrals or foes. 
 
 T. 0. Richmond. 
 
 Phillips, Wendell.— The eighth 
 child of John and Sally Walley Phillips; 
 born in Boston, Nov. 29, 1811. His 
 father was the first Mayor of Boston, and 
 among the important offices held by him 
 were those of State Senator and Judge 
 of the Court of Common Pleas. His 
 family was conspicuous for wealth, re- 
 finement and social position. Wendell 
 graduated from Harvard College, rank- 
 ing among the first in his class, at the 
 age of 20, and from the Harvard Law 
 School in 1834, when he was admitted 
 to practice at the Suffolk County bar. 
 Rich, highly educated, endowed with 
 brilliant talents, an Apollo in face and 
 figure, and a member of one of the most 
 aristocratic and influential families, he 
 was the idol of a patrician circle and 
 might have aspired to any position in 
 the gift of the nation. But at the age 
 of 24 he became convinced of the right- 
 eousness of the Anti-Slavery cause and 
 cast his lot with the Abolitionists, led by 
 William Lloyd Garrison, who was then 
 publishing the Liberator. In November, 
 1837, he made his debut as an Anti- 
 Slavery advocate in Faneuil Hall, at a 
 public meeting called by Dr. Channing 
 and others to consider the assassination 
 of Rev. Elijah Lovejoy at Alton, 111., by 
 the slaveocracy of that city. Never be- 
 fore had the old "Cradle of Liberty" 
 echoed to such strains of eloquence, and 
 Mr. Phillips's first important public 
 speech placed him among the foremost 
 and most popular of orators. He left 
 the hall amid ringing applause, all oppo- 
 sition to his sentiments for the moment 
 forgotten in the spell he had cast over 
 his audience — and he left it with the 
 door of every worldly advancement 
 
 closed against him. The aristocracy 
 ostracized him, and he was made to feel 
 that he had offended public sentiment 
 past forgiveness — for at that early day 
 the cause of the slave was despised, and 
 Abolitionism was intensely unpopular. 
 In October, 1837, he married Ann Terry 
 Greene, who, like himself, was well- 
 born, well-reared and wealthy, and al- 
 though Mrs. Phillips was an invalid theirs 
 was an ideal union. She had converted 
 him to the cause of Anti-Slavery, and 
 throughout his life he always spoke of 
 her as his counsellor, his guide and in- 
 spiration. Through obloquy and mis- 
 representation, defamed by mean men 
 in his own native city, hounded by the 
 press, mobbed by intolerant opponents, 
 denounced by the pulpit and the poli- 
 ticians equally, for 40 years he stood un- 
 flinchingly as the friend of the black 
 race and worked for its emancipation 
 till the war accomplished it. 
 
 When the war ended and the army 
 was mustered out, Wendell Phillips said 
 the last orders were, " Close the ranks 
 and ' go forward to new reforms ! " He 
 was the first to obey. He had allied 
 himself long before with organizations 
 that were working for Woman Suffrage, 
 labor reform and temperance, and had 
 frequently made addresses in their in- 
 terest. For he was as conscientiously 
 devoted to these causes as to Anti- 
 Slavery, but Anti-Slavery had the field 
 before the others. In September, 1870, 
 he was nominated for Governor of 
 Massachusetts by the Labor Reform and 
 the Prohibition parties. In his letter of 
 acceptance to the latter he defined his 
 position as follows : 
 
 "As temperance men you were bound to 
 quit the Republican party, since it has deceived 
 you more than once. Any Prohibitionist who 
 adheres to_ it proclaims beforehand his willing- 
 ness to be cheated, and so far as political action 
 is concerned betrays his principles. The Re- 
 publican party deserves our gratitude. It has 
 achieved great results. It will deserve our 
 support whenever it grapples with our present 
 living difficulties. A party must live on present 
 living service, not on laurels, however well 
 earned. . . . The only bulwark against the 
 dangers of intemperance is Prohibition. More 
 than 30 years of experience have convinced me, 
 and as wide an experience has taught you, that 
 this can only be secured by means of a distinct 
 political organization." 
 
 This was his position, and he never 
 wavered from it. He attended numer- 
 
Phillips, Wendell.] 
 
 478 
 
 [Phylloxera. 
 
 ous temperance conventions and was 
 always ready to deliver addresses in 
 favor of Prohibition, lecturing to im- 
 mense Boston audiences on this subject 
 in Tremont Temple and Music Hall. 
 He argued with great force against 
 license and for a complete closing of the 
 grogshops. He believed alcoholic liquors 
 to be the cause, in great part, of the 
 poverty of the laboring people and of 
 corruption in high places, especially in 
 the government of large cities. One of 
 his most powerful speeches against 
 license was delivered in February,, 1880, 
 at the State House in Boston, before a 
 Committee of the Legislature. In the 
 spring of the same year he gave an ad- 
 dress concerning the attitude of some 
 of the Boston ministers on the temper- 
 ance question, which was so caustic that 
 one pitied the offending clergymen. And 
 in January, 1881, Tremont Temple was 
 filled to overflowing when Mr. Phillips 
 reviewed Dr. Howard Crosby's anti-total 
 abstinence discourse. It was in the 
 orator's best vein, brilliant, scathing, 
 merciless, pitiless. " The statute-books 
 in 40 States," said he on this occasion, 
 " are filled with the abortions of thou- 
 sands of license laws that were never 
 executed, and most of them were never 
 intended to be. . . . License has been 
 tried under the most favorable circum- 
 stances and with the best backing for 
 centuries, — 10 or 12 at least. . . . We 
 have never been allowed to try Prohibi- 
 tion except in one State and in some 
 small circuits. Wherever it has been 
 tried it has succeeded. Friends who 
 know, claim this ; enemies who have been 
 for a dozen years ruining their teeth by 
 biting files, confess it by their lack of 
 argument and lack of facts except when 
 they invent them." 
 
 Mr. Phillips died in Boston, Feb. 2, 
 1884, after a grand life of 72 years. The 
 city of Boston, which had mobbed him 
 and defamed his great name, gave itself 
 up to grief when he was gone, put on 
 mourning for his death, tolled the funeral 
 bells, passed resolutions in his honor, 
 and called for eulogistic orations from 
 eminent citizens. But he would have 
 accounted himself more highly honored 
 by the wreaths that were laid on his 
 coffin by workingmen and by the tears 
 of the poor he had befriended. Sobs 
 broke from the hearts of thousands who 
 
 came to look their last on the face of him 
 whose life was a ceaseless protest against 
 wrong and injustice, and whose voice was 
 a trumpet-call to be true to the truth 
 though the world stand in arms for the 
 lie. Mary A. Livekmobb. 
 
 Phylloxera. — A genus of insect, 
 classed between plant lice (aphidem) and 
 bark lice (coccidm), and having 16 known 
 species in America and several in Europe; 
 also a name given to a disease of the 
 grape-vine, caused by the ravages of this 
 insect upon its roots. The phylloxera 
 plague first appeared in 1865 in the 
 French vineyards of the lower valley of 
 the Ehone, and it increased in virulence 
 year by year, infecting and destroying 
 hundreds of thousands of acres of the 
 choicest vines in France and spreading 
 to the other wine-producing countries. 
 In 1868 Prof. J. E. Planchon of Mont- 
 pelier, France, traced the mysterious dis- 
 ease to its true source, the minute insect 
 named by him. phylloxera vastatrix, which 
 he found at the roots of the disordered 
 vines, consuming and rotting them. Con- 
 cerning the origin of the pest there is 
 some controversy. In 1870 Prof. C. V. 
 Kiley of St. Louis, Mo., announced that 
 he had established the identity of the 
 European root phylloxera with the in- 
 sect called by Dr. Fitch pemphigus viti- 
 folice, which makes galls upon the leaves 
 of American grape-vines. Indeed, the 
 opinion that the phylloxera was intro- 
 duced from America has always been 
 generally accepted; and it seemed to be 
 confirmed by the fact that European 
 viticulturists, experimenting with Amer- 
 ican vines, found that the phylloxera 
 made its first attacks upon them or in 
 their vicinity. Consequently in the first 
 years of the plague most of the European 
 wine-producing countries, as well as Aus- 
 tralia, passed laws prohibiting the im- 
 portation of American vines. On the 
 other hand some scientists maintain that 
 there is no foundation for the belief in 
 the American origin of the phylloxera. 
 Miret, a French writer, thinks it as likely 
 that the origin was " spontaneous " as 
 that it was American ; and Chevalier Eo- 
 vasendo, the Italian, mournfully observes 
 that " the origin of phylloxera is a ques- 
 tion which dominates and is entirely su- 
 perior to human intelligence." Apart 
 from the question whether America is 
 
Phylloxera.] 
 
 479 
 
 [Phylloxera. 
 
 responsible for the scourge, it is certain 
 that America has contributed the most 
 effectual means of combating it. While 
 some varieties of American vines yield 
 more or less readily to the phylloxera, 
 others, because of their hardiness, resist 
 it successfully. Consequently the vine- 
 growers of Europe replant their wasted 
 lands with American vine-stocks, graft- 
 ing upon them the European varieties 
 of the grape. But this practice is not a 
 sure preventative, for even the hardy 
 American vines have often been found to 
 succumb to the phylloxera in the course 
 of a few jears, while conditions of cli- 
 mate and soil are sometimes unfavorable 
 to the vigorous growth of the trans- 
 planted stocks. Various chemical sub- 
 stances (especially bisulphuret of car- 
 bon), applied to the roots of the diseased 
 vines, destroy the phylloxera ; but treat- 
 ment with such remedies is costly, must 
 be renewed many times and often kills 
 the plants. The French Government has 
 offered large rewards for the discovery of 
 a thoroughly effectual cure and has as- 
 sisted the distressed vineyardists in va- 
 rious ways, especially by remitting taxes 
 upon their lands. But it has been im- 
 possible to exterminate the pest. In some 
 instances its destructive work has been 
 arrested by the means mentioned, but its 
 devastations are still widespread. 
 
 The amount of wealth destroyed by 
 the phylloxera in France is astounding. 
 George W. Roosevelt, United States Con- 
 sul at Bordeaux in 1888, in a carefully- 
 prepared official communication wrote: 
 
 " Prom official statistics the surface of vines 
 totally destroyed by this indomitable plague is 
 placed at more than 1,000,000 hectares, with 
 664,511 hectares of diseased vines, which, estim- 
 ated at most favorable average, are calculated 
 as an additional 200,000 hectares of dead vines. 
 The actual area of destroyed vines is 1,200,000 
 hectares, or about one-half of the vineyards of 
 France. (One hectare=2.47 acres.) 
 
 "The relative value of the property destroyed 
 is from a national point of view inestimable. 
 To proprietors, and those dependent upon the 
 wine industry as a means of livelihood, the 
 destruction of the vines is incalculable, as the 
 naked ground has but a minimum value, owing 
 to its unsuitable condition to grow other crops. 
 It is generally estimated that a hectare of vines 
 represents a money value equivalent to 6,000 
 francs. Taking this sum as a basis I find that 
 so far Prance has sustained a loss of 7,200,000,- 
 000 francs (exceeding $1,400,000,000) as a result 
 of vines destroyed. To this may be added loss 
 of private revenue and wages, which latter are 
 difficult to estimate but which may to a certain 
 
 extent be determined by the amount of foreign 
 wines and dried grapes annually imported into 
 Prance for the sole purpose of supplying the 
 deficit in the home yield. Below is a tabulated 
 statement of values of wines and dried grapes 
 imported into Prance from 1875 to 1887, in- 
 clusive: 
 
 Teaks. 
 
 Ordinary 
 Wines. 
 
 Dried Grapes. 
 
 1875 
 
 1876 
 
 1877 
 
 1878 
 
 1879 
 
 1880 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 
 Francs. 
 
 8,351,741 
 
 18,408,811 
 
 22,598,989 
 
 50,304,145 
 
 107,479,899 
 
 297,917,348 
 
 346,516,435 
 
 395,307,947 
 
 860,000,000 
 
 319,664,336 
 
 861,476,779 
 
 489,985,194 
 
 545,000,000 
 
 3,323,806,504 
 
 Francs. 
 
 5,755,614 
 
 5,447,204 
 
 8,649,482 
 
 14,829.096 
 
 40,807,043 
 
 62,631,970 
 
 37,364,289 
 
 31,903.088 
 
 39,000,000 
 
 49,644,909 
 
 95,350,824 
 
 88,422,465 
 
 98,000,000 
 
 577,805,984 
 
 1883 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 Totals 
 
 " It will be seen by the above that 3,800,612,- 
 488 francs have been expended for foreign 
 wines and dried grapes, which, added to the 
 7,200,000,000 francs reckoned as values of vines 
 totally destroyed, shows an approximate loss of 
 more than 10,000,000,000 francs (about $2,000,- 
 000,000) as a consequence of the phylloxera, 
 which has also been one of the principal causes 
 of the stringency in agricultural, industrial and 
 commercial affairs during the past few years. " » 
 
 Amazing as these figures are, they do 
 not reveal the full significance of the 
 facts. It is necessary to examine in de- 
 tail the results of the phylloxera's rav- 
 ages in order to make satisfactory deduc- 
 tions. Each particular wine of France 
 is produced from a particular variety of 
 grape, whose cultivation is confined to a 
 particular district. Bordeaux or claret 
 is obtained in the Medoc district, cham- 
 pagne in the Marne, etc. French statis- 
 tics show to what extent the phylloxera 
 has destroyed the vines of each district, 
 and much instructive information can 
 be derived from a study of separate re- 
 turns. Scarcely any district has been 
 free from the phylloxera. One by one 
 they have been wasted by the terrible in- 
 sect. Up to 1890 the champagne vine- 
 yards had wholly escaped, but in that 
 year the phylloxera appeared and it was 
 admitted that all the champagne vines, 
 covering 35,000 acres and yielding 10,- 
 000,000 gallons annually, were doomed, 
 and that the supply of this wine would, 
 for the immediate future at least, be 
 very small. It will be interesting to 
 note whether the American importations 
 of French champagnes will, in the next 
 
 ' United States Consular Keports, July, 1889 0PP- 65-70). 
 
Phylloxera.] 
 
 480 
 
 [Phylloxera. 
 
 few years, be in ratio to the continuing 
 demand or to the exhausted supply. 
 
 The history of the phylloxera's work 
 in the cognac brandy district is typi- 
 cal. Cognac brandy is distilled from 
 the wine of the departments , of 
 Charente and Charente-Inferieure, and 
 adjacent islands. The town of Cog- 
 nac is the commercial center of this 
 district. In the United States Consular 
 reports for January, 1889 (pp. 145-9), was 
 printed a report from Oscar Malmroc, 
 Consul at Cognac, in which the effects of 
 the phylloxera scourge upoji brandy pro- 
 duction were thoroughly presented. The 
 table below shows (1) the number of gal- 
 lons of wine produced, respectively, in 
 the Charente and the Charente-Inferi- 
 eure for each year from 1877 to 1887, in- 
 clusive ; and (2) the number of gallons of 
 cognac brandy that would have been pro- 
 duced if the entire wine-yield had been 
 turned into brandy. The official figures 
 of wine production are given in hecto- 
 liters in Consul Malmroc's report, and the 
 quantities below are calculated on the 
 basis of 26.417 United States gallons to 
 the hectoliter. The "equivalents in 
 brandy " are obtained by accepting Consul 
 Malmroc's estimate that 8£ hectoliters of 
 the wine are required to produce one 
 hectoliter of brandy. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Wine Produced. 
 
 Equivalents in 
 Brandt. 
 
 Charente. 
 
 Charente- 
 Inferieure. 
 
 Charente. 
 
 Charente- 
 Inferieure. 
 
 1877 
 1878 
 1879 
 1880 
 1881 
 1882 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 
 Galls. 
 
 94,267,057 
 
 54,273,991 
 
 14,506,684 
 
 22,07f,514 
 
 16,169,434 
 
 6,523,969 
 
 8,093,878 
 
 5,726,941 
 
 2,976,932 
 
 1,992,159 
 
 1,869,505 
 
 Galls. 
 
 131,578,824 
 122,356,966 
 34,547,307 
 49,503,979 
 45,086,660 
 31,099,439 
 38,618,590 
 30,242,684 
 16,091,968 
 18,460,252 
 15,897,064 
 
 Galls. 
 
 11.090,242 
 
 6.385,175 
 
 1,706,669 
 
 2,597,590 
 
 1,784,639 
 
 767,526 
 
 952,221 
 
 673,758 
 
 350,227 
 
 234,372 
 
 219,942 
 
 Galls. 
 
 15,479,861 
 14,394,937 
 4,064.389 
 6.823,998 
 5,304,313 
 3,658,757 
 4,543,304 
 3,557,963 
 1,893,179 
 2,171,794 
 1,870,243 
 
 In the five years 1872-6 there were 
 412,863,632 gallons of wine made in 
 the Charente and 687,499,915 gallons 
 of wine in the Charente-Inferieure ; 
 yearly average, 220,072,709 gallons of 
 wine for the two departments. Equiva- 
 lents in brandy (if the entire wine pro- 
 duct were distilled into brandy), for the 
 five years, 48,572,192 gallons in the 
 Charente and 80,882,343 gallons in the 
 Charente-Inferieure; yearly average, 25,- 
 890,907 gallons of brandy for the two 
 departments. By comparing these yearly 
 
 averages with the ones for 1887, it will 
 be seen that the maximum quantity of 
 wine available for cognac brandy (sup- 
 posing every gallon produced in the two 
 Charentes was available) has been re- 
 duced 92 per cent, in the dozen years 
 during which the ravages of the phyl- 
 loxera were most serious in the two 
 Charentes. 
 
 The above estimates of "equivalents 
 in brandy" are, however, misleading. 
 The best cognac brandy, properly so- 
 called, comes (or came) chiefly from that 
 division of the Charente known as the 
 Grand Champagne. A large part of the 
 wine product in other divisions of the 
 Charente and in some portions of the 
 Charente-Inferieure was also used for 
 making cognac ; but a very considerable 
 part has always been deemed unfit for 
 distillation into export cognac, and has 
 been used for the manufacture of spirits 
 to be employed in adulteration, while 
 another considerable part has been sent 
 to the north of France and to Holland for 
 consumption among drinkers of unexact- 
 ing tastes. Singularly enough, the phyl- 
 loxera's fiercest attacks were made upon 
 the vines which produced the genuine 
 cognac wine, and these vines were almost 
 completely destroyed. Undoubtedly the 
 largest part of the crops of 1882-7 was 
 unsuitable for the manufacture of cognac 
 brandy. From these facts it will be 
 readily believed that for quite a number 
 of years past honest French brandy has 
 been one of the very scarcest articles of 
 commerce, in proportion to the demand. 
 
 Yet Consul Malmroc declares that "dur- 
 ing the period 1886-8 'an average ship- 
 ment per year of cognac brandy was made 
 of [only] one half less than the average 
 yearly shipment of the ante phylloxera 
 period," and that " the consumption of 
 cognac brandy in France during the last 
 10 years has not diminished." The im- 
 ports of French brandy into the United 
 States have not materially changed in 
 the last decade. Previously to 1884 the 
 United States statistics did not classify 
 brandy imports separately, but included 
 them under the general head of " spirits 
 and cordials." The total imports of 
 spirits and cordials from France for the 
 four years 1880-3, with values, were: 
 1880—398,246 proof gallons, valued at 
 $1,108,072; 1881—370,793 proof gallons, 
 valued at $1,082,838; 1882 — 442,993 
 
Phylloxera.] 
 
 481 
 
 [Phylloxera. 
 
 proof gallons, valued at $1,303,415; 1883 
 — 424.903 proof gallons, valued at II,- 
 319,721. For the years 1884-9 the 
 quantities and values of " brandy " im- 
 ported from France were : 
 
 Tears Ending 
 June 30. 
 
 Pkoof Gallons. 
 
 Values. 
 
 1884. 
 1885. 
 1886. 
 1887. 
 1888. 
 1889. 
 
 452,570 
 462,216 
 388,440 
 364,612 
 379,605 
 357,658 
 
 $1,131,874 
 
 1,128,710 
 
 1,019,630 
 
 972,726 
 
 1,035,278 
 
 977,318 
 
 Thus in 1889 our imports of French 
 " brandy " lacked only about 40,000 gal- 
 lons of being equivalent to the whole im- 
 ports of French spirits and cordials in 
 1880. In 1880 the effects of the phyl- 
 loxera's devastations upon commerce in 
 genuine French brandy had only begun 
 to be felt; for honest brandy is not mar- 
 ketable until two or three years after 
 its production. Therefore the imports 
 into the United States in 1880 may possi- 
 bly be regarded as imports, for the most 
 part, of tolerably pure French brandy. 
 But what is to be said of the imports for 
 the succeeding nine years ? While the 
 maximum production of cognac decreas- 
 ed at least 92 per cent., the American 
 supply of French brandy does not seem 
 to have been diminished. And the arti- 
 cle apparently was no costlier in 1889 
 than in 1880. These remarkable figures 
 can be explained only by the conclusion 
 that the American public has been drink- 
 ing each year some 375,000 gallons, or 
 upwards of 25,000,000 drams, of vilely 
 adulterated French spirits in the guise of 
 so-called brandy. 
 
 If it could be ascertained how much 
 potato and beet spirits has been imported 
 into the cognac district in the last decade, 
 and to what extent the traffic in subtile 
 chemical substances (such as are em- 
 ployed by the more clever than scrupu- 
 lous liquor-makers in the United States) 
 has been augmented there, a partial ex- 
 planation of the continuance of a heavy 
 "trade in cognac brandy after the practi- 
 cal disappearance of cognac brandy might 
 be obtained. 
 
 The great lesson taught by the long- 
 continued phylloxera plague is that the 
 wine of commerce, the drink that is sup- 
 posed to be both innocent and grateful, 
 can no longer by any possibility be even 
 
 relatively pure. Even before the phyl- 
 loxera was known most of the wine on 
 the market was regarded with grave sus- 
 picion, and extensive vineyards in certain 
 localities were destroyed, or the vintages 
 repeatedly failed, on account of the in- 
 jury done by the oidium, mildew, black- 
 rot and other vine-pests and diseases. 
 Since the phylloxera began its operations 
 the demand for wine has gone on increas- 
 ing. With a vastly diminished supply, 
 it has of course been impossible to meet 
 this demand without resorting to exten- 
 sive adulterations. For the vineyard, 
 the still and the laboratory have been 
 substituted. France, which imported 
 only 3,344,656 gallons of wine in 1870, im- 
 ported 290,874,813 gallons in 1886. (See 
 p. 132.) This immense quantity of wine 
 now imported into France is chiefly cheap 
 Spanish, Portuguese and Algerian stuff, 
 used for adulterating the French articles. 
 Meanwhile France's importations of dis- 
 tilled spirits have increased three-fold 
 and her exportations of spirits have de- 
 creased nearly 40 per cent, (see p. 132), 
 indicating that not only cheap wine but 
 also raw alcohol has been used on a great 
 scale to swell the volume of her own 
 wine product. In order that the former 
 superior qualities of flavor might not 
 suffer from all this blending and forti- 
 fying, the skill of the chemist has been 
 in request, and the most harmful drugs 
 have been employed for " doctoring " the 
 French brands. The phylloxera has not 
 promoted temperance, but it has provided 
 a very weighty reason for the discontin- 
 uance of wine-drinking: it has demon- 
 strated beyond dispute that no one but 
 an expert can now venture to drink of 
 the decoctions labelled " wine " with any 
 assurance that the article consumed is 
 not highly and poisonously adulterated. 
 Though the most destructive attacks 
 of the phylloxera have been made in 
 France, there is hardly a wine-producing 
 country where its inroads have not been 
 seriously felt. Official reports up to the 
 beginning of 1888 showed that some 
 200,000 acres of vineyards had been de- 
 vastated in Spain; that there were 335,- 
 000 acres of infected vines in Portugal, 
 nearly one-half of all the vines in that 
 kingdom having been diseased; that in 
 Italy 211,000 acres of vines had been at- 
 tacked by the phylloxera; that in Hun- 
 gary 190,000 acres had been infected, 
 
-Physical Training.] 
 
 482 
 
 [Physical Training. 
 
 the vines having been totally destroyed 
 throughout nearly one-half of this area; 
 that in Eussia the districts of Odessa, 
 Bessarabia, Crimea and Caucasus were 
 under infection in 1888, and that fresh 
 attacks of the phylloxera were being 
 made yearly in Germany, Switzerland 
 and other countries. 1 
 
 Physical Training.— Our leading 
 American institutions of learning have 
 expended hundreds of thousands of dol- 
 lars upon their gymnasia, and these 
 outlays have been sanctioned by men 
 who may rightfully claim to rank with 
 the wisest of the nation — the college 
 presidents and professors. These pro- 
 visions for physical training have been 
 made because it has been found that the 
 youth can do better work, both mental 
 and physical, if the body is properly de- 
 veloped. Due consideration of the sig- 
 nificance and the results of this accept- 
 ance of the physical education idea in 
 our colleges will go far toward removing 
 the impression that the tendency of ath- 
 letic culture is essentially to promote 
 prize-fighting, brutality, a low moral 
 standard, betting and kindred evils. 
 However serious may be the abuses com- 
 ing from perversions of individual phys- 
 ical superiority, it is a fact that the sys- 
 tematic and judicious prosecution of 
 physical training is for the welfare of the 
 race, and that its really representative and 
 truly scientific promoters are among the 
 most uncompromising and most import- 
 ant advocates and exemplars of good 
 personal habits and practices as opposed 
 to bad. No persons are better qualified 
 to testify concerning the nature and 
 effects of alcohol, and none, as a class, 
 are more emphatic in condemning drink 
 as an unqualifiedly worthless and in- 
 jurious thing or in declaring that total 
 abstinence is not merely a virtue but an 
 advantage. 
 
 Exercise has been erroneously associ- 
 ated with the development of the volun- 
 tary muscular system only. But all the 
 organs of the body, including the brain, 
 share in the improvement that gymnas- 
 tics gives to the voluntary muscles. The 
 heart especially is stimulated during exer- 
 cise because of the added work it must 
 do to assist in the metamorphosis of 
 
 1 Report from James H. Smith of the United States 
 Commercial Agency at Mayence, Germany ; United States 
 Consular Reports for June, 1890, pp. 304-6. 
 
 tissue. This work — provided it is not 
 over-work — strengthens the heart and 
 keeps it in excellent condition. Deficient 
 exercise leads to fatty degeneration and 
 weakness, but over-exertion causes valvu- 
 lar trouble, palpitation and hypertrophy 
 while straining and thus weakening the 
 blood-vessels. The " whiskey heart " be- 
 trays fatty and fibrous degeneration, a 
 direct result of the use of alcohol. One 
 of the most valuable effects of muscular 
 exercise is that produced on the lungs. 
 The pulmonary circulation is quickened, 
 while the amount of air inspired and of 
 carbon dioxide exhaled is greatly in- 
 creased. This is in accordance with a 
 law of nature and indicates a healthy 
 condition. Excessive exercise is danger- 
 ous for these organs, but moderate action, 
 systematically planned, is necessary in or- 
 der that the blood may be purified and the 
 carbon may be eliminated from the body. 
 Another point: if the loss of carbon 
 from the lungs be great there must be a 
 sufficient supply of such food as contains 
 this element to repair the waste. It has 
 been noticed that men in training will 
 choose the fats rather than the starehy 
 foods, thus easily and naturally preserv- 
 ing the equilibrium of the body or sys- 
 tem. "Alcohol," says Parkes, "lessens 
 the excretion of pulmonary carbon diox- 
 ide. It is hurtful during exercise, and 
 it is perhaps for this reason, as well 
 as from the deadening action on the 
 nerves of volition, that those who take 
 alcohol are incapable of great exertion." 
 Indeed, it is now well understood that 
 alcohol is not given by good trainers, and 
 that even its external application is not 
 sanctioned. 
 
 Exercise increases the healthy action 
 of the organs of digestion and assimila- 
 tion, while alcohol checks it and produces, 
 chronic catarrhal conditions. Habitual 
 exercise causes appetite; habitual indul- 
 gence in alcohol lessens appetite. A 
 healthy appetite calls for healthful food 
 and thus the blood is enriched ; an appe- 
 tite that depends on alcohol is depraved 
 and requires a like food — consequently 
 the result is poor blood, watery, and weak 
 in reconstructive elements. We have 
 seen that the heart and lungs made strong 
 by gymnastics do good work. Especially 
 is this the case if they have blood rich in 
 quality to work with. A very important- 
 result of physical training is the build- 
 
Physical Training.] 
 
 483 
 
 [Pierpont, John. 
 
 ing up of the entire body; but if alcohol 
 is habitually used the whole system 
 suffers. 
 
 Through the blood the body is warmed. 
 Exercise is nature's method of maintain- 
 ing an even temperature. On a cold day 
 notice the stamping of feet, slapping of 
 hands and swinging of arms. It is uni- 
 versally admitted by Arctic explorers that 
 alcohol does not produce heat but that on 
 the contrary it is harmful, and that 
 muscular exertion or exercise is of far 
 greater value than alcoholic beverages. 
 Dr. Hayes not only refused to use such 
 beverages but also declined to engage 
 men who were in the habit of drinking. 
 
 One more comparison. Gymnastics 
 developes not only the muscular system 
 but through it the nerves and brain. 
 Many eminent physiologists agree that 
 the gray matter in the brain is developed 
 by this training, and that exercise is, to 
 a certain extent, the promoter of the 
 highest kind of will-power — that of self- 
 control. The damaging effect of alcohol 
 on the brain and mind is only too well 
 known. The tremor of the body of the 
 drinking man, the varying mental power, 
 the recurring irritability and lack of 
 self-control, the delirium, indicate shat- 
 tered nerves. Not only does the man 
 himself show the demoralizing effects of 
 drink but his children are likely to be 
 epileptic, idiotic or " odd." On the other 
 hand a man can so develop his muscular 
 and nervous system that, balanced on his 
 head with feet in air and arms extended, 
 he can swing on a small trapeze many 
 feet from the ground. 
 
 Briefly, the following important truths 
 lie close to all the fundamental laws 
 established by practical experiments in 
 physical training : 
 
 1. — The continued and excessive use of 
 alcohol is destructive to mind and body, 
 or, as Dickinson says, alcohol is the very 
 " genius of degeneration." 
 
 2. — The result of temperance and ab- 
 stinence is toward off destruction , and 
 misery, and to restore health, vigor and 
 happiness to those who have lost these 
 things through indulgence. Thus the 
 influence exercised is both preventive and 
 curative. 
 
 3. — The effects of exercise and alcohol 
 are antagonistic. Alcohol destroys, exer- 
 cise builds up. Weakness, destruction, 
 misery and death spring from alcohol; 
 
 growth, happiness and health are the re- 
 sults of exercise. The work done by 
 exercise is prophylactic and remedial; 
 that done by alcohol is the reverse. The 
 best physical condition is purity of mind 
 and body ; this is ministered to equally 
 by exercise and temperance. 
 
 The principles of temperance are 
 taught to children. The principles of 
 physical training should be taught as 
 well. With a healthy body is likely to 
 go a healthy mind, capable of finer per- 
 ceptions and clearer judgment. Who 
 would knowingly wreck a fine physical 
 organization, fully developed, on the 
 shoals of vice ? Let the good Christian 
 worker and the conscientious educator 
 inspire inexperienced youth to cultivate 
 all the attractions that come from health 
 and strength, and the danger from the 
 false allurements of intemperance will 
 be greatly reduced. 
 
 William G. Andekson. 
 
 Pierpont, John. — Born in Litch- 
 field, Conn, April 6, 1785; died in Med- 
 ford, Mass., Aug. 27, 1866. He entered 
 Yale College at the age of 15, graduating 
 in 1804. For a short time he was assist- 
 ant in an academy at Bethlehem, Conn., 
 and in the fall of 1805 he became private 
 tutor in the family of Col. William Alls- 
 ton of South Carolina. Keturning to 
 the North in 1809 he began the study of 
 law. In 1812 he was admitted to the 
 bar and commenced practice in Newbury- 
 port, Mass., but he soon gave up the pro- 
 fession on account of ill-health and en- 
 gaged in business as a merchant, first in 
 Boston and later in Baltimore. In the 
 latter city, in 1816, he issued a volume 
 of poems, "Airs of Palestine." About 
 the same time he undertook the study of 
 theology, finishing his course at the Cam- 
 bridge Divinity School. In April, 1819, 
 he was ordained pastor of the Hollis 
 street (Unitarian) Church, Boston, of 
 which he retained charge until 1845, al- 
 though in 1835-6 he was absent on an 
 extended tour in Europe and Asia Minor. 
 Before his visit to Europe his radical 
 temperance views, freely expressed, had 
 occasioned considerable feeling on the 
 part of some members of his congrega- 
 tion who were engaged in the liquor 
 traffic, and after his return, in 1838, this 
 prejudice took the form first of contro- 
 versy and afterward of charges against 
 
Pledge.] 
 
 484 
 
 [Pledge. 
 
 him. He sustained himself against his 
 enemies for seven years and then re- 
 quested a dismissal from his church. He 
 ■was pastor of the Unitarian Church of 
 Troy, K Y., from 1845 to 1849, and dur- 
 ing the succeeding seven years was in 
 charge of the Congregational Church at 
 Medford, Mass., resigning April 6, 1856. 
 He was a candidate of the Liberal party 
 for Governor of Massachusetts, and in 
 1850 he was nominated for Congress by 
 the Free-soilers. A zealous advocate both 
 of Abolition principles and the tem- 
 perance reform, he wrote able articles 
 and numerous verses in support of these 
 causes. He was the author of the fami- 
 liar lines: 
 
 " We have a weapon firmer set 
 And better than the bayonet — 
 A weapon that comes down as still 
 
 As snowflakes fall upon the sod, 
 Yet executes a freeman's will 
 
 As lightning does the will of God." 
 
 The following is from a petition (writ- 
 ten by him) to the Massachusetts Legis- 
 lature : 
 
 " If I be willingly accessory to my brother's 
 death by pistol or cord the law holds me guilty, 
 but guiltless if I mix his death-drink in a cup. 
 The halter is my reward if I bring him his death 
 in a bowl of hemlock; if in a glass of spirits I 
 am rewarded with his purse. Yet who would not 
 rather die, who would not rather see his child 
 die, by hemlock than by rum ? The law raises me 
 a gallows if I set fire to my neighbor's house, 
 though not a fowl perish in the flames; but if I 
 throw a torch into his household I may lead his 
 children through a Are more consuming than 
 Moloch's, I may make his whole family a burnt- 
 offering on the altar of Mammon, and the same 
 law holds a shield between me and harm. It 
 has installed me in my office, and it comes in to 
 protect alike the priest, the altar and the god. 
 For the victims it has no sympathies; for them 
 it provides neither ransom nor avenger. But 
 there is an Avenger. "While these sacrifices are 
 smoking on their thousand altars through the 
 length and breadth of our land, the Ruler of the 
 nations is bringing upon us the penalties of his 
 laws in the consequence of breaking them." 
 
 Pledge. — In all ages pledges have 
 heen taken by individuals to emphasize 
 resolution or mark important departures. 
 The Old Testament church was distin- 
 guished by its solemn covenants. " They 
 shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and per- 
 form it." (Isa. 19 : 21.) The ordinances 
 •of Christianity are little else than prac- 
 tical pledges. Pliny relates that the 
 early disciples were accustomed to meet 
 before daylight, to sing hymns to Christ 
 and " to bind themselves by an oath " to 
 abstain from all wickedness. John How- 
 
 ard, the philanthropist, signed a written 
 pledge to devote himself and all that he 
 possessed to the service of G-od. 
 
 For many years past " the pledge " has 
 been one of the chief agencies of the 
 temperance reformers. Dr. F. E. Lees 
 defines a temperance pledge thus : " (1) 
 The expression of a conviction ; (2) The 
 declaration of a purpose; (3) The utter- 
 ance of a protest; (4) A bond of sym- 
 pathetic union." Paley, in his " Moral 
 Philosophy," says : " Many a man will 
 abstain rather then break his rule who 
 would not easily be brought to exercise 
 the same mortification from higher mo- 
 tives." True it is that a great many tak- 
 ing the pledge in consequence of momen- 
 tary sentimental impulse, or even of 
 matured decision, have not the moral 
 strength to adhere to it, but relapse into 
 excess more or less speedily. But large 
 numbers, constituting not an inconsider- 
 able proportion of all the pledge-signers, 
 are saved, are permanently reclaimed, 
 often by the force of that pride or sheer 
 tenacity to which Paley alludes, but not 
 infrequently from the very highest of 
 motives. The benefits that the pledge 
 has bestowed upon individuals and 
 families are inestimable. It is the in- 
 strumentality to which the world owes 
 the rescue and great services of some of 
 the most famous temperance agitators. It 
 was the basis of all the early temperance 
 societies and the great crusades conducted 
 by Father Mathew, the Washingtonians 
 and others. To-day, although efforts for 
 the suppression of the traffic have largely 
 replaced primitive methods, the pledge 
 still plays an important part. The differ- 
 ent temperance organizations require 
 their members to subscribe to it and the 
 moral suasion orators at their numerous 
 meetings obtain many thousands of sig- 
 natures to it. But the pledge is now re- 
 garded as simply a preparatory measure, 
 whose introduction, on however great a 
 scale, is a means and not an end. 
 
 One of the oldest temperance pledges 
 on record was written on the blank leaf 
 of an old Irish Bible by R. Bolton, 
 Broughton, Northamptonshire, April 10, 
 1637, as follows: 
 
 "From this day forwarde to the ende of my 
 life, I will never pledge any healthe, nor drinke 
 in a whole carouse, in a glass, cup, bowle or 
 other drinking instrument, wheresoever it may 
 be, from whomsoever it come — except the neces- 
 sity doth require it, Not my own most gracious 
 
Poisons.] 
 
 485 
 
 [Poisons. 
 
 kinge, nor even the greatest monarch or tyrant 
 upon earthe, nor my dearest friend, nor all the 
 goulde In the world, shall ever enforce me. Not 
 angel from heaven (who I know will not attempt 
 it) shall persuade, nor Sata,n with all his oulde 
 subtleties, nor all the power of hell itself shall 
 betray me. By this very sinne (for sinne it is, 
 and not a little one) I have more offended and 
 dishonored my glorious Maker than by all other 
 sinne that I am subject untoe, and for this very 
 sinne it is my God hath often been strange untoe 
 me, and for that cause and no other respect 
 have I thus vowed, and I heartily beg my good 
 Father in heaven of his great goodness and in- 
 finite mercy in Jesus Christ to assist me in the 
 same„ and be so favorable untoe me for what is 
 past." 
 
 A simple and comprehensive pledge, 
 appropriate for all classes and countries 
 at the present day, is the following : " I 
 solemnly promise to abstain from the 
 manufacture, sale and use of all alcoholic 
 beverages, and to labor in every honora- 
 ble way to dissuade the drinker and 
 destroy the dramshop." 
 
 Poisons have been denned as sub- 
 stances which, when administered in 
 small quantities, are capable of produc- 
 ing deleterious or deadly effects upon the 
 animal organism. The study of those 
 effects is the main key to the problem of 
 temperance. 
 
 Under the three heads of Irritants, 
 Narcotics and Narcotico-Irritants chem- 
 ists have enumerated some 200 different 
 organic and inorganic simples and com- 
 pounds, all of which, in their action upon 
 the human system, are characterized by 
 the following specific symptoms : To the 
 palate of undepraved human beings all 
 poisons are either repulsive or insipid, 
 yet by their gradual and persistent obtru- 
 sion upon the reluctant organism those 
 objects of aversion may beget an un- 
 natural craving for repetitions of the 
 noxious dose, and the persistence and 
 progressiveness of that morbid appetency 
 is proportioned to the virulence of each 
 poison. 
 
 1. — Repulsiveness of Poisons.— Under 
 normal circumstances the attractiveness 
 of alimentary substances is generally pro- 
 portioned to the degree of their health- 
 fulness and their nutritive value, while 
 the repulsiveness of poison is with rare 
 exceptions proportioned to the degree of 
 their hurtfulness. Providence has en- 
 dowed our species with a large share of 
 the self-protective instincts that teach 
 our dumb fellow-creatures to select their 
 
 proper food. A child's hankering after 
 sweetmeats is only an apparent excep- 
 tion, for, as Dr. Schrodt observes, the 
 conventional diet of our children is so 
 deficient in saccharine elements that in- 
 stinct constantly prompts them to supply 
 an unsatisfied want. Human beings fed. 
 chiefly on fruit-syrups would hanker 
 after farinaceous substances. The sav- 
 ages of our northwestern prairies are as 
 fond of honey as their grizzly neighbors. 
 Sailors in the tropics instinctively thirst 
 after refrigerating fluids, after fruit and 
 fresh vegetables. In the Arctic regions 
 they crave calorific food — oil or fat. 
 
 But in no climate of this earth is man 
 afflicted with an instinctive hankering 
 after poison. No human being ever 
 relished the first taste of any stimulant. 
 To the palate of a healthy child tea is in- 
 sipid, the taste of coffee (unless disguised 
 by milk or sugar) offensively bitter, 
 laudanum acrid-caustic, alcohol as repul- 
 sive as corrosive sublimate. No tobacco- 
 smoker ever forgets his horror at the first 
 attempt — the seasick-like misery and 
 headache, expressing nature's protest 
 against the incipience of a health-destroy- 
 ing habit. Of lager beer — " the grateful 
 and nutritious beverage" which our 
 brewers are now prepared to furnish at 
 the rate of 2,000,000 gallons a day, — the 
 first glass is shockingly nauseous, so 
 much so, indeed, as to be a fluid substi- 
 tute for tartar emetic. Nor do our in- 
 stincts yield after the first protest: 
 nausea, gripes, nervous headaches and 
 gastric spasms warn us again and again, 
 till the perversion of our inborn tastes at 
 last begets a morbid craving for the 
 repetition of the unnatural process of 
 irritation. 
 
 As a singular exception to this gen- 
 eral rule physiologists have often men- 
 tioned the non-repulsiveness of certain 
 mineral poisons. Arsenious acid (com- 
 mon white arsenic), for instance, does 
 not betray itself by any taste indicating 
 the banefulness of its effects, and it 
 would almost seem as if in the case of 
 such out-of-the-way poisons nature had 
 thought it superfluous to secure the 
 safety of her creatures by the warnings 
 of a protective instinct. But even ar- 
 senic, though not violently repulsive, is 
 certainly not attractive, either in taste or 
 odor, while on the other hand a decidedly 
 disagreeable taste is, almost without an 
 
Poisons.] 
 
 486 
 
 [Poisons. 
 
 exception, an a •priori argument against 
 the wholesomeness of any mineral or 
 vegetable substance. No creature is mis- 
 led by an innate craving for unwhole- 
 some food, and our natural aversion to 
 nearly all kinds of drastic " medicines " 
 (i. e., virulent stimulants) has already be- 
 gun to be recognized as a suggestive illus- 
 tration of that rule. 
 
 2. — Identity of Poisons and Stimulants. 
 —One effect upon the system of any vio- 
 lent chemical stimulant is strictly that of 
 a poison, and every poison may become a 
 stimulant. There is no bane in the South 
 American swamps, no virulent compound 
 in the North American drug-stores, 
 ■chemistry knows no deadlier poison, 
 •whose gradual and persistent obtrusion 
 upon the human organism will not beget 
 an unnatural craving after a repetition 
 of the baneful dose, a morbid appetency 
 in every way analogous to the hankering 
 of the toper after his favorite tipple. 
 Entirely accidental circumstances, the 
 accessibility of special drugs, imitative- 
 ness and the intercourse of commercial 
 nations, the mere whims of fashion, the 
 authority of medical recommendations 
 have often decided the first choice of any 
 special stimulant destined to become a 
 •" national beverage " and a national 
 curse. The contemporaries of the Veda 
 writers fuddled with soma-juice, the 
 decoction of a narcotic plant indigenous 
 to the Himalaya foot-hills. Their neigh- 
 bors, the pastoral Tartars, have for ages 
 got drunk on koumiss, or fermented 
 mare's milk, an abomination which in 
 Eastern Europe threatens to increase the 
 list of imported poisons, while opium is 
 gaining ground in our Pacific States as 
 fast as lager beer, chloral and patent 
 " bitters " are acquiring popularity on 
 the Atlantic slope. The French have 
 added Swiss absinthe to their wines and 
 •liquors, the Turks hasheesh and opiates 
 to strong coffee. North America has 
 adopted tea from China, coffee from Ara- 
 bia (or originally from Ceylon), tobacco 
 from the Caribbean savages, high-wines 
 from France and Spain, and may possi- 
 bly learn to drink Mexican aloe-sap, or 
 chew the coca-leaves in imitation of the 
 South American Indians. Arsenic has 
 its votaries in the southern Alps. Cinna- 
 bar and acetate of copper victimize the 
 miners of the Peruvian sierras. The 
 Ashantees are so fond of sorghum beer that 
 
 their chieftains have to keep special bam- 
 boo cages for the benefit of quarrelsome 
 drunkards. The pastor of a Swiss colony 
 in the Mexican State of Oaxaca told me 
 that the mountaineers of that neighbor- 
 hood befuddle themselves with cicuta 
 syrup, the inspissated juice of a kind of 
 hemlock that first excites and then de- 
 presses the cerebral functions, excessive 
 garrulity being the principal symptom of 
 the exalted stage of intoxication. A de- 
 coction of the common fly-toadstool 
 (agaricus maculatus) inflames the pas- 
 sions of the Kamtchatka natives and 
 makes them pugnacious, disputative, but 
 eventually splenetic. (Chamino's Reisen, 
 p. 322.) The Abyssinians use a fer- 
 mented preparation of dhurra corn that 
 causes more quarrels than gambling. 
 According to Prof. Vamberry the Syrian 
 Druses pray, though apparently in vain, 
 to be delivered from the temptation of 
 fox-glove tea. Comparative pathology 
 has multiplied these analogies till, in 
 spite of the arguments of a thousand 
 specious advocates, there is no valid 
 reason to doubt that the alleged innate 
 craving for the stimulus of fermented or 
 distilled beverages is wholly abnormal 
 and that the alcohol habit is character- 
 ized by all the distinctive symptoms of a 
 poison habit. Chemistry has confirmed 
 that conclusion. "There is no more 
 evidence," says Dr. Parkes, "of alcohol 
 being in any way utilized in the body 
 than there is in regard to ether and 
 chloroform. If alcohol is still to be des- 
 ignated as a food, we must extend the 
 meaning of that term so as to make it 
 comprehend not only chloroform but all 
 medicines and poisons — in fact, every- 
 thing which can be swallowed and ab- 
 sorbed, however foreign it may be to the 
 normal condition of the body and how- 
 ever injurious to its functions. On the 
 other hand, from no definition that can 
 be framed of a poison — which should in- 
 clude those more powerful anaesthetic 
 agents whose poisonous character has 
 been unfortunately too clearly manifest- 
 ed in a great number of instances — can 
 alcohol be fairly shut out." 
 
 3. — Progressiveness of the Poison Vice. 
 — There is a deep significance in that 
 term of our language which describes an 
 unnatural habit as " growing upon " its 
 devotees, for we find, indeed, a striking 
 analogy between the development of the 
 
Poisons.] 
 
 487 
 
 [Political Evils. 
 
 stimulant habit and that of a parasitical 
 plant, which, sprouting from tiny seeds, 
 fastens upon, preys upon and at last 
 strangles its victims. The seductiveness 
 of every stimulant habit gains strength 
 with every new indulgence, and it is a 
 curious fact that that power is propor- 
 tioned to the original repulsiveness of 
 the poison. The tonic influence of 
 Chinese tea is due to the presence of a 
 stimulating ingredient known as theine, 
 in its concentrated form a strong na*rcotic 
 poison, but forming only a minute per- 
 centage of the component parts of com- 
 mon green tea. On the Pacific coast of 
 our country thousands of Chinese immi- 
 grants carry their thrift to the degree of 
 renouncing their favorite beverage; but 
 neither considerations of economy nor of 
 self-preservation will induce the same 
 exiles to break the fetters of the opium 
 habit. Not one hasheesh-eater in a hun- 
 dred can hope to emancipate him- 
 self from the thraldom of his vice, 
 and experience has only too well proved 
 the truth that, while the difficulty of 
 total abstinence has perhaps been over- 
 rated, the difficulty of curing the habit 
 of a confirmed alcohol-drinker has been 
 very much underrated. " If a man were 
 sent to hell," says Dr. Rush, " and kept 
 there a thousand years as a punishment 
 for drinking, and then returned, his first 
 cry would be ' Give me rum ! Give me 
 rum ! ' " 
 
 And moreover, the alcohol habit 
 grows outward as well as inward. Each 
 gratification of the poison vice is fol- 
 lowed by a depressing reaction. But this 
 feeling of exhaustion is progressive, and 
 the correspondingly increased craving 
 for a repetition of the stimulating dose 
 forces its victims either to increase the 
 quantity of the wonted tonic or to re- 
 sort to a stronger poison. Beer-drinkers 
 advance from small beer to lager beer, 
 wine-drinkers from claret to port and 
 .high- wines. -The dupes of the "bitters" 
 quack have to swallow his nostrum at 
 shorter and shorter intervals. One radi- 
 cal fallacy identifies the stimulant habit 
 in all its disguises : its victims mistake a 
 process of irritation for a process of 
 invigoration. The self-deception of the 
 dyspeptic philosopher who hopes to 
 exorcise his blue-devils with the fumes of 
 the same weed that caused his sick- 
 headaches is absolutely analogous to that 
 
 of the pot-house sot who tries to drown 
 his cares in the source of all his sorrows ; 
 and there is no reason to doubt that it is 
 precisely the same fallacy which formerly 
 ascribed remedial virtues to the vilest 
 stimulants of the drug-store, and that 
 with the rarest exceptions the alcoholic 
 poisons administered for "medicinal" 
 purposes have not decreased but con- 
 siderably increased the sum of human 
 misery. Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Political Evils. — Republics are not 
 exempt from serious political evils. Brib- 
 ery of executive officers and legislators, 
 government by the corrupt, Criminal and 
 ignorant classes, wasteful expenditure, 
 intimidation and purchase of voters, dis- 
 reputable or unscrupulous party leader- 
 ship, misrepresentation of issues or per- 
 version of facts by a designing press, ap- 
 peals to prejudice and selfishness, acrimo- 
 nious discussion, "personalities" and even 
 violence are familiar developments of 
 American politics. It is now frankly 
 admitted by all intelligent persons, even 
 by those who do not favor radical liquor 
 legislation, that broadly viewed, the un- 
 welcome conditions and unwholesome 
 tendencies in our politics and Govern- 
 ment have their chief roots in the drink 
 traffic. Drink, said the New York Trib- 
 une, long after that journal had ceased 
 urging the strong Prohibition policy ad- 
 vocated by its founder, "lies at the cen- 
 tre of all social and political mischief." 1 
 Because of the results of the traffic — 
 crime, pauperism, turbulence, vice, mur- 
 der and the like — it is constantly under 
 police surveillance. If there were no 
 restrictive law on the statute-book the 
 necessity of watching the saloons day 
 and night for violations of law, decency 
 and order would in nowise be dimin- 
 ished : no conditions of laxity on the one 
 hand or restriction on the other have 
 ever been devised by which the character 
 of the dramshop as the principal agent 
 in the production of all the evils known 
 to organized society has been mended. 
 The dramshop proprietor, as well as his 
 customers, may personally desire to do 
 no wrong, but the worst forms of wrong 
 are inevitably nourished by the article 
 dealt in and consumed. Therefore it is not 
 true that the evils complained of, though 
 probably aggravated by license experi- 
 
 1 New York Tribune, March 8, 1884. 
 
Political Evils.] 
 
 488 
 
 [Political Evils. 
 
 ments, would be comparatively unim- 
 portant if the restrictions on the traffic 
 were removed and the rumseller were 
 treated with the toleration shown to 
 other tradesmen. 
 
 Thus from the nature of his business 
 the liquor-dealer is in close and perma- 
 nent contact with the administrative de- 
 partments of local government. It is not 
 remarkable if a trade against which the 
 law discriminates is diligent in seeking 
 to control the officers of law, — if indi- 
 viduals whose interests depend upon offi- 
 cial favor are incessantly employing all 
 the means by which official favor may be 
 cultivated. The pages of history are 
 filled with instances of corrupting and 
 powerful political influence acquired by 
 the unworthiest and most dangerous 
 men and associations of men, whose pur- 
 suits have been such as to place them 
 without (or barely within) the pale of the 
 law. There never has existed an associa- 
 tion of evil or evil-working men so 
 strong numerically, so wealthy or so 
 firmly established as the association now 
 known as the liquor traffic or "rum 
 power." In the United States more than 
 500,000 men are engaged in the traffic as 
 proprietors or employes; and counting 
 the adult males who are entirely depen- 
 dent upon it or whose political action is 
 absolutely subject to barroom dictation, 
 it is hardly possible to estimate the vot- 
 ing strength of the "rum power," in 
 round numbers, at less than 1,400,000, or 
 about 12 per cent, of the aggregate vote 
 of the country. (See pp. 382-5.) 
 
 It is characteristic of the liquor 
 vote that it is easily controlled and mo- 
 bilized. As a class and as individuals 
 the liquor-sellers and their followers care 
 nothing for principles and little for 
 party. Their leaders are quick to de- 
 termine the merits of each measure of 
 public policy from the pro-liquor point 
 of view, and to decide, in any case, 
 whether their interests make it advisable 
 to unitedly support one party and one 
 candidate in preference to another. 
 They are rarely deceived, and they can 
 count upon the solid support of the 
 " rum vote " with perfect certainty. 
 
 Since the temperance question is no 
 longer a merely local issue but has a 
 prominent place in State and national 
 politics, the activity of the liquor ele- 
 ment affects State and national as well as 
 
 municipal affairs. It is of the utmost im- 
 portance to the traffic that the State 
 Legislatures and Congress which enact 
 laws, and the Governors and Presidents 
 who are vested with veto and appointive 
 powers, shall have friendly or moderate 
 inclinations. The following resolutions, 
 adopted by the New York State Brewers 
 and Maltsters' Association, March 20, 
 1883, define the political attitude of the 
 "trade" everywhere : 
 
 "Resolved, That this Association is an anti- 
 Prohibition Association, pure and simple, and 
 that we do not affiliate with any political 
 party. 
 
 "Resolved, That all candidates for office, 
 whether for Representatives in Congress, Gov- 
 ernors, State Senators or Members of Assembly, 
 shall have a circular addressed to them of the 
 same wording as was sent to candidates in 1882, 
 bearing date Oct. 23. 
 
 "Resolved, When candidates of both and 
 all parties answer in the affirmative (that is, 
 opposed to Prohibition), each member of this 
 Association shall be at liberty to vote as he 
 deems best. Where they fail to communicate 
 it will be considered as an answer in the nega- 
 tive, in which case we shall withhold our votes 
 or select an independent candidate. When one 
 answers in the affirmative and the other in the 
 negative we shall always support the man who 
 co-operates with us, whatever may be his 
 party." i 
 
 Probably the gravest political evil 
 for which the saloon is responsible is 
 government by the direct representatives 
 of the saloon. In many cities the traffic, 
 dominating the leading parties, is not 
 content with obedience but insists upon 
 the nomination and election of notorious 
 and unscrupulous liquor-vendors. Thus 
 the offices are filled with the most de- 
 graded and barbarous men of the com- 
 munity, men whose livelihood depends 
 essentially upon vice and plunder. 
 "New York, ruled by drunkards/' said 
 Wendell Phillips, in 1870, " is proof of the 
 despotism of the dramshop. Men whom 
 murderers serve that they may escape, 
 and because they have escaped the gal- 
 lows, rule that city. The ribald crew 
 which holds them up could neither 
 stifle its own conscience nor rally its 
 retinue but for the help of the grogshop. 
 A like testimony comes from the history 
 of our other great cities. State laws are 
 defied in their streets ; and by means of 
 the dramshop and the gilded saloon of 
 fashionable hotels their ballot-box is in 
 the hands of the criminal classes, — of 
 
 1 Tie Voice, Sept. 84, 1885. 
 
Political Evils.] 
 
 men who avowedly and systematically 
 defy the laws. Indeed this is the case in 
 Boston." i 
 
 The relations of the saloon to politics 
 in New York City, the metropolis of the 
 Western hemisphere, deserve more 
 than this passing allusion. They are 
 typical of conditions in scores of other 
 cities and will give a clear idea of the 
 character and results of government by 
 the liquor traffic wherever the traffic is 
 strong or arrogant enough to assume 
 direct responsibility. 
 
 The words from Wendell Phillips 
 which we have quoted were written when 
 the famous Tweed Ring was in full con- 
 trol of New York. This organization 
 of thieves, as Mr. Phillips intimates, 
 owed its supremacy to the grogshops 
 and to the criminals who did their bidding. 
 Next to the Tweed episode no other 
 scandal in the political history of New 
 York can be compared with that aris- 
 ing from the disgraceful transactions 
 of the so-called "Boodle" Board of Al- 
 dermen of 1884; and of the 24 members 
 of that Board 12 were saloon-keepers or 
 ex-saloon-keepers and 4 were saloon 
 politicians. 1 Indeed, the Board of Al- 
 dermen always contains more liquor- 
 dealers than men of any other occupa- 
 tion, and not infrequently the rumsellers 
 have a clear majority in it : at the elec- 
 tions of 1890 11 of the 24 members chosen 
 were saloon-keepers. 3 This is unques- 
 tionably the most odious legislative body 
 to be found in the United States: its 
 acts have been so shameful that the 
 State Legislature, with the approval of 
 all good citizens, has deprived it of most 
 of its power. 
 
 In 1884 a valuable investigation was 
 conducted by Robert Graham, Secretary 
 of the Church Temperance Society. He 
 located all the nominating conventions 
 and primaries of the Democratic and 
 Republican parties in New York, and 
 found that in a total of 1,002 conven- 
 tions and primaries of these parties 633 
 were held in saloons and 96 in places 
 next door to saloons. 4 The political 
 organizations of the city are subservient 
 to the rumsellers. The chief organiza- 
 
 1 Letter accepting the Prohibition nomination for Gov- 
 ernor of Massachusetts, Sept. 4, 1870. 
 
 3 New York City and Its Masters (New York, 1887), by 
 Eobert Graham, p. 39. 
 
 3 See the Voice, Nov. 80, 1890. 
 
 4 New York City and Its Masters, p. 38. 
 
 489 
 
 [Political Evils. 
 
 tion is Tammany Hall, and in 1890 a 
 careful analysis of the membership of its 
 General Committee showed that in a 
 total of 4,562 Committeemen 681 were 
 liquor-dealers (of whom 591 were crim- 
 inal liquor-dealers), while 1,457 members 
 had withheld their names from the City 
 Directory, and manifestly — with perhaps 
 some exceptions— were men of question- 
 able or disreputable character, gamblers, 
 criminals and creatures of the saloon. 6 
 
 The New York City Kef orm Club is an 
 indefatigable society that has devoted it- 
 self to publishing the records of the per- 
 sons who represent the city in the State 
 Legislature at Albany. Many of these 
 legislators — 32 in number — are chosen by 
 dramshop influences and are mere repre- 
 sentatives of the saloons. Almost invari- 
 ably it has been found that those for 
 whom the traffic is peculiarly responsible 
 are unprincipled and unfit men. 8 
 
 New York's experience is illustrative 
 of the situation in every community 
 where the traffic is tolerated. The re- 
 
 6 See the New York Evening Post, October, 1890. 
 
 8 The following are significant extracts from the Reform 
 Club's reports: 
 
 Charles Smith, proprietor of the "Silver Dollar "saloon 
 and member of the Assembly : "Was interested in a faro 
 bank at 39 Bowery some years ago, and still gambles. 
 Often interests himself in helping 'crooks' of various 
 kinds out of trouble, squaring many a case for sawdust 
 swindlers. His associates are of the lowest. . . . Mr. 
 Smith is probably the worst man in the Assembly. He is 
 the recognized agent on the floor of a well-known lobby- 
 ist, and talks carelessly of having money to use for the 
 passage or defeat of this or that measure. . . . Was 
 constantly on the side of the liquor interest, even refusing 
 to be bound by the action of the party caucus in Excise 
 matters. He is the most injurious man to the city in the 
 New York delegation, because of the boldness, pertinacity 
 and constancy of his rascality." 
 
 Daniel E. Finn, liquor-dealer and Assemblyman: "He 
 is known to be a dangerous man, and has a record of vot- 
 ing for every bill that had money in it. . . . He is 
 ignorant and corrupt, and all his affiliations are bad. He 
 has served four consecutive terms as Assemblyman, and 
 has made a consistent record as a friend of the liquor in- 
 terests in politics, an enemy to Civil Service Reform and a 
 disgraceful exponent of the worst influences in New York 
 City politics. 11 
 
 Timothy D. Sullivan, liquor-dealer and Assemblyman. 
 " He has interests in several saloons ; one, nominally 
 owned by his brother Jeremiah, at 71 Chrystie street, is 
 connected with a house of prostitution, and is frequented 
 by men and women of the lowest type. He associates 
 with l toughs ' and is ready to use his influence for their 
 protection. In April . . . Inspector Byrnes charged 
 Mr. Sullivan with being an associate of thieves and crimi- 
 nals, specifying among others Peter Barry, one of the 
 leaders of the Whyo Gang, Danny Lyons and Dan Dris- 
 coll, hanged for murder. Mr. Byrnes also said of Mr, 
 Sullivan: ' His place (No. 116 Centre street) is well-known 
 locally, and he wanted to advertise to all thieves that it 
 would be a headquarters, a rendezvous for them during 
 the [Constitution] Centennial celebration.' " 
 
 Michael Brennan, liquor-dealer and Assemblyman : 
 " His character as a legislator has been fully established 
 by four consecutive terms in the Assembly— '85, '86, '87 
 and '88. It is as bad as he could make it by the unremit- 
 ting and dishonest industry of these four terms. If the 
 amount of mischief which he has worked seems compara- 
 tively small, it must be remembered that his efforts were 
 hampered by ignorance." 
 (See the Voice, Nov. 7, 1889.) 
 
Popular Fallacies.] 
 
 490 
 
 [Popular Fallacies. 
 
 suiting evils may not always be the same 
 in degree, but they are the same in kind. 
 More serious evils — if possible — are en- 
 countered at times. For example, in 
 some of the Western cities — notably 
 Omaha — the licensing of saloons has led 
 to the practical licensing of houses of 
 prostitution. And High License legisla- 
 tion does not in any manner modify the 
 political offensiveness of the traffic. The 
 Voice, Sept. 26, 1889, published a for- 
 midable table for 33 High License cities 
 (the fees ranging from $500 to $1,000), 
 showing that many liquor-dealers had 
 been chosen to fill important public 
 offices: in Chicago there were nine 
 saloon-keepers in the Board of Aldermen, 
 in Detroit nine, in Omaha four in the 
 City Council, etc. In fact, after making 
 a fair and prolonged trial of all kinds of 
 experiments, Americans have discovered 
 that Prohibition, thoroughly enforced, is 
 the only method by which politics can 
 be purified of the liquor influence. 
 
 Popular Fallacies. — Logicians tell 
 us that a large plurality of popular fal- 
 lacies are founded on correct inferences 
 drawn from erroneous premises. More 
 Tarely the mistake is due to an error of 
 conclusion, but rarest of all to the double 
 "blunder of a wrong proposition climaxed 
 by an unwarranted inference. That egre- 
 gious class of mistakes is, however, well 
 illustrated in some of the favorite soph- 
 isms of the alcohol-worshiper, while in 
 others the erroneousness of the premises 
 is becoming more and more evident even 
 to the unlearned — to all, in fact, but the 
 willfully blind. 
 
 1. — "Moderate Drinking." — The ad- 
 vocates of natural hygiene have for years 
 insisted on the possibility of curing the 
 disorders of the human organism by the 
 simple removal of the cause, and the 
 leaders of that reform agree that the ob- 
 jections to the medical use of mineral 
 and vegetable poisons are by no means 
 limited to the momentary influence of 
 virulent drugs. There is always a further 
 and greater danger: the risk of the 
 poison's getting a permanent hold upon 
 the human system and becoming the 
 object of an unnatural appetite, apt to 
 make the patient a life-long slave to the 
 witchery of an abnormal stimulant. The 
 opium habit is only too often contracted 
 in that way; chloral, belladonna and 
 
 even the intensely bitter sulphate of 
 quinine are known to have become in- 
 dispensable "tonics." In exactly the 
 same way the habit of using alcoholic 
 liquors is apt to "grow upon" the 
 drinker, as our language so significantly 
 expresses it. For a time — sometimes for 
 weeks — instinctive aversion warns the 
 incipient toper against the folly of toy- 
 ing with the spell of a soul-enslaving 
 poison, but the persistent disregard of 
 that protest at length begins to silence 
 the voice of the inner monitor, and by 
 imperceptible degrees the insidious habit 
 acquires the strength of a dominant pas- 
 sion which at last overcomes the resist- 
 ance of every better instinct. 
 
 That inevitable progressiveness of the 
 alcohol habit can be clearly understood 
 only by an explanation of its physiolog- 
 ical cause. The alleged invigorating in- 
 fluence of virulent drugs is, in reality, 
 only a process of irritation. The organ- 
 ism labors with feverish activity to rid 
 itself of a life-endangering poison, and 
 the excitement of that poison fever is by 
 millions of patients mistaken for a 
 symptom of returning strength. They 
 might be undeceived by the distressing 
 reaction which never fails to follow the 
 abnormal excitement, but in a sad plur- 
 ality of cases the sufferers from that 
 penalty of the stimulant vice will fall 
 into the further mistake of hoping to 
 relieve this distress by a repetition of 
 the poison dose. For a little while that 
 expedient seems to answer its purpose; 
 a second and a third poison-fever goad 
 the weary system into renewed activity, 
 but by and by the jaded nerves fail to 
 respond to the wonted spur, and the dull 
 torpor of the organism can be relieved 
 only by a more and more considerable 
 increase of the dose. The vital energies, 
 as it were, have to be roused from lower 
 and ever lower depths of depression, and 
 that purpose can at last be attained only 
 by an enormous multiple of the quantum 
 of poison which at first produced all the 
 effect of a "bracing and exhilarating 
 stimulant." Hence the well-known phe- 
 nomenon of the dram-drinker's progress 
 from a glass of light wine to a bottle of 
 strongest brandy, or the lager beer guzz- 
 ler's advance from an occasional sip to a 
 daily symposium of 12 or 15 bumpers. 
 Hence also the chief fallacy of the advo- 
 cates of "moderate drinking." Judging 
 
Popular Fallacies."] 
 
 491 
 
 [Popular Fallacies. 
 
 irom the effects of the first few glasses 
 ihey foresee no difficulty in controlling 
 their passion : they feel only the cheer- 
 ing warmth of the fire which will soon 
 defy all efforts to quench the conflagra- 
 tion of its devouring flames. 
 
 2. — " Strong Drink for Men." — A fa- 
 vorite argument of habitual drinkers is 
 founded upon the idea that men engaged 
 in laborious work need the aid of strong 
 stimulants. " The light domestic labors 
 of women," those philosophers inform 
 us, " can be performed without the stim- 
 Tilus of powerful tonics, and as a conse- 
 quence women feel no desire for strong 
 •drink, except perhaps in Ireland and 
 ■certain parts of Eastern Europe, where 
 poverty often obliges farm laborers to 
 •delegate a share of their hard work to 
 "their wives. Boys, too, can and ought to 
 dispense with artificial tonics, but after 
 orossing the threshold of manhood ex- 
 acting labor will soon beget a craving for 
 .sustaining stimulants, and it would be 
 wrong to suppress that instinct." Now, 
 in the first place, there is not a vestige of 
 hasis for the assumption that laborious 
 -work, mental or physical, requires the 
 stimulus of toxic drugs. Without such 
 aids to cerebral activity the Pythagorean 
 philosophers became the scientific leaders 
 of a science-loving age. Without the 
 aid of fermented or distilled tonics the 
 nations of Islam produced a whole gal- 
 axy of inspired poets, of philosophers, 
 statesmen, historians, physicians and 
 naturalists. An equally unwarranted as- 
 sertion is the oft-repeated statement that 
 •experience proves the dependence of 
 physical energy on the sustaining aid of 
 artificial tonics. The most vigorous of 
 our instinct-guided fellow-creatures dis- 
 pense even with the stimulant of salt. 
 On the scant herbage of the Arctic Circle 
 the reindeer sustains the vital strength 
 that enables it to resist an ice-tornado 
 of 65° below zero, while drawing a heavy- 
 loaded sledge at the rate of eight miles 
 an hour, for 10 or 12 consecutive days. 
 Without "peptic bitters," without all- 
 spice or salt, the Indian leopard manages 
 to digest a meal of 20 pounds of raw 
 meat in a sweltering climate. Prom a 
 purely vegetable and non-stimulating 
 diet the elephant derives the strength 
 that enables him to uproot trees a foot in 
 diameter and hurl down a tiger with 
 iorce sufficient to break every larger 
 
 bone in its body. The strictly frugal 
 diet of our next zoological relatives, the 
 orangs, gibbons and gorillas, furnishes 
 them an amount of physical vigor in- 
 credibly far exceeding the strength of 
 our lager beer-fuddled athletes. The 
 testimony of numerous Eastern travellers 
 leaves no doubt of the fact that the 
 freight-carriers of Constantinople think 
 nothing of shouldering a burden of 600 
 pounds and walking off with a firm, even 
 step, like soldiers marching along with 
 light haversacks. Yet poverty, if not 
 religious scruples, obliges those turbaned 
 Samsons to dispense with all "tonic" 
 liquors, and often even with meat and 
 tobacco. 
 
 It must be admitted that the stimulant 
 habit in its grosser forms claims about a 
 hundred male victims to one female ; but 
 the chief cause of that difference is the 
 retired mode of life incident to the do- 
 mestic occupations of our mothers and 
 sisters. The temptations of the grog- 
 shop do not exist for a large portion of 
 our female population, and the force of 
 public opinion itself is a potent safe- 
 guard of female temperance. In Eng- 
 land and North America it has saved 
 women from the tobacco habit as well as 
 from alcoholism, while the social toler- 
 ance of the Spanish- American republics 
 has developed millions of girl-smokers. 
 Two hundred years ago, when infants 
 were fuddled with beer-soups, even 
 maids-of-honor confessed to a fondness 
 for a luncheon of ale and beef, and many 
 a Highland lassie pledged her departing 
 lover in a cup of usquebaugh. The hap- 
 piest of all social ostracisms has now ban- 
 ished such practices to the wigwams of 
 the Chippewa Indians, and the total ab- 
 stinence of thousands of hard-working 
 women in the farming districts of Aus- 
 tralia, North America and Western Eu- 
 rope conclusively proves that physical 
 vigor can dispense with the aid of arti- 
 ficial stimulants. 
 
 3. — " Care-Dispelling Wine." — Drunk- 
 enness has often been defined as an ad- 
 vance-draft on the enjoyment of future 
 years, and men whose tenure of life 
 seemed rather dubious may often have 
 congratulated themselves on the wisdom 
 of thus anticipating their due of pleas- 
 ure, and, as it were, foreclosing a claim 
 to happiness which coming years might 
 have failed to settle. But in reality the 
 
Popular Fallacies.] 
 
 492 
 
 [Popular Fallacies. 
 
 self-delusion of the wine-worshiper is a 
 much more serious mistake. The effect 
 of the first large dose of alcohol is simply 
 that of a poison fever. In its eagerness to 
 rid itself of a life-endangering drug the 
 organism rises in revolt and calls upon 
 all the reserve force of vital energy to 
 participate in the work of expurgation. 
 But a frequent repetition of the poison 
 dose considerably modifies that sensi- 
 tiveness of the system. It would be a 
 mistake to suppose that the human body 
 could become inured (accommodate 
 itself, as it were) to the effects of alco- 
 hol; but every successive poison-fever is 
 followed by a greater and ever greater 
 exhaustion of the nervous system, and 
 the next following dose of the baneful 
 stimulant has therefore to rouse the 
 vital energies from a greater depth of 
 depression. That depression will soon 
 reach a degree when even a large quan- 
 tum of the most powerful toxic irritant 
 can procure the toper only a few min- 
 utes' relief from the dull, soul-sickening 
 misery of alcoholism. 
 
 The confirmed toper, in fact, will try 
 in vain to delude himself any longer 
 even with the momentary hope of being 
 able to trick fate out of a surplus of en- 
 joyment. He has sunk beyond the 
 depth of that hope, and even in the cri- 
 sis of the stimulant fever the momentary 
 return of a factitious elation will fall far 
 short of the spontaneous buoyancy of 
 his childhood years. His lucid intervals 
 are only brief glimpses of the light 
 cheering inhabitants of the brighter 
 world, forfeited by his contrast with the 
 power of darkness. Wine is a mocker, 
 even in its after effects; and the influ- 
 ence of the more concentrated alcoholic 
 poisons has evolved mental types so de- 
 void of the very capacity for enjoyment 
 that their condition might seem to justify 
 the gloomiest inferences of pessimism. 
 Since the introduction of gin and rum 
 many districts of Great Britain would 
 fail to explain the ancient name of 
 " Merry " old England. Life-weary, 
 world-hating and self -despising wretches 
 sneak like specters through the gloom of 
 liquor-reeking slums, where the com- 
 panions of Kobin Hood once followed 
 the chase through the greenwoods; and 
 in the absinthe-hells of the French 
 manufacturing towns Pandora seems 
 to have turned loose all her curses 
 
 without the compensating blessing of 
 Hope. 
 
 " I seem to feel, wherever I go, 
 
 That there has passed away a glory from this earth," 
 
 says Wordsworth, whose studies of by- 
 gone times enabled him to realize the 
 loss of that spontaneous gayety which 
 constituted the chief charm of the golden 
 age of health and nature-worship. In- 
 sanity and suicide have never failed to 
 increase with the growth of the alcohol 
 vice; and the best authorities on mental 
 pathology agree that in nine out of ten 
 cases mental derangements supervene as 
 a consequence of afflictions so burdensome 
 as to make oblivion a lesser evil. In 
 other words, the practical evidence of 
 statistics proves the fact that even the 
 total loss of reason is preferable to the 
 misery resulting from the habitual use 
 of liquors which their vendors recommend 
 as soul-cheering and care-dispelling bev- 
 erages. 
 
 4. — The Revenue Argument. — In the 
 summer of 1888 the garrison of a German 
 trading-post on the Lower Congo river 
 captured a chieftain who had puzzled 
 the colonists by the persistence of his 
 hostility and whose last raid seemed to 
 have been prompted by a sheer wanton 
 love of havoc. At first he refused to 
 speak, but in the presence of a military 
 commission he at last consented to ex- 
 plain his conduct by the confession that 
 " the importation of salted beef from 
 Port Loando had diminished the demand 
 for man-meat and thus curtailed his 
 revenues." From a financial point of 
 view that argument compares favorably 
 with the logic of the political economists 
 who try to persuade us that the pros- 
 perity of our Eepublic would be imper- 
 illed by the abolition of the poison 
 traffic. The Congo chief might have 
 furnished actual proof that his income 
 depended on the encouragement of can- 
 nibalism, while even the complete sup- 
 pression of the manufacture of alcoholic 
 poisons would in no way impair the pro- 
 fits of scores of different industries that 
 have laid the foundations of our national 
 wealth ; but moreover it admits of mathe- 
 matical demonstration that the fiscal 
 emoluments derived from the tax on in- 
 toxicating liquors are enormously out- 
 weighed by the burdens which the con- 
 sequences of the alcohol vice entail on the 
 resources of the nation. Alcohol is the 
 
Port.] 
 
 493 
 
 [Portugal. 
 
 chief cause of crime, a principal cause 
 of vice, idiocy and disease, and the main 
 obstacle to the progress of industry and 
 education. "War itself has been a less 
 grievous burden to the nations of the 
 Caucasian race than the monster curse of 
 alcohol, and the shortsightedness must 
 approach blindness that can seriously 
 insist on the perpetuation of that curse 
 for the sake of a government share in 
 the profits of the poison-monger. We 
 might as well license a horde of train- 
 wreckers and try to silence the protests 
 of the victims by quoting the endorse- 
 ments of a bribed revenue committee and 
 flaunting the coined proceeds of the in- 
 famous contract. Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Port. — See Portugal and Vinous 
 Liquors. 
 
 Portugal. — During the 160 years of 
 its union with the Spanish monarchy 
 Portugal was the most drink-cursed 
 country of southern Europe. Political 
 ambition was suppressed, commerce and 
 industry languished and the discontented 
 nobles sought diversion in alcoholic ex- 
 cesses. Wealthy individuals of the middle 
 classes followed their example, and the 
 writers of that period agree in represent- 
 ing the 17th Century as an age of reck- 
 lessness and intemperance. The national 
 revival following the war of independence, 
 however, inaugurated an era of reform, 
 and since the treaty of Lisbon (1668) 
 habitual intemperance has been discour- 
 aged by the example of the transatlantic 
 colonists and the influence of the clergy. 
 "American banquets," i.e., convivial 
 assemblies without the mediaeval orgies 
 of intoxication, were at first a topic of 
 popular ribaldry, but became gradually 
 a synonym of decent entertainments ; and 
 the humorist Almeida, in his comic 
 dramas, invariably represents drunkards 
 as persons of extravagant hostility to the 
 progress of culture. 
 
 In 1851 the Marquis de Saldanha, the 
 Cromwell of Portugal, left the real estate- 
 owning clergy the alternative of confisca- 
 tion or reform, and specially urged the 
 Cortes to abolish the system of peddling 
 the produce of the convent vineyards at 
 church-festivals and religious pilgrim- 
 ages. After a bitter and protracted con- 
 troversy the clerics, in the words of a 
 Portuguese writer, " decided to control a 
 movement which they were unable to 
 
 suppress," and at first from necessity, but 
 before long from motives of honest con- 
 viction, did their best to educate the 
 country population in the temperate 
 habits of the upper classes. The absolute 
 prohibition of the liquor traffic seemed a 
 task too hopeless to attempt ; but much 
 has been done in the way of mitigating 
 the consequences of the evil. Through- 
 out the provinces of Minho and Tras os 
 Montes the sale of wine to minors is 
 strictly interdicted, and the cities of Lis- 
 bon, Coimbra, Oporto and Villa Eeal have 
 abolished the lottery osterias — gam- 
 bling dens where the recklessness of the 
 players was stimulated by a liberal distri- 
 bution of intoxicating liquors. Drunk- 
 enness has been considerably diminished 
 by the municipal regulations of many in- 
 corporated towns, as well as by the reform 
 of army discipline, absence without leave, 
 in a state of intoxication, being now 
 punished as desertion in the field and as 
 a gross neglect of duty in times of peace. 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 The retail liquor traffic in Portugal 
 is subject to license regulations, and the 
 sale in certain places is carried on under 
 various police restrictions. The whole- 
 sale trade is taxed in proportion to the 
 quantity of liquor sold. 
 
 The wine interest overshadows all 
 other industries, x and next to it, among 
 the manufacturing industries, ranks 
 tobacco manufacture. * In this connec- 
 tion it is interesting to note that the 
 condition of the people is lamentable 
 and that they are very low in the scale 
 of intelligence : according to the 
 " Statesman's Year Book " for 1889 82 
 per cent, of the inhabitants of Portugal 
 and her islands were illiterate. (In this 
 estimate, however, young children were 
 included.) The principal wine is the 
 
 1 The state of agriculture in Portugal is still deplorable. 
 The wealth and energy of the country have been thrown 
 into the wine-trade, and the production and cultivation 
 of cereals have been so much neglected that, in spite of 
 its being eminently adapted for such cultivation, nearly 
 all its cereals are imported from the United States, to the 
 value in 1883 of over £1,000,000. The wine production, on 
 which Portugal has so long depended, was the work of 
 the Methuen treaty of 1703, for it was not until after that 
 treaty that the barren rocks of the Alto Donro were cov- 
 ered with vines. But now, though the returns show slight 
 alteration, there must soon be a great change. The phyl- 
 loxera has utterly destroyed thousands of vineyards in 
 Entre Minho e Douro and in Beira. ... To remedy 
 the failure, which can be only a matter of time, tobacco- 
 growing has been proposed and will probably be tried in 
 place of vine-culture.— Encyclopasdia Britannlca, article 
 on " Portugal." 
 
 2 Ibid. 
 
Presbyterian Church.] 
 
 494 
 
 [Presbyterian Church. 
 
 Oporto, or port, produced from vines on 
 the Alto Douro, in a region about 150 
 square miles in area. These and the other 
 vines have suffered fearfully from the 
 ravages of the phylloxera ; indeed offi- 
 cial figures show that up to 1887 about 
 half of all the vineyards of the kingdom 
 had been infected. (See p. 481.) Yet the 
 exports of Portuguese wines have in- 
 creased. The following comparative 
 figures of exports of wines are taken from 
 the United States Consular Keports for 
 1887, pp. 70-1: 
 
 
 1875. 
 
 1885. 
 
 Port 
 Madeira 
 Other Wines 
 
 Totals 
 
 Galls. 
 8,566,840 
 
 221,902 
 4,619,924 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 9,770,788 
 
 461,592 
 
 1,792,800 
 
 Galls. 
 
 9,189,655 
 
 497,828 
 
 29,610,551 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 6,534,000 
 
 723,600 
 
 8,792,280 
 
 13.408,666 
 
 12,025,180 
 
 39,298,034 
 
 16,049,880 
 
 The total annual wine-yield of the 
 kingdom (if the Portuguese drink may 
 now be considered wine) is from 75,000,- 
 000 to 100,000,000 gallons. 
 
 Presbyterian Church. — This 
 church was among the first of the religi- 
 ous denominations in the United States 
 to formulate radical temperance utter- 
 ances. In 1834 it was declared that " as 
 friends of the cause of temperance this 
 [General] Assembly rejoices to lend the 
 force of their example to that cause as 
 an ecclesiastical body by an entire ab- 
 stinence themselves from the use of 
 ardent spirits," and that " The traffic in 
 ardent spirits, to be used as a drink by 
 any people, is, in our judgment, morally 
 wrong, and ought to be viewed as such 
 by the churches of Jesus Christ univers- 
 ally." As early as 1842 it was proposed 
 to exclude liquor-makers and sellers from 
 the privileges of membership in the 
 church; but this movement was not suc- 
 cessful until 1865, when the General 
 Assembly decreed that the church " must 
 purge herself from all participation in 
 the sin by removing from her pale all 
 who are engaged in the manufacture and 
 sale of intoxicating drinks for use as a 
 common beverage." The church was in 
 full sympathy with the Prohibitory agi- 
 tation which followed the enactment of 
 the Maine law. In 1854 the General 
 Assembly expressed the hope that the 
 time was not far distant " when such a 
 law [Prohibition] should be universally 
 
 adopted and enforced," and in 1855 it 
 declared : 
 
 " The experience of 200 years proves that this- 
 evil can never be removed or effectively resisted 
 while the traffic in intoxicating liquors is con- 
 tinued, it being necessary, if we would stop the 
 effect, to remove the cause. Laws prohibiting 
 the sale of intoxicating drinks can interfere with 
 the rights of no man, because no man has a. 
 right of any name or nature inconsistent with 
 the public good, or at war with the welfare of 
 the community, it being a well-known, univers- 
 ally acknowledged maxim of law that ' no man 
 has a right to use his own to the injury of his 
 neighbor.' " 
 
 The utterances of the General Assem- 
 bly have lost none of their aggressive- 
 ness in recent years. In 1889 this body 
 held its sessions in the church of Dr. 
 Howard Crosby, and against the opposi- 
 tion of Dr. Crosby reaffirmed the declara- 
 tion made in 1883, as follows : 
 
 " "We earnestly recommend to ministers and 
 congregations in our connection and to all 
 others to persevere in vigorous efforts until laws 
 shall be enacted in every State and Territory of 
 our beloved country prohibiting entirely a 
 traffic which is the principal cause of the 
 drunkenness and its consequent pauperism, 
 crime, taxation, lamentations, war, and ruin to 
 the bodies and souls of men with which the 
 country has so long been afflicted." 
 
 The following is a part of the report 
 made by the Standing Committee on 
 Temperance to the General Assembly in 
 1890, and adopted by the Assembly : 
 
 " More and more deeply the conviction has 
 been burning itself into the public mind that 
 however checked by legislative restrictions, or 
 burdened by heavier taxation, the peril of the 
 public sale of intoxicants is too great for any 
 valid excuse of its existence. In regard to such 
 an evil that affects the whole body of our 
 people, the issue is being steadily pressed by 
 conscience and self-preservation against the 
 greed which is now absolutely the only cause 
 for the retention of the dramshop. 
 
 "Indeed, the saloon has well-nigh passed the 
 period of its defense. Nobody stands up for it 
 to-day, except as an alleged necessary evil sup- 
 posed to be so strong as to be incapable of sup- 
 pression and which must continue, only to be 
 curbed and prevented from venting quite its 
 full curse. It must be the business of the 
 better class of our citizens, and of Christian 
 society at large, to prove that theory false. 
 
 " Eventually the open sale of liquor must go. 
 Forces are now at work that, however tempo- 
 rarily resisted, will yet crush the life out of 
 it. . . . 
 
 " Besides the principles hitherto stated, and 
 the resolutions offered, we suggest the follow- 
 ing action : 
 
 "1. — We stand by the deliverances hitherto 
 issued by our Church upon the temperance 
 question, . . . and we enjoin our ministers and 
 
Prohibition.] 
 
 495 
 
 [Prohibition. 
 
 people to abate nothing in their zeal and effort 
 in or out of the churches to check the drinking 
 habits of society, and by effort, voice and vote 
 to oppose the traffic in intoxicants as a beverage, 
 believing with intensified conviction that it is a 
 direct inexcusable curse to our country and 
 our age. 
 
 " 2. — While, as a church, we neither advocate 
 nor antagonize any political party, we earnestly 
 commend to our ministers and people, as Chris- 
 tian citizens, such vigorous, persevering efforts 
 as may_ seem wisest to them toward the enact- 
 ment in every State and Territory of statutes 
 which shall hopefully secure entire Prohibition 
 of a traffic largely responsible for the bulk of 
 the drunkenness, crime, pauperism and social 
 miseries which afflict our land. ..." 
 
 Prohibition (General Princi- 
 ples). — Prohibition, the opposite of per- 
 mission, is not a synonym of annihila- 
 tion. Those who say " Prohibition does 
 not prohibit " — a self-contradictory prop- 
 osition — mean that Prohibition does not 
 annihilate. This is manifestly true of 
 all kinds of prohibitions in this world — 
 those of the divine government, of fam- 
 ily government and of civil government 
 alike. Prohibition does not annihilate, 
 not even when it forbids murder, adul- 
 tery, theft, false witness and Sunday 
 work. If a threefold alliance of man, 
 woman and the devil, to break a Prohib- 
 itory law and then hide away from jus- 
 tice, proves the law a " blunder," what is 
 to be said of that first prohibition, given 
 to man by God himself, in Eden ? If 
 Prohibition is a "failure" when it does 
 not at once destroy the evils which it 
 forbids, then the Prohibitory law of 
 Sinai is the masterpiece of failures. 
 
 Prohibition does not define accomplish- 
 ment, but only the aim and attitude of 
 government toward wrong. License is 
 a purchased truce — sometimes a sur- 
 render; Prohibition is a declaration of 
 war. License is an edict of toleration — 
 sometimes a certificate of "good moral 
 character ;" Prohibition is a proclamation 
 of outlawry. As murder, adultery, theft, 
 false witness and political corruption are 
 outlawed, the ringleader , of this " gang " 
 ought also to be outlawed. The first re- 
 quisite of law is justice. A law that 
 sanctions wrong is not law at all but leg- 
 islative crime. It is not "public senti- 
 ment" but public conscience out of 
 which law should be quarried. Law is 
 an educator. Duelling and smuggling 
 and liquor-selling were once in the " best 
 society." Gradually the law has made 
 
 them disreputable. Rumselling in Maine 
 is a sneaking fugitive, like counterfeit- 
 ing — not dead but disgraced, and so 
 shorn of power. 
 
 Prohibition of the liquor traffic is 
 more than a standard or a flag to mark 
 the height to which we are marching. 
 No other kind of prohibition, as I have 
 said, has had greater victories. In Maine 
 children grow up without ever seeing a 
 drunken man. In most parts of Kansas 
 and Iowa the law against the saloon is as 
 effective as the law against the brothel 
 or the burglar. To this fact testify a 
 glorious company of witnesses — Govern- 
 ors, Senators, Congressmen, pastors, phy- 
 sicians, manufacturers — against whose 
 evidence scarcely a witness can be brought 
 in rebuttal except "anonymous." The 
 liquor-dealers have saved us the trouble 
 of summing up this testimony. Their 
 statement that more liquor is consumed 
 under Prohibition than without it is can- 
 celled by actions that speak louder than 
 words, by frantic efforts, at great cost, to 
 defeat Prohibition wherever it is pro- 
 posed. If while cancelling their license 
 fees it really increased their sales and so 
 gave them double gains, as they are 
 sometimes able to make even Christians 
 believe, they would hardly fight so help- 
 ful a friend. 
 
 The argument for Prohibition may be 
 concisely stated in four propositions, the 
 four strands of the halter with which 
 the rum traffic is to be hung : 
 
 1. — The business interests of our coun- 
 try demand the suppression of their 
 worst foe — the saloon. 
 
 2. — The homes of our country demand 
 the suppression of their worst foe — the 
 saloon. 
 
 3. — The political liberty of our country 
 demands the suppression of its worst foe 
 — the saloon. 
 
 4. — The conscience of the country de- 
 mands that the attitude of Government 
 toward this foe of business, home and 
 liberty, as toward other foes of the pub- 
 lic good, shall be one of uncompromising 
 hostility. 
 
 The prohibiting of maddening poison 
 is not a " sumptuary law " that is, a law 
 against luxury — but rather a law to pro- 
 mote luxury, to give every year to the 
 impoverished families of those who waste 
 their money for drink, in place of it, a 
 
Prohibition.] 
 
 496 
 
 [Prohibition. 
 
 billion dollars' worth of pianos, books, 
 pictures, etc. 
 
 Prohibition is consistent with liberty 
 in the same way as fire-escapes and 
 quarantines are. A Prohibitory liquor 
 law is a law for the promotion of com- 
 merce, for the protection of labor, for the 
 prevention of cruelty and crime, for the 
 preservation of health and home and 
 liberty. 
 
 The capital that is invested in the 
 liquor business, if invested in legitimate 
 forms of trade, would give employment to 
 hundreds of thousands more people than 
 are now employed by it. This added 
 number of workers would be needed in 
 mills and shops if the money spent for 
 drink were turned into those channels of 
 trade where there is a " fair exchange " 
 and so " no robbery." 
 
 Not only life but liberty itself is 
 menaced by alcohol. In the words of the 
 Catholic Review, " There is nothing fanci- 
 ful in the assertion that in most of the 
 large cities the saloon-keeping interest 
 has as much representation in the Com- 
 mon Council as have all other interests 
 combined — that is to say, the minority in 
 numbers, intelligence and decency gov- 
 erns the majority in most of our large 
 cities." It is this " spoils system " of the 
 saloons that Civil Service Reformers 
 should strike at if they would cure 
 political corruption at the root. It is not 
 so much examination of office-seekers as 
 extermination of these office-brokers of 
 the saloon that is needed. Municipal re- 
 formers also should learn that it is not 
 by a change in the Mayor's office but by 
 a change in the saloon that city politics 
 is to be purified. If our city politics is 
 in slavery to the saloons to-day, when 
 the States are able to restrain them by 
 their yeoman majorities in the Legis- 
 latures, what of the time when the cities 
 shall have the majority of our voters, as 
 they will only eight Presidential elections 
 from now — the third national campaign 
 in which the babes now in your cradles 
 will vote ? In 1920, at the present rate 
 of growth, cities of above 8,000 inhabi- 
 tants will have a clear majority of the 
 voters of the country. The peril is not 
 even so far off as that, for the cities have 
 to-day a power out of proportion to their 
 numbers as compared with country dis- 
 tricts, because their forces are more con- 
 centrated and better organized. And 
 
 besides this, the saloon has carried city 
 corruption into the country, except 
 where Local Option or some other form 
 of Prohibition has barred the way. 
 " Ireland sober is Ireland free." So we 
 may say of our own country : America's 
 liquor or its liberty must go. 
 
 There is reason to believe that alcohol 
 may be not only universally prohibited 
 in our country but also annihilated. The 
 Journal of Chemistry has shown that the 
 dangerous exceptions made for its use in 
 medicine and the arts are unnecessary, 
 since science has safer substitutes (see 
 "The Temperance Century" p. 87). It 
 is also to be remembered that the passion 
 for alcohol is not a natural passion like 
 sexuality, but wholly artificial, making 
 it an evil like slavery that may be wholly 
 obliterated. It may not be wise to pro- 
 hibit any but the beverage use of alcohol 
 until a generation of physicians, intelli- 
 gent enough to doctor without this dyna- 
 mite, has been raised, but the goal which 
 we should set before us should be, after 
 Prohibition, annihilation. 
 
 Wilbur P. Ceafts. 
 
 A most observable fact in the temper- 
 ance reform has been its constantly 
 widening range. It started in individual 
 action, but passed almost immediately 
 into various kinds of association for 
 mutual aid. Indeed, this transition may 
 be looked on as the first step in temper- 
 ance as a reform. From a guarded use 
 of intoxicants, pressed by the exigencies 
 of the case, it moved forward to their 
 absolute rejection. In a similar way it 
 was forced beyond individual abstinence 
 into civic Prohibition. Prom Prohibi- 
 tion in towns and counties it advanced 
 to Constitutional Prohibition in the 
 State, and from this it is advancing to 
 Prohibition by the general Government. 
 Each of these steps has been taken be- 
 cause of the necessary widening of the 
 conflict and the need for more resources 
 in meeting it. 
 
 Some may look upon this constant 
 increase of demands as evidence of the 
 impossibility and futility of the entire 
 movement. The believers in Prohibi- 
 tion regard it as the inevitable result 
 of the breadth and unity of those social 
 relations which enclose us. We cannot 
 win our own without seeking like gifts 
 for all. Each step of extension makes 
 
Prohibition.] 
 
 497 
 
 [Prohibition. 
 
 the previous position more secure. We 
 are compelled to conquer a boundary or 
 lose what we have already gained, and 
 that boundary is the world. A nation 
 doubtless offers a fairly defensible unit 
 in this strife, and yet the moment we 
 achieve this success we shall become in- 
 creasingly sensible of an outside pres- 
 eure from other nations opposed to us in 
 eentiment and action. International co- 
 operation is necessary to make Prohibi- 
 tion effectual. This was recognized by 
 the Powers bordering on the North Sea, 
 when, perceiving the dire consequences 
 of intemperance among the fishermen in 
 those waters, they joined in promulgating 
 the celebrated Prohibitory agreement 
 of 1887. 1 The absolute and sweeping 
 Prohibitory law for the Samoan Islands, 
 against alcoholic beverages of all kinds, 
 incorporated in the treaty for the govern- 
 ment of those islands drawn up in Berlin 
 in 1889 by the plenipotentiaries of the 
 United States, Great Britain and Ger- 
 many (and subsequently ratified by the 
 three Powers), is another instructive 
 instance. 2 
 
 The most constant and obviously in- 
 fluential activity which unites us to other 
 countries is that of commerce. Com- 
 merce is a chief medium to the better 
 as well as to the worst influences that lie 
 between different peoples and races. 
 Notably, three forms of trade — that in 
 slaves, that in opium and that in rum — 
 have carried with them the most terrible 
 
 1 The six Powers bordering on the North Sea — viz,, Great 
 Britain, Prance, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Den- 
 mark — have come to an international agreement which 
 applies to that part of the North Sea which te outside ter- 
 ritorial limits. [Inside territorial waters each country can 
 ■make its own laws.] 
 
 The arrangement is shortly as follows : 
 
 The sale of spirits to fishermen and other persons on 
 "board fishing-vessels is prohibited. 
 
 Fishermen are equally forbidden to buy spirits. 
 
 The exchange or barter for spirits of any article, especi- 
 ally the fish caught, nets or any part of the gear or " equi- 
 page " of the fishing-boat, is also prohibited. 
 
 Vessels which ply on the North Sea for the purpose of 
 -selling to fishermen other articles (not spirits) will have to 
 be licensed by the Government of their own country, and 
 "to be liable to strict regulations, with the object of insur- 
 ing their not having spirits on board for sale. 
 
 The six countries engage to propose to their respective 
 Legislatures laws to carry this arrangement into effect and 
 to punish those who do not conform to it. — Political Pro- 
 hibitionist for 1888, p. 10. 
 
 2 This treaty was signed June 14, 1889, and its provis- 
 ions have been promulgated by proclamation by the King 
 of Samoa. The following is the text of the Prohibitory 
 clause : 
 
 " No spirituous, vinous or fermented liquorB, or intox- 
 icating drinks whatever, shall be sold, given or offered to 
 any native Samoan or South Sea islander resident in 
 Samoa, to be taken as a beverage. Adequate penalties, 
 including imprisonment for the violation of the provisions 
 of this Article, shall be established by the Municipal 
 Council for application within its jurisdiction, and by the 
 Samoan Government for all the islands." 
 
 evils and drawn out the most brutish 
 and diabolical passions. The results of 
 traffic at war with all sense of right have 
 been the more disastrous and more con- 
 siderable because it has been carried on 
 between the weak and the strong, the 
 ignotant and the enlightened, unchris- 
 tian and Christian nations. It has had 
 no other motive than the unscrupulous 
 greed of those who had the world in their 
 avaricious grasp. The slave trade has 
 at length come under the censure and 
 partial repression of the Christian world. 
 The trade in rum is in full activity. Less 
 immediate violence attends upon it, but 
 its evils are more pervasive and far less 
 remediable than those of the slave 
 trade. Africa is the dark continent be- 
 cause of the barbarism of so large a part 
 of its inhabitants, because of the slave 
 trade, and still more, just now, because 
 of the sale of those fiery liquors, full of 
 all evil inspiration, of which rum stands 
 the representative. This commerce brings 
 at once the worst vices of civilized life 
 to those who have neither the experience, 
 the interests, the intellectual force nor 
 the moral motives fitting them for re- 
 sistance. If civilization offers to those 
 under it new temptations it also fur- 
 nishes them new incentives of self-gov- 
 ernment ; but rum in Africa carries ruin 
 without mitigation or relief of any sort. 
 The black man is debauched immediately 
 and completely by intoxication. For a 
 nation like the United States to suffer 
 such a commerce on the part of its sub- 
 jects is to impose a collective respon- 
 sibility on each citizen for a line of action 
 which is simply devilish in every phase 
 of it. 
 
 For other Christian nations to permit 
 and to share this commerce — since the 
 principle of common interest and respon- 
 sibility in defining the connections of 
 the civilized and uncivilized portions of 
 the world to each other has long been 
 recognized, and has just been renewedly 
 applied in adjusting the relation of 
 Africa to outside claims — is to weigh 
 down the moral sense of the world col- 
 lectively with the worst of crimes. We 
 cannot easily overestimate the moral re- 
 sults of such a fact. International re- 
 lations rest, for equity and safety, on the 
 collective convictions of men. Inter- 
 national law and comity are the slow ex- 
 tension between nations of just and 
 
Prohibition.] 
 
 498 
 
 [Prohibition. 
 
 humane principles. The burden most 
 oppressive to the prosperity of the world 
 is that incident to war. As long as force 
 is more significant than right this danger, 
 intolerable as it is, will increase rather 
 than diminish. The civilized worM can- 
 not take, as in the Conference at Berlin, 
 the attitude of unhesitating selfishness, 
 indicated by free rum on the Congo, and 
 not feel in all its own relations the dis- 
 astrous influence of the principle there 
 recognized. x 
 
 i The action in regard to the African liquor trade taken 
 by the Anti-Slavery Conference at Brussels in 1890'indicates 
 a decided change from the attitude of the Powers at the 
 Berlin Conference of 1884. The Brussels Conference in- 
 corporated the following in its general act: 
 
 " CHAPTER VI. 
 
 "Restrictive Measures Concerning the Traffic in 
 
 Spirituous Liquors. 
 
 *' Article 90.— Justly anxious about the moral and ma- 
 terial consequences which the abuse of spirituous liquors 
 entails on the native populations, the signatory Powers 
 have agreed to apply the provisions of Articles 91, 92 and 
 93 within a zone extending from the 20° north latitude to 
 the 22° south latitude, and bounded by the Atlantic Ocean 
 on the west and by the Indian Ocean on the eaBt, with its 
 dependencies, comprising the islands adjacent to the 
 mainland, up to 100 sea miles from the shore. 
 
 " Article 91. — In the districts of this zone where it shall 
 be ascertained that, either on account of religious belief 
 or from other motives, the use of distilled liquors does not 
 exist or has not been developed, the Powers shall prohibit 
 their importation. The manufacture of distilled liquors 
 there shall be equally prohibited. 
 
 " Each Power shall determine the limits of the zone of 
 prohibition of alcoholic liquors in its possessions or pro- 
 tectorates, and shall be bound to notify the limits thereof 
 to the other Powers within the space of six months. The 
 above prohibition can only he suspended in the case of 
 limited quantities destined for the consumption of the 
 non-native population and imported under the regime 
 and. conditions determined by each Government. 
 
 "Article 92.— The Powers having possessions or exer- 
 cising protectorates in the regions of the zone which are 
 not placed under the action of the prohibition, and into 
 which alcoholic liquors are at present either freely im- 
 ported or pay an import duty of leBs than 15 francs per 
 hectoliter at 50° centigrade, undertake to levy on these 
 alcoholic liquors an import duty of 15 francs per hectoliter 
 at 50° centigrade for three years after the present gen- 
 eral act comes into force. At the expiration of this period 
 the duty may be increased to 25 francs during a fresh 
 
 Seriod of three years. At the end of the sixth year it shall 
 e submitted to revision, taking as a basis the average re- 
 sults produced by these tariffs, for the purpose of then 
 fixing, if possible, a minimum duty througnout the whole 
 extent of the zone where the prohibition referred to in 
 Article 91 is not in force. 
 
 " The Powers have the right of maintaining and in- 
 creasing the duties beyond the minimum fixed by the 
 present Article in those regions where they already 
 possess that right. 
 
 " Article 93.— The distilled liquors manufactured in the 
 regions referred to in Article 92 and intended for in- 
 land consumption, shall be subject to an Excise duty. 
 
 " This Excise duty, the collection of which the Powers 
 undertake to insure as far as possible, shall not be lower 
 than the minimum import duty fixed by Article 92. 
 
 "Article 94. — Signatory Powers having in Africa posses- 
 sions contiguous to the zone specified in Article 90 under- 
 take to adopt the necessary measures for preventing the 
 introduction of spirituous liquors within the territories of 
 the said zone by their inland frontiers. 
 
 " Article 95.— The Powers shall communicate to each 
 other, through the office at BrusselSj and according to 
 the terms of Chapter V., information relating to the 
 traffic in alcoholic liquors within their respective terri- 
 tories." 
 
 The object of these provisions is, briefly, to prevent the 
 extension of tne liquor traffic in Africa. The zone re- 
 ferred to includes the Soudan, Guinea, Ashantee, Sene- 
 gambia, Liberia, Dafur, Abyssinia, Somali, the Congo 
 Free State.' the great lakes, the Zanzibar coast, Angola, 
 
 The principle, compactly put, is, that 
 the weak have no protection against the 
 strong. Man, endowed with appetites ten- 
 fold more cruel and widely destructive 
 than those of the animal, sinks down to 
 the same basis of rapine. The temper 
 which expresses itself in Asia, Africa and 
 the isles of the sea will confront the na- 
 tions of Europe in their intercourse with 
 each other and compel them to devote 
 the energies of life to a fearful strain in 
 a limitless effort to outstrip each other in 
 the race of physical force. " How truly 
 terrible and tragic the actual situation 
 of Europe is ! Never was there anything 
 similar in preceding centuries. Every 
 one is convinced that at any moment so 
 horrible a war may break out that all 
 other wars, even that of secession in 
 America, will be but child's play in com- 
 parison." Seven millions of men, backed 
 by a reserve of ten millions more, stand 
 ready to be precipitated on each other. 
 It is wholly in harmony with the relations 
 of the moral world to assert that this 
 avalanche, ready to fall, may indirectly 
 be brought down by the moral jar atten- 
 dant on the unscrupulous counsel by 
 which the outlying world of barbarism is 
 subjected to the avarice of the worst 
 agents of civilized life. It is precisely 
 this spirit and no other which these 
 Christian nations have to fear. It is this 
 temper which begets conditions ready, 
 with fatal force, to sweep down and over 
 all justice, all humanity and every divine 
 impulse. More than ten millions of gal- 
 lons of liquor are annually sent to West 
 Africa, where it is known to work mis- 
 chief of the most unqualified, speedy and 
 unprovoked kind. Germany, the Nether- 
 lands, the United States, France and 
 Great Britain are engaged in the traffic,. 
 
 Benguela, Damaraland, Mozambique, moBt of Madagas- 
 car and vast regions of the unexplored territory of cen- 
 tral Africa. The prohibition does not contemplate the 
 abandonment of the present destructive rum traffic in many 
 portions of this great domain, and the provisions made- 
 are therefore seriously defective. But a progressive spirit 
 is indicated, and if the legislation of the Conference i& 
 approved and goes into effect and is enforced, the cor- 
 ruption of many millions of the natives of Africa will be- 
 prevented. Especial credit has been given to England 
 and the United States fox the adoption of these provis- 
 ions. 
 
 At the time that this is written (December, 1890) it is: 
 uncertain whether the Brussels legislation will take ef- 
 fect. To be valid it must be endorsed by the Govern- 
 ments of the Powers represented in the Conference (Eng- 
 1 land, France, Germany, Holland, the United States, Por- 
 tugal, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Spain, the Congo Free- 
 State, Italy, Persia, Russia, Sweden-Norway and Turkey). 
 Holland has manifested a strong disposition to repudiate 
 it, because the customs duties on certain articles, as de- 
 termined in the general act, are regarded with disfavor by 
 Hollandish merchants. 
 
Prohibition.] 
 
 499 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 Germany well in the lead. It is as im- 
 possible that such clear, self-conscious 
 international sin should not help to break 
 down international morality as it is that 
 drunkenness should not penetrate and 
 overthrow -intellectual and spiritual 
 power. 
 
 International law has gained a footing 
 among the nations of Europe largely be- 
 cause they profess one religious faith. 
 This victory of reason and righteousness 
 must owe its completion, if it is to be 
 completed, to a purified moral sense. 
 Such an institution as the slave trade 
 checked progress everywhere because it 
 depressed the standard of duty under 
 which that advance was to be made. The 
 traffic in rum to-day takes its place in its 
 wide-reaching and malign influence. It 
 constitutes the present dark spot in the 
 history of a dark world. The world 
 brings to Christian nations, seeking their 
 own development, one after another of 
 the practical problems of duty, and each 
 for the moment becomes the turning- 
 point of truth. 
 
 There is no complete redemption 
 within the nation unless there is redemp- 
 tion beyond it. One reason why Massa- 
 chusetts is not ready for Prohibition in 
 her own borders is the profit attendant 
 on the extended and thriving trade of 
 Boston in New England rum. It is not 
 possible that a State which is not pre- 
 pared to protect its own feebler citizens 
 from the extreme danger of this traffic 
 should be ready to shield savage life, 
 hidden away in the dark recesses of 
 Africa, from greater disorder. Nor is it 
 any more possible that a temper, un- 
 scrupulous in places remote and secret, 
 should become tender and conscientious 
 at home. 
 
 The traffic in liquors between civilized 
 nations is instituted and carried on with 
 the same indifference to human well- 
 being which characterizes it in our own 
 cities and towns. If the sense of personal 
 relation and personal responsibility are 
 more obscure in this wider field, never- 
 theless, more comprehensive, more deli- 
 cate and more difficult conditions of the 
 general prosperity are there being 
 settled. 
 
 The earth is the Lord's and the ful- 
 ness thereof ; but the methods of con- 
 ciliation, counsel and good-will by which 
 these results are to be brought about are 
 
 precisely those which first spring up be- 
 tween man and man in the community 
 and in the nation. No wine-producing 
 country can confine its evils to its own 
 soil. That which debauches it will de- 
 bauch all who traffic with it. The 
 strongholds of evil are always found with 
 the relatively good. There are its im- 
 pregnable posts. A use of wines by a 
 comparatively temperate nation, that has 
 much to commend it in social inter- 
 course and commerce, drags the lengthen- 
 ing chain of vice and misery to the last 
 link that runs along the gutter. 
 
 The world has done something to 
 shake off the literature of debauch. 
 Manly, pure, spiritual quality gains in- 
 ci easing hold on the imagination. Ani- 
 mal impulses are felt to be hostile to 
 wholesome, exhilarating virtues in the 
 soul of man. But this purifying of 
 fancy is a slow process. It is the wash- 
 ing of the spirit itself. It is lifting life 
 to a higher plane in its unfolding. It is 
 disentangling the fibers of decay and cor- 
 ruption from those of sweetness and 
 strength. This movement of the spirit 
 of man toward its own by which it sub- 
 dues the world without being subdued by 
 it, or rather by which it and the world 
 spring up together toward new, purer 
 and more vital things, — this process can 
 go forward only by a verdict of the race 
 against drunkenness — the footprints of 
 the demon of debauch. It is time that 
 we look for world-wide Prohibition, 
 which shall set every human eye to watch 
 for, and make every human hand ready to 
 pluck up, the secret and insidious roots of 
 an evil widely fastened on our physical 
 and social constitution. 
 
 John Bascom. 
 
 Prohibition, Benefits of. — The 
 
 practical trial of the Prohibition policy 
 in the United States has been interfered 
 with by many and serious difficulties. 
 Great as is the extent of territory, in the 
 aggregate, where experiments have been 
 made since the agitation began, this pol- 
 icy has never had the advantage of a 
 systematic introduction and broad foun- 
 dation. The National Congress has never 
 enacted general Prohibitory legislation 
 and has never given support to or even 
 recognized the Prohibitory measures 
 adopted in States and localities : indeed, 
 the attitude of the Federal Government 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 500 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 for nearly 30 years has been in formal 
 antagonism to Prohibition. 1 The States, 
 with very few exceptions, have uniformly 
 (or with but brief intervals of Prohibi- 
 tion) permitted license under certain con- 
 ditions — conditions that, in practice, 
 have effectually excluded Prohibitory 
 law from most of the chief centers of 
 population. Thus, in New England, 
 while two States (Maine and Vermont) 
 have been constantly under complete 
 Prohibition for a long term of years, the 
 other four States (Massachusetts, New 
 Hampshire, Connecticut and Ehode Is- 
 land), though nominally prohibiting the 
 traffic at times in that period, have so 
 far inclined to license as to give continu- 
 ance to liquor manufacture and com- 
 merce in such cities as Boston, Ports- 
 mouth, New Haven, Hartford and 
 Providence. Kansas and her comple- 
 mentary Prohibition State of Iowa have 
 for years stood alone at the West; mean- 
 time the neighboring license States of 
 Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois and Mis- 
 souri, with their great cities — Omaha, 
 St. Paul, Minneapolis, Chicago, Peoria, 
 Kansas City and St. Louis — have been 
 aggressively hostile to Prohibitory laws 
 and diligently sought to flood the Pro- 
 hibition districts with liquor. There is 
 no Prohibition State or county, city, 
 village or township where the success of 
 the policy is not or may not be at any 
 time endangered by the interference of 
 the liquor trade in license States, coun- 
 ties or localities close at hand. 
 
 The police power, which is every- 
 where vested in the local governments 
 and can always be supplemented and 
 made more effective by co-operation from 
 county and State authorities, is theoreti- 
 cally sufficient for the upholding of 
 Prohibitory as well as all other laws 
 and for the correction of offenses com- 
 mitted by unscrupulous outsiders; in- 
 deed, there has been no serious limita- 
 tion of the right of each political division 
 
 1 Prohibitions of the liquor traffic in the Indian, Okla- 
 homa and Alaska Territories, and similar steps taken by 
 the United States Government, have been inaugurated for 
 special purposes and are of little present significance. 
 The enactment by Congress in 1890 of the law permitting 
 States to deal at pleasure with liquors brought into them 
 from other States may perhaps be regarded as providing 
 an exception to the above statement that Congress has 
 never sustained or recognized State Prohibition; but this 
 law was granted simply in compliance with an intimation 
 from the Supreme Court, as an act of justice if not of 
 necessity, and moreover was intended as much for the 
 protection of those States in which High License pre- 
 Tails as for the benefit of the Prohibition States. 
 
 having Prohibitory law to fully enforce 
 the law, except during the few months of 
 1890 in which the " Original Package " 
 decision of the Supreme Court caused 
 confusion — and the disturbance result- 
 ing from this decision was soon brought 
 to an end by Congressional legislation. 
 But though theoretically sufficient, the 
 local police power is inadequate practi- 
 cally so long as liquor is produced and 
 is a legitimate article of commerce in 
 other communities, counties and States. 
 All the conditions for a troublesome con- 
 traband traffic exist. Under the most 
 stringent Prohibition there will always 
 be some and oftentimes there will be 
 many persons desiring drink or ready to 
 purchase it if opportunity offers. 
 Liquor is an article easily concealed, 
 and the tricks and devices by 
 which it can be peddled are num- 
 berless. The profits promised by 
 illicit enterprise are large and are quickly 
 won. Individual citizens who are not 
 under suspicion may ship in supplies 
 without very great risk, for the search 
 and seizure clauses of Prohibitory stat- 
 utes, for manifest reasons, are not vigor- 
 ously applied until there is good ground 
 for believing that a particular person is 
 actually disposing or preparing to dis- 
 pose of liquor in violation of law. 
 Above all, the highways of inter-State 
 commerce are everywhere open to the 
 smugglers. By a decision of the United 
 States Supreme Court 2 no Prohibition 
 State can, without the consent of Con- 
 gress (not yet granted), prevent an inter- 
 State railway or express company from 
 carrying to any point within its borders 
 liquor brought from another State. Ship- 
 ments of liquor from Boston to Portland, 
 for example, are held to be valid ship- 
 ments by the Courts, and if the shippers 
 use careful disguises the "goods" may 
 escape detection by the police officers of 
 Portland and be delivered to citizens of 
 that town. Once delivered they may be 
 surreptitiously sold or given away, and 
 have a more or less potent effect for neu- 
 tralizing the law of Maine, in accordance 
 with the shrewdness of the men into 
 whose hands they come, and with various 
 local conditions. 
 
 Unfavorable local conditions constitute 
 
 2 The famous decision, rendered in 1888, which became 
 the foundation for the " Original Package " decision. 
 Bowman v. Chicago & N. W. Ky. Co., 135 U. S., 465.) 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 501 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 the next great impediment to the success 
 of Prohibition. Under this head, indeed, 
 all the secondary difficulties fall : for all 
 difficulties are secondary in comparison 
 with the one already noticed — the pres- 
 ence of a legalized traffic in neighboring 
 States and places. The chief of the local 
 difficulties undoubtedly arises from the 
 failure of the controlling political parties 
 to earnestly identify themselves "with the 
 cause of Prohibition. This is not at all 
 equivalent to saying that the people, as 
 the source of parties and of government, 
 are fundamentally responsible in cases of 
 neglect or opposition; for the existence 
 of Prohibition implies that popular con- 
 sent and approval have already been 
 granted. An indifferent or a hostile 
 partisan attitude is frequently if not al- 
 ways taken without regard to genuine 
 public sentiment — at least without regard 
 to the sentiment of the best citizens; 
 party action is controlled by designing 
 leaders, and leaders are readily influenced 
 against Prohibition by aggressive de- 
 mands, bribes, threats and promises of 
 support from the liquor element. Thus 
 it has happened nearly everywhere that 
 Prohibition has not enjoyed the cordial 
 political support necessary to its full 
 success. Statutory provisions for enforce- 
 ment have been lamentably defective; 
 penalties have been inadequate and so 
 adjusted, at times, as to render illicit 
 trade scarcely more perilous than licensed 
 trade would be under a stringent license 
 system; men personally opposed to Pro- 
 hibition, or deliberately pledged to its 
 organized foes, have been chosen to fill 
 the offices most intimately connected 
 with the administration of law — as 
 Judges, Prosecuting Attorneys, Mayors, 
 Sheriffs, Aldermen, police authorities, 
 etc. ; juries have been packed with saloon 
 adherents — in short, it has often seemed 
 that the entire macbinery of government 
 has been given over to the outlawed 
 traffic. The tireless persistence of all the 
 violators of law, the encouragement shown 
 them by an insinuating and sometimes 
 incendiary press, the timidity of many 
 friends of the law, the lack of determined 
 leadership and the coldness or reaction- 
 ary tendencies of numerous good citizens 
 (not excepting an element of the clergy) 
 are other local impediments to the en- 
 forcement of Prohibition that are repeat- 
 edly encountered. 
 
 No study of the results of this policy 
 can be intelligently undertaken without 
 frankly recognizing the difficulties under 
 which all experiments have been con- 
 ducted, and the conscientious student 
 will not make the mistake of judging 
 the fruits of Prohibition by the results 
 in States or communities where for 
 various reasons there has been only 
 an unfair or imperfect trial. The truly 
 dispassionate observer must desire, be- 
 yond all, to know what the conse- 
 quences of Prohibitory law are when 
 working under conditions favorable to 
 its success. 
 
 The admission that there have been 
 partial or complete failures does not 
 affect the vital question, Would thor- 
 oughly enforced Prohibition be bene- 
 ficial ? But this admission suggests a 
 practical question that cannot be ignored 
 — In view of the many acknowledged dis- 
 appointments, and of the above-con- 
 sidered difficulties, is the effort for 
 thorough Prohibition practicable, and if 
 not, are the benefits of partial Prohibi- 
 tion such as to justify enacting a Pro- 
 hibitory law that may be only partially 
 effective ? However artfully the issue 
 may be disguised, however strenuously 
 it may be maintained that of necessity 
 Prohibition " don't " and cannot be made 
 to prohibit, fair men will concede that 
 assumption is out of place in dealing with 
 such questions, and that they can be 
 answered only by evidence adduced with 
 impartiality but with proper discrimina- 
 tion. 
 
 In sifting the great mass of testimony 
 that every patient inquirer may easily 
 gather, it is difficult to adopt an entirely 
 satisfactory method of classification. It is 
 desirable, for instance, to make a sepa- 
 rate and detailed comparison of results 
 obtained under State laws with those 
 secured under Local Option, High 
 License and low license systems ; 
 again, the reader will wish to have a 
 separate and comprehensive analysis of 
 the effects of Prohibition upon arrests 
 for crime, and other distinct and equally 
 extended exhibits of the influence that 
 it exerts as a corrective of pauperism, 
 etc.; again,- it is proper to show sepa- 
 rately how Prohibition has affected com- 
 mercial prosperity, taxation, the inter- 
 ests of education, etc. But the results of 
 Prohibition in one direction are closely 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 50£ 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 associated with its results in all other 
 directions, and a formal classification 
 would involve endless repetitions. For 
 the purposes of this article the testi- 
 mony will be presented under two heads: 
 (1) Diminution of the Consumption of 
 Drink, and Effects upon Crime and 
 Kindred Evils; (2) Economic and Other 
 Effects. 
 
 DIMINUTION OF THE CONSUMPTION OF 
 DRINK, AND EFFECTS UPON CRIME 
 AND KINDRED EVILS. 
 
 In beginning an examination into the 
 Btrictly temperance results of Prohibitory 
 laws nothing is more suggestive* than 
 the unanimity and the vigor with which 
 such laws are opposed by all engaged in 
 the liquor traffic. " Eesolved, That we 
 are unalterably opposed to Prohibition, 
 general or local," said the National Pro- 
 tective Association at its first convention. 
 (See p. 388.) " Eesolved, That we are 
 an anti-Prohibition Association, pure and 
 simple," declared the New York State 
 Brewers' and Maltsters' Association in 
 1883. (See p. 488.) " We have had a great 
 deal of business in the State of Iowa, 
 both before it was Prohibition and 
 since," wrote the chief distiller of Ne- 
 braska in 1888, " and we can say posi- 
 tively there is very little satisfaction in 
 ■doing business in that State now. Ever 
 ,so often the goods are seized, and it 
 causes a great deal of delay and trouble 
 to get them released ; and there is a fear of 
 not getting money for the goods, and all 
 the forms we have to go through make 
 it very annoying business. It is like 
 running a railroad under ground. You 
 don't know where you are going or what 
 is ahead." (See p. 219.) Pew will deny 
 that the policy which is most hurtful to 
 the liquor trade must be most instru- 
 mental in modifying the evils of intem- 
 perance. In the' uncompromising hos- 
 tility with which the "trade" meets 
 every attempt to establish Prohibition 
 lies a strong indication of Prohibition's 
 effectiveness as a temperance measure. 
 
 Maine. 
 Neal Dow, the " Father of the Maine 
 law," in an article in this work 
 (see pp. 411-12) describes the woe- 
 ful conditions prevailing in that State 
 before the enactment of Prohibition. 
 He says that immense quantities of rum 
 - were distilled and consumed there, and 
 
 that the large home supply was supple- 
 mented by a great deal of rum imported 
 from the West India Islands. In another 
 place he has made this declaration : " I 
 think I have seen nearly an acre of pun- 
 cheons of West India rum at one time 
 on our wharves, just landed from ships. 
 All this time seven distilleries [in Port- 
 land] running day and night ! Now I 
 will venture to say that we have not had 
 a puncheon of West India rum imported 
 here in five years — yes, I will say 10 
 years, and there is but one distillery in 
 the State, and that not running, I think ; 
 but if it runs it is laid under $3,000 
 bonds to sell no spirit except for medic- 
 inal or mechanical purposes, or for ex- 
 portation." 1 
 
 These statements are confirmed with 
 the strongest emphasis by well-nigh all 
 the eminent men of Maine. It is impos- 
 sible in this article to make even a sum- 
 mary of all the important testimony. 
 Only a few of the most conspicuous fea- 
 tures of the evidence will be given. 
 
 The Voice for Oct. 9, 1890, printed 
 letters from the two United States Sena- 
 tors from Maine and other distinguished 
 citizens. Senator William P. Prye wrote, 
 in part : 
 
 " I can remember the time when in the State 
 of Maine there was a grocery store at nearly 
 every four-corners in certain portions of the 
 State, whose principal business was in the sale 
 of New England rum; when the jails were 
 crowded and poverty prevailed. To-day the 
 country portions of the State are absolutely free 
 from the sale of liquor; poverty is compara- 
 tively unknown, and in some of the counties 
 the jails have been without occupants for years 
 at a time. Wherever the laws have been rigidly 
 enforced this condition of things has been the 
 invariable result. The people who have tried 
 and witnessed the result of these Prohibitory 
 laws adopted a few years since a Constitutional 
 Amendment, prohibiting the sale or manufac- 
 ture of liquor, by an overwhelming majority. 
 
 " The Democratic party for many years after 
 Prohibition was adopted denounced it in every 
 party platform, but for the last 12 or 15 years — 
 such has been the progress of the temperance 
 sentiment under the law — they have not 
 dared to do so. This year they made a feeble 
 attempt in that direction and were completely 
 snowed under. . . . 
 
 " The law is not a failure: it has been, on the 
 other hand, a wonderful success. I do not 
 mean to assert, of course, that there is no liquor 
 sold in our large cities where evasions of law 
 are so much more easily found than in the 
 country. "We have laws against murder and 
 theft, but no man is so insane as to suppose 
 
 1 Alcohol and the State, p. 353. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 503 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 that under their influence there will be no mur- 
 der or stealing." 
 
 Senator Eugene Hale wrote : 
 
 "Throughout the State generally the Pro- 
 hibitory law has driven out the grogshop, and 
 while liquor is undoubtedly sold in the larger 
 towns and cities it is not done in an open way, 
 and the amount of liquor-selling is smaller even 
 in these larger towns and cities than in corre- 
 sponding places elsewhere. Maine people be- 
 lieve in Prohibition because they are every-day 
 witnesses to its good effect." 
 
 "William De W. Hyde, President of Bow- 
 doin College, wrote : 
 
 "The manufacture and open sale are pre- 
 Tented ; temptation is to a great degree removed 
 from the young; the business is made disrepu- 
 table; liquor-dealers are disqualified for political 
 ■office and positions of social influence which they 
 would hold if their business were not made 
 criminal by the law of the State; and thus the 
 law is slowly educating the people and develop- 
 ing a temperance sentiment which in time will 
 "be strong enough to give the law all the support 
 it needs. In the meantime Prohibition, even in 
 its imperfect working, has been a great benefit 
 to the moral, social and economic interests of 
 the State. We believe in it for ourselves, and 
 we wish that wherever conditions similar to 
 those of our State exist other States may expe- 
 jience its benefits." 
 
 B. T. Sanborn, Superintendent of the 
 Maine Insane Hospital, wrote: 
 
 "The Prohibitory law of Maine has in my 
 opinion operated very favorably in lessening the 
 use of intoxicating liquors, and thereby remov- 
 ing one of the prominent causes of mental 
 derangement. I have no question but that a 
 smaller number in this State are becoming insane 
 from alcoholic stimulants in consequence of Pro- 
 hibition." 
 
 These are merely a few of the latest 
 representative expressions. Others even 
 more notable have been presented from 
 -time to time. May 31, 1872, William P. 
 Erye, then a Member of Congress from 
 Maine, sent the following letter to Gen. 
 Neal Dow : 
 
 "Your favor of the 36th inst., containing an 
 inquiry as to the effect of the Maine liquor law 
 in restraining the sale of liquors in our State, 
 ■etc., is before me ; and in reply, while I am 
 unable to state any exact percentage of decrease 
 in the business, I can and do, from my own per- 
 sonal observation, unhesitatingly affirm that the 
 ■consumption of intoxicating liquors in Maine is 
 not to-day one-fourth so great as it was 20 years 
 ago; that in the country portions of the State 
 the sale and use have almost entirely ceased; 
 that the law of itself, under a vigorous enforce-, 
 ment of its provisions, has created a temperance 
 sentiment which is marvellous and to which 
 opposition is powerless. In my opinion our 
 remarkable temperance reform of to-day is the 
 legitimate child of the law. 
 
 "With profound gratitude for your earnest 
 
 and persistent efforts in the promotion of this 
 cause, I am, very respectfully, your obedient 
 servant, William P. Frye."' 
 
 The interest of this letter was increased 
 by the fact that it received the unquali- 
 fied endorsements of all the other Mem- 
 bers of Congress from Maine, of the two 
 United States Senators, and of the Hon. 
 James G. Blaine, as follows : 
 
 James G. Blaine : "I concur in the foregoing 
 statement ; and on the point of the relative 
 amount of the liquors sold at present in Maine 
 and in those States where a system of license 
 prevails, I am sure, from personal knowledge 
 and observation, thatthe sales are immeasurably 
 less in Maine." 3 
 
 Hannibal Hamlin, United States Senator from 
 Maine and formerly Vice-President of the 
 United States: "I concur in the statements 
 made by Mr. Frye. In the great good pro- 
 duced by the Prohibitory liquor law of Maine 
 no man can doubt who has seen its results. It 
 has been of immense value." 
 
 Lot M. Morrill, United States Senator from 
 Maine: "I have the honor unhesitatingly to 
 concur in the opinions expressed in the forego- 
 ing by my colleague, Hon. Mr. Frye." 
 
 John Lynch, Member of Congress from 
 Maine : "I fully concur in the statement of my 
 colleague, Mr. Frye, in regard to the effect of 
 the enforcement of the liquor law in the State 
 of Maine." 
 
 John A. Peters and Eugene Hale, Members 
 of Congress from Maine : "We are satisfied 
 that there is much less intemperance in Maine 
 than formerly, and that the result is largely 
 produced by what is termed Prohibitory legis- 
 lation." 
 
 In 1874 the Governor-General of Can- 
 ada, in accordance with a request from 
 the Dominion Parliament, appointed a 
 Special Commission " to inquire into the 
 working of Prohibitory liquor laws." 
 This Commission devoted much attention 
 to the results in Maine, and the follow- 
 ing questions were submitted by it to 
 many citizens of that State, including 
 both friends and opponents of the law : 
 " Is the liquor law enforced, and if not 
 what is the hinderance to its working ? " 
 " What have been the results of a change 
 from Prohibition to license, or vice 
 versa ? " Mr. E. J. Wheeler, in his " Pro- 
 hibition" (p. Ill) says: " In the replies 
 received to these two questions one thing 
 is especially noticeable, namely, that 
 
 1 Alcohol and the State, pp. 161-2. 
 
 2 In 1882 Mr. Blaine added this declaration : " Intem- 
 perance haa steadily decreased in Maine since the first en- 
 actment of the Prohibitory law, until now it can be said 
 with truth that there is no equal number of people in the 
 Anglo-Saxon world among whom so small an amount of 
 intoxicating liquor is consumed as among the 650,000 in- 
 habitants of Maine.' 1 (For the opinion of Mr. Blaine as 
 to the effects of Prohibition on the material interests of 
 the State, see p. 538.) 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 504 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 while many, especially those resident in 
 Portland and Bangor, admit that there is 
 a lax enforcement of the law, yet all, 
 without exception, testify to the good re- 
 sults of the law even when it is poorly 
 enforced." 
 
 In 1889 the Voice made a systematic 
 canvass of the opinions of representative 
 citizens throughout the State. Questions 
 were sent to the most prominent men in 
 every county — politicians, Judges, Super- 
 intendents of Schools, Congressmen, 
 Clergymen, Overseers of the Poor, farm- 
 ers, business men, Sheriffs, Selectmen, 
 postmasters, Mayors, manufacturers, 
 physicians, lawyers, County Commission- 
 ers, State legislators, journalists, etc. — 
 140 in all. Among the questions asked 
 were : " How successfully does the Maine 
 law prohibit the open liquor-saloon in 
 your section of the State ? " and " Do you 
 believe there would be more or less 
 pauperism and crime in Maine should 
 the saloons be again opened and sustained 
 by law ? " The answers to the first of 
 these questions thoroughly supported the 
 radical statements made above. "Abso- 
 lutely;" "Not a single saloon in this 
 city ; " " Highly successful in this 
 county; " " No open saloons in Portland, 
 but liquor smuggled in and sold to a 
 limited degree ; " " In 21 of 24 towns no 
 liquor sold;" "Substantially sup- 
 pressed;" "Closed nineteen -twentieths," 
 and " Not one-fiftieth as much sold as 30 
 years ago " were some of the replies. In 
 response to the second question only eight 
 of the 140 failed to express the convic- 
 tion that both pauperism and crime 
 would be increased if the Prohibitory 
 law should be abandoned. And the 
 names of the persons to whom the ques- 
 tions were sent were all chosen imparti- 
 ally, without previous knowledge of the 
 views of the individuals addressed. 
 Many who answered were old residents, 
 men who, with Senator Frye and Mr. 
 Blaine, remembered the condition of the 
 State in the days of the license law ; and 
 they appended such assertions as these : 
 " Pauperism has decreased 75 per cent, 
 in this county under Prohibition ; " "Pov- 
 erty and crime received a check from 
 Prohibition ; " " If saloons were reopened 
 pauperism and crime would increase 
 tenfold." ' 
 
 The Governors of Maine for a quarter 
 
 i The Voice, July 11 and 18, 1889. 
 
 of a century, without exception, have 
 borne witness to the great decrease in the 
 consumption of liquor and the diminu- 
 tion of crime and other evils flowing from 
 drink, as well as to the material improve- 
 ment under Prohibition. The following 
 are' specimens of the testimony submitted 
 by the Governors : 
 
 Governor Chamberlain (1872) : " The law is as 
 well executed generally in the State as other 
 criminal laws." 
 
 Governor Perham (1872): "I think it safe to 
 say that it [the volume of the liquor trade] is 
 very much less than before the enactment of the 
 law — probably not one-tenth as large." 
 
 Governor Dingley (1874): "In more than 
 three-fourths of the State, particularly in the 
 rural sections, open dramshops are almost un- 
 known and secret sales are comparatively rare." 
 
 Governor Connor (1876): "Maine has a fixed 
 conclusion upon this subject. It is that the sale 
 of intoxicating liquors is an evil of such magni- 
 tude that the well-being of the State demands 
 and the conditions of the social compact war- 
 rant its suppression." 
 
 Governor Robie (1885): "Criminal statistics 
 show that the law has been beneficial in restrain- 
 ing crime, and the number of indictments found 
 against the violators of the law in all our Courts 
 and the fines and costs or sentences of imprison- 
 ment imposed prove the general willingness of 
 the people to assist in its enforcement." 
 
 Governor Bod well (1887): "In from three- 
 fourths to four-fifths of the towns of the State 
 the law is well enforced and has practically 
 abolished the sale of spirituous and malt liquors 
 as beverages. In the larger cities and towns, 
 on the seaboard and at railway centers, it has 
 been found more difficult to secure perfect com- 
 pliance with the law, but it can still be said that 
 at very few points in the State is liquor openly 
 sold." 
 
 Governor Marble (1888): " Prohibition has 
 closed every distillery and brewery in Maine. 
 The law has greatly diminished the sale and use 
 of intoxicating liquors and increased sobriety and 
 morality among the people, especially outside 
 of the cities. It is certainly the best law of 
 which I have any knowledge, and wherever 
 public sentiment favors its enforcement it 
 works perfectly." 
 
 The United States Internal Eevenue 
 returns corroborate the often-repeated 
 claim that the Maine law has entirely 
 suppressed the manufacture of liquor. 
 Since 1887 Maine has been classed as a 
 portion of the Internal Eevenue collec- 
 tion" district of New Hampshire, and it 
 is impossible to give statistics for Maine 
 separately for any year since 1887. But 
 the Internal Eevenue report for 1887 
 (the last year in which Maine consti- 
 tuted a distinct district) shows that not 
 a gallon of distilled or fermented liquor 
 was produced in the State in that year. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 505 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 The Internal Revenue records of " liquor- 
 dealers," as has been pointed out (see pp. 
 257, 331), are misleading, and they are 
 especially misleading for the Prohibi- 
 tion States. Anyone may become a 
 "liquor-dealer" within the meaning of 
 the United States revenue laws who pays 
 the Federal tax-fee provided for a retail 
 or a wholesale dealer in distilled or malt 
 liquors. Each payer of the fee is counted 
 in the Internal Revenue records as a 
 " liquor-dealer." But many payers are 
 druggists ; many others are Town Agents 
 selling for the excepted purposes; many 
 are petty individuals illicitly selling or in- 
 tending to illicitly sell secretly on a small 
 scale as occasion may enable them to do, 
 and many are speedily apprehended by the 
 local authorities, forced to discontinue 
 selling after a few weeks or months, and 
 thrown into jail. 1 
 
 Therefore the Internal Revenue sta- 
 tistics showing that in 1887 there were 
 in Maine 919 " retail [distilled] liquor- 
 dealers," 92 "retail dealers in malt 
 liquors," 8 "wholesale [distilled] liquor- 
 dealers" and 9 "wholesale dealers in 
 malt liquors " cannot be accepted as in- 
 dicating the true proportions of the illicit 
 liquor trade in Maine. Even if they are 
 so accepted, and the figures for the four 
 preceding years (1883, 1884, 1885 and 
 1886) are also taken into consideration, 
 it appears that during the five years 
 1883-7 there was only one retail liquor- 
 dealer for each 610 of the population in 
 Maine, while in the same period there 
 was in the neighboring license State of 
 Massachusetts one retail liquor-dealer for 
 each 242 of the population. 
 
 Maine has had Prohibition continuously 
 for so long a time that it is impossible to 
 find any recent basis for comparisons of 
 criminal statistics under Prohibition with 
 criminal statistics under license. It is 
 necessary to go back to the earliest years 
 of the Prohibitory act. The report of 
 the Canadian Commission above alluded 
 to has put on record some interesting 
 
 1 If after the payment of this [Federal] tax the officers 
 of thj State discover that John Smith is selling liquor 
 contrary to the law of the State, and place him in the jail 
 and his stock of liquors in the sewer, the payment of the 
 Federal tax does not save him. But, just the same, though 
 he may have been selling only a week, the Internal Eev- 
 enue report includes him of course in the list of special 
 tax-payers for Maine. Neal Dow is authority for the 
 statement that at one time, a few years ago, there were in 
 the Portland jail 40 of these special tax-payers.— Prohibi- 
 tion: The Principle, the Policy and the Party, 
 P. 117. 
 
 Yeabs. 
 1855 
 
 65 
 121 
 
 (though meagre) comparative figures.* 
 The original Maine law (with search 
 and seizure clauses) was enacted in 1851. 
 In 1856 it was repealed and a license law 
 was substituted, which continued in force 
 during the years 1857-8; and in 1859 
 Prohibition was readopted. The report 
 of the Canadian Commission includes 
 figures from the "Warden of the State 
 Prison showing the numbers of commit- 
 ments to the prison during 1855-6 (Pro- 
 hibition), 1857-8 (license) and 1859-60 
 (Prohibition), as follows : 
 
 Commitments. Totals. 
 
 ilflf Prohibition j §j> 
 
 «g License j « 
 
 ^[Prohibition | g 
 
 The same document quotes the follow- 
 ing from the report of the City Marshal 
 of Bangor for 1857 (the year after the 
 law was repealed) : 
 
 "In my report relating to matters connected 
 with the Police Department of the city, at the 
 close of the municipal year 1851-2, I stated that 
 the city had been freer from crime and distur- 
 bance than during the year previous or any year 
 since I had been connected with the affairs of 
 the city. This I attributed to the stringent law 
 passed in 1851 for the suppression of drinking- 
 houses and tippling-shops. This year [1857, 
 under license] I have to report that never since I 
 have had any acquaintance with the Police De- 
 partment of this city have there been so many 
 commitments for offenses as during the year 
 now closed." 
 
 And in the city of Portland Prohibition 
 had the effect of immediately reducing 
 commitments for crime, drunkenness, 
 pauperism, etc., fully 60 per cent. The 
 following returns for Cumberland County 
 (in which Portland is located) were 
 quoted by the Canadian Commission from 
 a book entitled "The Maine Law: Its 
 Origin, History and Results," written by 
 H. S. Chubbs, Secretary of the Maine Law 
 Statistical Society : 
 
 Commitments. 
 
 No. of Commitments to County Jail, 
 exclusive of those for violating 
 the liquor law 
 
 Commitments to Watch-house 
 
 lis 
 Sis 
 
 a w S 
 
 CO 
 
 M fe 
 
 fr o 
 
 a 2 
 
 Eh ^ 
 
 279 
 431 
 
 63 
 180 
 
 H o 
 
 m w -* 
 " X a 
 
 H B 
 Ph 
 
 216 
 251 
 
 2 Our summary of the data presented in the Canadian 
 Commission's report under this head is obtained from 
 Mr. Wheeler's " Prohibition," pp. 113-15. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 506 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 Commitments 
 (Concluded). 
 
 Commitments to Almshouse.. 
 Commitments for Drunkenness to 
 the House of Correction 
 
 Totals 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 £ 2 o 
 
 S 
 
 H O 
 
 zip 
 
 fc « £ 
 
 5«B 
 
 
 
 
 S 1 s 
 
 * P § 
 
 K«S 
 
 O m — 
 
 « s 2 
 So- « 
 
 252 
 
 ° 5 w 
 
 PL. 
 
 146 
 
 106 
 
 341 
 
 8= 
 
 36 
 
 996 
 
 397 
 
 599 
 
 1 For five months. 2 For seven months. 
 
 The early history of the Maine law in 
 Portland and Bangor therefore proves 
 that it caused a marked change for the 
 hetter in those cities. Whenever it has 
 "been rigidly enforced the result has been 
 no less wholesome. But it is recognized 
 by the Prohibitionists that the adminis- 
 tration of the law for some time has 
 "been unsatisfactory in Portland, Bangor 
 .and (in a less degree) a few other towns. 
 For these imperfections of execution the 
 political managers are chiefly to blame : 
 they find it profitable to permit rumsell- 
 ing to a certain extent, since the illicit 
 ■dealers are men of influence with a large 
 «lement of the city voters, and as men 
 who stand constantly in danger of arrest 
 and punishment they are subservient 
 and most active supporters of the politi- 
 cians upon whom they rely for protec- 
 tion. 
 
 Kansas. 
 
 The results of State Prohibition in 
 Kansas have been no less instruc- 
 tive and important than those in 
 Maine. Kansas formerly contained some 
 of the most notorious towns of the West, 
 in which life was held at a very cheap 
 rate and wild disorder was a character- 
 istic condition. Vile saloons abounded 
 in these places, and the consumption of 
 liquor was appalling. In 1880 the Pro- 
 hibitory Constitutional Amendment was 
 adopted by a majority of less than 8,000 
 in a total of 175,000 votes. This small 
 majority gave no assurance of the suc- 
 cessful enforcement of the policy, and 
 the cities refused to regard it as binding 
 and proceeded to treat the law with sys- 
 tematic defiance. An agitation for re- 
 peal immediately sprang up and it seem- 
 ed to have reached a triumphant cul- 
 mination when in 1882, chiefly on the 
 question of the resubmission of the 
 Amendment, the large Eepublican ma- 
 
 jority in Kansas was wiped out, Governor 
 John P. St. John, the man most promi- 
 nently identified with the cause of Pro- 
 hibition in the State, was defeated in his 
 candidacy for re-election, and a recog- 
 nized whiskey advocate (Glick) was 
 chosen in his stead. 
 
 All these circumstances render the 
 ultimate success of the Prohibitory law 
 the more significant. Despite the seeming 
 reaction and the continued efforts of a 
 desperate and powerful rum element, the 
 measure was steadily winning its way to 
 popularity because of the beneficial re- 
 sults that attended every honest attempt 
 at enforcement. Previously to 1885 the 
 legislation enacted was comparatively 
 weak ; but in that year stronger provisions 
 were added, including injunction and 
 nuisance clauses. In 1887 the celebrated 
 Murray act was passed, prescribing severe 
 penalties, with radical restrictions for 
 the drug-store traffic. In the same year 
 a law granting full municipal suffrage 
 to women was secured. A Metropolitan 
 Police law was another helpful measure. 
 The Kansas legislation of 1885-9 consti- 
 tutes, indeed, the most remarkable series 
 of Prohibitdry statutes ever adopted, far 
 outstripping the legislation of Maine. 
 Meanwhile the State Courts had thor- 
 oughly sustained every act. Some em- 
 barrassment was occasioned by the mani- 
 fest hostility of the Federal Judges having 
 jurisdiction in Kansas, especially by Cir- 
 cuit Judge Brewer's famous decision 
 (1886) in favor of compensation to liquor- 
 manufacturers ; but the friends of the law 
 felt confident that every disputed point 
 would ultimately be decided against the 
 traffic, and the general interests of en- 
 forcement did not suffer. Local Judges 
 in some of the worst rum cities, like 
 Leavenworth, placed obstacles in the way 
 of the cause locally ; but even these excep- 
 tional difficulties were overcome in most 
 instances. It was not until the " original 
 package" trade of 1890 was developed 
 that the enemies of the law enjoyed a 
 general success ; yet this success was 
 short-lived. 
 
 There can be no better demonstration 
 of Prohibition's good work in Kansas 
 than the increasing stringency of the 
 statutes and the growing cordiality of 
 popular attitude. Against all the disad- 
 vantages to which we have alluded and 
 despite a reaction that appeared to be 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 507 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 overwhelming ; against the bitter opposi- 
 tion of the saloon people and the most 
 persistent efforts at nullification — efforts 
 in which the liquor power of the whole 
 country and especially the dealers of 
 neighboring States joined, the law has not 
 only been maintained but has been 
 steadily strengthened. Moreover the 
 benefits of the law have changed former 
 foes into warmest friends: men of the 
 highest position, Governors, Senators, 
 Mayors and leading citizens of every 
 class, who were intensely hostile or 
 profoundly distrustful, have been con- 
 strained to testify in unequivocal and 
 even enthusiastic language to the great 
 good done by Prohibition. 
 
 The abundance of proof is bewilder- 
 ing, and only a small portion of it can 
 be given in this article. Endeavor will 
 be made to atone by careful selection 
 for necessary faults of omission. 
 
 Bearing in mind the untrustworthi- 
 ness of the United States Internal Kev- 
 enue statistics of "liquor-dealers" for 
 Prohibition States (see p. 505), the fol- 
 lowing table, showing the numbers of 
 persons paying United States retail and 
 wholesale special liquor taxes, with 
 the numbers of distilleries operating 
 and brewers in Kansas for each year 
 from 1880 to 1889, inclusive (compiled 
 from official data), is instructive: 
 
 
 
 Whole- 
 
 DlSTILL- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 To- 
 
 Teaks. 
 
 Deal- 
 
 Deal- 
 
 OPKKAT- 
 
 ERS. 
 
 tals. 
 
 
 
 ERS. 2 
 
 INO. 
 
 
 
 1880 
 
 1,907 
 
 56 
 
 4 
 
 39 
 
 2,006 
 
 I881 3 
 
 1,188 
 
 39 
 
 8 
 
 25 
 
 1,260 
 
 1882 
 
 1,512 
 
 34 
 
 2 
 
 22 
 
 1,570 
 
 1883 
 
 1,949 
 
 49 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 2,009 
 
 1884 
 
 2,025 
 
 46 
 
 4 
 
 17 
 
 2,092 
 
 1885 
 
 2,151 
 
 57 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 2.223 
 
 1886 
 
 2,401 
 
 46 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 2,457 
 
 1887 
 
 2,182 
 
 59 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 2,249 
 
 1888 
 
 1,396 
 
 34 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1,435 
 
 1889 
 
 1,350 
 
 28 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 1,382 
 
 i Including "retail liquor-dealers [distilled] " and "re- 
 tail dealers in malt liquors. 11 
 
 2 Including " wholesale liquor-dealers [distilled] " and 
 " wholesale dealers in malt liquors." 
 
 3 Including Indian Territory for this year and subse- 
 quent ones. 
 
 Population of Kansas in 1880, 996,096/ ratio between 
 the number of " liquor-dealers,'" etc., and the total 
 population, 1 to 496. Population of Kansas in 1890, 
 1,427,096/ ratio between number of " liquor-dealers," 
 etc., in 1889 and total population in 1890, 1 to 1,033. 
 
 It is not, however, by showing a pro- 
 portionate reduction in the number of 
 persons connected (or nominally con- 
 nected) with the traffic that the effects of 
 Prohibition upon the liquor trade are to be 
 demonstrated. High License experiments 
 
 have taught that the number of liquor 
 establishments may be very materially 
 diminished without disturbing the sup- 
 ply or the consumption. 
 
 From the Federal returns of the quan- 
 tities of liquor manufactured, 1 the fol- 
 lowing table for the State of Kansas has 
 been prepared : 
 
 Years. 
 
 Distilled Li- 
 quors Produced. 
 
 Malt Liquors 
 Produced. 
 
 1880 
 
 Galls. 
 
 42,779 
 65,086 
 25,786 
 
 2,859 
 
 5,107 
 
 6,730 v 
 37,613 
 
 9,133 
 
 1,090 
 751 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 32,270 
 25,872 
 24,281 
 25,103 
 25,437 
 19,274 
 17,369 
 16.458 
 14,170 
 8,290 
 
 1881 1 
 
 1882 
 
 1883 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 
 1 Including Indian Territory for this year and subse- 
 quent ones. 
 
 Production of spirits per capita in Kansas in 1880, 
 0.043 gallon; in 1889 (on the basis of the Census O/1890), 
 0.0005gallon. Production of beer per capita (reckoning 
 31 gallons to the barrel), in 1880, 1.004 gallon: in 1889 
 (Census of 1890), 0.18 gallon. 
 
 From these returns it is not possible to 
 doubt that the manufacturing branch of 
 the liquor trade (which is always the 
 chief bulwark of the whole traffic) has 
 been fearfully crippled. Whiskey pro- 
 duction seems to have all but ceased, and 
 the brewing business, in the words of the 
 Brewers' Journal for March, 1889, is 
 evidently destined to " soon be among the 
 industries of the past " in Kansas. 2 Mean- 
 while the number of persons paying 
 wholesalers' taxes to the Federal Govern- 
 ment has been reduced from 56 in 1880 
 to 28 in 1889 — exactly one-half, despite 
 the increase of more than 40 per cent, in 
 the population. Therefore all the local 
 sources of supply are being drained 
 rapidly. 
 
 The most competent observers have 
 added specific evidence of the practical 
 ruin of the retail business throughout 
 the State. Surely no individuals are 
 better qualified to speak concerning the 
 extent of the traffic than the Probate 
 Judges of the various counties. With 
 them rests the responsibility for hearing 
 and granting applications to sell liquor 
 
 1 Internal Revenue Report for 1889, pp. 366-9. 
 
 2 In the fiscal year ending in 1890 there was a still fur- 
 ther reduction of the quantity of malt liquors pro- 
 duced — in fact, a reductiou of two-thirds as compared 
 with 1889. The Western Brewer for June 15, 1890, 
 printed a table showing tL sales of malt liquors " in all the 
 States, and in this tahle the "sales 11 accredited to Kan- 
 sas aggregated only 2,700 barrels. This indicates a de- 
 crease of more than 90 per cent, in the quantity of beer 
 produced in KansaB Bince the passage of the Amendment 
 in 1880. (See the Voice, July 3, 1890.) 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 508 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 for the excepted purposes; and they are 
 charged also with the duty of receiving 
 and inspecting the returns of sales made 
 by all lawful vendors. (See pp. 299-300.) 
 In 1889 the Voice applied to the Probate 
 Judges of all the 106 counties of Kansas 
 for information as to the effects of the 
 law ; and among other questions the fol- 
 lowing were asked: "How successfully 
 has Prohibition closed the saloons in 
 your part of the State ?" and "To what 
 extent, in your judgment, has it dimin- 
 ished drunkenness and the consumption 
 of intoxicants for beverage purposes ? " 
 There were replies from 97 counties; for 
 75 of the counties the answers were writ- 
 ten by the Probate Judges personally, and 
 for the other 22 counties by County 
 Treasurers or other officials or by promi- 
 nent private citizens. Every reply, 
 whether favorable or unfavorable to Pro- 
 hibition, was summarized by the Voice. 
 Ninety-four of the writers declared posi- 
 tively that there were no open saloons, 
 while the other three made qualified re- 
 ports. Ninety-two stated that drunken- 
 ness and the consumption of drink had 
 been greatly diminished. A majority, in 
 estimating the extent of the diminution, 
 placed it at from 75 to 90 per cent. ; others 
 said that drunkenness and drink had 
 been " entirely eradicated " in their parts 
 of the State, or " almost totally," or were 
 " too small to estimate," etc. 1 
 
 Coming now to inquire how far the 
 law has had a repressive effect upon 
 crime, pauperism and the like evils, we 
 find that the Probate Judges speak with 
 equal positiveness of this phase of its 
 beneficent action. The question sub- 
 mitted to them by the Voice touching 
 the law's relations to pauperism and 
 crime was intended to ascertain not 
 merely whether there had been an im- 
 provement, but also whether the improve- 
 ment had been great enough to compen- 
 sate the Kansas communities, pecuniarily, 
 for the loss of license revenues. It was 
 worded as follows: "In your judgment 
 has not the loss of the revenue from 
 former saloon licenses been more than 
 made good by the decreasing burdens of 
 pauperism and crime resulting from Pro- 
 hibition, and by the directing of the 
 money formerly spent in the saloons now 
 into legitimate channels of trade?" 
 Clearly a fair percentage of affirmative 
 
 ' The Voice, June 13, 1889. 
 
 answers to so sweeping a query would 
 have gone far toward vindicating the 
 Prohibitory law against all ordinary crit- 
 icisms. But the replies showed much 
 more than a fair percentage of favorable 
 ones: indeed, there were very few 
 who did not respond emphatically in the 
 affirmative. No less than 90 of the 97 
 counties reported a decrease in crime 
 and pauperism so marked as to more 
 than offset the loss of revenue. The fol- 
 lowing are specimen answers : 
 
 Barton County: "It has; our jails empty; 
 crime largely reduced. " 
 
 Bourbon County: "It has. Under Prohibi- 
 tion our city has prospered as never before." 
 
 Chase County: "Pauperism and crime re- 
 duced at least 50 per cent." 
 
 Cloud County: "Yes, sir. Expense of run- 
 ning Criminal Courts of the county is less than 
 one-tenth what it was under license. " 
 
 Dickinson County: "Loss of revenue not 
 more than $3,000; saving to families at least 
 $50,000." 
 
 Edwards County: "Not a pauper in the 
 county." 
 
 Finney County: "Our city and county jails 
 empty." 
 
 Ford County: "Crime diminished wonder- 
 fully. This city (Dodge City), from having a 
 most unsavory reputation has become exceed- 
 ingly quiet." 
 
 Gove County : "It has. Many former habit- 
 ual drunkards now sober and industrious." 
 
 Greenwood County: " Yes, more than a hun- 
 dred times." 
 
 Jefferson County: "Most assuredly. The 
 only occupant of our jail in the last 18 months 
 was a 'bootlegger.'" 2 
 
 La Bette County: "The revenue from the 
 
 saloons never paid. The decrease of pauperism 
 
 and crime from Prohibition beyond conception. " 
 
 Marion County: "Yes, several times over. 
 
 A great many poor men now own homes. " 
 
 Mitchell County: "Crime diminished three- 
 fourths by Police Judge's docket ; jails empty." 
 Norton County: "More than made good ; 
 Court and poorhouse expenses greatly re- 
 duced." 
 
 Osborne County: "Much more than made 
 good; crime, pauperism and taxes less." 
 
 Phillips County: "More than twofold made 
 good by decreased crime." 
 
 Pottawatomie County: "Revenue from the 
 saloons amounted to nothing compared with 
 decreased cost of crime." 
 
 Pratt County: "Not a criminal case or pau- 
 per in county." 
 
 Rawlins County: " Thousands saved to poor 
 families." 
 
 Riley County: "Undoubtedly; legitimate 
 business increased; crime and pauperism de- 
 creased." 
 
 2 "Bootlegger " is a Kansas name for the sneaking itin- 
 erant peddler of illicit whiskey. It is the practice of these 
 contemptible wretches to carry flasks concealed about the 
 person, frequently in the bootleg — hence the name. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 509 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 Sheridan County: "Yes, sir; no pauperism 
 here." 
 
 Sumner County: "Prior to Prohibition we 
 had 15 saloons and 15 policemen ; now only one 
 marshal, who has little to do." 
 
 Washington County: "Yes, tenfold." 
 
 Wilson County: "Taxes lighter ; fewer pros- 
 ecutions of criminals; decreased pauperism." 
 
 Woodson County: "Yes; inmates of the poor- 
 houses, asylums, jails and penitentiaries de- 
 creasing ; population increasing." 
 
 Hamilton County: "Naturally; our jail 
 empty." 
 
 Harper County : " Pauperism decreased ; 
 only two prisoners in jail in 13 months." 
 
 Hodgman County: "Yes; decreases taxes 
 and diminishes pauperism and crime." 
 
 Jackson County: "Yes; crime less each 
 year ; pauperism at low ebb." 
 
 Jasper County : " Taxes decreased for police 
 purposes ; less crime ; pauperism decreased 75 
 per cent, in proportion to population." 
 
 McPherson County ; " Yes ; crime decidedly 
 decreased. " 
 
 Pawnee County : "Yes; taxation and crime 
 decreased ; business benefited." 
 
 The State officers of Kansas in 1889, 
 in co-operation with the officers of the 
 State Temperance Union, issued a formal 
 declaration 1 concerning the results of the 
 Prohibitory law, in which the following 
 was said in regard to the consumption of 
 drink, etc. : 
 
 "The law is efficiently and successfully en- 
 forced. The direct results of its enforcement 
 are plain and unmistakable. We believe that 
 not one-tenth of the amount of liquor is now 
 used that was used before the adoption of the 
 Prohibition law. 
 
 ' ' Our citizens fully realize the happy results 
 of the prohibtion of the manufacture and sale of 
 liquor, as these results are seen in the decrease 
 of poverty and wretchedness and crime, and in 
 the promotion of domestic peace and social 
 order — in the advancement of general enterprise 
 and thrift. In our opinion the Prohibition law 
 is now stronger with the people than it was 
 when adopted. It has more than met the ex- 
 pectations of its warmest friends. It is stead- 
 ily winning the confidence and support of thou- 
 sands who were its bitterest enemies." 
 
 An equally impressive declaration (also 
 issued in 1889) was signed" by 153 of the 
 most distinguished public and private 
 citizens of the State, including officials, 
 ex-Governors, telegraph, railroad and 
 bank officers, newspaper editors, profes- 
 sors, etc. "These laws," it said, "are as 
 well enforced, and in many portions of 
 
 i Signed by Lyman V. Humphrey (Governor), William 
 Higgins (Secretary of State), Timothy McCarthy (Auditor 
 of State), J. W. Hamilton (Treasurer of State), G. W . 
 Winans (Superintendent of Public Instruction), L. B. 
 Kellogg (Attorney-General), Albert H. Horton (Chief- 
 Justice of the Supreme Court), D. M. Valentine (Associate- 
 Justice) and W. A. Johnston (Associate-Justice). 
 
 For the full text of this declaration see the Voice, 
 Oct. 9, 1890. 
 
 the State even better enforced, than 
 other criminal laws. There has been an 
 enormous decrease in the consumption 
 of liquors and in the amount of drunk- 
 enness. During the eight years since 
 Prohibition was enacted our population 
 has greatly increased, business has pros- 
 pered, poverty and crime have diminished 
 and the open saloon has disappeared." 2 
 
 This evidence will be concluded with 
 a few citations from memorable state- 
 ments coming from individuals of dis- 
 tinction : 
 
 "United States Senator John J. Ingalls, 
 (never regarded as a warm supporter of the 
 principle of Prohibition, and certainly never 
 numbered among its active partisans), in a con- 
 tribution to the Forum magazine, August, 
 1889 : ' ' Kansas has abolished the saloon. The 
 open dramshop traffic is as extinct as the sale of 
 indulgences. A drunkard is a phenomenon. 
 The barkeeper has joined the troubadour, the 
 crusader and the mound-builder. The brewery, 
 the distillery and the bonded warehouse are 
 known only to the archaeologist. . . . Tempta- 
 tion being removed from the young and the in- 
 firm, they have been fortified and redeemed. 
 The liquor-seller being proscribed is an out- 
 law and his vocation is disreputable. Drinking 
 being stigmatized is out of fashion, and the 
 consumption of intoxicants has enormously de- 
 creased. Intelligent and conservative observers 
 estimate the reduction at 90 per cent. ; it can- 
 not be less than 75. The increase in the num- 
 ber of Internal Revenue stamps sold by the Col- 
 lector from year to year is explained by the fact 
 that they are required by all druggists, and 
 many of them are repetitions and renewals for 
 short terms. . . . One of the most significant 
 and extraordinary results is the diminution of 
 crime in the State. At the January [1889] 
 term of the District Court of the county in 
 which the capital is situated, there was not a 
 single criminal case on the docket. Many city 
 and county prisons are without a tenant. The 
 number and percentage of the convicts 
 in the State Penitentiary have been re- 
 markably diminished. Upon the first day of 
 January, 1870, the prisoners, not including 
 those of the United States, numbered 218, or 
 one for every 1,671 inhabitants ; at the same 
 date in 1875 they numbered 435, or one to every 
 1,214 inhabitants. In 1880 the number was 
 633, or one to every 1,573 inhabitants ; in 1885 
 it was 673, or one to every 1,885 inhabitants ; 
 on the first day of January, 1889, it was 861, or 
 one to every 1,921 inhabitants. 3 On the first 
 day of January, 1887, there were 895 State 
 prisoners in the Penitentiary ; on the first day 
 of January, 1888, there were 898, and in the 
 
 2 The Voice, May 30, 1889. 
 
 3 Since Senator Ingalls wrote before the United States 
 Census of 1890 was taken, these figures were based on es- 
 timates of the Kansas population believed at that time to 
 be reliable, but not sustained by the Federal Census re- 
 turns. The population of the State in 1890 (as given by 
 those returns) was 1,427,096, and this would make tha 
 ratio for 1889 1 to 1,657 inhabitants instead of 1 to 1,931. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 510 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 following year there was a reduction of 37 in 
 number, although the population of the State 
 had largely increased. In the various prisons 
 throughout the United States about 60,000 
 criminals are serving sentences for felonies, 
 being about one prisoner for every 1,000 inhabi- 
 tants ; the same ratio in Kansas would give a 
 total of 1,651, which is 50 per cent, more 
 than the number actually confined. In the 
 United States at large there is one pauper to 750 
 inhabitants ; carefully compiled statistics show 
 that Kansas has but one to about 1,300 of its 
 population. " 
 
 Governor John A. Martin (a vigorous oppo- 
 nent of the Prohibitory Amendment when it was 
 first agitated, converted to the cause of Prohibi- 
 tion by the results of the law), in his farewell 
 message to the State Legislature, January, 1889 : 
 ' ' Fully nine-tenths of the drinking and drunken- 
 ness prevalent in Kansas eight years ago has 
 been abolished. . . . Notwithstanding the fact 
 that the population of the State is steadily in- 
 creasing, the number of criminals confined in 
 our Penitentiary is steadily decreasing. Many 
 of our jails are empty, and all show a marked 
 falling off in the number of prisoners confined. 
 The dockets of our Courts are no longer bur- 
 dened with long lists of criminal cases. In the 
 capital district, containing a population of 
 nearly 60,000, not a single criminal case was on 
 the docket when the present term began. The 
 business of the Police Courts of our larger 
 cities has dwindled to one-fourth of its former 
 proportions, while in cities of the second and 
 third class the occupation of police authorities 
 is practically gone. These suggestive and con- 
 vincing facts appeal alike to the reason and the 
 conscience of the people. They have recon- 
 ciled those who doubted the success and silenced 
 those who opposed the policy of prohibiting the 
 liquor traffic. " 
 
 United States Senator P. B. Plumb (always 
 known as very conservative on the Prohibition 
 question), Oct. 22, 1889, as quoted in the Voice 
 for Sept. 25, 1890: "That there has been a 
 great diminution in the consumption of liquor 
 and in the consequent drunkenness and crime in 
 the State, as the result of the exclusion of the 
 saloon, is everywhere noted and confessed. In 
 fact, no evidence on this point is more conclu- 
 sive than that the brewers and distillers are so 
 urgent to have saloons re-established. They 
 are not spending large sums of money in this 
 matter for fun. " 
 
 J. W. Hamilton, State Treasurer, Nov. 24, 
 1889, as quoted in the Voice for Sept. 25, 1890 : 
 " It is well known to my friends that when the 
 Prohibition question was first agitated I was an 
 anti-Prohibitionist. I did all in my power to 
 defeat the Amendment. I was what they 
 called a Glick Resubmissionist. But I was 
 mistaken then. The Prohibitory law has my 
 endorsement, not alone because it is the doctrine 
 of my party but because I believe it is right. 
 I do not see how any fair-minded man who has 
 lived in Kansas for the past five years can be 
 otherwise than in favor of the law." 
 
 Judge W. C. Webb, April 4, 1890, as quoted 
 in the Voice for Sept. 25, 1890: "I voted in 
 1880 against the Prohibitory Amendment. For 
 four or five years afterward I thought my opin- 
 
 ion as to probable results was likely to be vin- 
 dicated. But it is not so now. Prohibition has' 
 driven out of Kansas the open saloon, and has 
 accomplished a vast deal of good — a thousand- 
 fold more than any license law ever did or ever 
 could. A return to whiskey and saloon rule 
 would not bring an additional dollar to the 
 State, nor grow an additional bushel of corn, 
 nor give a single ounce of bread to the hungry, 
 nor clothe the nakedness of a single beggar." 
 
 Harrison Kelley, Member of Congress from 
 Kansas, in a letter to the Voice, Oct. 9, 1890 : 
 " No law on our statute-books is better enforced, 
 and no law ever placed there ever produced 
 such beneficent results. . . . The authorities of 
 the State Penitentiary having made a contract 
 some years ago to furnish prison labor, based 
 upon the then increase, are embarrassed to-day 
 because the contract cannot be filled, owing to 
 the decrease instead of increase, as was antici- 
 pated. This is the only inconvenience the State 
 has been put to on account of Prohibition." 
 
 S. B. Bradford, formerly Attorney-General 
 of Kansas, is authority for the statement that 
 in four years of enforced Prohibition the cases 
 of grand larceny decreased 15 per cent, and of 
 crimes against persons 25 per cent. ' 
 
 Below are detailed police statistics for 
 particular cities. 
 
 The following table * shows the numbers of 
 cases of drunkenness for the year ended April 1, 
 1889, that came before the Police Judges of 61 
 cities and towns of Kansas having an aggregate 
 population (1888, State Census) of 172,250 : 
 
 CITIE8. 
 
 Williamsburg 
 Hiawatha... . 
 
 Virgil 
 
 Girard 
 
 OBwego 
 
 Salina 
 
 Saratoga 
 
 Caldwell 
 
 Richfield 
 
 Independence 
 
 Lamed 
 
 South Haven. 
 
 Mankato 
 
 Beloit 
 
 Douglas 
 
 Meade Center 
 Belle Plaine 
 Great Bend. 
 Osage Mission 
 
 Howard 
 
 Chanute 
 
 Cimarron .... 
 
 Holton 
 
 Kirwin 
 
 Oskaloosa 
 
 Lyndon 
 
 Washington. . 
 Cedar Vale... 
 Manhattan . . . 
 Lawrence, .. . 
 Garnett 
 
 55 
 o 
 
 
 Hg-j. 
 
 3 „_- 
 
 e* 
 
 
 s 
 
 53 g 
 
 860 
 
 3 
 
 2,500 
 
 17 
 
 400 
 
 "None 
 
 2,500 
 
 2 
 
 4,000 
 
 10 
 
 9,000 
 
 35 
 
 600 
 
 None 
 
 3,000 
 
 5 
 
 1,000 
 
 1 
 
 5,500 
 
 6 
 
 4,000 
 
 10 
 
 350 
 
 3 
 
 1,200 
 
 12 
 
 3,600 
 
 37 
 
 1,500 
 
 None 
 
 1,200 
 
 1 
 
 1,000 
 
 1 
 
 4,300 
 
 22 
 
 2,000 
 
 None 
 
 1,500 
 
 1 
 
 4,000 
 
 8 
 
 1,200 
 
 None 
 
 2,500 
 
 20 
 
 1,300 
 
 8 
 
 2,000 
 
 None 
 
 1,000 
 
 None 
 
 2,500 
 
 5 
 
 900 
 
 1 
 
 3,500 
 
 22 
 
 18,000 
 
 74 
 
 2,300 
 
 12 
 
 Cities. 
 
 Osaeje City... 
 Burlingame . . 
 
 lola 
 
 Hays City 
 
 El Dorado 
 
 Junction City 
 
 Russell 
 
 Enterprise . . . 
 
 Concordia 
 
 Pleasanton . . . 
 
 Eureka 
 
 Burlington . . . 
 Mound City.. 
 Cherokee .... 
 
 St. John 
 
 Leon 
 
 Lincoln 
 
 Hartland 
 
 Lyons 
 
 Ft. Scott 
 
 Halstead 
 
 Kinsley 
 
 Leroy 
 
 Med. Lodge.. 
 
 Coldwater 
 
 Neodesha... . 
 
 Winfield 
 
 Argonia 
 
 Ness City.... 
 
 Totals 
 
 15 
 o 
 
 oa&co 
 
 
 «'. - 
 
 
 
 
 
 cS 
 
 
 * ba 
 
 fc 
 
 35 
 
 4,500 
 
 1,800 
 
 11 
 
 1,650 
 
 None 
 
 1,700 
 
 9 
 
 6,000 
 
 S3 
 
 4,700 
 
 29 
 
 1,700 
 
 None 
 
 1,000 
 
 None 
 
 5,100 
 
 12 
 
 1,700 
 
 7 
 
 3,000 
 
 1 
 
 3,000 
 
 None 
 
 1,500 
 
 None 
 
 2,000 
 
 3 
 
 1,500 
 
 None 
 
 1,200 
 
 l>one 
 
 2,000 
 
 5 
 
 1,000 
 
 None 
 
 3,000 
 
 6 
 
 15,000 
 
 126 
 
 1,500 
 
 1 
 
 2,000 
 
 None 
 
 900 
 
 6 
 
 1,500 
 
 4 
 
 1,000 
 
 None 
 
 2,100 
 
 13 
 
 9,000 
 
 57 
 
 600 
 
 None 
 
 3,000 
 
 3 
 
 172,250 
 
 679 
 
 Thus the total apprehensions for drunken- 
 
 1 Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 51. 
 a The returns were specially gathered in 1889 by the 
 Kansas City (Mo.) Globe. (See the Voice, June 6, 1889.) 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 51t 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 ness aggregated only 679 for a population of 
 172,250, or one for each 254 inhabitants. In 
 18 places, with an aggregate population of 
 24,850, there was not a single case of drunk- 
 enness that came within the cognizance of the 
 police. It is safe to say that such a record as 
 is made by these 61 communities cannot be par- 
 alleled in any series of license towns of equiva- 
 lent population. An idea of the comparative 
 insignificance of the total offenses of drunken- 
 ness in the Kansas towns may be obtained by 
 contrasting the above figures with the ones for 
 High License and low license cities on p. 211. 
 
 City of Topeka.— This is the capital of the 
 State, and the remarkable fact that there was 
 not a criminal case on the docket at the January 
 term of 1889 is alluded to above by Senator 
 Ingalls and Governor Martin. This fact is 
 really astonishing when comparisons are made 
 with former years. Enforcement of the law 
 began in Topeka in 1885. According to the 
 Topeka Daily Capital for Jan. 1, 1889, the 
 dockets of the District Court of Shawnee 
 County show that there were 222 criminal cases 
 in 1884, 60 in 1885, 30 in 1886, 16 in 1887 and 
 21 in 1888; that there were only three prisoners 
 in the County Jail at the beginning of 1889 and 
 that only six prisoners were sent from the 
 county to the State Penitentiary in 1888 as 
 against 34 in 1884. "At one time," said 
 County Attorney Curtis in 1889, "there were 
 140 saloons open in Topeka; their average sales 
 per day were not less than $30 each, which 
 would make $5,200 spent daily for liquor. This 
 amount came largely from the working people; 
 to-day there is not $1 of that amount spent for 
 whiskey. Where does it go? It goes for food 
 and clothing, children and wife. I know' of 
 scores of instances where families were suffer- 
 ing for food because their father gave his 
 wages to the saloon-keeper. Now they are 
 living in a cozy home, of their own; they have 
 all the necessities of life, and indeed a few of 
 the luxuries ; the children, who were once 
 poverty-stricken and living in rags, are now 
 attending public schools, and the father will tell 
 you he was saved by Prohibition." ' 
 
 During the Eastern Amendment campaigns 
 of 1889 Mr. W. P. Tomlinson, editor of the 
 Daily Democrat of Topeka, was induced to 
 make speeches against Prohibition. He ven- 
 tured to assert that Prohibition was a failure, 
 and was quoted as saying that "dives and 
 joints " flourished in Topeka, and that "all the 
 iniquities of secret selling" were "added to 
 the lesser evils of the open traffic." Upon his 
 return to Topeka Mr. Tomlinson was put under 
 oath by the County Attorney, and the following 
 testimony was taken: 
 
 " Q. Do you know of the existence of an open saloon in 
 Shawnee County at the present time ?— A. I do not. 
 
 " Q. Do you know of any open saloon in Shawnee 
 County within the past two years 1— A. No, I do not 
 
 " Q. Do you know of any secret place in Shawnee 
 County where liquor can be bought by the drink ?— A. I 
 do not." 2 
 
 City of Emporia. — The following statistics 
 were made public in 1889 by G. W. Paxton, 
 City Marshal of Emporia: 3 
 
 1 Political Prohibitionist for 1889, pp. 52-3. 
 
 2 The Voice, May 23, 1889. 
 
 8 Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 53. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Arrests 
 
 for 
 Drunk- 
 enness. 
 
 Arrests 
 for Dis- 
 orderly 
 Conduct. 
 
 Totals. 
 
 1883 
 
 77 
 78 
 80 
 40 
 16 
 15 
 
 53 
 57 
 69 
 26 
 15 
 12 
 
 130 
 135 
 99 
 60 
 31 
 27 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 
 City of Leavenworth.— Leavenworth for years 
 defied the Prohibitory law. This city and 
 Atchison were the headquarters of the " border 
 ruffians " in the memorable Free State contest. 
 It had always been cursed with a large element 
 of rough citizens. With its county it voted 
 against the Prohibitory Amendment in 1880 by 
 more than two and one-half to one. There was 
 practically no interference with the saloons until 
 1886. Since that year the law has been enforced 
 with increasing success. The results are shown 
 in the following table, taken from the Leaven- 
 worth Daily Times (a journal that steadily 
 opposed Prohibition during the first five years of 
 the law): 4 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Popula- 
 tion. 1 
 
 Total 
 Arrests. 
 
 Arrests 
 for drunk- 
 ENNESS. 
 
 1882 
 
 18,766 
 19,644 
 22,455 
 29,268 
 29,150 
 31.220 
 35,227 
 
 2,340 
 2,110 
 2,400 
 2,469 
 2,110 
 2,066 
 1,710 
 
 464 
 543 
 452 
 662 
 418 
 357 
 225 
 
 1883 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 
 ' These are local population figures. According to the 
 United States Census, Leavenworth had 16,546 inhabi- 
 tants in 1880. 
 
 The editor of this work has received a special 
 report from Leavenworth for the year 1889, 
 showing that the total arrests were 1,800 and 
 the arrests for drunkenness only 120. Thus 
 notwithstanding an increased population the 
 arrests for drunkenness have decreased 442 or 
 nearly 80 per cent, since the enforcement of the 
 law began. And conditions are peculiarly un- 
 favorable. Near the city is a Soldiers' Home, 
 with 2,000 inmates; in fact, two-thirds of those 
 arraigned for drunkenness in the Police Court 
 are soldiers from the Home. Besides, Leaven- 
 worth is a "river" city, and is connected with 
 the license State of Missouri by a pontoon 
 bridge. The diminution of crime in Leavenworth 
 as distinguished from mere drunkenness is indi- 
 cated by the fact that while 36 persons were 
 sent to the State Penitentiary from the county 
 in 1886, only 13 were sent in 1887 and 5 in the 
 first half of 1888. 6 , 
 
 City of Atchison.— -From the county in which 
 Atchison is located there were 23 commitments 
 to the Penitentiary in 1885, 13 in 1886, 6 in 1887 
 and 1 in the first half of 1888. (The saloons — 
 60 in number — were closed in January, 1886. ) 6 
 George Tofte, Chief of Police, says in his report 
 for 1890: "Vice has been suppressed and the 
 lawbreakers made to feel the penalty of the law 
 without creating any feeling of hostility among 
 our citizens, without any fuss or noise or undue 
 excitement. We have enforced the laws and 
 
 «Ibid. £ Ibid, p. 51. «Ibid. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 512 
 
 [Prohibition. Benefits of. 
 
 compelled the closing of places where for years 
 the law had been systematically violated. To- 
 day there is not a ' joint ' within the limits of the 
 city of Atchison, and it is safe to say there is 
 not within our Union a city of equal size whose 
 laws are more strictly enforced or whose citizens 
 are more peaceful and sober and where life and 
 property are more secure." (In 1880 Atchison 
 with its county opposed the Prohibitory Amend- 
 ment by 3,147 votes to 1,343.) 
 
 Dodge City. — The county of Ford (including 
 Dodge City) contributed 14 convicts to the Peni- 
 tentiary in 1886, 6 in 1887 and 2 in the first half 
 of 1888. (The saloons were closed in the fall of 
 1886.) 
 
 In striking contrast with the foregoing 
 figures are the records of Kansas towns 
 for the period of 1890 in which liquors 
 were sold under the United States 
 Supreme Court's "Original Package" 
 decision. This decision was handed down 
 April 28, 1890. It denied the right of 
 State or local authorities to seize liquors 
 brought in from another State and 
 offered for sale in the " original pack- 
 ages." Immediately " original package " 
 houses sprang up in many places of 
 Kansas, and they were to all intents and 
 purposes ordinary saloons operating un- 
 der Federal protection. They continued 
 until August, when by act of Congress 
 the Prohibition States were permitted to 
 suppress the sale of liquors imported the 
 same as of liquors manufactured within 
 their borders. The strong local senti- 
 ment against all forms of liquor-selling 
 acted as a check upon the "original 
 package" vendors, and since this era 
 covered a period of less than four months 
 the traffic did not have time to reach 
 formidable proportions. But the stimulus 
 imparted to drunkenness and disorder 
 was instantaneous and marked, showing 
 that under Prohibition these evils had 
 been confined within narrow bounds. 
 The Voice has gathered official informa- 
 tion for a number of the Kansas towns, 
 which is summarized below. 
 
 Chanute. — One "original package" saloon 
 was opened, running during the months of May, 
 June, July and August. Arrests for drunken- 
 ness and disorderly conduct during these four 
 months, 26; during the corresponding months of 
 1889, 19; during January, February, March 
 and April of 1890, 26. 
 
 Fort Scott.- — Twelve "original package" 
 houses running throughout June and July. 
 Arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct 
 during these two months, 73; during the corre- 
 sponding months of 1889, 58; during April and 
 May of 1890, 56. 
 
 'Ibid. 
 
 Qarnett. — Two " original package " establish- 
 ments ; one ran from July 5 to Aug. 11, the 
 other from July 10 to Aug. 8. Arrests for 
 "drunk and disorderly" in July and August, 
 24; in the corresponding months of 1889, 10; in 
 May and June, 1890, 14. 
 
 Ooodland. — Three "original package" con- 
 cerns, running in July and August. "Drunks 
 and disorderlies " in those months, 7 ; corre- 
 sponding months of 1889, 5; May and June of 
 1890, 3. 
 
 Independence. — One " original package " shop, 
 running from June 21 to Aug. 9. "Drunks 
 and disorderlies '* in June, July and August, 19; 
 same months of 1889, 6; March, April and May 
 of 1890, 3. 
 
 Manhattan. — One " original package " grog- 
 shop, running in June and July. Arrests for 
 drunkenness and disorderly conduct in these two 
 months, 13; same months of 1889, 5; April and 
 May of 1890, 1. 
 
 Leavenworth. — It was impossible to estimate 
 the number of "original package" places in 
 this city. But the Chief of Police reports that 
 many persons who formerly sold with great 
 caution and in insignificant quantities began 
 operations boldly after the Supreme Court decis- 
 ion. "Drunks and disorderlies" in May, June, 
 July and August of 1890, 363; same months of 
 1889, 289; January, February, March and April 
 of 1890, 227. 
 
 Summary for the seven towns: Arrests for 
 drunkenness and disorderly conduct in the 
 " original package " months, 525; corresponding 
 months of 1889, 392; same number of months of 
 1890 immediately preceding the " original pack- 
 age " era, 330. 
 
 As We have already indicated, Prohibi- 
 tion's success in Kansas is qualified as in 
 Maine, but the degree of qualification, 
 looking at the State as a whole, does not 
 seem to be important when the wretched 
 failure of High License legislation is con- 
 sidered. Cities that were in open rebel- 
 lion and in which it seemed absolutely 
 hopeless to look for a quelling of the 
 liquor traffic have accepted the situation 
 and have magnificently vindicated the 
 law by their police statistics. A very few 
 other cities are more or less persistent in 
 defiance, but they teach, by contrast, not 
 that Prohibition is undesirable but that 
 resistance to it deprives a community of 
 much attainable good. In the last year 
 a renewed demand for the repeal of the 
 law has been fomented, but the persons 
 most actively engaged in the movement, 
 with few exceptions, are not representa- 
 tive and disinterested citizens of Kansas 
 but the less reputable politicians and 
 the criminal element of that State, and 
 the liquor-producers and wholesalers of 
 Missouri and other States. Kansas City 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 513 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 (Mo.) has always been the center of the 
 illicit liquor trade with Kansas; and the 
 pure selfishness and unscrupulousness 
 underlying the whole agitation were well 
 indicated by the Kansas City Journal 
 when it said in its trade report for the 
 year 1887 : 
 
 "Wholesale liquor-dealers say they have 
 "withdrawn their travelling men from Kansas 
 within the last six months, and that they are 
 making no effort whatever to do business in that 
 State. This, of course, is on account of the 
 enforcement of the Prohibition law, which has 
 been more rigid during the last year than ever 
 before. For a time after the adoption of Prohi- 
 bition in Kansas liquor-dealers in Kansas City 
 did a large business with the drug-stores, but 
 since they have been stopped from retailing 
 liquor the trade has dwindled to almost nothing. 
 Still some business is done in Kansas, but it 
 consists entirely of private orders by mail." ' 
 
 Iowa. 
 The original Prohibitory law of Iowa 
 (1855) was speedily modified so as to 
 practically permit the manufacture of 
 all kinds of liquor and the sale of beer 
 and wine, though the sale was made 
 subject to Local Option. Special en- 
 couragement seems to have been given 
 in Iowa to the manufacturers of liquor, 
 especially beer. Many Germans were 
 attracted to the State, and the brewing 
 business steadily expanded until in 1882 
 more than 286,000 barrels was pro- 
 duced. The distilling trade also ac- 
 quired much importance ; one of the 
 greatest distilleries in the world was 
 built at Des Moines, and in 1883 (the 
 year of the adoption of the Prohibitory 
 Amendment) more than four and one- 
 half million gallons of spirits was dis- 
 tilled in Iowa. Under such circum- 
 stances the majority of nearly 30,000 
 given by the people for Constitutional 
 Prohibition was a great victory for the 
 principle. It was followed up by so 
 vigorous a display of strength that al- 
 though the State Supreme Court de- 
 •clared the Amendment invalid on techni- 
 cal grounds the Legislature promptly 
 enacted enforcement legislation which 
 was subsequently improved. The Clark 
 law with its nuisance and injunction 
 features, and the Pharmacy law, take 
 rank with the most rigid acts of Kansas. 
 These measures have been retained in- 
 tact, and during the largest part of the 
 period since 1885 have had the moral 
 support of the State Government. There 
 
 1 Political Prohibitionist for 1888, p. 14. 
 
 has never been a reasonable doubt that 
 an overwhelming majority of the people 
 have fully sustained Prohibition in 
 Iowa and desired its complete enforce- 
 ment ; and the pressure brought by 
 them has been so powerful that in most 
 of the cities a marked progress toward 
 the extermination of the traffic has been 
 observable. But political complications 
 and the artful schemings of influential 
 men have had much more serious effect 
 in Iowa than in Kansas. The distillery 
 at Des Moines for four years after the 
 Amendment was adopted went on pro- 
 ducing its millions of gallons. In 1889 
 the Kepublican candidate for Governor 
 suffered defeat, and in 1890 the success 
 of the Democrats in the Congressional 
 elections caused a general belief that 
 Iowa had passed into the list of doubtful 
 States. These reverses of the long- 
 dominant Republican party were not 
 materially caused by the Prohibition 
 issue, 3 but the politicians who were 
 committed to partisan policies and 
 methods that had brought disaster 
 deemed it most convenient to seek 
 restoration to power by cultivating the 
 favor of the low classes. Consequently 
 an outcry has been raised recently 
 against the Prohibitory law, and a 
 strong combination to secure its repeal 
 or modification seems to have been 
 organized. 
 
 The United States Internal Eevenue 
 statistics for Iowa for the years since the 
 adoption of the Prohibitory Amendment 
 (including 1883) are summarized in the 
 following table :" 
 
 Years. 
 
 Retail 
 Deal- 
 ers. 1 
 
 Whole- 
 sale 
 Deal- 
 ers. 3 
 
 Distill- 
 eries 
 Oper- 
 ated. 
 
 Brew- 
 ers. 
 
 To- 
 tals. 
 
 1883 
 
 5,284 
 4,205 
 3,778 
 3,921 
 3,867 
 3,177 
 2,981 
 
 153 
 117 
 112 
 121 
 120 
 84 
 85 
 
 8 
 3 
 7 
 7 
 8 
 5 
 3 
 
 117 
 86 
 
 100 
 98 
 
 78 
 74 
 50 
 
 5,562 
 4,411 
 3,997 
 4,147 
 4,073 
 3,340 
 3,119 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 188T 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 
 1 Including "retail liquor-dealers [distilled] " and "re- 
 tail dealers in malt liquors." a Including ."wholesale 
 liquor-dealers [distilled] 11 and " wholesale dealers in malt 
 liquors. 1 ' 
 
 Population of Iowa in 1880, 1,624,615/ ratio between 
 total number of persons nominally engaged in the 
 liquor business in 1883 (as shown by Federal reports) 
 and total population (on the basis of the Census of 
 1880), 1 to 292. Population in 1890, 1,911,896; ratio in 
 1889 (on the basis of the Census of 1890), 1 to 613. 
 
 2 See the Voice, Nov. 21, 1889 and April 10, 1890. 
 
 3 As in the cases of Kansas, Maine and other Prohibi- 
 tion States, the Federal returns of so-called "liquor- 
 dealers " are not reliable. See explanations on p. 505. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 514 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 The most striking facts shown by 
 these figures are that the number of 
 wholesale dealers has been reduced nearly 
 one-half, distilleries operating about two- 
 thirds and brewers more than one-half. 
 That the reduction signifies not a mere 
 consolidation or merging of establish- 
 ments but widespread destruction is 
 demonstrated by the Federal records of 
 liquor production in Iowa for the same 
 years, as follows: 1 
 
 Years. 
 
 Distilled 
 
 Liquors 
 
 Produced. 
 
 Malt 
 
 Liquors 
 
 Produced. 1 
 
 1883 
 
 Galls. 
 
 4,285,162 
 3,501,529 
 3,993,738 
 2,396,007 
 2,036,774 
 706 
 575 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 267,390 
 257,986 
 169,446 
 195,457 
 188,149 
 160,272 
 103,400 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 
 1 There was another large decrease in 1890. According 
 to the Western Brewer for June 15, 1890, the sales of malt 
 liquors in Iowa for the year ending May, 1890, aggre- 
 gated 88,266 barrels— a decrease of nearly 15 per cent, as 
 compared with the production in 1889. (See the Voice, 
 July 3, 1890.) 
 
 Decrease in actual quantity^ of distilled' liquors pro- 
 duced, 99.99 per cent. ; malt liquors, 61.33 per cent. Per 
 capita production of distilled liquors in 1883 {on the 
 basis of the Census of 1880), 2.64 gallons; 1889, infinites- 
 imal; per capita production of malt liquors in 1883 
 (Census of 1880), reckoning 31 gallons to the barrel of 
 beer, 5.10 gallons; 1889 (Census of 1890), 1.68 gallon. 
 
 Testimony bearing upon the consump- 
 tion of liquor, drunkenness, crime, etc., 
 is quite as exhaustive as that from which 
 we have quoted for the State of Kansas. 
 
 The Iowa State Temperance Alliance 
 in 1889 secured official reports from 
 Sheriffs and others for nearly all the 99 
 counties. The following is an analysis 
 of these reports : 
 
 "Number of counties reporting this law a 
 success and beneficial to the people, 83. 
 
 "Number of counties reporting a decrease in 
 crime and criminal proceedings, 73; decrease 
 varying from 20 to 60 per cent. 
 
 "Number of counties reporting decrease in 
 consumption of liquors, 75; decrease varying 
 from 25 to 70 per cent. 
 
 "The Sheriff's office, from being the best- 
 paying county office, has in many places become 
 the poorest-paid office. 
 
 " In over one-half of the counties the jails 
 have stood empty during the past year. Peace 
 and happiness abound in hundreds of homes, 
 where, in .the days of the saloon, poverty, want 
 and crime prevailed." 
 
 In the same connection the State 
 Temperance Alliance published the sig- 
 nificant statement that "a prominent 
 railroad official of one of the trunk lines 
 crossing Iowa declares that 'there is not 
 one barrel of whiskey now carried where 
 
 1 Internal Revenue report for 1889, pp. 366-9. 
 
 there was a car-load, and not one keg of 
 beer where there was a train-load four 
 years ago.' " " 
 
 The representative judicial officers of 
 Iowa are the District Court Judges, who 
 are chosen by the people and have juris- 
 diction over considerable territory. In 
 1888 Governor Larrabee applied to them 
 for opinions as to the effects of Prohibi- 
 tion and received replies from a number. 
 His inquiries were supplemented in 1889 
 by the Voice, which obtained reports 
 from 13 of the Judges and one ex-Judge. 
 Although not all the districts were repre- 
 sented, either in Governor Larrabee's or 
 the Voice's list, the answers fairly reflect 
 conditions throughout the State; and in 
 view of the prominence of the writers, 
 we condense below the testimony from 
 each District replying : 3 
 
 2d District (Judge Traverse). — "No saloons, 
 except in one of the eight counties ; crime 
 diminished." 
 
 3d District (Judge Harvey). — "Law well en- 
 forced ; no saloons ; reduced crime and crimi- 
 nal expenses one-half." 
 
 4th District (Judge Ladd). — "Enforced as. 
 well as most laws ; no saloons here ; drunken- 
 ness remarkably reduced ; criminal offenses of 
 the lower grade decreased ; pauperism de- 
 creased ; the law clears the State of criminals- 
 and 'bummers.'" 
 
 4th District (Judge Lewis). — "Enforced al- 
 most absolutely universally ; no saloons in this 
 district of nine counties ; drunkenness very 
 largely reduced, drinking more than one-half ; 
 crime decreased more than one-half ; pauper- 
 ism decreased." 
 
 4th District (Judge "Wakefield). — "Enforced 
 about as other criminal statutes ; saloons closed; 
 drunkenness and the use of intoxicants dimin- 
 ished ; fewer arrests ; pauperism probably com- 
 paratively decreased." 
 
 5th District (Judge Ayers). — "Saloons stay- 
 closed ; not a saloon in this district of six coun- 
 ties ; drunkenness and drinking largely de- 
 creased ; crime decreased fully one-half ; pau- 
 perism largely decreased ; criminal and poor 
 expenses largely decreased." 
 
 5th District (Judge Henderson). — "Enforced 
 well as other criminal statutes ; not a saloon in 
 district ; intoxication and drinking very much 
 reduced ; a very marked decrease in crime ;. 
 pauperism decreased." 
 
 6th District (Judge Johnson). — " Enforced well 
 as other criminal statutes; closed all the saloons- 
 in our six counties; intemperance and consump- 
 tion very largely decreased ; the decrease in Court, 
 and criminal expenses compensates for loss of 
 license fees ; crime decreased three-fourths in 
 four years; pauperism materially decreased." 
 
 6th District (Judge Ryan). — " Law generally 
 enforced; drunkenness much less frequent; de- 
 
 3 Political ProhibitioniBt for 1889, p. 54. 
 8 See the Voice, April 11, 1889. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 515 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 crease of crime over one-half in these six 
 counties; cannot say whether pauperism has 
 decreased." 
 
 7th District (ex-Judge Hayes).— "Practically 
 not at all enforced; saloons temporarily closed, 
 but begin again; drunkenness and drinking not 
 at all decreased; no distinct effect upon crime; 
 some increase in pauperism, but not due to 
 Prohibition." ' 
 
 9th District (Judge Kavanagh). — "Crime 
 decreased over 50 per cent. ; Prohibition added 
 largely to individual happiness." 
 
 9th District (Judge Conrad). — " Crime largely 
 diminished; cost of Courts very much lessened." 
 
 11th District (Judge Weaver). — "Enforced 
 thoroughly; no saloons in this district of eight 
 large central counties; drunkenness decreased 
 three-fourths; crime lessened and jail population 
 less than for many years; pauperism certainly 
 not increased." 
 
 12th District (Judge Ruddick).— "Enforced 
 well as other laws for preventing crime; saloons 
 closed except in large cities; drunkenness dim- 
 inished three-fourths; crime much reduced; 
 pauperism decreased." 
 
 12th District (Judge Sweeney).— " In 85 of 90 
 counties of the State the law is enforced as well 
 as other criminal laws; closed saloons in nearly 
 all parts of State; drunkenness decreased more 
 than 90 per cent. ; little criminal business ; most 
 jails empty for months; pauperism very materi- 
 ally decreased." 
 
 13th District (Judge Hatch). — "No open 
 saloons in this district of six counties; social 
 drinking is still very common, but a few drunk- 
 ards have sobered up; no change as to crime per 
 se." 
 
 14th District (Judge Thomas). — "Reducing 
 crime and criminal expenses; as well enforced 
 as other criminal laws." 
 
 15th District (Judge Deemer). — "Well en- 
 forced except in one county adjoining Omaha 
 (Neb.); diminished drunkenness at least 75 per 
 cent. ; decreased crime 50 per cent. ; many jails 
 untenanted; pauperism decreased quite per- 
 ceptibly; bummers gone; fewer rogues." 
 
 16th District (Judge Macomber). — "Fairly 
 well enforced in more than three-fourths of 
 State ; drunkenness and use of drink decreased 
 a great deal; crime decreased; pauperism de- 
 creased. " 
 
 18th District (Judge Giffen). — "Law seems to 
 work well in this district." 
 
 Prom a Superior Court Justice (Judge Bank). 
 — " At the September term, 1887, of the Dis- 
 trict Court of Keokuk, for the first time there 
 was not a criminal case before the Court." 
 
 An even more valuable series of re- 
 ports was obtained by the Voice at about 
 
 1 Although this reply seems to be wholly unencourag- 
 ing, the inferences to be drawn from it are not unfavora- 
 ble to Prohibition. Judge Hayes's statement that drunk- 
 enness, pauperism and crime had not decreased is a 
 suggestive corollary to his declaration that the law had 
 been " practically not at all enforced." And much of the 
 responsibility for non-enforcement in that particular dis- 
 trict for several years rested upon Judge Hayes, whose 
 hostility to the act was so offensive to conscientious citi- 
 zens that impeachment proceedings were brought against 
 him in the State Legislature. Indeed, there is scarcely 
 any part of the history of Prohibition in Iowa that pro- 
 vides so lucid an explanation of certain local failures as 
 the history of Judge Hayes's administration. 
 
 the same time. Specific questions were 
 sent to the County Prosecuting At- 
 torneys, and answers were received from 
 58 counties. Every reply, favorable or 
 unfayorable, was included in the de- 
 tailed exhibit of responses printed in the 
 Voice for June 6, 1889. The following 
 are three of the questions submitted, 
 with an analysis of the replies made by 
 the Prosecuting Attorneys to each : 
 
 "How successfully has Prohibition closed 
 the saloons in your part of the State ? " Of the 
 , 58 replying, 54 stated positively that there were 
 no open saloons, 2 that the law was not at all 
 enforced, 1 that open saloons were few, and 1 
 that the old and well-regulated saloons had 
 been closed but that the smaller ones had con- 
 tinued because of the difficulty of finding and 
 convicting the owners. 
 
 " To what extent has Prohibition diminished 
 drunkenness and the consumption of intoxicants 
 for beverage purposes 1 " Of the 58 replying, 
 50 said there had been a diminution, explicit 
 estimates ranging from 40 to 99 per cent. ; 2 said, 
 " Very little;" 3 said, " Not at all;" 1 stated that 
 beer-drinking had been diminished and whiskey- 
 drinking increased; 1 said, "Increased," and 1 
 said, " I don't believe diminished." 
 
 "Has not the loss of revenue from former 
 saloon licenses been made good by the decreas- 
 ing burdens of pauperism and crime, and the 
 directing of money formerly spent in the saloons 
 into legitimate channels of trade ? " To this 
 question 49 answered in the affirmative, 7 in the 
 negative and 2 said they could not tell. 
 
 E. E. Hutchins, State Commissioner 
 of Labor, in 1889 made this summary of 
 criminal statistics : 2 
 
 "Take, for instance, from the records of the 
 Courts the numbers of those convicted of crim- 
 inal ofEenses in Iowa in the order of the years: 
 ^884, Criminal Convictions 1,592 
 
 885, " " 1,339 
 
 886, " " 1,645 
 
 887, " " 1,520 
 
 1, " " 838 
 
 "In 1883, as shown by the Governor's rec- 
 ords, Iowa sent to the States 125 requisitions 
 for criminals from justice that had fled from 
 Iowa. Two years later they had run up to 167 
 in a single year, costing $17,193. In 1887 they 
 fell to 112, and in 1888 but 68 calls were made 
 upon the Governors of other States for the 
 return of Iowa fugitives, and at a cost of less 
 than $4,000. 
 
 " In 1885 52 criminals were given over to the 
 authorities of other States upon the extradition 
 papers of their Governors, and in 1888 but 36 
 criminals were requested from the State of 
 Iowa, showing that even the hiding-places of 
 criminals on Prohibition soil are broken up. 
 
 "Noteworthy evidence of the beneficent 
 workings of Prohibition is afforded in the fact 
 that while from year to year the population of 
 Iowa is largely increased, the population of her 
 State Penitentiaries is gradually diminishing. 
 
 2 The Voice, Jan. 2, 1890. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 516 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 " In 1885, Inmates of the Penitentiaries, 634 
 
 '• 1886, " 653 
 
 " 1887, " 615 
 
 " 1888, " 532 
 
 "The number of commitments to penal in- 
 stitutions and their cost to the State each year 
 tell a story also that is worth heeding: 
 
 Commitments, Cost to State, 
 " In 1885, 333 $413,000 
 
 " 1886, 298 421,000 
 
 " 1887, 278 282,000 
 
 " 1888, 260 300,000" 
 
 The following are extracts from some 
 of the most noteworthy statements that 
 have been made by individuals : 
 
 Governor William Larrabee (a sturdy oppon- 
 ent of Prohibition before its enactment, but 
 converted into a most ardent supporter after 
 due observation of the workings of the law), in a 
 letter to Rev. William Fuller of Aberdeen, 
 S. D., Feb. 16, 1889: " I think more than half 
 of the jails in the State are entirely empty at the 
 present time. There are 98 less convicts in our 
 penitentiaries than there were three years ago, 
 notwithstanding the growth of the population. 
 Expenses in Criminal Courts have decreased 
 very largely during the last few years. Tramps 
 are very scarce in Iowa. There are evidently 
 very few attractions for them here. Probably 
 more than 3,000 of their recruiting stations have 
 been closed in Iowa during the last five years. 
 The wives and mothers of the State, and especi- 
 ally those of small means, are almost unani- 
 mously in favor of the law. The families of 
 laboring men now leceive the benefits of the 
 earnings that formerly went to the saloons. 
 There is no question in my mind but what the 
 law is doing good for the people. My views 
 heretofore advanced in favor of the law are 
 strengthened and confirmed by added experi- 
 ence. Our people are more determined than 
 ever to make no compromise with the saloons. 
 The law has more friends in the State than it 
 ever had before, and I am satisfied that no State 
 can show results more gratifying." 1 
 
 United States Senator James F. Wilson, in a 
 letter to the Voice for Oct. 9, 1890: "It gives me 
 pleasure to be able to say that in every desirable 
 aspect of the case Prohibition has been bene- 
 ficial to Iowa. I have a pretty accurate know- 
 ledge of the conditions existing in Iowa, as 
 induced by Prohibition, and I do not hesitate to 
 say that they are all better on account of its 
 presence than they would have been without it. 
 In the several features of the case as respects 
 business, value of property, moral and educa- 
 tional conditions, diminution of crime and 
 criminal expenses, social and domestic phases of 
 society, Iowa is ready to stand in a row of the 
 States for examination with no fear that any of 
 her sisters will, at the conclusion, stand nearer 
 the head of the line than will she." 
 
 J. F. Kennedy, M.D., Secretary of the Iowa 
 State Board of Health, in a letter to the Voice 
 for Oct. 9, 1890: "In all respects our people 
 have been greatly benefited. Crime and im- 
 morality have greatly decreased ; social condi- 
 tions have improved; homes have become more 
 home-like, and thrift and the angels of hope 
 have gone into many homes where the blight 
 
 1 Political Prohibitionist for 1889, pp. 53-4. 
 
 of poverty and the demon of despair had taken 
 their abode." 
 
 Gershom H. Hill, Superintendent of the Iowa 
 State Hospital for the Insane, in a letter to the 
 Voice for Oct. 9, 1890: "The Prohibitory law 
 . . . has proved to be a great blessing to the 
 citizens of our commonwealth. Criminal stat- 
 istics and various other kinds of statistics, some 
 of which could be furnished from this institu- 
 tion, show that the physical, mental and social 
 condition of the people in Iowa has improved 
 since this law was enacted." 
 
 C. F. Williams, Chaplain of the State Peni- 
 tentiary at Fort Madison, in a letter to the Voice 
 for Oct. 9, 1890: "The business of making 
 criminals fell off at a remarkably rapid rate 
 immediately following the passage of the Clark 
 law. Within 18 months the convict population 
 of the State ran down from about 650 to 600. 
 We have two prisons in Iowa, one at Anamosa, 
 the other here. Our Fort Madison prison has 
 the contract labor system. Our ' lock-up ' was 
 over 400 when the Clark law passed. The 
 number ran down so rapidly that the Governor 
 was compelled to transfer convicts from An- 
 amosa to this prison to keep the contracts going 
 here. By the redistricting of the State, then in 
 force, 42 counties sent prisoners to us and 57 
 counties sent to Anamosa. The transfer of pris- 
 oners being both inconvenient ' and inadequate 
 the State was redistricted, giving 48 counties to 
 us and 51 to Anamosa. But this readjustment 
 was soon found to be inadequate. The State 
 was again redistricted, six more counties being 
 transferred to us, giving us 54 counties and 
 Anamosa 45. Within a year the history of 
 shrinkage and consequent crippling of contracts 
 repeated itself, and a third time the State had 
 to be redistricted. This time 22 counties were 
 transferred, giving us now 76 counties and leav- 
 ing Anamosa 23. And this total transfer of 34 
 counties from the territory tributary to Anamosa 
 to our territory barely suffices to keep our prison 
 population up to what it averaged, from four 
 more than half the number of counties, before 
 the passage of the Clark law. Or, in other 
 words, 76 counties do no better business in the 
 line of making criminals under Prohibition 
 partially enforced than 42 counties did before 
 the Clark law was enacted. And this is only 
 one phase of the situation. The truth as to the 
 reduction of crime is a many-sided truth, every- 
 where and always maintaining the unity of 
 fact amid the diversity of aspect, as viewed 
 from different standpoints. Ninety-nine county 
 jails, the majority of them empty more than 
 half the time, idle Courts and reduced expenses 
 are only a few of the many results of Prohibi- 
 tion in ' depressing business ' of this particular 
 kind in Iowa." 
 
 W. W. Field, Director of the State Agricul- 
 tural Society, in a letter to the Voice for Oct. 
 9, 1890 : " I do not mean to say that no liquor 
 is sold and used in the State, but I do say that 
 the quantity is small compared with saloon 
 times, and that our young men are not tempted 
 as formerly, and are being taught that to drink 
 is to lower themselves in the estimation of the 
 best society. It is rare now to see a drunken 
 man upon our streets, and at our recent State 
 Fair, where there were upon our grounds one 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 517 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 day 50,000 people, not a man was seen under 
 the influence of liquor." 
 
 James P. Flick, Member of Congress from 
 Iowa, in a letter to the Voice for Oct. 9, 1890 : 
 "I was Prosecuting Attorney, both "before 
 and several years after the enactment of the 
 Prohibitory law in Iowa. There were eight 
 counties in my district, and I know that after 
 the enactment of the Prohibitory law crime de- 
 creased there more than 50 per cent. I know 
 this to be a fact, for the fees of my office and 
 the Court expenses diminished at least 50 per 
 cent." 
 
 The facts for particular localities are 
 so abundant and convincing in the pre- 
 ceding testimony that it may be thought 
 unnecessary to devote any more space to 
 details. But the results in several charac- 
 teristic cities deserve closer inspection. 
 
 Generally speaking the law has been best 
 enforced in the country towns, well enforced in 
 the interior cities and least acceptably enforced 
 in those cities that lie on the Missouri and 
 Mississippi rivers. 
 
 Des Moines, the State capital, is an interior 
 city, in which the saloons were numerous 
 and crime was rampant and costly in the license 
 days. In 1887 the Prohibitory act was openly de- 
 fied, but in 1888 it was fairly executed. There 
 was an immediate decrease in crime and the 
 cost of public administration. The expenses of 
 the county, which were above $100,000 in 1887, 
 fell to $30,000 in 1888. ' In the county as a 
 whole the criminal expenses failed to keep pace 
 with the growth of the city of Des Moines ; 
 while in the other counties embraced in the 
 same Congressional District the criminal ex- 
 penses dropped from an average of $27,000 in 
 1881 and 1882 to $11,000 in 1888 and 1889. 2 
 
 Sioux City is a prominent river city and was 
 formerly one of the most notorious communi- 
 ties of the West. It was dominated by the 
 rum influence and greeted the Prohibitory law 
 with utter scorn. From the beginning it was 
 understood that any attempt to enforce the act 
 there would imperil both the interests and the 
 life of the person undertaking it; and no one 
 dared attack the lawless traffic until Rev. 
 George C. Haddock and Mr. D. W. Wood 
 began their memorable work in 1886. After 
 the assassination of Haddock (August, 1886) 
 there began a change for the better. The re- 
 sults of enforcement were thus described in a 
 report from Sioux City printed in the Iowa 
 State Register for March 22, 1889: "The re- 
 port of the Grand Jury, made last evening, 
 showed only two indictments', and one of these 
 was against a young man named Petty for se- 
 duction. This is the smallest number of in- 
 dictments returned by any Grand Jury in 
 Woodbury County in 10 years, and may be 
 taken as an index of the results of the workings 
 of the Prohibitory law. Two years ago the 
 County Jail was crowded to overflowing and 
 the criminal docket lumbered up with untried 
 cases. Now the jail is almost vacant and the 
 
 i Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 55. 
 a On the authority of Richard Price, State Senator from 
 the 16th District, in a letter in the Voice, Oct. 9, 1890. 
 
 Sheriff's deputies are idle. There has not been 
 a murder in the city since Dr. Haddock was 
 killed on the night of Aug. 3, 1886." 3 The 
 liquor-sellers and desperate characters were 
 foi'ced to leave Sioux City. They took refuge 
 in Nebraska, on the opposite side of the Mis- 
 souri river, and built up there two hamlets, 
 Covington and Stanton. Unable to longer ply 
 their trade safely in the city that they had 
 absolutely ruled they sought the protection of 
 the neighboring High License State (to which 
 each of them paid a yearly license fee of $800), 
 surrounded themselves with a choice company 
 of prostitutes, gamblers, thieves and other in- 
 dispensable wretches, connected their towns 
 with Sioux City by a pontoon bridge and con- 
 tinued to prey upon the morals and substance 
 of that community. 4 
 
 In Keokuk, also a river city, the law has been 
 enforced at times and at times ignored. For 
 example, in July and August of 1886 and 1887, 
 the saloons were unmolested, and the arrests for 
 drunkenness in those months were, respectively: 
 1886, 92; 1887, 120. But in July and August of 
 1888 the grogshops were closed and the arrests 
 for drunkenness dropped to 28. (See the Voice, 
 Oct. 18, 1888.) 
 
 Davenport is a city in which violators have 
 been most persistent and successful. It will be 
 seen, however, from the record of arrests for 
 drunkenness and disorderly conduct there dur- 
 ing the ' ' original package " months of 1890, 
 that even poorly enforced Prohibition bears 
 favorable comparison with any system of liquor 
 legalization. In those months (May, June, July 
 and August) it was lawful to sell liquor under 
 the pretense that it had been brought from 
 another State and was offered in the original 
 packages, and the arrests for "drunk and dis- 
 orderly " numbered 131 ; arrests for same offenses 
 in same months of 1889, 104; in January, 
 February, March and April of 1890, 68. s 
 
 Most of the other large towns of Iowa, if the 
 facts could be procured, would afford com- 
 parisons quite as instructive as those for Daven- 
 port. Osage is one of the places for which in- 
 formation has been secured: four "original 
 package " houses were started there in June and 
 ran until Aug. 12; arrests for "drunk and dis- 
 orderly " in the three months, 23; same months 
 of 1889, 9 ; March, April and May of 1890, 2. 
 Vinton had six "original package" saloons, 
 two of which began selling in May and the 
 others later, and on Aug. 8 all were shut ; 
 "drunks and disorderlies" in the four months, 
 40; same months of 1889, 4; January, February- 
 March and April of 1890, 6. In Lyons the 
 Prohibitory law, as in Davenport, had not been 
 enforced, and for some time there had been open 
 saloons. These places, under the quasi-legal- 
 ization given by the Supreme Court decision, 
 sold without caution from May to August of 
 1890, and the consequence was 65 arrests for 
 drunkenness and disorderly conduct in these 
 months; arrests for the same offenses in Janu- 
 
 3 Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 55. 
 
 4 At the beginning of 1890 there were 31 houses in the 
 town of Stanton, Neb., of which 16 were liquor-saloon». 
 (See the Voice, Jan. 30, 1890.) 
 
 « See the Voice, Oct. 16, 1890. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 518 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 ary, February, March and April of the same 
 year, 22. In Osceola there were 16 "drunks 
 and disorderlies" in the "original package" 
 months, 7 in the same months of 1889 and 9 
 in the four preceding months of 1890. > 
 
 Kansas and Ioiva Compared with Ne- 
 braska, Missouri and Minnesota. 
 
 The opponents of State Prohibition 
 have so sturdily declared that it is 
 a comparative failure, and that High 
 License and Local Option act more 
 beneficially, that it is important, 
 wherever possible, to contrast the 
 practical workings of these policies. 
 Conditions in the West supply a basis 
 of comparison as satisfactory as can 
 he desired. Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, 
 Missouri and Minnesota are sister States ; 
 all of them are thriving commonwealths, 
 with rapidly increasing populations, 
 growing cities and a predominating agri- 
 cultural interest. The first two have 
 been under complete Prohibition for a 
 number of years — Kansas since 1881 and 
 Iowa since 1885 ; the last three have had 
 rigid High License and Local Option 
 laws — Nebraska since 1881 (minimum 
 fee for the larger cities, $1,000), Mis- 
 souri since 1881 (fees ranging from $550 
 up) and Minnesota since 1887 (minimum 
 fee for the large cities, $1,000). 
 
 The following tables for the three 
 "High License States are compiled from 
 the United States Internal Eevenue 
 reports. , 
 
 State of Nebraska: 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Retail 
 Deal- 
 ers. 1 
 
 Whole- 
 sale 
 Deal- 
 ers. 2 
 
 Distil- 
 leries 
 Oper- 
 ated. 
 
 Brew- 
 ers. 
 
 To- 
 tals. 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 1883 
 1884 
 18853 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 1889 
 
 962 
 1,026 
 1,047 
 1,556 
 2,393 
 3,035 
 3,423 
 2,833 
 3,584 
 
 27 
 48 
 47 
 83 
 111 
 148 
 156 
 183 
 173 
 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 2 
 2 
 6 
 3 
 1 
 
 25 
 29 
 39 
 35 
 30 
 54 
 45 
 46 
 59 
 
 1,016 
 1,104 
 1,134 
 1,675 
 2,536 
 3,239 
 3,630 
 3,065 
 3,767 
 
 1 Including "retail liquor-dealers [distilled] " aud 
 "retail dealers in malt liquors." 2 Including " wholesale 
 liquor-dealers [distilled] " and "wholesale dealers in malt 
 liquors.' 1 3 Including Dakota Territory for this and suc- 
 ceeding years. 
 
 Since the addition of Dakota Territory to the Nebraska 
 Internal Revenue district in 1885 caused an increase in 
 the number of "liquor-dealers," etc., for which Nebraska 
 was not wholly responsible, comparisons will be made 
 between 1885 and 1889. 
 
 Population of Nebraska in 1885 (State Census), 740,- 
 645 ; imputation of Dakota Territory in 1885 ( Territorial 
 Census), 415,610 — aggregate for Nebraska and Dakota* 
 1,156,255; ratio between total number of liquor-dealers 
 
 etc., and aggregate population in 1886, 1 to 456. Popula- 
 tion of Nebraska in 1890, 1,058,910; Dakota (including 
 North and South Dakota), 511,527— aggregate for Ne- 
 braska and Dakota, 1,570,437,' ratio between total 
 "liquor-dealers,"''' etc., and aggregate population in 
 1889 (C«ww* 0/1890), 1 to 417. 
 
 N. B— Nebraska's share of this ratio should un- 
 doubtedly be larger than 1 to 417 in 1890, because Da- 
 kota since 1885 has shown a much stronger tendency 
 toward repressing liquor-selling than Nebraska has 
 manifested. There can be no reasonable doubt that 
 the number of liquor-dealers, etc., in Nebraska in ratio 
 to the total population showed an actual increase since 
 the High License law took effect. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Distilled 
 
 Liquors 
 
 Produced. 
 
 Malt 
 
 Liquors 
 
 Produced. 
 
 1881 
 
 Galls. 
 
 1,817,091 
 1,226,382 
 1,246,447 
 1,469,642 
 2,153.357 
 1,607,244 
 2,298,260 
 2,897 239 
 2,174' 137 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 46,105 
 54,053 
 56,361 
 94,811 
 108,445 
 133,315 
 163,474 
 168,379 
 174,649 
 
 1882 
 
 1883 1 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 
 1 Including Dakota Territory since Aug. 20, 1883. 
 
 Per capita production of distilled spirits in Nebraska 
 and Dakota in 1883 (on the basis of the State and Ter- 
 ritorial Censuses of 1885), 1.08 gallon ; in 1889 (Census of 
 1890), 1.39 gallon. Per capita production of malt 
 liquors in Nebraska and Dakota in 1883 (Census of 
 1885), reckoning 31 gallons to the barrel of beer, 1.51 
 gallon; in 1889 (Census O/1890), 3.45 gallons. 
 
 N. B.—The increase in the production of liquors was 
 almost entirely in the State of Nebraska. In fact, Da- 
 kota did not distill a gallon of spirits in 1883 and has 
 not distilled any since then. 
 
 State of Missouri : 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Retail 
 Deal- 
 ers. 1 
 
 Whole- 
 sale 
 Deal- 
 ers. 3 
 
 Distill- 
 eries Op- 
 erated. 
 
 Brew- 
 ers. 
 
 To- 
 tals. 
 
 1881.. 
 1882.. 
 1883.. 
 1884.. 
 1885.. 
 1886.. 
 1887.. 
 1888.. 
 1889.. 
 
 6,583 
 7,116 
 7,479 
 6,283 
 6,976 
 6,517 
 6,952 
 5,741 
 5,709 
 
 252 
 422 
 323 
 268 
 822 
 286 
 830 
 332 
 271 
 
 135 
 72 
 
 122 
 86 
 71 
 68 
 62 
 64 
 79 
 
 66 
 59 
 74 
 57 
 54 
 59 
 66 
 57 
 62 
 
 7,036 
 7,669 
 7,998 
 6,694 
 7,423 
 6,930 
 7,410 
 6,194 
 6,121 
 
 1 Including "retail liquor-dealers [distilled] " and "re- 
 tail dealers in malt liquorB." 2 Including "wholesale 
 liquor-dealers [distilled] " and "wholesale dealers in malt 
 liquors." 
 
 Population in 1880, 2,168,380; ratio between total 
 number of liquor-dealers, etc. , «?i 1881 and population 
 (Census of 1880), 1 to 308. Population in 1890, 2,679,184; 
 ratio in 1889 (Census c/1890), 1 to 438. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Distilled 
 
 Liquors 
 
 Produced. 
 
 Malt 
 
 Liquors 
 
 Produced. 
 
 1881 
 
 Galls. 
 
 2,381,719 
 2,756.846 
 3,210,884 
 8,289,813 
 2,912,840 
 3,310,277 
 3,439,366 
 3,153,896 
 2,459,855 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 888,764 
 1,019,873 
 1,050,446 . 
 1,146,829 
 1,144,325 
 1,203,243 
 1,420,314 
 1,562,528 
 1,669,304 
 
 1882 
 
 
 1884 
 
 1885 
 
 1888 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 
 i Tne Voice, Oct. 16, 1890. 
 
 Per capita production of distilled liquors In 1881 
 (Census of 1880), 1.1 gallon; In 1889 (Census O/1890), 
 0.92 gallon. Per capita production of malt liquors in 
 1881 (Census O/1880), reckoning 31 gallons to the barrel 
 of peer, 11.95 gallons; in 1889 (Census of 1890), 19.32 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 519 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 State of Minnesota : 
 
 Teaks. 
 
 Retail 
 Deal- 
 ers. * 
 
 Whole- 
 sale 
 Deal- 
 ers. 2 
 
 Distill- 
 eries Op- 
 erated. 
 
 Brew- 
 ers. 
 
 To- 
 tals. 
 
 1887.. 
 1888.. 
 1889.. 
 
 4.286 
 3,264 
 2,749 
 
 149 
 176 
 140 
 
 2 
 
 146 
 111 
 116 
 
 4,581 
 3,551 
 3,007 
 
 1 Including "retail liquor-dealers [distilled] " and "re- 
 tail dealers in malt liquors." 2 Including "wholesale 
 liquor-dealers [distilled] " and " wholesale dealers in malt 
 liquors. 1 ' 
 
 Population in 1885 (State Census), 1,117,798,' ratio 
 between total liquor-dealers, etc.. in 1887 and population 
 ipn the basis of the Census 0/1885), 1 to 244. Population 
 in 1890, 1,301,826; ratio in 1889 (Census of 1890), 1 to 433. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Distilled 
 
 Liquors 
 
 Produced. 
 
 Malt 
 
 Liquors 
 
 Produced. 
 
 1887 
 
 Galls. 
 1,140,061 
 
 Barrels. 
 331,480 
 306,473 
 314,073 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 
 Per capita production of distilled liquors in 1887, 
 nothing; in 1889 (Census of 1890), 0.87 gallon. Per 
 capita production of malt liquors in 1887 {Census of 
 1885), reckoning 31 gallons to the barrel of beer. 9.19 
 gallons; in 1889 (Census O/1890), 7.48 gallons. 
 
 Of course these figures are not conclu- 
 sive as to the effect of the High License 
 laws upon the extent of the drink traffic 
 and the consumption of liquors. But 
 they indicate, in each State, a much 
 greater traffic in and consumption of 
 liquors than in either Kansas or Iowa. 
 The following are the comparative 
 figures : 
 
 States. 
 
 Kansas : 
 1880.... 
 
 Iowa : 
 1883.. 
 
 Nebraska: 1 
 
 1883 
 
 1885 
 
 Missouri: 
 1881 
 
 Minnesota , 
 1887 
 
 Ratio between 
 " Liquor-Deal- 
 ers," etc., and 
 Total Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 Per Capita 
 Produc- 
 tion of 
 
 Distilled 
 Liquors. 
 
 Per Capita 
 Produc- 
 tion of 
 Malt 
 Liquors. 
 
 
 Galls. 
 
 Galls. 
 
 1 to 496 
 1 to 1,033 
 
 .0.043 
 0.0005 
 
 1.004 
 0.18 
 
 1 to 292 
 1 to 613 
 
 2.64 
 Infinitesim'l 
 
 5.10 
 1.68 
 
 1 to 456 
 1 to 417 
 
 1.08 
 i'.39 
 
 1.51 
 3.45 
 
 1 to 308 
 1 to 438 
 
 1.1 
 0.92 
 
 11.95 
 19.32 
 
 1 to 244 
 1 to 433 
 
 Nothing 
 0.87 
 
 9.19 
 7.48 
 
 1 Including Dakota Territory. 
 
 For all the States the figures of so- 
 called "liquor-dealers" are of less im- 
 portance than those of liquors produced. 
 The number of " liquor-dealers " given 
 in the United States Internal Revenue 
 reports, as we have repeatedly pointed out 
 (see especially p. 505), include, druggists 
 and others selling for excepted purposes, 
 and for other reasons are unreliable. But 
 
 the quantity of liquor produced, in a 
 large State, indicates to a considerable 
 extent whether there is a formidable 
 retail liquor traffic in that State. This 
 is particularly true for malt liquors. The 
 bulkiness of beer renders its shipment 
 costly, and in a State where there is no 
 considerable local supply of this article 
 saloons will be relatively few in number — 
 at least in a country where beer is a 
 popular beverage, as in the United 
 States. Comparison of the figures under 
 the head " Per Capita Production of Malt 
 Liquors" show that the Prohibition 
 States have an immense advantage over 
 the High License States. 
 
 Criminal and like statistics for Ne- 
 braska, Missouri and Minnesota are in all 
 respects infinitely less encouraging than 
 those for Kansas and Iowa. It is true 
 the numerous towns and counties that 
 have Local Option Prohibition are toler- 
 ably free from the evils of drink; but 
 they are side by side with license locali- 
 ties and license territory, the good re- 
 sults are modified and the general situa- 
 tion is dismal. Local Prohibition is the 
 only redeeming feature in these States : 
 wherever High License is the accepted 
 policy conditions are as bad as in any low 
 license State, and frequently are even 
 worse. Ample proof of this assertion 
 will be found in the article on High 
 License. Indeed, the facts given in 
 that article for Nebraska, Missouri and 
 Minnesota, when contrasted with the 
 Kansas and Iowa facts, should be con- 
 vincing. It will be sufficient to present 
 a few additional particulars of the most 
 interesting character. 
 
 In 1890 the County Judges of 21 of 
 the 88 Nebraska counties wrote letters 
 to the Voice declaring that in view of 
 the appalling prevalence of crime, etc., 
 caused by the license system of the State, 
 they would emphatically advise the 
 citizens to vote for the Prohibitory Con- 
 stitutional Amendment then pending. 1 
 " Last year," said Judge W. E. Goodhue 
 of Thayer County, "of about 11,500 fines 
 that passed through my hands in seven 
 months all but one dollar could be traced 
 to the use or sale of liquor. I think the 
 closing of the saloons would tend materi- 
 ally to diminish crime and to improve 
 the social and financial condition of the 
 
 » The Voice, Sept. 11, 1890. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 520 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 masses. I advise everybody to vote for 
 Prohibition." " It has been my experi- 
 ence," wrote Judge J. G. Downs of 
 Thurston County, "that at least three- 
 fourths of the crimes that come before 
 the Nebraska Courts may be traced di- 
 rectly or indirectly to the saloons as a 
 cause." "After an experience of four 
 years of Prohibition in Kansas," said P. 
 M. Wolcott, Judge of Cherry County, 
 "I unhesitatingly advise the citizens of 
 Nebraska to support the Prohibitory 
 Amendment." Such testimonies and 
 counsels as these, concurred in by the 
 Judges of one-fourth of the counties, and 
 collected without special effort as the 
 result of a casual and unofficial inquiry — 
 volunteered at a time when political pas- 
 sions ran high and when men holding 
 elective offices and naturally coveting 
 promotion might well have hesitated to 
 respond to a newspaper circular, — must 
 disarm those who assert that High 
 License has been of general benefit. 
 Besides the Judges, the County Prose- 
 cuting Attorneys of nine other counties 
 — making 30 counties in all, or more 
 than one-third — wrote similar letters. 
 " I have served in the position of Prose- 
 cuting Attorney for six years in Pennsyl- 
 vania and two years in Nebraska, and 
 was Mayor of a city two years," wrote 
 M. B. Welch, Prosecuting Attorney for 
 Blaine County; "I have prepared over 
 2,500 indictments and am convinced that 
 nearly nine-tenths of the criminal cases 
 are directly or indirectly traceable to 
 strong drink. I advise citizens of Ne- 
 braska to vote for Prohibition every 
 time." (Compare these expressions, pro- 
 cured under circumstances not at all 
 favorable to displaying in a representa- 
 tive way the opinions of the Judges and 
 Prosecutors, with the extraordinary testi- 
 mony already cited, from the Probate 
 Judges of Kansas and the District Judges 
 and County Attorneys of Iowa.) 
 
 An attempt has been made to show, 
 from the penitentiary statistics of Kan- 
 sas and Nebraska, that the number of 
 graver crimes is proportionately larger 
 under Prohibition than under High 
 License. The saloon's defenders have 
 exhibited much recklessness and dis- 
 honesty in this undertaking. The fol- 
 lowing are the official penitentiary 
 figures for the two States, as presented 
 in the Voice for Dec. 26, 1889 : 
 
 Nebraska. 
 
 Kansas. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Prison- 
 ers in 
 Peni- 
 ten- 
 tiary. 
 
 Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Prison- 
 ers in 
 Peni- 
 ten- 
 tiary. 
 
 Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 m 
 
 % 
 
 o 
 
 cc 
 
 C 
 
 V 
 
 •a J 
 
 A ■ 
 
 a 
 
 u 
 
 3 
 
 1870 
 1875 
 1880 
 1881 
 
 '1882 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 1889 
 
 37 
 59 
 194 
 190 
 
 232 
 214 
 274 
 329 
 351 
 332 
 345 
 376 
 
 122,993 
 257,747 
 452,402 
 
 740,645 
 1,058,910! 
 
 g5 
 
 w 
 
 a 
 
 a - 
 
 3 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 3 . 
 
 3 
 o 
 
 1h 
 
 1870 
 1875 
 1880 
 
 "1885 
 
 1887 
 1888 
 1889 
 
 218 
 435 
 633 
 
 673 
 
 895 
 898 
 861 
 
 364,399 
 996,096 
 
 1,268,530 ' 
 1,437,096' 
 
 1 Census of 1890. 
 
 Nebraska : Ratio of Penitentiary prisoners to popu- 
 lation in 1870, 1 to 4,555; in 1875, 1 to 4,369; in 1880, the 
 last Census year before High License took effect, 1 to- 
 2,332; in 1885, 1 to 2,251; in 1889 (on the basis of the 
 Census of 1890), 1 to 2,816. 
 
 Kansas: Ratio in 1870, 1 to 1,671; in 1880, the last 
 Census year before Prohibition took effect. 1 to 1,574; in 
 1885, 1 to 1,885; in 1889 (fin the basis of the Census of 
 1890), 1 to 1,657. 
 
 In Nebraska, therefore, the propor- 
 tionate number of convicts in the Peni- 
 tentiary was much greater under High 
 License in 1889 than under low license- 
 in 1870 or 1875, while in Kansas there 
 were comparatively fewer penitentiary 
 convicts under Prohibition in 1889 than, 
 there were under license in 1880. Kan- 
 sas, under license, had a far larger num- 
 ber of penitentary convicts in ratio to- 
 the population than Nebraska had 
 in the same period. This was prob- 
 ably due to the fact that Kansas- 
 was filled with lawless people in those 
 days, sharing the exceedingly bad repu- 
 tation of the States and Territories of the 
 Southwest and receiving many of the 
 desperate criminals of Texas, Indian 
 Territory, Missouri and Arkansas, while 
 Nebraska enjoyed better conditions. Re- 
 membering the remarkable differences of 
 former years, it is not strange if Kansas 
 has continued to show a larger percentage 
 of penitentiary crime than Nebraska. 
 Kansas's bad neighbors have not im- 
 proved in recent years. The vital fact 
 is that in the. period in which the Pro- 
 hibitory law has been best enforced in 
 the large cities of Kansas (since 1886) 
 there has been an actual decrease in the 
 number of convicts. Comparisons will 
 be very much fairer if made between 
 Nebraska and Iowa, for circumstances. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 521 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 in these two commonwealths were prac- 
 tically the same up to the time of the 
 trial of Prohibition in the latter. Here 
 are official penitentiary returns for the 
 essential years : 
 
 cities, printed since that article was 
 completed, are worthy of reproduction : ' 
 
 Nebraska. 
 
 Iowa. 
 
 Tears. 
 
 Prison- 
 ers in 
 Peni- 
 ten- 
 tiary. 
 
 Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 Years. 
 
 Prison- 
 ers in 
 Peni- 
 ten- 
 tiaries. 
 
 Popula- 
 tion. 
 
 1880 1 . 
 1885.. 
 1886.. 
 1887.. 
 1888.. 
 1889.. 
 
 194 
 329 
 351 
 332 
 345 
 376 
 
 452,402 
 740,645 
 
 1,058,910" 
 
 1885 3 . 
 1886.. 
 1887.. 
 1888.. 
 
 634 
 653 
 615 
 532 
 
 1,753,980 
 1,911,896' 
 
 ' Last Census year before High License took effect. 
 2 Census of 1890. 3 Year in which Prohibition took effect. 
 
 Nebraska: Ratio in 1880, 1 to 2,332 ;in 1885, 1 to 2,251: 
 in 1889 (.Census of 1890), 1 to 2,816. 
 
 Iowa: Ratio in 1885, 1 to 2,767: in 1888 (Census of 
 1890), 1 to 3,594. 
 
 This subject of penitentiary crime, 
 however, is the least important thing to 
 be studied in looking at the results of 
 any system of liquor legislation. Under 
 the head of penitentiary offenses fall 
 various forms of premeditated crime — 
 like burglary, forgery, etc. — which, while 
 always fostered by the saloon, will not 
 necessarily disappear — or will disappear 
 only gradually — with the abolition of the 
 grogshops. The ordinary services of the 
 police and the Courts, and by far the 
 greater part of public expenditures for 
 corrective objects, are occasioned by the 
 lower and more frequent offenses; and 
 these offenses, as we have seen, spring 
 almost entirely from the legalized drink- 
 shops and are as rare under Prohibition 
 in Kansas and Iowa as they are numerous 
 wherever High License exists. We have 
 devoted considerable space to the subject 
 because the comparative penitentiary 
 figures for Nebraska and Kansas are 
 really the only criminal statistics upon 
 which an argument in favor of High Li- 
 cense in the former State and against 
 Prohibition in the latter has been 
 founded. It is a dishonest and a child- 
 ish argument, worthy of the bar- 
 room but not of any intelligent person 
 who seeks to convince a dispassionate 
 public. 
 
 In addition to the details given in 
 High License for particular cities of 
 Nebraska, Minnesota and Missouri, the 
 following police returns for Minnesota 
 
 Cities and 
 Years. 
 
 Minneapolis 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 St. Paul: 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 Stillwater: 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 1889 
 
 Winona: 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 
 
 1888 
 
 
 
 
 Arrests 
 
 License 
 
 Numbers 
 
 Total 
 
 for 
 Drunk 
 
 Fees. 
 
 Saloons. 
 
 Arrests. 
 
 and 
 Disor- 
 derly. 
 
 $ 500 
 
 334 
 
 3,903 
 
 2,333 
 
 500 
 
 334 
 
 5,463 
 
 3,448 
 
 1,000 
 
 230 
 
 6,048 
 
 3,379 
 
 1,000 
 
 244 
 
 6,132 
 
 3,398 
 
 S 100 
 
 
 4,855 
 
 2,565 
 
 100 
 
 700 
 
 7,546 
 
 8,976 
 
 1,000 
 
 400 
 
 6,862 
 
 3,493 
 
 1,000 
 
 386 
 
 6,888 
 
 3,447 
 
 % 500 
 
 43 
 
 683 
 
 217) 
 
 1,000 
 
 48 
 
 541 
 
 181 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 30 
 
 576 
 
 166 
 
 
 1,000 
 
 34 
 
 615 
 
 214 J 
 
 % 100 
 
 93 
 
 485 
 
 354 
 
 100 
 
 107 
 
 340 
 
 213 
 
 1,000 
 
 37 
 
 596 
 
 372 
 
 1,000 
 
 39 
 
 637 
 
 303 
 
 
 1 Arrests for drunkenness, not including disorderly con- 
 duct. 
 
 Minneapolis.— The police year in 1886, 1887 and 1888 
 ended with March 31; in 1889 with Dec. 81. The license 
 year in 1886 and 1887 ended with May 1; in 1888 and 1889 
 with July 1. Consequently the arrests under $500 license 
 cover 27 months and under $1,000 license 18 months. 
 Equating the total arrests we find that there was an an- 
 nual average under $500 license of 4,835 and under $1,000 
 license of 7,112; equating the arrests for " drunk and dis- 
 orderly " these arrests averaged 2,945 annually under $500 
 license and 3.955 under $1,000 license. 
 
 St. Pawl.— The police year for 1886 began with Oct. 31 
 and for 1887, 1888 and 1889 with Dec. 31. The license year 
 began with Dec. 31 each year. Therefore the arrests as 
 
 fiven in the table are to be distributed as follows: under 
 100 license, 26 months; under $1,000 license, 24 months. 
 Yearly average of total arrests under $100 license, 5,724; 
 under $1,000, 6,875. Yearly average of u drunks and dis- 
 orderlies " under $100 license, 3,019; under $1,000 license, 
 3,470. 
 
 Stillwater. — The figures for this city are of lesB inter- 
 est. The change from $500 to $1,000 license was followed 
 by a temporary decrease in the number of arrests and then 
 a rising tendency was again shown. 
 
 Winona.— Police year ended with Dec. 31 each year; 
 license year with March 31; consequently the arrests 
 given in the table include 27 months under $100 license 
 and 21 months under $1,000 license. Yearly average of 
 total arrests under $100 license, 433; under $1,000 license, 
 619. Yearly average of " drunks and disorderlies," 29a 
 under $100 license and 330 under $1,000 license. 
 
 Other Experiments in State Prohibition. 
 
 The extended review that has been 
 made of the results in Maine, Kansas 
 and Iowa is called for by the crucial im- 
 portance of these three States. In ex- 
 isting circumstances the decision of the 
 question whether State Prohibition has 
 wholesome practical effects if executed 
 with tolerable fairness rests mainly upon 
 the conclusions coming from a thorough 
 study of Maine, Kansas and Iowa expe- 
 rience; for these are the only States in 
 
 i See the Voice, Oct. 5, 1890. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 522 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 -which there has been anything like an 
 adequate and a prolonged trial of the 
 jDolicy throughout a broad extent of 
 territory embracing considerable cities 
 and peopled by enterprising classes of 
 •citizens. In every other State that has 
 tried Prohibition some or all of the 
 elements essential to significant results 
 have been lacking; generally the enforce- 
 ment legislation has been defective; in 
 most instances even these feeble measures 
 have lasted for only two or three years; 
 •discriminations have been made per- 
 mitting the sale of wine and beer and 
 the manufacture of these and other 
 liquors; political favor has rarely been 
 ■exhibited and nearly always there has 
 been a general disposition to conspire 
 ior the law's nullification and repeal. 
 Nevertheless it will be seen that good 
 has been done by even very imperfect and 
 transitory Prohibition systems — good 
 proportioned to the degree of the en- 
 forcement, — and that conditions under 
 the weakest Prohibitory laws have been 
 decidedly better, from the temperance 
 and anti-liquor traffic point of view, 
 than under any method of license in the 
 same States. 
 
 Vermont. — At first glance this State 
 seems to fall in the same class with Maine, 
 Kansas and Iowa. Its Prohibitory law 
 ■was passed in 1852 and has never been 
 repealed; therefore Vermont has had 
 •continuous Prohibition longer than any 
 other State, not excepting Maine — for in 
 Maine there has been an interval of 
 license (1857-8). Besides, the statute 
 has had the general support of the peo- 
 ple and has encountered little opposition 
 from public men. But Vermont is not 
 one of the representative States. Its 
 commercial interests are not in a con- 
 spicuous way " diversified," its towns are 
 relatively vfew and small, its citizens are 
 ■conservative and its population does not 
 ■show a characteristic commingling of 
 the varied elements of American life. 
 Thus the results of Prohibition in Ver- 
 mont are not decisive because the cir- 
 cumstances do not bear the tests that are 
 naturally applied. 
 
 The last year for which Vermont was 
 separately classified in the Internal 
 Bevenue reports is 1887. The following 
 table gives the number of payers of 
 United States special liquor taxes and 
 
 the quantity of liquor produced from 
 1880 to 1887, inclusive: 
 
 Years. 
 
 1880 
 1881 
 1883 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 
 Retail 
 
 L-EAL- 
 EKS. 1 
 
 595 
 473 
 476 
 516 
 486 
 485 
 565 
 
 Whole- 
 sale 
 Deal- 
 ers. 2 
 
 Distilled 
 Liquor 
 
 Pro- 
 duced. 3 
 
 10 
 15 
 8 
 13 
 13 
 9 
 8 
 
 Galls. 
 
 1,400 
 
 2,335 
 
 1.152 
 
 662 
 
 937 
 322 
 597 
 
 Malt Li- 
 quor Pro 
 duced. 3 
 
 Barrels. 
 None 
 
 1 Including "retail liquor-dealers [distilled] " and "re- 
 tail dealers in malt liquors." 2 Including" wholesale liquor- 
 dealers [distilled] " and " wholesale dealers in malt 
 liquors.' 1 3 See the Internal Revenue report for 1889, 
 pp. 366-9. 
 
 The 
 liquors 
 branch 
 notice : 
 made 
 
 insignificant production of 
 proves that the manufacturing 
 of the traffic is unworthy of 
 : probably all the distilled liquor 
 in Vermont is for the excepted 
 purposes. The number of persons pay- 
 ing retailers' and wholesalers' special 
 taxes varies slightly from year to year; 
 even the Federal returns demonstrate 
 that the traffic is not increasing. The 
 average number of such payers for the 
 eight years is 522. The population has 
 been practically unchanged since 1880, 
 and therefore, reckoning on the basis of 
 the population in 1880, there was, on the 
 average during this period, one special 
 tax -payer for each 637 of the population. 
 Vermont's showing is still more credit- 
 able when it is remembered that some of 
 the so-called "liquor-dealers" were 
 "Town Agents" selling for medicinal 
 and similar purposes exclusively, and 
 that many of the others were undoubt- 
 edly persons selling transiently, in a small 
 way, and whose influence for evil in the 
 community was not comparable with 
 that exerted by even the petty dealers in 
 the license States. 
 
 Scarcely any other evidence is neces- 
 sary to satisfy the unprejudiced reader 
 that Prohibition is excellently enforced 
 in nearly the whole of Vermont. But 
 there are towns where violations are 
 winked at for reasons akin to those that 
 have been mentioned in our survey of 
 Maine — political reasons chiefly. A 
 special explanation, however, is to be 
 made in the case of Vermont ; the pen- 
 alties for infractions of the law are very 
 light there — a fine of $10 for the first 
 offense of selling liquor in violation of 
 law, $20 fine and one to three months' 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 523 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 imprisonment for the second and $20 
 fine and three to six months' imprison- 
 ment for the third. (See p. 352.) 
 
 Though the opposition to the law 
 Tests upon the weakest foundations the 
 •conditions in a few localities are plausi- 
 hly alluded to as justification for a re- 
 peal movement by the men whose per- 
 sonal interests or peculiar opinions ren- 
 der them anti-Prohibitionists. High 
 License and Local Option bills were in- 
 troduced in the Legislature in 1888 and 
 1890 but were rejected by large majori- 
 ties. This advocacy of repeal caused 
 prominent citizens to declare their 
 preferences and the results of their 
 •observation. Frank Plumley, United 
 States District Attorney for Vermont, 
 wrote : 1 
 
 "lam glad as a friend of Prohibition that the 
 license advocates have unmasked and are to 
 wage open warfare. Their arguments cannot 
 stand the broad light of publicity, and are 
 easily punctured by the facts concerning the 
 beneficence of Prohibition exhibited in our own 
 State. Take the State as a body, every year 
 shows improvement, both in the vigor of en- 
 forcement of the law and the decreased intem- 
 perance and resulting crime." 
 
 The following are other expressions : * 
 
 George W. Hooker, President of the Vermont 
 State Agricultural Society and member of the 
 Republican National Committee: "Prohibition 
 is the best law for Vermont, and I base my be- 
 lief on the almost entire absence of crime. 
 There is no law better enforced in Vermont, 
 and it can be enforced everywhere if public 
 sentiment so orders." 
 
 M. H. Buckham, President of the Vermont 
 State University: "I wish I was half as sure 
 of the triumph of other good causes as I am 
 that the people of Vermont will maintain and 
 improve, and still more effectually carry out, 
 the present system by which the selling of 
 intoxicating drink, if not actually prohibited, 
 is to a great degree restricted and restrained." 
 
 Hon. H. G. Root of Bennington: "Opponents 
 of the present law make a mistake in saying 
 that the Prohibitory law for the past 30 years 
 has failed to prohibit. We have had an actual 
 Prohibitory law for one year only, the Legis- 
 lature of 1888 so amending the existing law 
 that it is now nearer absolute Prohibition than 
 any State in the Union. In Bennington before 
 last year there were between 60 and 70 saloons. 
 Now there are less than 6, and they are holes 
 that no decent man would enter. They are 
 patronized by the same men who carry bottles 
 around in their pockets, and who would get 
 drunk anyway." 
 
 Worth and South Dakota. — These 
 two States rank next in present im- 
 
 i TheVoice, Feb. 6, 1890. 
 * Ibid, Feb. 13, 1890. 
 
 portance, for both have complete Con- 
 stitutional Prohibition. But the law 
 did not go into effect in either until 
 1890, and there is no basis for compari- 
 sons at the time this is written. Pre- 
 viously to 1890 they were under a system 
 of High License and Local Option, and 
 in a majority of the counties the traffic 
 was prohibited. The results of local 
 Prohibition, compared with those of 
 High License, were so satisfactory that 
 the farmers of South Dakota compelled 
 the dominant party to pledge itself un- 
 equivocally to State and national Pro- 
 hibition and to work for the adoption of 
 the Constitutional Amendment ; while in 
 North Dakota the benefits of the policy 
 were so clearly recognized that a Pro- 
 hibition majority was given in 1889 not- 
 withstanding a general feeling among 
 the Prohibitionists that it was useless to 
 strive for victory against the tactics and 
 resources of their opponents. 
 
 There are good indications of the 
 prospective success of the Dakota laws, 
 provided they are retained on the statute- 
 books and carried out with reasonable 
 fairness. Both these laws embrace 
 nuisance and injunction measures, with 
 satisfactory penalties and other valuable 
 enforcement regulations. And evidence 
 of their destructive effect upon the 
 liquor trade is not lacking. In 1890, 
 after the passage of the South Dakota 
 statute but before it took effect, an 
 advertisement was inserted in a Nebraska 
 daily paper requesting correspondence 
 with persons competent to manage a 
 retail liquor business. Many letters were 
 received from South Dakota rum- 
 sellers, and without an exception they 
 stated, as the reason for seeking employ- 
 ment, that the Prohibitory law would 
 compel them to close. " The only mo- 
 tive for leaving is Prohibition," wrote 
 one ; " Leave this place on account of 
 new law," said another; "Dakota has 
 gone Prohibition, so that I closed out 
 my business," explained another; " Have 
 a saloon of my own and have had for the 
 last two years, but as Prohibition takes 
 effect May 1, I would like a situation," 
 answered another; "The Prohibition 
 bill takes effect May 1, so it is a case of 
 go," responded another. A liquor-dealer 
 in Canton, S. D., gave this account of 
 himself: "I have had Elven years ex- 
 perienc in running a first class Saloon of 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 524 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 my own and I can say successfully untill 
 within the last three years. Three years 
 ago they sprung ' Local Option ' on us. 
 We have fought them with money and 
 everything else, but to no avail' for now 
 we have Prohibition good and strong and 
 on the 1st May next we must go." x 
 
 New Hampshire, permitting the man- 
 ufacture of liquor and influenced in 
 its politics to a great extent by wealthy 
 brewers, is not strictly a Prohibition 
 State. Even the prohibition of the 
 retail sale did not finally become 
 absolute until 1881, when the right 
 granted to towns to tolerate the traffic 
 in lager beer was withdrawn. As a 
 matter of course this partial Prohibitory 
 law has not operated so success- 
 fully or beneficially as the measures 
 already noticed. The following are the 
 Federal statistics of the liquor business 
 for the years 1880-7 (inclusive), 1887 
 being the last year for which the New 
 Hampshire figures are given separately 
 in the Internal Kevenue records : 
 
 Yeaes. 
 
 Retail 
 Deal- 
 ers. 1 
 
 Whole- 
 sale 
 Deal- 
 
 EES. a 
 
 Distilled 
 
 Liquoes 
 
 Peo- 
 
 DUCED. 3 
 
 Malt Li- 
 quoes 
 Peo- 
 duced. 3 
 
 1880 
 
 1881 
 
 1882 
 
 1883 
 
 1884 ,,. 
 
 1885 
 
 1886 
 
 1887 .... 
 
 987 
 1,162 
 1,231 
 1,288 
 1,287 
 1,327 
 1,298 
 1,379 
 
 43 
 39 
 41 
 52 
 38 
 46 
 50 
 60 
 
 Galls. 
 
 48,535 
 60,242 
 46,923 
 39,460 
 39,478 
 33,609 
 25,758 
 22,742 
 
 Barrels. 
 
 183,645 
 202,552 
 252,706 
 270,628 
 323,449 
 320,115 
 329,130 
 317,685 
 
 1 Including *' retail liquor-dealers [distilled] " and " re- 
 tail dealers in malt liquors." 2 Including "wholesale 
 liquors-dealers [distilled]" and "wholesale dealers in 
 malt liquors." 3 Internal Revenue report for 1889, 
 pp. 366-9. 
 
 The population of New Hampshire did 
 not increase materially between 1880 
 (346,991) and 1887. On the basis of the 
 Census of 1880 there was in that period, 
 on the average, one special liquor tax- 
 payer (not including brewers and dis- 
 tillers) for each 269 inhabitants. The 
 average per capita production of dis- 
 tilled spirits was 0.11 gallon; of malt 
 liquor (reckoning 31 gallons to the barrel 
 of beer), 24.67 gallons. The statistics of 
 liquor manufacture explain the statistics 
 of "liquor-dealers." It is inevitable that 
 in a State where the manufacturing 
 interest is powerful there will be made a 
 considerable wholesale and retail market. 
 In practice the New Hampshire law 
 
 » The Voice, May 15, 1890. 
 
 operates more as a Local Option than as 
 a Prohibitory act, the traffic being in- 
 trenched in the important localities 
 because of the legal standing that its 
 most prominent representatives enjoy. 
 But well-informed citizens of New Hamp- 
 shire declare that the sale is suppressed 
 in by far the greater number of towns 
 and in practically all the unincorporated 
 parts of the State. And the Injunction 
 act of 1887 has strengthened the friends 
 of the law in places where enforcement 
 was formerly difficult. Successful cru- 
 sades against the open saloon have been 
 waged in the cities from time to time 
 under this act, and there can be no doubt 
 that more stringent legislation — especi- 
 ally legislation against the manufacture 
 — would render Prohibition fully as effi- 
 cient in New Hampshire as it has been 
 in the neighboring States of Maine and 
 Vermont. 
 
 We have now examined the workings 
 of all the existing State Prohibitory laws. 
 As for the Territorial laws of the Indian, 
 Oklahoma and Alaska Territories, the 
 effects of these measures have never been 
 investigated. In the Indian and Alaska 
 Territories they are intended chiefly to 
 prevent the traffic with the aborigines, 
 and, having been established as police 
 regulations by the United States Govern- 
 ment (which certainly is not disposed to 
 resort to Prohibition without definite 
 cause, or to maintain it if ineffectual), 
 it may be assumed that the former license 
 measures were complete failures, and that 
 Prohibition has become recognized in 
 these Territories as the only acceptable 
 policy for restraining crime, intemper- 
 ance, etc. Oklahoma was erected out of 
 the Indian Territory in 1889, and mul- 
 titudes of adventurers, eager to acquire 
 the rich lands, swarmed into it when the 
 President's proclamation authorizing set- 
 tlement took effect. Cities were thrown 
 up in a few days, personal selfishness 
 was the controlling motive, desperate 
 and questionable characters were there 
 in large numbers, and serious conflicts 
 were imminent. The representatives of 
 the Federal Government were the only 
 persons having police authority, and a 
 considerable time elapsed before system- 
 atic administration of law was possible. 
 Throughout this period the sale of liquor 
 was prohibited, and the Federal officers 
 had instructions to enforce the anti- 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 525 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 liquor provisions. Mr. J. A. Pickler, 
 Member of Congress from South Dakota, 
 who was in Oklahoma for two months 
 as an agent of the Interior Department, 
 has made the following statement : 
 
 ' ' Fifty thousand people came into Oklahoma 
 within 24 hours, all strangers to each other, as 
 many as a dozen men claiming one town lot, on 
 which they had squatted, and four or five 
 claiming the same tract of land. With no laws 
 to govern this people except the general laws of 
 the United States, without a Governor, Sheriff 
 or constable, we had perfect peace and order, 
 with no bloodshed whatever for six months. I, 
 as did all thinking men, attributed it to the Pro- 
 hibition by the Government of any liquor being 
 brought into the Territory." ' 
 
 The more important of the State Pro- 
 hibitory laws that have been repealed 
 will be noticed next. 
 
 Rhode Island. — The history of Pro- 
 hibition is of special interest in this 
 State because of the number of changes 
 made from license to Prohibition and 
 from Prohibition to license, and be- 
 cause this is the only commonwealth 
 in which a Prohibitory Constitutional 
 Amendment has been rescinded by 
 popular vote. The original act was 
 passed in 1852, modified in 1853 be- 
 cause of the unconstitutionality of 
 certain features and repealed in 1863. 
 In 1874 another Prohibitory law was 
 adopted, which gave way to license the 
 next year. In April, 1886, an Amend- 
 ment prohibiting the manufacture and 
 sale was inserted in the Constitution, and 
 in May the Legislature enacted an enforce- 
 ment statute ; the Amendment was de- 
 stroyed in June, 1889, and license was 
 restored the next month. (For explana- 
 tions, etc., see pp. 109-10, 124-5.) 
 
 The statute of 1852-63, lacking some 
 provisions essential to a vigorous ad- 
 ministration of it, is hardly to be re- 
 garded as a Prohibitory law proper ; and 
 we have been unable to obtain any satis- 
 factory information touching its results. 
 The act of 1874, remembering that it was 
 in force for only one year, had excellent 
 effects, effects so injurious to the traffic 
 that a supreme effort to secure its repeal 
 was set on foot without delay. Governor 
 Howard made this declaration in October, 
 1874: "Not from the standpoint of a 
 temperance man, but as a public man 
 with a full sense of the responsibility 
 which attaches to me from my represen- 
 
 i The Voice, Dec. 19, 1889. 
 
 tative position, I say that to-day the Pro- 
 hibitory laws of this State, if not a com- 
 plete success, are a success beyond the 
 fondest anticipation of any friend of tem- 
 perance, in my opinion. Prohibitory 
 legislation is a success in Ehode Island 
 to a marvelous extent." 2 
 
 The Prohibitory Amendment and 
 legislation of 1886-9, for reasons that 
 have been referred to elsewhere (see pp. 
 124-5), were denied a decent trial. 
 They were borne down by intrigue and 
 conspiracy. At the very beginning of 
 this period the Board of State Police, 
 which was specially created to enforce 
 the policy, was regarded with grave dis- 
 trust, for the man who was put at its 
 head did not have the confidence of the 
 people. The Legislature refused to add 
 necessary amendments t<j the statute, 
 and before two years had passed it was 
 generally understood that the managing 
 politicians and many of the influential 
 law officers had no other purpose in view 
 than to render the law ridiculous and 
 odious by non-enforcement. In spite of 
 these unfavorable circumstances it was 
 partially enforced, and with uniformly 
 wholesome consequences. The number 
 of persons paying United States special 
 taxes as retail and wholesale dealers fell 
 from 1,544 in 1886 to 1,241 in 1887. 
 (The numbers for subsequent years can- 
 not be given, since Ehode Island was 
 consolidated with the Internal Kevenue 
 collection district of Connecticut on Ju- 
 ly 1, 1887.) In Providence, the principal 
 city, the arrests for crime, drunkenness 
 and disorderly conduct were greatly 
 reduced in the first year. The figures 
 are as follows : 
 
 Total Arrests for All Causes Except for Sale of 
 Liquor. — Year ending June 30, 1886 (license), 
 6.473; year ending June 30, 1887 (Prohibition), 
 4,087 — decrease, 37 per cent. 
 
 Arrests for Drunkenness, Gammon Drunkards 
 and Disorderly. — Year ending June 30, 1886 
 (license), 2,617; year ending June 30, 1887 (Pro- 
 hibition), 1,521 — decrease, 42 per cent. 3 
 
 In each of these years Providence had 
 the same Chief of Police, and therefore 
 the decrease was not brought about by 
 any change in the Police Department. 
 In the next year there was an increase, 
 not large enough, however, to bring the 
 total up to the number of arrests made 
 in the last year of license. The record 
 
 2 Alcohol and the State, p. 335. 
 8 Wheeler's "Prohibition," p. 134. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 526 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 for two and one-half years of Prohibition 
 (ending with Jan. 1, 1889) showed 9,923 
 arrests for drunkenness and disorderly- 
 conduct in Providence in that period, as 
 against 11,304 in the last two and one- 
 half years of license — a decrease of 
 about 2,00a 1 
 
 In the closing year of the Prohibitory 
 law, beginning with the summer of 1889, 
 the newly-elected Attorney-General of 
 the State, Horatio Rogers, contrary to 
 expectation, entered upon a fearless en- 
 forcement crusade, bringing cases to 
 trial and laying foundations for com- 
 plete extermination of the open trade. 
 This work, however, only hastened the 
 repeal, for it taught the rumsellers and 
 their political allies that the traffic could 
 be saved only by prompt action. 
 
 With the return of licensed saloons 
 crime and intemperance were imme- 
 diately stimulated. In the latter part of 
 1889 the criminal docket of the Court of 
 Common Pleas of Providence County 
 was the largest in the history of that 
 Court. The Providence Journal, which 
 had clamored for the repeal of Prohi- 
 bition and had predicted that High 
 License would reduce the evils of the 
 business, said, Jan. 30, 1890 : 
 
 "During the period of Prohibition in this 
 State and the discussions of reform incident 
 thereto it was promised by the advocates of 
 High License, as one of the chief inducements 
 to change to their system, that a good High 
 License law, properly enforced, would mate- 
 rially reduce the number of places maintained 
 for the selling of liquor, thus decreasing the 
 agencies of temptation to the thoughtless and 
 bringing the liquor traffic within limits where 
 it could be conveniently and satisfactorily con- 
 trolled. It must be plain, however, not only 
 by the statistics of licenses lately published in 
 these columns, but by common observation as 
 well, that the happy result predicted has not 
 been brought about under Rhode Island's new 
 license law. The saloons seem to have in- 
 creased. Complete and absolutely accurate 
 statistics are not, indeed, obtainable. But there 
 are probably not less than 1,200 licensed 
 saloons in the State to-day, while at the close of 
 the low license period in June, 1886, it was 
 estimated that the number was a little over 900, 
 certainly not more than 950. Indeed, during 
 the lawlessness of the Prohibition period itself 
 there were hardly more tippling-places of all 
 sorts in the State than there are licensed places 
 now. In Providence, in June, 1886, the last 
 month of the operation of the low license law, 
 there were on record in this city 444 licensed 
 saloons. To-day there are 532, and the ten- 
 
 1 On the authority of Mr. Walter B. Frost of Providence. 
 (See the Voice for March 7, 1889.) 
 
 dency is still upward. ... It does not ap- 
 pear, then, that in this respect we are much 
 better off to-day. In point of numbers, in- 
 deed, we are not so well off as we were under 
 low license, even allowing for a substantial 
 growth in population in the last four years." 
 
 The newspapers of the other cities 
 commented on the situation in the same 
 strain. The Pawtucket Daily Gazette 
 and Chronicle said, Sept. 20, 1889 : 
 
 "More drunken men were seen on our streets 
 during the past week than were seen here in the 
 three years of the non-enforced Prohibitory law. " 
 
 And the Newport Daily News said, 
 Sept. 28, 1889 : 
 
 "Drunkenness is increasing, and it appears to- 
 be the general sentiment of the community that 
 no more liquor licenses should be granted. 
 Men under the influence of liquor, but not in 
 any way unable to reach their destination, are 
 seen on any hand by the police and others." 
 
 Connecticut. — In this State the Prohib- 
 itory law, enacted in 1852 and repealed in 
 1872, was not thoroughly enforced at any 
 time. During the early years of the 
 act, however, the condition of the State 
 was clearly so much better than it had 
 been under license that the warmest 
 encomiums were pronounced. Governor 
 Dutton said in 1855 : " There is scarcely 
 an open grogshop in the State, the jails 
 are fast becoming tenantless and a de- 
 lightful air of security is everywhere 
 enjoyed." And Governor Minor in 1856 
 said: "From my own knowledge, and 
 from information from all parts of the 
 State, I have reason to believe that the 
 law has been enforced, and the daily 
 traffic in liquors has been broken up and 
 abandoned." Dr. Leonard Bacon said 
 that " Its [the law's] effect in promoting 
 peace, order, quiet and general pros- 
 perity no man can deny. Never for 
 20 years has our city [New Haven] been 
 so quiet as under its action." (This 
 statement is of unusual interest since 
 Dr. Bacon has long been prominent 
 as an opponent of the principle . of 
 Prohibition.) B. P. Augur of Middle- 
 town, Conn., has compiled from official 
 records a table giving the numbers of 
 commitments to jail for all offenses, 
 commitments for drunkenness, for as- 
 sault, for vagrancy, etc., since 1852. 
 The following, taken from Mr. Augur's 
 table, compares commitments during the 
 last seven years of the Prohibitory law 
 and the first seven years of the license 
 law that replaced it : 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 527 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 Teaks. 
 
 Total 
 Commit- 
 ments. 
 
 Commit- 
 ments 
 tor 
 Drunk- 
 enness 
 and Com- 
 mon 
 Drunk- 
 ards. 
 
 Assault, 
 Assault 
 and Bat- 
 
 TERY,AND 
 
 Breach 
 op Peace. 
 
 Va- 
 gran- 
 cy. 
 
 a 
 _o 
 
 IS . 
 
 o 
 
 ■h 
 
 P-, 
 
 d 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 «' 
 
 CD 
 
 a 
 
 a) 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 To 
 
 1866 
 
 1867 
 
 1868 
 
 1869 
 
 1870 
 
 1871 
 
 ,1873 
 
 1874 
 
 1875 
 
 18761 
 
 1877 
 
 1879" 
 
 t. Proh.Trs. 
 Lie. " 
 
 1,827 
 1,693 
 1,821 
 3,246 
 2,593 
 2,805 
 2,985 
 
 4,481 
 4,448 
 4,435 
 3,103 
 4.149 
 4,577 
 3,834 
 
 537 
 
 484 
 
 575 
 
 843 
 
 1,050 
 
 1,390 
 
 1,470 
 
 2,125 
 2,044 
 2,175 
 1,347 
 1,734 
 2,141 
 1,628 
 
 273 
 275 
 280 
 428 
 302 
 339 
 447 
 
 594 
 661 
 734 
 391 
 571 
 572 
 496 
 
 67 
 63 
 75 
 63 
 97 
 110 
 164 
 
 170 
 314 
 335 
 149 
 193 
 379 
 221 
 
 15,970 
 39,017 
 
 6,248 
 13,194 
 
 3,344 
 4,019 
 
 638 
 1,461 
 
 1 Eight months only. 2 Tramp law went into effect. 
 
 According to this table, in the seven 
 license years as compared with the seven 
 Prohibition years the commitments for 
 all offenses increased 82 per cent., for 
 drunkenness and common drunkards 111 
 per cent., for assault, assault and battery 
 and breach of peace 79 per cent., and for 
 vagrancy 129 per cent. Meanwhile the 
 increase in population was about 1.76 
 per cent, per year, or only 12.32 per cent, 
 in seven years. 1 
 
 Since the repeal of Prohibition in 1872 
 the license and Local Option law has 
 been steadily maintained. The increase 
 of crime and drunkenness has been con- 
 stant. For the year ending June 30, 
 1887, the total number of commitments 
 for crime was 6,849 and of commitments 
 for drunkenness 3,388. The following 
 are comparisons for three decennial 
 years, beginning with 1867: 
 
 Commitments for Crime. — For 1867 (the 
 last year under the Prohibitory law before 
 the repeal agitation became active), 1,693 ; 
 population in 1870, 537,454 ; ratio of 
 ' commitments in 1867 to total population (on the 
 basis of the Census of 1870), 1 to 317. For 1877 
 (the fifth year of license), 4,149 ; population in 
 1880, 622,700 ; ratio, 1 commitment to 150 in- 
 habitants. For 1887 (the fifteenth year of 
 license), 6,849 ; population in 1890, 746,258 ; 
 ratio, 1 commitment to 109 inhabitants. 
 
 1 It should be home in mind also that the seven years of 
 Prohibitory law here given were in most respects the 
 worst years for the law, ensuing immediately after the 
 return to civil life of the Federal soldiers with the drink 
 habits formed amid the hardships of camp life, and being 
 years during which an incessant agitation for the repeal 
 of the law was kept np.— Wheeler's "Prohibition," 
 p. 108. 
 
 Commitments for Drunkenness. — For 1867, 
 484 ; ratio (on the basis of the Census- 
 of 1870), 1 to 1,110 inhabitants. For 
 1877, 1,734 ; ratio (on the basis of the Census of 
 1880), 1 to 359 inhabitants. For 1887, 3,388 ; 
 ratio (on the basis of the Census of 1890), 1 to 
 220 inhabitants. 
 
 These startling figures make it per- 
 fectly plain that even under the poorly- 
 enforced Prohibitory law, Connecticut 
 (so long as that law was undisturbed) was- 
 a sober State and was remarkably free 
 from crime; while under the present 
 license system (even with the advantage 
 of Local Option Prohibition in a major- 
 ity of the towns) the commitments for 
 crime, after making allowance for the 
 increase in population, are relatively 
 three times more numerous and the num- 
 ber of commitments for drunkenness is- 
 five times as great. 
 
 Massachusetts. — This State adopted 
 many interesting restrictive measures- 
 long before the Maine law was enacted ; 
 and in 1848 a complete Prohibitory act 
 (with search and seizure clauses) was- 
 framed and introduced in the Legisla- 
 ture. 2 The passage of this bill would have 
 deprived Maine of the distinction that she 
 enjoys; but it was defeated. In 1852 a- 
 Maine Prohibitory law was adopted in 
 Massachusetts and it endured until 18G8 r 
 when a license law took its place. In 
 1869 Prohibition was re-enacted and in 
 1875 the State again changed to license. 
 It has retained the license system ever 
 since, subject to Local Option modifi- 
 cations. Neither of the two Prohibitory 
 laws was perfect in its enforcement feat- 
 ures, and the execution was lax during 
 most of the time. 
 
 In spite of all difficulties there is con- 
 clusive contemporaneous testimony to- 
 the fact that the condition of the State- 
 was decidedly improved in the first 
 years of the policy. It will suffice to 
 present here a statement made by Gen. 
 Benjamin F. Butler, for other evidence- 
 is to the same effect. Gen. Butler, it is 
 worthy of remark, is not classed with 
 
 2 The bill was reported and ably advocated by Francis 
 W. Emmons of Sturbridge. It was petitioned for by the 
 venerable Moses Stuart of Andover and 5,000 others. 
 The legislative committee, in its report, unanimously 
 agreed that "the present license law, in our judgment, 
 has done and is doing incalculable mischief." It added: 
 tL Public opinion, we are happy to know, is in advance of 
 this law, which appears from the fact that during the last 
 year no licenses have been granted under it in 13 out of 
 the 14 counties in this Commonwealth." (See " Alcohol 
 and the State," pp. 387-8.) 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 528 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 the Prohibitionists or even the active 
 temperance sympathizers. In a letter in 
 the Voice for Dec. 26, 1889, he wrote: 
 
 "Massachusetts in 1853 had a very efficient 
 Prohibitory law, which I drafted as counsel for 
 the Temperance Alliance, with the aid of one 
 of the very best lawyers of that day, the Hon. 
 Samuel Hoar. ... I was afterward employed 
 by the State Temperance Alliance to enforce 
 that Prohibitory law in the city of Lowell and 
 county of Middlesex where I lived, and the 
 law was enforced in that portion of the State 
 -which was covered by my retainer, and the sale 
 of liquor was as fully stopped as was the stealing 
 of goods and chattels in the same localities by 
 the ordinary laws against such crime." 
 
 The second important period of en- 
 forcement began in 1865, with the crea- 
 tion of the State Constabulary. " During 
 that year alone," says Judge Pitman, 
 " the work of the State Police resulted 
 in 5,331 liquor prosecutions, 1,979 seiz- 
 ures aggregating 92,658 gallons of in- 
 toxicants, and the payment in fines and 
 costs of $226,427.19. (See 2d annual 
 report of the Constable of the Common- 
 wealth.) That the result was a great 
 diminution of the traffic hardly requires 
 proof. The same report gives 819 as the 
 number of dealers who had discontinued 
 the traffic during that year alone." ' 
 This vigorous enforcement was continued 
 until the fall of 1867. "Up to the 6th 
 of November, 1867," reported the Con- 
 stable of the Commonwealth, " there was 
 not an open bar known in the entire 
 State, and the open retail traffic had al- 
 most entirely ceased. The traffic, as such, 
 had generally secluded itself to such an 
 extent that it was no longer a public, 
 open offense and no longer an inviting 
 temptation to the passer-by." ' These 
 successful assaults caused the entire rum 
 element to rally for a desperate attack 
 upon the law, and at the elections of 
 1867 an anti-Prohibition Legislature was 
 chosen. The result was that "between 
 the day of the election and the 1st of 
 April ensuing 2,779 new liquor-shops 
 were opened." J The comparative sta- 
 tistics of commitments for crime, etc., 
 during the three periods of unenforced 
 Prohibition, enforced Prohibition and 
 license are remarkable. We summarize 
 them briefly. * 
 
 Commitments to the State Prison. — In the first 
 nine months of 1866 (before the results of en- 
 
 > Alcohol and the State, pp. 337-8. 
 
 > Ibid, p. 338. s Ibid, p. 340. 
 
 1 See Wheeler's " Prohibition," pp. 108-4. 
 
 forcement had their full effect upon the higher 
 forms of crime), 156; during the first nine 
 months of 1866, 80; during the first nine months 
 of 1868, 143. 
 
 Police Figures for the City of Boston (where the 
 law was not so well administered as in other 
 parts of the State). — Last six months of 1868 
 (license), as compared with the last six months 
 of 1867 (Prohibition) : increase in criminal 
 arrests, 248; increase in number of station-house 
 lodgers, 3,338; increase incases of drunkenness 
 and assault, 1,363 — total increase under these 
 three heads, 5,449. (N. B. — In the last six 
 months of 1867, with which comparisons are 
 made, there were two months of unenforced 
 Prohibition; so that the relative increase must 
 have been even larger than these figures show.) 
 
 Commitments in the Entire State for Drunken- 
 ness. — Six months of 1867 (April to October), 
 2,501; same months of 1868, 3,170. (N. B.— 
 These figures, of course, do not represent all the 
 arrests for drunkenness. Persons apprehended 
 for this offense were not committed unless they 
 were unable to pay fines.) 
 
 " The Governor of the State (Claflin), 
 the State Constable, the Board of Inspec- 
 tors of the State Prison, and the Board 
 of State Charities," says Mr. Wheeler, 
 "all called attention, in very emphatic 
 language, to this increase of crime, and 
 all, witkout exception, attributed it to the 
 repeal of the Prohibitory law. In con- 
 sequence of this increase of crime Pro- 
 hibition was re-enacted, going into force 
 January, 1870, but in the same year ad- 
 ditional legislation was enacted exempt- 
 ing malt liquors from the provisions of 
 the law." 6 
 
 The third and final era of actual Pro- 
 hibition in Massachusetts began in 1873, 
 after the beer-exemption clauses were 
 rescinded. Concerning the results we 
 quote from Judge Pitman : 
 
 " An increasingly vigorous prosecution of the 
 law took place up to the fall election of 1874, 
 when the law was again overthrown. The pros- 
 ecutions for that year were 7,126 ; seizures, 
 5,912 aggregating 117,683 gallons; fines and 
 costs paid, $152,189.62; number sentenced to 
 the House of Correction, 820. Of the results 
 of this action on a single branch of the trade 
 Mr. Schade, the special agent of the Brewers' 
 Congress, says: 'Had our friends in Massa- 
 chusetts been free to carry on their business and 
 had not the State authorities constantly inter- 
 fered, there is no doubt that instead of showing 
 a decrease of 116,585 barrels in one year they 
 would have increased at the same rate as they 
 did the preceding year.' Again we note that 
 the law was repealed not because it was weak 
 but because it was strong. . . . 
 
 "The city of Boston has always opposed 
 Prohibition. Yet at the time of the great fire, 
 in November, 1872, the order was given by the 
 city to close all the dramshops. 'The good 
 
 6 Ibid, p. 104, 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 529 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 effects of this course,' say the State Police Com- 
 missioners, 'were manifest in the quiet streets of 
 the city by day and night, even when in the 
 absence of gas they were shrouded in darkness.' 
 The Chief of the City Police reported that the 
 number of arrests for 10 days before the order 
 was 1,169 ; for the 10 days after, only 675." 1 
 
 The lessons from these experiments in 
 Massachusetts are as impressive as any 
 furnished by the existing conditions in 
 Kansas and Iowa. Prohibition is the 
 only system in that State which has 
 crushed the liquor traffic or diminished 
 its evils. This conclusion is inevitable 
 from every point of view that can be 
 taken. The facts are equally clear and 
 convincing whether we study the conse- 
 quences of the low license policy in 
 1868-9 and 1875-88, or of the High 
 License policy — under which, be it re- 
 membered, the highest license fees pre- 
 vailing in the Union are charged — that 
 has been in force since May 1, 1889. 
 The failure of the High License law is 
 partly demonstrated in the article on 
 High License ; other particulars will be 
 found in our comparison of High 
 License and Local Option Prohibition 
 for separate cities of Massachusetts. (See 
 pp. 531-3.) 2 
 
 1 Alcohol and the State, pp. 348-3. 
 
 2 In connection with this general review of Massachu- 
 setts it is of interest to present certain statistics gathered 
 by the Hon. Carroll D. Wright, for many years Chief of 
 the Massachusetts Bureau or Statistics of Labor, and now 
 <1890) Commissioner of the United States Department of 
 Labor. In his reports as Chief of the Massachusetts Bu- 
 reau for 1880 and 1881 Mr. Wright made exhaustive anal- 
 yses, from official returns, of the u Influence of Intemper- 
 ance upon Crime. 1 ' While these analyses provided no 
 formal comparisons of the Prohibition with the license 
 systems of Massachusetts, but simply sought to show the 
 
 • part played by drink as a cause of crime regardless of 
 legislative policy, they are pertinent to our subject. In- 
 deed, they are of the greatest value to all students, be- 
 cause of Mr. Wright's high reputation and the scientific 
 accuracy characterizing all his work. In stating his ob- 
 jects he said: "For years there have been, among the 
 temperance reformers of this country and Europe, much 
 argument and eloquence based upon the more or less 
 casual and scattered observations of private individuals as 
 to the nature and extent of the influence which intemper- 
 ance exerts in the commission of crime. The logic which 
 the temperance advocate stands most in need of is the solid 
 strength of facts collected and collated in a thorough and 
 systematic manner within limits circumscribed as to time 
 and territory. This investigation was inaugurated and 
 conducted in the interest of all who are a prey to the sin 
 of intemperance, but more especially in the interest of the 
 youth of our State, with the ardent hope of revealing to 
 them, stripped of prejudice and sentiment, the naked pro- 
 portions of an evil prolific in poverty and prodigality, the 
 expense of which, while a burden to all classes, falls in a 
 greater degree on the workers and chief consumers of 
 society." His conclusions were thus summarized: "These 
 figures paint a picture, at once the most faithful and 
 hideous, of the guilt and power of rum. Men and women, 
 the young, the middle-aged and old, father and son, hus- 
 band and wife, native and foreign-born, the night-walker 
 and manslayer, the thief and adulterer, — all testify to its 
 ramified and revolting tyranny. Therefore the result of 
 this investigation, in view of the disproportionate magni- 
 tude of the exclusively rum offenses, and considered in con- 
 nection with the notorious tendency of liquor to inflame and 
 enlarge the passions and appetites, to import chaos into the 
 
 The remaining States that have had 
 general Prohibition of some kind afford 
 no grounds for important deductions. 
 Michigan was under an anti-license and 
 nominally Prohibitory law from 1855 to 
 1875 ; but it was amended so as to ex- 
 cept the manufacture of alcohol, wine 
 and beer, and the sale of beer, etc. In 
 view of this fact it is needless to inquire 
 as to the effects of the measure : — it can 
 hardly be called even a partial Prohib- 
 itory statute, since it fostered the most 
 dangerous and vilest single element of 
 the retail traffic, the beer-saloon. New 
 
 moral and physical life, to level the barriers of decency 
 and self-respect and to transport its victims into an ab- 
 normal and irresponsible state, destructive and degrad- 
 ing, calls for earnest and immediate attention at the bar 
 of the public opinion and the public conscience of Massa- 
 chusetts." 
 
 Mr. Wright first made a complete classification of all 
 the sentences in Massachusetts for the 20 years 1860-79. 
 He found that these sentences aggregated 578,458. He 
 then selected, from the list of offenses, those which " be- 
 longed to rum absolutely " and obtained the following 
 figures: Common drunkard, 81,859; drunkenness, 271,488; 
 liquor-selling. 12,240; liquor-keeping, 26,423; liquor-car- 
 rying, 686; liquor nuisance, 8,174— total "sentences for 
 rum crimes," 340,814, or about 59 per cent, of the sen- 
 tences for all offenses. There remained 41 per cent, of 
 the commitments which were for offenses that could not 
 be absolutely attributed to drink, and the problem before 
 Mr. Wright was to ascertain, if possible, what proportion 
 of them should be added to the 59 per cent, of " distinc- 
 tively rum offenses " as to which there could be no 
 question. 
 
 He set about the solution of this problem by undertak- 
 ing a most painstaking analysis of the commitments in 
 the county of Suffolk (containing the city of Boston) for 
 the year running from Sept. 1, 1879, to Sept. 1, 1880. Here 
 he found that 18,289 of the 16,897 commitments, or 72 + 
 per cent., were for rum offenses, leaving 4,608, or 27 + per 
 cent., for other off enses. In order to determine how exten- 
 sively drink was responsible for these 4,608 crimes he em- 
 ployed reliable agents to trace the history of each single 
 case, to watch each trial and to personally interview all 
 the offenders. The agents' reports were subjected to 
 very careful supervision. Of the 4,608 criminals whose 
 records were thus investigated, 2,097 were in liquor at the 
 time of the commission of the offenses, 1,918 were in 
 liquor at the time of the formation of the criminal intent, 
 1,804 had intemperate habits so marked as to induce a 
 moral condition favorable to crime and 821 were led to a 
 criminal condition through the contagion of intemper- 
 ance. Taking the 2,097 cases in which the offenders were 
 under the influence of liquor when they committed their 
 offenses, and adding this number to the 12,289 " distinc- 
 tively rum offenses," we see that 14,386 of the 16,897 com- 
 mitments in Suffolk County during the year (or more than 
 84 per cent.) were due to drink peculiarly. This iB the min- 
 imum number and the minimum percentage; for it can 
 hardly be doubted that among the offenders not under tb» 
 influence of liquor when their crimes were committed a 
 considerable number had been brought to acriminal condi- 
 tion by former indulgence in liquor and by saloon asso- 
 ciations. 
 
 The two investigations show a large disparity between 
 the percentage of "distinctively rum offenses" in the 
 State at large as compared with the percentage in the 
 county of Suffolk : in the State at large the percentage 
 was 59, and in Suffolk County 72. This difference inci- 
 dentally illustrates the comparative success of Prohibition 
 in Massachusetts in suppressing intemperance. The 
 figures for the State at large cover a number of years in 
 which Prohibition, in nearly the whole of the State, was 
 well enforced; they also embrace many towns in which 
 practically no liquor had been sold during that entire period 
 of 20 years; and therefore the percentage of "distinc- 
 tively rum offenses is a percentage obtained from totals 
 of which the returns from Prohibition localities consti- 
 tute a factor. The fact that this percentage is 13 less 
 than the percentage of " rum offenses " in the wholly li- 
 cense county of Suffolk is in keeping with all the other 
 teachings of Massachusetts statistics. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 530 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 York passed an imperfect act in 1855, 
 which was declared unconstitutional in 
 certain parts in 1856 and repealed in 
 1857; it may be passed by with no other 
 comment save the one made by Governor 
 Clark in a message to the Legislature at 
 the time, that it had been " subjected to 
 an opposition more persistent, unscrupu- 
 lous and defiant than is often incurred by 
 an act of legislation; and though legal 
 and magisterial influence, often acting 
 unofficially and extra-judicially, have 
 [had] combined to render it inoperative, 
 to forestall the decision of the Courts, 
 wrest the statute from its obvious mean- 
 ing and create a general distrust, if not 
 hostility to all legislative restrictions of 
 the traffic, it has [had] still, outside of 
 our large cities, been generally obeyed." 
 " The influence is visible," added Govern- 
 or Clark, " in a marked diminution of 
 the evils it sought to remedy." The 
 nominal Prohibitory laws of Indiana 
 (1855-8), Illinois (1851-3), Delaioare 
 (1855-7) and Nebraska (1855-8), and the 
 still less useful measures like the Adair 
 law of Ohio (1854) that merely prohib- 
 ited sales for consumption on the 
 premises or embraced similar qualifica- 
 tions, encountered circumstances so dis- 
 advantageous as to deprive their results 
 of significance; and they are entitled to 
 remembrance chiefly because the fact of 
 their enactment illustrates the favor 
 shown Prohibition by the people and 
 the fact of their speedy overthrow or 
 comparative non-enforcement illustrates 
 the truth that legislation does not vin- 
 dicate or perpetuate itself automatically. 
 
 Local Option Prohibition. 
 
 Both reason and experience teach that, 
 given a well-constructed law and local 
 faithfulness to it, the success of Prohi- 
 bition will be proportioned to the 
 stability of the act and the extent of 
 territory over which it is administered. 
 "We have seen that the enforcement of 
 State Prohibition, even when operating 
 throughout great commonwealths, is 
 disturbed by conspirators at home and 
 conspirators in neighboring States, 
 parties to an illicit traffic which is 
 most serious and hardest to repress at 
 and near the boundary, and which (as 
 indicated by the history of the " original 
 package " period and by the situation in 
 New Hampshire) becomes formidable 
 
 with each relaxation or modification of 
 the State's powers or radical attitude. 
 Necessarily inferior are the fruits of the 
 Local Option system, whose authority 
 stops at a city's limits or a county's line, 
 which rarely touches the manufacture 
 and seldom places thorough restraint 
 upon drug-store sales, whose practical 
 enforcement provisions, moreover (in- 
 cluding penalties, etc.), are not of local 
 creation and in most cases cannot be 
 made more stringent by the local govern- 
 ment but are subject to the action of the 
 State Legislature. Giving due attention 
 to the limitations involved, it will be 
 found, however, that even isolated Pro- 
 hibition has conferred great benefits in 
 numberless instances, and that, whenever 
 executed with any semblance of fairness, 
 it has done far better work for temper- 
 ance, for morality and for the prevention 
 of crime than has been done by any 
 method of license. To fully show the 
 results of Local Option Prohibition is. 
 impossible. There are countless local- 
 ities for which no records are accessible ; 
 and in whole States, for long terms of 
 years, no one has taken the pains to col- 
 lect general evidence. Yet from the 
 testimony at hand the workings of the 
 policy in separate localities of every part. 
 of the country can be viewed, and in 
 localities of nearly all grades of im- 
 portance, from insignificant townships- 
 to populous cities, from the staid com- 
 munities of New England to the lively- 
 towns of the West, from places peopled 
 almost wholly by native white Americans 
 to ones containing very large percent- 
 ages of foreign-born citizens or negroes, 
 from towns in which comparisons may 
 be made with the loosest systems of 
 license to those in which the most rigid 
 High License and restrictive measures 
 have been tried. Our examination of 
 this testimony must be brief, but will be 
 governed by the chief purpose of this 
 article, to set forth the representative 
 facts with a regard for detail sufficient 
 to justify reasonable conclusions as to the 
 general truth. 
 
 Massachusetts Cities. — Every city and 
 town of Massachusetts votes each year on 
 the question of granting liquor licenses. 
 (See pp. 396-8.) A majority in the nega- 
 tive makes Prohibition of the sale obliga- 
 tory for the ensuing license year. While- 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 531 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 four-fifths of the towns regularly refuse 
 licenses nearly all the cities are fickle. 
 There are certain ones, like Boston, that 
 never decide for Prohibition, and others, 
 like Somerville, Quincy and Maiden, that 
 never go against it. It is beyond ques- 
 tion that the reliable " no-license " cities 
 are the quietest and most creditably con- 
 ducted ones in the State, that there is 
 very little crime, pauperism or disorder in 
 them and that they compare in all regards 
 favorably with other places of like popu- 
 lation and natural advantages. As an ex- 
 ample : The city of Maiden has always 
 been under Prohibition; it has a large 
 laboring class, adjoins the famous rum 
 town of Medf ord, is only four miles from 
 Boston and is traversed by two railroads. 
 The city of Salem is about two-thirds 
 larger than Maiden (State Census of 
 1885), and has steadily adhered to license, 
 having charged a High License fee of 
 $500 in 1888 for the privilege of retailing 
 all kinds of liquors for consumption off 
 the premises; conditions are much the 
 same as in Maiden, the laboring element 
 being large, although Salem lies on the 
 sea-coast and is a less important railroad 
 town than Maiden. Manifestly Salem 
 should be no worse off than Maiden if it 
 is true that High License is as good a 
 temperance policy for cities as Prohibi- 
 tion. But during 1888 there were 1,162 
 arrests for drunkenness in Salem as 
 against 132 in Maiden; 1,540 arrests for 
 all causes (of which eleven-fifteenths were 
 for drunkenness) as against 518 in Mai- 
 den (of which only one-fourth were for 
 drunkenness), in each of the six years 
 ending with 1888 there had been in 
 Salem an increase in arrests for drunken- 
 ness as compared with the next pre- 
 ceding year; Salem in 1888 employed 
 36 police officers and expended $37,800 
 for her police department, while Maiden 
 employed only 14 and expended but 
 $14,752; and in the same years Salem 
 gave lodgment to 894 tramps while Mai- 
 den lodged only 174. 1 Another ex- 
 ample: Quincy, which has not licensed 
 the saloons since 1882, had only 55 ar- 
 rests for drunkenness and disorderly con- 
 duct in the year ending Sept. 30, 1888; 
 but the near license town of Kandolph, 
 having only one-fourth of Quincy's 
 population, had 143 arrests for these 
 offenses in the same time. 2 
 
 » Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 58. "Ibid. 
 
 Again, compare the statistics of pau- 
 pers, homeless children, prisoners and 
 convicts in the most faithful Prohibition 
 cities and the most stubborn license 
 cities. The State Census of 1885 was 
 taken under the direction of one of the 
 most conscientious and respected statisti- 
 cians of the country, Hon. Carroll D. 
 Wright. As representative Prohibition 
 cities take Maiden, Somerville and 
 Quincy, with an aggregate population of 
 58,523 in 1885, and as characteristic 
 license cities take Salem, Newburyport 
 and Northampton, with a total popula- 
 tion of 54,702 in the same year. All 
 the figures in the following table are 
 from Mr. Wright's Census of 1885. 
 
 Cities. 
 
 Popu- 
 lation. 
 
 Pau- 
 pers. 
 
 Home- 
 less 
 Chil- 
 dren. 
 
 Prisoners 
 
 and 
 Convicts. 1 
 
 Prohibition : 
 Somerville . . . 
 
 License : 
 
 Salem 
 
 Newburyport. 
 Northampton 
 
 Totals: 
 Proh. Cities.. 
 License " . . 
 
 16,407 
 29,971 
 12,145 
 
 28,090 
 13,716 
 12,896 
 
 58,523 
 54,702 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 
 23 
 
 125 
 
 51 
 448 
 
 47 
 624 
 
 11 
 7 
 10 
 
 157 
 15 
 91 
 
 28 
 263 
 
 None 
 
 42 
 14 
 21 
 
 None 
 
 77 
 
 1 The figures under this head include persons awaiting 
 trial, persons serving out fines and convicts under sen- 
 tence at the time of taking the Census. 
 
 It is in cities like Worcester, Spring- 
 field and Lawrence, in which no-license 
 has not been a permanent policy but has 
 been unexpectedly adopted and speedily 
 reversed, that Prohibition has operated 
 under the worst embarrassments. Here 
 are communities whose normal method 
 is license ; suddenly, at the city election, 
 a change is made to no-license ; at the 
 same time the newly-chosen municipal 
 officers may not be and are not likely to 
 be cordial supporters of Prohibition; 
 the conservative citizens look with cold- 
 ness and distrust upon the novel pro- 
 gramme ; there is a prevailing belief that 
 the enforcement will be passive and that 
 the saloons will gather their forces and 
 renew the license system at the end of 
 one year; the manufacturers and whole- 
 salers of liquor in other cities are 
 actively interested in enabling the local 
 retailers to successfully violate the law 
 in the interval. If under such circum- 
 stances Prohibition has beneficial effects 
 the fact must certainly be pronounced 
 encouraging. The comparisons given 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 532 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 below prove that even this least promis- 
 ing form of Prohibition does work for 
 good, positively and conspicuously, and, 
 it seems, uniformly. 
 
 Worcester, from May 1, 1886, to May 1, 1887, 
 was under Prohibition; from May 1, 1887, to 
 May 1, 1888, under low license, and from May 
 1, 1888, to May 1, 1889, under High License. 
 "The Political Prohibitionist for 1889" (p. 57) 
 thus summarizes certain comparative facts and 
 figures published by Rev. D. O. Mears, a 
 prominent clergyman of Worcester: "During 
 the Prohibition year there were 1,682 arrests for 
 drunkenness; during the low license year, 
 3,549, and during the first six months of the 
 High License year, 1,763. Thus in six months 
 of High License there were 81 more arrests for 
 drunkenness than during 12 months of Prohi- 
 bition, and only 12 fewer than one-half of the 
 whole number of arrests for drunkenness dur- 
 ing 12 months of low license. The arrests were 
 so numerous under High License in Worcester 
 that the Worcester jail was not large enough to 
 accommodate the prisoners, and during the 
 seven months -ending Nov. 1, 1888, 153 prisoners 
 were transferred to the jail at Fitchburg, where, 
 under Prohibition, there were ample accom- 
 modations. Even then Worcester's jail was 
 overcrowded and it was necessary to discharge 
 300 prisoners to make room for the great num- 
 bers of offenders manufactured by the High 
 License saloons." 1 The Hon. George F. Hoar, 
 Senator of the United States from Massachu- 
 setts, is a citizen of Worcester, and at a public 
 meeting he made the following remarks upon 
 the increase in arrests since the abandonment of 
 Prohibition: 
 
 "This meeting has been called to hear the report and 
 opinion of some of our friends who have had especial op- 
 portunity to observe the comparative effects of what is 
 known as the High License system, and of the no-license 
 system, upon the morals and good manners of our be- 
 loved city. . . . You know what the meaning of the 
 increase in drunkenness is to a city. Twice the number 
 of murders, twice the number of thefts, twice the number 
 of paupers, twice the number of all kinds of sin and 
 misery. Girls growing up to lives of vice, and young 
 men to lives of crime, all because of the sins of the head of 
 the family. That is what the figures of our increased 
 number of arrests since the no-license year of 1886 mean 
 to the city and to us. 11 
 
 Lawrence, for the year ending May 1, 1889, 
 had Prohibition, and after that date was under 
 High License (the fee being $1,000 for the sale 
 of all liquors for consumption on the premises). 
 The following are comparisons: 
 
 1888, 1889, 
 Prohibition. Sigh License. 
 Convictions for drunken- 
 ness, May 1 to Nov. 1 346 747 
 
 Intoxicated persons helped 
 home by police, May 1 
 
 to Nov. 1 41 85 
 
 "Women arrested for drunk- 
 enness, May 1 to Nov. 1 . . 57 118 
 
 1 These Worcester figures in each case run from the be- 
 ginning of the license year (May 1). The police year ends 
 Nov. 30. The year beginning with May 1, 1890, was 
 another Prohibition year, and again there was a marked 
 ■decrease in arrests for crime and drunkenness. We have 
 statistics for the police years 1888, 1889 and 1890 (ending 
 Nov. 30), as follows: Total arrests 1888 (entirely under 
 license), 4,241; 1889 (entirely under license), 3,949; 1890 
 (seven months under Prohibition), 3,011. ArreBts for 
 ■drunkenness— 1888 (entirely under license), 3,216; 1889 
 (entirely under license), 2,954; 1890 (seven months of Prohi- 
 bition), 2,054. (For other figures see the Voice, Jan. 1, 1891.) 
 
 In Springfield Prohibition was the law for the 
 year beginning May 1, 1887, license ($400) for 
 the year beginning May 1, 1888 and High 
 License ($1,000) for the year beginning May 1, 
 1889. The arrests for all offenses and for 
 drunkenness during the first four months of 
 each year were as follows : 2 
 
 , — '■ Mat 1 to Sept. 1. , 
 
 1887, 1888, 1889, 
 
 Arrests. Prohibition. $400 License. 81,000 License. 
 For all offenses... 408 879 845 
 
 " drunkenness.. 237 609 561 
 
 "Drunkenness," said the Springfield Home- 
 stead in 1888, ' is increasing at a fearful rate, 
 as it always does under the license system. 
 The new jail, which was thought to be enor- 
 mous when it was built (1887), is already full 
 to overflowing, and nine out of every ten men 
 there were confessedly taken there by rum. 
 This is not sentimental temperance talk but 
 dry, solid fact." 3 
 
 New Bedford, like Springfield, had Prohibition 
 during the year beginning May 1, 1887, low 
 license (an average of $230) the next year and 
 High License ($1,100) the next year. The fol- 
 lowing are police figures for the first four 
 months of each license year: 4 
 
 . Mat 1 to Sept. 1. , 
 
 1887, 1888, 1889, 
 
 Arrests. Prohibition. $230 License. $1,100 License. 
 All offenses. . 341 474 551 
 
 Drunkenness 182 336 316 
 
 D i s o r d e rly 
 
 (assault and 
 
 battery and 
 
 d i s turbing 
 
 the peace). 57 65 99 
 
 s, the seat of Harvard University, 
 seems to have taken a place with the permanent 
 no-license cities of the State, having voted against 
 license for five years successively (beginning 
 with 1886), although in the five preceding 
 years it voted invariably for license; the tempt- 
 ations of the High License bribe, which 
 proved irresistible in many cities in 1888, 1889 
 and 1890 did not cause Cambridge to waver. 
 This city lies just on the outskirts of Boston, its 
 interests are identical with those of the capital 
 and large numbers of its people are employed 
 there, but on the license question it is diametri- 
 cally opposed to Boston. What is it that has 
 induced Cambridge to maintain its brave stand 
 for Prohibition ? Certainly nothing else than 
 the demonstrated benefits of this policy. The 
 arrests for crime in the city decreased from 
 1,567 in 1886 (11 months) to 1,391 in 1889, while 
 in 11 months of 1889 only 308 tramps were ac- 
 commodated in the police stations as against 
 986 in the last year of license. 6 " The effect of 
 no-license in Cambridge the last two years," 
 said the Boston Daily Traveller in December, 
 1888, " may be gleaned from the following: The 
 Police Captain says that District No. 2 has not 
 been so quiet since he has been on the force. 
 There have been Sundays in which there was 
 not one arrest, something not experienced be- 
 fore in many years. The number imprisoned 
 in the stations has fallen off one-fourth. Com- 
 plaints which used to occupy four pages now 
 
 2 The Voice, Oct. 31, 1889. 
 
 3 Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 57. 
 *TheVoice, Oct. 31, 1889. 
 
 Ibid, Dec. 13, 1889. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 533 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 take less than one. There are not one-tenth of 
 the men going to Boston for liquor that went 
 last year." 
 
 Lowell, a great manufacturing center, very- 
 much to the surprise of most of its inhabitants, 
 voted for Prohibition in December, 1889, and 
 during the succeeding license year (beginning 
 with May 1) it was under Prohibition; for 
 many years previously it had been uniformly 
 under license. Figures for the police years 
 1888, 1889 and 1890 (ending with Nov. 30) are 
 as follows: J 
 
 Years, 
 Ending 
 Nov. 30. 
 
 License 
 Fee. 
 
 No. op 
 Saloons. 
 
 Total 
 Arrests . 
 
 Arrests 
 forDrunk- 
 
 ENNESS. 
 
 1888 
 1889 
 1890' 
 
 $500 
 1,300 
 
 217 
 64 
 
 4,150 
 4,557 
 3,846 
 
 2,930 
 3,307 
 2,638 
 
 1 Seven months under Prohibition, five months under 
 $1,300 license. 
 
 Fall River, another very important manu- 
 facturing city, with an enormous population of 
 working people, also had Prohibition from the 
 1st of May, 1890. The police records give the 
 following showing: ' 
 
 Years, 
 Ending 
 Nov. 30. 
 
 License 
 Fee. 
 
 No. OF 
 Saloons. 
 
 Total 
 Arrests. 
 
 Arrests 
 forDrunk- 
 
 ENNESS. 
 
 1888 
 1889 
 1890' 
 
 $1,000 
 1,300 
 
 260 
 56 
 
 2,372 
 2,414 
 2.069 
 
 1,348 
 1,520 
 1,309 
 
 1 Seven months under Prohibition, five months under 
 $1,300 license. 
 
 Wobum, like Lowell and Pall River, began a 
 Prohibition year with May 1, 1890, and had 
 license the two preceding years. In this city 
 the police year ends with Dec. 30, and there- 
 fore the figures for 1890 in the table below are 
 not complete: 3 
 
 Years, 
 Ending 
 Dec 30. 
 
 License 
 Fee. 
 
 No. OF 
 Saloons. 
 
 Total 
 Arrests . 
 
 Arrests 
 forDrunk- 
 
 ENNESS. 
 
 1888 
 1889 
 1890' 
 
 $300 
 1,300 
 
 62 
 11 
 
 450 
 569 
 350 
 
 252 
 332 
 213 
 
 1 Eleven months, of which seven months were Prohibi- 
 tion and four months $1,300 license. 
 
 Canada's Experience {Province of 
 Ontario). — The extensive Prohibition of 
 Canada has heen secured under the 
 Scott (Local Option) act. The first 
 county in the Province of Ontario to 
 establish the act throughout its territory 
 was Halton (1881), and there was at once 
 a fair decrease in commitments for 
 drunkenness there. As late as 1884 
 Halton was the only Ontario county 'in 
 which' (as a whole) the act was in force. 
 But during the ■ next three years many 
 other counties, in whole or in part, 
 
 1 See the Voice, Dec. 18, 1890. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 
 
 adopted it. In 1887 no less than 2J 
 counties were wholly and nine others 
 were partly under Prohibition; while 16 
 remained entirely under license. The 
 following tables contrasting the numbers 
 of commitments for drunkenness in 1884 
 and 1887 for each of the three classes of 
 counties are taken from Government 
 returns : 4 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Com. for 
 Drunkenness. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Com. for 
 Drunkenness. 
 
 1884, 
 Entire- 
 ly 
 under 
 
 Li- 
 cense. 
 
 1887, 
 Entire- 
 ly 
 under 
 Prohi- 
 bition. 
 
 1884, 
 Entire- 
 ly 
 under 
 
 Li- 
 cense 
 
 1887, 
 Entire- 
 ly 
 under 
 Prohi- 
 bition. 
 
 Bruce .... 
 Dufferin... 
 
 Kent 
 
 Lambton . 
 Lanark... . 
 Leeds .. ) 
 Gren- I 
 
 ville.. 1 
 Lenox . . i 
 Adding- v 
 
 ton . . . \ 
 Norfolk... 
 N'thum- 1 
 berland.. J- 
 Durham. ) 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 82 
 
 4 
 
 26 
 
 105 
 
 7 
 
 135 
 
 20 
 17 
 26 
 
 6 
 3 
 
 25 
 None 
 
 7 
 38 
 
 9 
 
 24 
 
 8 
 5 
 6 
 
 Ontario. .. 
 
 Oxford . . . 
 
 Peterboro. 
 
 Renfrew . . 
 
 Simcoe . . . 
 
 St or- I 
 
 . mont . 
 
 Dundas. y 
 
 Glengar- 
 ry .... J 
 
 Welling- 1 
 ton j 
 
 Totals... 
 Decrease. 
 
 1 
 51 
 30 
 27 
 99 
 
 9 
 49 
 
 None 
 
 11 
 2 
 16 
 
 4 
 22 
 
 692 
 
 186 
 506 
 
 
 Com. for 
 
 
 Com. for 
 
 
 Drunkenness. 
 
 
 Drunkenness. 
 
 1884, 
 
 1887, 
 
 1884, 
 
 1887, 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Entire- 
 
 Part- 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Entire- 
 
 Part- 
 
 
 ly 
 
 ly 
 
 
 ly 
 
 ly 
 
 
 under 
 
 under 
 
 
 under 
 
 under 
 
 
 Li- 
 
 Prohi- 
 
 
 Li- 
 
 Prohi- 
 
 
 cense. 
 
 bition. 
 
 
 cense. 
 
 bition. 
 
 
 58 
 
 112 
 
 Victoria . . 
 
 
 
 Carleton.. 
 
 314 
 
 286 
 
 Halibur- 1 
 ton j 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 Frontenac 
 
 75 
 
 ■108 
 
 
 
 Lincoln . . 
 Middlesex 
 
 39 
 445 
 
 / 21 , 
 
 404 .- 
 
 
 
 
 Totals... 
 
 967 
 
 941 
 
 Musko- ) 
 
 
 
 Decrease. 
 
 
 26 
 
 ka Parry V 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 Sound. ) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Com. for 
 Drunkenness. 
 
 Counties. 
 
 Com. for 
 Drunkenness. 
 
 1884, 
 Entire- 
 ly 
 under 
 
 Li- 
 cense. 
 
 1887, 
 Entire- 
 ly 
 under 
 
 Li- 
 cense. 
 
 1884, 
 Entire- 
 ly 
 under 
 
 Li- 
 cense. 
 
 1887, 
 Entire- 
 ly 
 under 
 
 Li-, 
 cense. 
 
 Algoma... 
 
 Grey 
 
 Halimand. 
 Hastings . . 
 Nippissing 
 Peel 
 Perth 
 Prescott. 1 
 Russell., f 
 P. E. I 
 County, j 
 
 15 
 103 
 23 
 7 
 50 
 17 
 10 
 14 
 
 None 
 46 
 
 85 
 45 
 21 
 17 
 51 
 13 
 8 
 12 
 
 None 
 20 
 
 Thunder I 
 Bay... f 
 
 Waterloo.. 
 
 Welland . . 
 
 Went-! 
 worth. j 
 
 fork 
 
 Totals. . . 
 Increase. 
 
 705 
 
 11 
 23 
 
 295 
 
 1,661 
 
 148 
 
 8 
 32 
 
 373 
 
 2,166 
 
 2,980 
 
 2,999 
 19 
 
 *The Voice, Feb. 7, 1889. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 534 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 Other Instances. — The evidence from 
 .Massachusetts and Canada is by far the 
 most important, of a general kind, that 
 has yet been gathered. Indeed, Mas- 
 sachusetts is the only State of the Union 
 in which a systematic attempt has been 
 made to exhibit the results of Local 
 Option Prohibition. Avoiding the mul- 
 tiplicity of testimony for scattered local- 
 ities we give under this head a few of the 
 most vital of recent facts, selecting com- 
 munities that are strictly representative 
 and widely separated. 
 
 Atlanta, 6a. — This city voted for Prohibi- 
 tion in November, 1885, after a prolonged and 
 exciting discussion. With a population of 
 37,409 in 1880 (16,330 being colored), which had 
 increased rapidly, and in view of the circum- 
 stances under which the policy was introduced 
 and tried, the experiment in the Georgia capital 
 was watched with uncommon interest through- 
 out the country. There is no other city of the 
 South where so notable a test of Prohibition 
 has been made. The system had excellent sup- 
 port, but the advantage was not altogether with 
 its friends; seven months elapsed before it took 
 effect, the manufacturing and wholesale trades 
 continued, wine was sold at retail, and there 
 was a "jug trade " or illicit traffic with neigh- 
 boring cities. After Prohibition had been in 
 force for 12 months the Atlanta Daily Consti- 
 tution, (the chief newspaper of the city, which 
 had not advocated the measure) printed, June 
 21, 1887, an elaborate editorial article, impar- 
 tially examining the results. Nearly the whole 
 of it was devoted to a demonstration of the im- 
 proved condition of the city commercially and 
 socially ; the information bearing upon these 
 aspects will be noticed in our survey of the 
 "Effects upon Commercial Prosperity." (See 
 p. 544.) Concerning the operation of the law 
 in reducing the evils of drink the Constitution 
 said : 
 
 "Prohibition, in this city does prohibit. The law 
 is observed as well as the law against carrying concealed 
 weapons, gambling, theft, and other offenses of like 
 character. If there had been as many people in favor of 
 carrying concealed weapons, theft, gambling, etc., as there 
 were in favor of the retail of ardent spirits 12 months ago, 
 law against these things would not have been carried out 
 as well as it was against the liquor trade. In considera- 
 tion of the small majority with which Prohibition was 
 carried, and the large number of people who were op- 
 posed to seeing it prohibit, the law has been marvelously 
 well observed. . . . 
 
 •■ The determination on the part of the people to pro- 
 hibit the liquor traffic has stimulated a disposition to do 
 away with other evils. The laws against gambling are 
 rigidly enforced. A considerable stock of gamblers' 
 tools gathered together by the police for several years 
 past was recenLly used for the purpose of making a large 
 bonfire on one of the unoccupied squares of the city. The 
 City Council has refused longer to grant licenses to 
 bucket-shops, thus putting the seal of its condemnation 
 upou the trade in futures of all kinds. 
 
 " All these reforms have had a decided tendency to 
 diminish crime. Two weeks were necessary formerly to 
 get through with the criminal docket. During the present 
 year it was closed out in two days. The chain-gang is 
 almost left with nothing but the chains and the ballB. 
 The gang part would not be large enough to work the 
 public roads of the county were it not augmented by 
 fresh supplies from the surrounding counties. The City 
 Government is in the hands of our best citizens. . . . 
 There is very little drinking in the city. There has been 
 
 40 per cent, falling off in the number of arrests, not' 
 withstanding there has been a rigid interpretation of the 
 law under which arrests are made. Formerly, if a man 
 was sober enough to walk home he was not molested. 
 Now, if there is the slightest variation from that state in 
 which the center of gravity falls in a line inside the base, 
 the party is made to answer for such variation at the 
 station-house." 
 
 The Sunny South, another representative 
 journal of Atlanta, said, June 11, 1887: 
 
 "The annals of history will never perhaps contain a 
 more wonderful revolution than that of Prohibition in 
 Atlanta. When the issue was first joined the advocates 
 of the liquor traffic declared that Prohibition could never 
 be carried in a city of the size of Atlanta, and if carried 
 could never be enforced. Many advocated High License, 
 and some the substitution of wine for whiskey and brandy. 
 No law has ever been more vigorously fought than Prohibi- 
 tion has been in Atlanta. Every artifice and scheme has 
 been resorted to to nullify the operations of the law. The 
 Courts have been tried. The provisions of the Prohibitory 
 law exempting licenses from being terminated before they 
 expired were used to defeat the law, as well as that allow- 
 ing the sale of domestic wine. A great parade was made 
 of liquor being brought in the city in jugs in order to 
 throw odium upon the law. But Prohibition is not a 
 failure in Atlanta, as the records show. The Courts have 
 sustained it. Drinking has been cut off 80 per cent. The 
 arrests for drunkenness have been largely reduced, and it 
 only requires one policeman to guard 1,000 inhabitants. 
 One hundred and thirty barrooms, vending on an aver- 
 age 13,000 drinks daily, have been wiped but. Families 
 that during the prevalence of the liquor traffic suffered 
 for the necessaries of life because their means were 
 squandered for liquor, are now enabled to supply their 
 wants from the money saved by Prohibition." 
 
 When the question of repealing the act came 
 up in the fall of 1887 the citizens most promi- 
 nent for character, public spirit and ability 
 were all but unanimous in opposing repeal. 
 Their objections were based upon no senti- 
 mental considerations or mere partisanship but 
 upon the great good that Prohibition had ac- 
 complished. Their principal spokesman was 
 the brilliant young orator, Henry W. Grady, 
 whose reputation had spread throughout the 
 Union, and who, as a man before whom politi- 
 cal opportunities seemed to be opening, could 
 certainly not have afforded to champion an un- 
 popular cause unless its righteousness was unde- 
 niable. In 1885 Mr. Grady had doubted the ex- 
 pediency of Prohibition and had favored High 
 License. But he now made an independent 
 study of the condition of the city and found 
 that it had been blessed in all ways by this law. 
 He delivered a series of thrilling addresses, 
 perhaps the most famous speeches ever made in 
 advocacy of the policy of Prohibition by a public 
 man not specially identified with the movement. 
 The strength of his pleas was in the proofs that 
 he gave of the better condition of the poor and 
 the absolute failure of all predictions that the 
 prosperity of Atlanta would be injured. There- 
 fore quotations from them are reserved for the 
 second division of this article, under the head, 
 " Benefits to the Wage-Workers and the Poor." 
 But Mr. Grady bore emphatic testimony to the 
 diminution of criminal convictions. He showed 
 from the records that there had been a steady 
 increase in the number of convictions during 
 the license years, but that the number had de- 
 creased to a marked extent under partial en- 
 forcement of Prohibition. " There was scarcely 
 a case of vagrancy for a year past," said he. 
 The returns for nine months of the last year of 
 Prohibition, compared with nine months of the 
 year of High License following it (fees of 
 $1,000 for the sale of all liquors and $100 for 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 535 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 the sale of beer only being charged), are as fol- 
 lows : Total arrests— first nine months of 1887 
 (Prohibition), 4,524; first nine months of 1888 
 (High License), 5,805. Arrests for drunkenness 
 —first nine months of 1887, 674; first nine 
 months of 1888, 1, 519. The total arrests for the 
 whole of the year 1885 (low license) were 6,305 ; 
 ■for the whole of the year 1887 (Prohibition), 
 43,138 ;> for the whole of the year 1888 (High 
 License), 7,817. 2 
 
 Maleigh, the capital of North Carolina, with 
 a negro element proportionately even larger 
 than Atlanta's, had local Prohibition during the 
 two years beginning with 1886. In 1888 High 
 License was substituted for that system, and 
 after a few months' trial of the new law the 
 Raleigh Spirit of the Age said: 
 
 "What is the consequence? No pen can answer that 
 •question save the pen of the recording angel, for God 
 only knows the fearful result of the reopening of the Bar- 
 rooms. Is there more drunkenness now than during 
 Prohibition? At least five times as much; and commen- 
 surate with the increase of drinking and drunkenness is 
 the increase of wickedness and crime. The daily arrests 
 by our policemen will give any man who wants the infor 
 mation an idea of what the dramshops are doing. 11 
 
 The other newspapers of Raleigh printed 
 from time to time facts in keeping with these 
 statements. Por example, in the month of 
 March, 1889 (High License), there were 103 
 arrests for all causes as against 53 in the same 
 month of 1888 (Prohibition), 50 arrests for 
 "drunk and disorderly," "drunk and down" 
 and "drunk on the street " as against 12 in 1888, 
 10 arrests for "affrays" as against 2 in 1888, 
 etc. 3 
 
 Charleston, the capital of West Virginia, had 
 low license ($300), Prohibition, and High Li- 
 cense ($850), respectively, in the years ending 
 in 1886, 1887 and 1888. The total arrests for 
 the three years were: 1886 (low license), 423; 
 1887 (Prohibition), 226; 1888 (High License), 
 496. 4 
 
 1 As is shown above, the total number of arrests in the 
 first nine months of 1887 was 4,524, so that in the last 
 "three months there were 1,614, a disproportionately large 
 number as compared with the preceding months of this 
 Prohibition year. The explanation is that in the repeal 
 •campaign, which was waged with great vigor in October 
 and November, liquor was unscrupulously smuggled in 
 by the rum element and dealt out liberally to the low 
 classes with tbe double purpose of discrediting the law 
 and bribing the voters, aud that after the election (which 
 came in the end of November) the rumsellers took pos- 
 session of the town and sold boldly. At Christmas time 
 there was a fearful outburst of intemperance, disorder and 
 crime. "The prison van ran hither and thither until the 
 wee hours of the Sabbath, 11 6aid a daily press dispatch, 
 Dec. 25, "carrying each time full complements of men and 
 •women, whites and blacks, who were unceremoniously 
 piled into the grated conveyance, and as it bowled over 
 the pavement profanity of the vilest type and songs of 
 the most revolting kind issued through the iron-barred 
 cages. At the pen, a close and confined apartment in- 
 tended for the imprisonment of perhapB a score of of- 
 fenders, the sight was one that carried with it but one 
 suggestion — that of a den of hungry beasts howling for 
 their customary allowance of food! Yelling, screaming 
 and singing were indulged in by the drunken contingent 
 as the hours rolled on, and the van being still out the ros- 
 ter received considerable accessions, more than 70 per- 
 sons being corraled in all before morning. The police 
 were kept busy to-day and the prisoners were joined 
 tiy other delegations. Few were discharged, and to-night 
 more recruits were recorded." (See the Voice-, Dec. 29, 
 1887.) 
 
 2 The Voice, Jan. 2, 1890. 
 
 3 Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 59. 
 
 4 In the two license years there were great revivals, in- 
 jluences helping to promote sobriety and diminish the 
 
 Roehford, III., presents an equally acceptable 
 basis for comparisons. In the year beginning 
 June 1, 1887, the license fee was $1,000, and in 
 the next l year the sale was prohibited. The 
 total arrests for the first seven months of the 
 license year 1887-8 (High License) were 309, 
 for the same months of 1888-9 (Prohibition), 
 157 ; arrests for drunkenness in the same 
 months of 1887-8, 210, as against 110 in the 
 same months of 1888-9. The following are 
 statistics for each license year from June 1, 
 1879 to June 1, 1888, inclusive: ' 
 
 Years 
 Ending 
 June 1. 
 
 License 
 Fee. 
 
 No. OF 
 Saloons. 
 
 Drunk 
 
 and 
 
 Disorderly. 
 
 1879 
 1880 
 1881 
 1S82 
 1883 
 1884 
 1885 
 1886 
 1887 
 1888 
 
 $250 
 Prohibition. 
 Prohibition. 
 
 500 
 
 500 
 
 600 
 
 600 
 
 600 
 
 600 
 1,000 
 
 24 
 Prohibition. 
 Prohibition. 
 
 23 
 
 23 
 
 25 
 
 24 
 
 24 
 
 26 
 
 25 
 
 150 
 124 
 117 
 348 
 414 
 338 
 362 
 243 
 305 
 343 
 
 Local Prohibition has numerous forms 
 not strictly classifiable under the term 
 " Local Option Prohibition." In many 
 places the " option " principle has never 
 been recognized, outright and permanent 
 Prohibition having been prescribed by 
 original settlers or controlling land- 
 owners, and subsequent purchasers of 
 property having been bound by the con- 
 ditions of title-deeds not to permit liquor- 
 selling. In other places, not anchored 
 to Prohibition by such arbitrary restric- 
 tions, the citizens have been wise, virtu- 
 ous and persevering enough to adhere 
 steadily to the policy after witnessing its 
 advantages, and thus the "option" is 
 never exercised; such places are the 
 thriving cities of Maiden, Somerville and 
 Quincy in Massachusetts (see p. 531), 
 and Vineland, Millville and Bridgeton 
 in New Jersey. In another class of cities 
 and towns the normal method is license, 
 but the sale is absolutely prohibited on 
 Sundays, on holidays and in times of 
 emergency. 
 
 Qreeley, Col., is a flourishing "Western town 
 in a region supposed to be filled with cowboys 
 and other lawless people. In 1886 it had a 
 population of about 2,500. Its county (Weld) 
 contained 10,000 people, and neither in the 
 town nor in the county was there a single 
 pauper. Prohibition had been the law without 
 interruption for many years. A prominent 
 
 business of the saloons. But in the Prohibition year 
 there were no such helps to the temperance cause, and, 
 besides, there were heated electoral campaigns and a very 
 exciting Bession of the Legislature — conditions that did 
 not exist in either of the license years. — Political Pro- 
 hibitionist for 1889, p. 59. 
 6 Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 58. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 536 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 citizen of Greeley wrote as follows in the Voice 
 for Nov. 18, 1886: 
 
 " We have a $40,000 Court-house, and a fine jail — an 
 ornamental appendage of the Court-house, — which has on 
 an average only one occupant; and those who are impris- 
 oned from time to time do not generally belong here, but 
 are caught here while trying to hide away from justice. . . . 
 From the City Clerk's office we learn that the expense of 
 the Marshal for the city of Greeley for the year 1880 
 was $81.55; the number of arrests made, 7; the expense 
 for Marshal in 1881 was $49 and the number of arrests, 5. 
 The Marshal's expense tor 1883 was $59.75, and the num- 
 ber of arrests, 4. In 1883 the Marshal was paid by the 
 month at a salary of $40 per month. But this was re- 
 garded as a useless expense, and from that time on the 
 Marshal has been paid only for the amount of work 
 done. In 1884 the expense of the Marshal amounted to 
 $238.55. This large expense was caused by the success- 
 ful prosecution of a liquor case. The expenses for Mar- 
 shal in 1885 were only $83. On several occasions persons 
 have attempted to sell liquor on the sly, but they have 
 heen speedily detected, arre6ted and fined to the full ex- 
 tent of the law." 
 
 Pullman, HI. — The foundations of this city 
 were laid in May, 1880, and the first family 
 moved there in January, 1881. In October, 
 1890, it had a population of about 11,000. It 
 owes its existence and prosperity to the Pullman 
 Palace Car Company. Mr. Pullman chose the 
 site and bought all the land (4,000 acres). Ex- 
 tensive car- works were erected and cottages were 
 built for the accommodation of the workmen. 
 It is strictly a manufacturing and wage-earners' 
 city: in 1890 5,250 persons were employed as 
 operatives in the industries; many of these, 
 however, were residents of neighboring towns, 
 for, besides the 11,000 inhabitants of Pullman, 
 there were 10,000 more people within a mile of 
 its railroad depot. In the title-deeds to all the 
 property, from the beginning, have been clauses 
 absolutely prohibiting the liquor traffic, and it 
 is universally admitted that this provision has 
 given its humble people the remarkably fortu- 
 nate conditions of life that they enjoy. In 1890 
 not more than 200 children were employed in 
 the shops, a wonderfully small number in a city 
 of which nearly all the male adults are day- 
 laborers. There were only five physicians living 
 within its limits to serve the 11,000 people. 
 The death-rate has never been in excess of 11 per 
 1,000 per annum, about one-half the average 
 death-rate for American cities. Only two 
 policemen were needed to keep order, and these 
 were detailed from the Chicago force; for in 
 the absence of saloons it is unnecessary to main- 
 tain a police department. Yet license towns are 
 not far distant, and Pullman is embraced with- 
 in the 34th Ward of the great rum city of Chi- 
 cago; so that the effectiveness of local Prohibi- 
 tion, even here, is counteracted to a certain 
 extent. 1 
 
 The experience of all other long-established 
 and strict temperance towns, from the smallest 
 to the largest, simply repeats the evidence that 
 we have given. Permanent Prohibition by 
 title-deeds or by ordinance is rapidly gaining 
 popularity among men of sound business judg- 
 ment as well as those of humane instincts. In 
 mining centers like the new city of Harriman 
 (Tenn.) and others of the South, in seaside 
 resorts like Asbury Park and Ocean Orove (N. 
 J.), in the popular mountain towns of Mary- 
 
 1 Most of the facts here stated are taken from a de- 
 scriptive circular issued, Oct. 14, 1890, by Duane Doty, 
 editor of the Pullman Arcade Journal. 
 
 land, in such California communities as Pasa- 
 dena and Riverside, the results are always the 
 same — the worst public evils are hardly known 
 if the drink business is not present, or vanish 
 with its disappearance. 
 
 England, having no other reliable means of 
 procuring complete local Prohibition than the 
 authority of proprietors, has utilized this means 
 in a great many places. The large town of 
 Saltaire, near the city of Bradford, resembles 
 Pullman in its conditions; it is devoted to manu- 
 facturing and most of its inhabitants are work- 
 ingmen. The sale of liquors is totally pro- 
 hibited. Mr. James Hole, in his "Homes of 
 the Working Classes," says: 
 
 " There are scarcely ever any arrears of rent. Infant 
 mortality is very low as compared with that of Bradford, 
 from which place the majority of the hands have come. 
 Illegitimate births are rare. The tone and self-respect of 
 the work-people are much greater than that of factory- 
 hands generally. Their wages are not high, but they en- 
 able them to secure more of the comforts and decencies 
 of life than they could elsewhere, owing to the facilities 
 
 E laced within their reach, and the absence of drinking- 
 ouses." 
 
 In the Province of Canterbury more than a 
 thousand parishes are wholly free from public 
 houses and beer-shops, and in 1869 the Com- 
 mittee of the Lower House of Convocation of 
 that Province made a report declaring that "in 
 consequence of the absence of these induce- 
 ments to crime and pauperism, according to the 
 evidence before the Committee, the intelligence, 
 morality and comfort of the people are such as. 
 the friends of temperance would have antici- 
 pated." Appended to the report were detailed 
 answers from 243 clergymen and 11 Chief Con- 
 stables and Superintendents of Police, in which 
 appeared frequent statements like the following: 
 "No public house, no beer-shop — no crime;" 
 "No public house, no beer-shop — no intemper- 
 ance ;" "In parishes where there are neither 
 public houses nor beer-shops the absence of 
 crime is remarkable." 8 All candid English- 
 men, when confronted with information as to 
 the actual effects of Prohibition by landlords, 
 have admitted its exceeding benefits. The 
 Artisans, Laborers and General Dwellings' 
 Company operates great estates, upon which 
 are many thousands of residents, and has rigidly 
 excluded all dramshops. At the opening of 
 Shaftesbury Park, one of these estates, on July 
 18, 1874, Earl Shaftesbury presided and an- 
 nounced amid cheers that no public house would 
 be permitted within its limits. The Prime 
 Minister and eminent Conservative statesman, 
 Benjamin Disraeli (Earl Beaconsfield) then 
 said: 
 
 " The experiment which you have made has succeeded 
 and therefore can hardly be called an experiment; but in 
 its success is involved the triumph of the social virtues, 
 and the character of the great body of the people. . . . 
 I see the possibility of attaining results which may guide 
 the councils of the nation in the enterprise which I be- 
 lieve is impending in this country, on a great Bcale, of at- 
 tempting to improve the dwellings of the great body of 
 the people." 3 
 
 Liverpool has populous districts under Pro- 
 hibition, and the system works for the welfare 
 of all, landlords and tenants, builders and in- 
 
 " Alcohol and the State, pp. 314-15. 
 
 5 Local Option, by W. S. Caine, M. P., William Hoyle, 
 F. S. S., and Eev. Dawson Burns, D. D. (London, 1885), 
 p. 84. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 537 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits ofc 
 
 vestors, rich and poor, while the police have 
 few or no duties to perform in the temperance 
 quarters of that drink-cursed city. » 
 
 As for the influence of Sunday and holiday 
 Prohibition in license cities, it is invariably 
 wholesome. This is seen in the almost com- 
 plete application of the principle of Sunday-clos- 
 ing throughout the United States : it is recognized 
 to be a good thing. Enforcement is not always 
 rigid, but even a nominal closing of the saloons 
 is found to be an advantage. Thorough en- 
 forcement never fails to have striking results. 
 New York Giiy has been forced to provide the 
 Prohibition advocates with valuable compari- 
 sons. In 1866 a Metropolitan Excise law for 
 New York and Brooklyn was passed, and for 
 two years the police suppressed Sunday sales 
 with tolerable rigor. The report of the Metro- 
 politan Police Commissioners for 1867 showed 
 that on eight Sundays in 1865 (under the old 
 system) there were 1,078 arrests, and on the 
 corresponding eight Sundays of 1867 (under 
 Prohibition) there were 523 ; meanwhile on 
 eight Tuesdays in 1865 the arrests aggre- 
 gated 1,018, and in 1867 1,203. 2 The Massa- 
 chusetts license law now prohibits liquor-sell- 
 ing on all holidays. In Boston this meas- 
 ure has brought a great reduction in 
 the number of holiday arrests. On "Labor 
 Day " (the first Monday of September) the total 
 arrests in 1888 (saloons open) were 212 as against 
 78 in 1889 (saloons closed); arrests for drunken- 
 ness on this day, 179 in 1888 as against 58 in 
 1889; arrests of non-residents, 58 in 1888 as 
 against 9 in 1889. 3 (For police returns for the 
 period of Prohibition at the time of the Boston 
 fire, see pp. 528-9.) 
 
 ECONOMIC AND OTHER EFFECTS. 
 
 The unprejudiced^ person mas±_-in- 
 
 stincti-vely f eeltEflflT- ^oliey-that-so re- 
 markably curtails intemperance, crime 
 and pauperism, the-most^dreadiul,-w-ast- 
 ing and humiliating evils of modern 
 civilization, is presumably sound and 
 benenciaLfr am the.econamis£'-s, point oi 
 view. If under such a policy fewer in- 
 dividuals destroy their health, character 
 _and happiness, squander their means and 
 impoverish and disgrace, their jamilies; 
 if violence, indecency and graver wrongs, 
 offenses against the person, against 
 property and against the State, are al- 
 waysjessened-under fairly executed Pro- 
 hibition and-of-teir put "practically to an 
 end4_if_Jdie„ occupations of the criminal, 
 the policeman, -the shyster and tire jailer 
 become less important, it is.hard to un- 
 derstand how the policy can fail, to do 
 good on_ecoiiomic— as well as on moral 
 and social grounds. It is recognized, of 
 course, that certain deprivations must 
 ensue from it; individuals are made to 
 
 1 See."Alcolio] and the State," pp. 383-4. 2 Ibid, p. 338. 
 « The Voice, Sept. 13, 1889. 
 
 sacrifice indulgences which by many are 
 thought to contribute to the charms of 
 life; particular kinds of opportunities 
 for trade and gain are necessarily shut, 
 and the visible revenues of the Govern- 
 ment from various sources are checkeu. 
 But it is capable of demonstration that, 
 assuming that the drink traffic could be 
 wholly exterminated, all these depriva- 
 tions would be more than balanced by 
 resulting advantages. The merits of 
 this conditional proposition are con- 
 sidered in other articles, especially Cost 
 of the Drink Traffic and Personal 
 Liberty. The teachings of actual ex- 
 perience will now be examined. 
 
 Uffects upon Commercial Prosperity. 
 
 The license advocates have no more ag- 
 gressive argument against Prohibition 
 than that it will injure the general inter- 
 ests of trade. But if this argument is 
 viewed apart from all evidence, simply 
 with a desire to see upon what fundamen- 
 tal principles it is based, we shall find it 
 difficult to think that the assumption of 
 the license theorists is more reasonable 
 than the assumption of the Prohibition 
 theorists. On the one hand license 
 causes a single line of trade, the liquor 
 traffic, to flourish, and incidentally keeps 
 a few allied industries — like the malting 
 and bottling — afloat, while it brings some 
 business to certain other merchants; on 
 the other hand it prevents consumption 
 of and therefore demand for the neces- 
 saries and luxuries, and the degree of 
 this prevention is known by all to be ap- 
 palling. Contrast the commercial ad- 
 vantages of license with its commercial 
 disadvantages (aside from all questions 
 as to the possibility of carrying out Pro- 
 hibition if secured), and few will be dis- 
 posed to claim that the former are 
 superior. The fact that trade enjoys 
 wonderful and increasing prosperity in 
 license cities is misleading if used to 
 assert that fortunate trade conditions 
 exist because of license or would be im- 
 paired if the license policy were ended. 
 Such an assertion resembles the opinion 
 of the self-satisfied manufacturer or 
 farmer, who, having prospered by stick- 
 ing to the methods of his ancestors, dis- 
 cards new devices without studying them, 
 on the principle that it is wisest to " let 
 well enough alone." Therefore no in- 
 telligent plea against Prohibition on 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 538 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 commercial grounds can be founded on 
 the encouraging general aspects of busi- 
 ness under the license system. The de- 
 velopment of trade depends upon natural 
 and acquired facilities (the inducements 
 to enterprise), and upon enterprise. The 
 great cities are the centers of trade de- 
 velopment, not because they nourish 
 saloons but because they enjoy facilities 
 and enterprise. At best neither license 
 nor Prohibition can have more than an 
 incidental influence for the stimulating 
 or crippling of industries. Predictions 
 as to the tendency of Prohibition's in- 
 fluence are unprofitable in localities that 
 have not made the test. The truth must 
 be sought in those places where Prohibi- 
 tion has been on trial; and invariably it 
 disproves the claims of the alarmists. 
 
 The testimony runs parallel with that 
 which we have given concerning the 
 effects of this system upon the consump- 
 tion of drink, upon crime, etc. Indeed 
 in preparing the preceding pages it was 
 in nearly all cases necessary, in order to 
 confine ourselves to the features of the 
 subject there discussed, to pass over a 
 great deal of evidence pertinent to the 
 present topic. Commendation of Pro- 
 hibition as a temperance measure carries 
 with it the positive declaration that no 
 harm is done to the material interests of 
 the people but that it reflects benefits 
 upon all legitimate trades. 
 
 Maine, it is asserted by those best qual- 
 ified to express opinions, was a very poor 
 State when the liquor traffic was licensed, 
 but has thrived under Prohibition. ISTeal 
 Dow says that the law now annually 
 saves to the people of the State (directly 
 and indirectly). $20,000,000. (See p. 412.) 
 If it is assumed that no liquor is now 
 consumed in Maine the reasonable- 
 ness of this estimate can scarcely 
 be questioned, for in that case it 
 would represent a yearly saving per in- 
 habitant of only $30, and that sum is 
 about the average yearly per capita ex- 
 penditure (direct and indirect) caused 
 by the traffic in the United States 
 at large, if total abstainers and per- 
 sons living in Prohibition localities are 
 counted in making calculations for the 
 country as a whole. But if it is sup- 
 posed that the per capita direct and in- 
 direct expenditure in Maine is as much 
 as $15 — and this is merely an assump- 
 
 tion for the sake of argument, not an 
 admission, — the total annual saving is at 
 least $10,000,000. 
 
 James G. Blaine, in a speech at Far- 
 mington, Me., in September, 1888, said : 
 
 "Maine for the last 37 years has been under 
 a Prohibitory law. I think the State has de- 
 rived great advantage from it. I think that 
 the State is far richer and far better because of 
 the law than it would have been without it." ' 
 
 "The State has been growing richer 
 every year," wrote Senator Frye in 1890 ; 
 " I believe I am entirely safe in saying 
 there is no State in the Union enjoying 
 more general prosperity than is to be 
 found in Maine. There has been no de- 
 preciation of property; on the contrary, 
 a general appreciation. I do not believe 
 a respectable emigrant from the State of 
 Maine can be found who will admit that 
 he left the State because Prohibition pre- 
 vailed there." " The material interests of 
 Maine," wrote ex- Governor Sidney Per- 
 ham at the same time, " have had a 
 steady and healthy growth, and no other 
 law has contributed so much toward this 
 result as the Prohibitory law. Under it 
 the business of the rumseller has suffered, 
 while every legitimate interest has been 
 benefited. The suppression of his busi- 
 ness has secured to the people more 
 means to purchase what is essential to 
 comfortable living, thus increasing 
 other and more desirable branches of 
 trade." Joseph A. Locke, ex-President 
 of the State Senate of Maine, wrote: 
 "The good results arising from Prohibi- 
 tion can be readily seen by any unpreju- 
 diced person who will travel throughout 
 our State and observe the general pros- 
 perity and happiness of our people, 
 especially so should he take a team and 
 ride through suburban villages and the 
 country. The allegation that people are 
 leaving the State to escape the ' blight of 
 Prohibition' is all bosh." 2 "In my 
 opinion," wrote John Ayer, President of 
 the Somerset Railway, "the Prohibitory 
 liquor law has done great good in this 
 State. The general business depression 
 is affected favorably by the Prohibitory 
 law and made less than it would be but 
 for this law." 3 
 
 The following are statements from 
 Maine bankers : * 
 
 John G. Brooks, President Belfast National 
 
 1 Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 55. 
 
 " The Voice, Oct. 9, 1890. » Ibid, Oct. 16, 1890. * Ibid. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 539 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 Bank, Belfast : " Prohibition of the liquor traffic 
 is not detrimental to the business interests of our 
 city. . . . The partial suppression of the sale of 
 liquors has caused the saving of much money 
 for legitimate business that would otherwise 
 have gone to the saloons. Our people to-day 
 dress better, have more of the comforts of life 
 and have better homes than before the passage 
 of the law. More business is now done than 
 there was 10 or 20 years ago. The deposits in 
 ■our banks have increased every year for the past 
 10 years, showing that the people have more 
 money to use for business purposes. In fine, 
 the law has had a tendency to improve business 
 rather than depress it." 
 
 Galen C. Moses, President 1st National Bank, 
 Bath : " I do not believe any candid, fair busi- 
 ness man in Maine will contend that Prohibi- 
 tion affects business unfavorably or in any way, 
 except that when enforced its effect is excellent 
 upon every industry where men are employed." 
 
 J. Dingley, Jr., President 1st National Bank, 
 Auburn : "Prohibition's effect has been to keep 
 •our people sober and industrious, to give them 
 homes, to feed and clothe their children, to 
 make them better citizens and to help build up 
 our industries, which has been done, that would 
 not if liquor had been sold with us. We boast 
 of having a city that does not sell intoxicants of 
 any kind ; business is first-class." 
 
 Thomas C. Kennedy, President New Castle 
 National Bank, New Castle : " More than nine- 
 tenths of the business men of this county f Jlly 
 believe that Prohibition of the liquor traffic in 
 this State is decidedly a great benefit to the 
 business interests of the State. " 
 
 In the Western States the high author- 
 ities from whom we have quoted so 
 copiously on pp. 507-10 and 514-17 de- 
 clare with the same emphasis that Pro- 
 hibition has been no less successful in 
 promoting the material welfare than in 
 reducing the business of the Courts and 
 emptying the prisons. 
 
 Kansas. — We summarize the testimony 
 of some of the representative public men, 
 and of fully trustworthy observers from 
 other States. 
 
 John A. Martin, Governor of the State from 
 1885 to 1889, in a letter to the Associated Press, 
 July 12, 1887: "During the past two years and 
 a half I have organized 17 counties in the west- 
 ern section of the State, and Census-takers have 
 been appointed for four other counties, leaving 
 only two counties remaining to be organized. 
 The cities and towns of Kansas, with hardly an 
 exception, have kept pace in growth and pros- 
 perity with this marvelous development of the 
 , State. Many of them have doubled their popu- 
 lation during the past year. And it is a remark- 
 able fact that several cities and towns languished 
 or stood still until they abolished their saloons, 
 and from that date to the present time their 
 growth and prosperity has equalled, and in 
 some instances surpassed, that of other places 
 with equal natural advantages. Summing up, 
 the facts of the Census [State Census of 1886] 
 
 confute and confound those who assert that the 
 material prosperity of any community is pro- 
 moted by the presence of saloons. So far as 
 Kansas and all her cities and towns are con- 
 cerned, the reverse of this assertion is true. 
 The most wonderful era of prosperity, of mate- 
 rial, moral and intellectual development, of 
 growth in country, cities and towns ever wit- 
 nessed on the American Continent has been 
 illustrated in Kansas during the six years since 
 the temperance Amendment to our Constitution 
 was adopted, and especially during the past two 
 years, the period of its most energetic and com- 
 plete enforcement." 
 
 John J. Ingalls, United States Senator: " The 
 prediction of its [Prohibition's] opponents has 
 not been verified ; immigration has not been 
 repelled, nor has capital been diverted from the 
 State. The period has been one of unexampled 
 growth and development. Whether post hoc or 
 propter hoc, coincidence or cause, is not mate- 
 rial. The evils prophesied have not come to 
 ass. " ' 
 
 M. Mohler, Secretaiy of the State Board of 
 Agriculture: "The idea that Kansas has lost 
 either in population or wealth because of Pro- 
 hibition is simply preposterous, and in my 
 judgment no one in his right mind really be- 
 lieves it. For every man we lose because of 
 Prohibition we gain two better men because we 
 have Prohibition." A State Census is taken 
 each year in Kansas, and the following figures 
 from the Census of 1889 were given by Secretary 
 Mohler: 2 
 
 Gain. 
 1880. 1889. Pek Cent. 
 
 Population 996,096 1,464,914 47 
 
 Field Crops, Acres. 8,868,884 16,821,572 90 
 
 Value. $63,111,634 $104,572,498 66 
 
 Live Stock, Value.. $61,563,956 $116,126,466 89 
 
 AH Farm Products, 
 
 Value $80,500,244 $147,434,383 a3 
 
 Wealth $160,570,761 $360,813,903 124 
 
 Manufactures, Capi- 
 tal Invested $11,192,315 $29,016,760 159 
 
 Schools. No. of Dis- 
 tricts 6,134 8,775 43 
 
 School Property, 
 
 Value $4,633,044 $8,608,202 86 
 
 Children of School 
 
 Age 340,647 532,010 56 
 
 Churches 964 1,956 103 
 
 Church Property, 
 Value $2,430,385 $6,415,937 164 
 
 L. K. Kirk, President of the Board of Trus- 
 tees of the Charitable Institutions of the State 
 of Kansas: "There has been no backward step 
 in either the moral, social or monetary condi- 
 tion of the State in the remotest degree attribu- 
 table to Prohibition or its effects. On the other 
 hand there has been vastly less drunkenness, 
 and that will assure anyone that the moral, 
 social and financial condition of the State is 
 the better to that extent." 3 
 
 D. M. Valentine, Associate-Justice of the 
 State Supreme Court: "The State has vastly 
 increased both in wealth and population, and 
 the quality of both is probably very much better 
 than it would have been if the State had been 
 filled with liquor-saloons." 4 
 
 1 Forum Magazine for August, 1889. a 
 
 2 The Voice, Oct. 9, 1890. 
 
 For explanations of differences between the State 
 CeriBus of 1889 and the Federal Census of 1890, see p. 553. 
 » The Voice, Oct. 9, 1890. * Ibid. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 540 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 W. A. Johnston, Associate-Justice of the 
 State Supreme Court : "I say without hesita- 
 tion that I believe that Prohibition has been of 
 vast benefit to Kansas, and that its operation 
 has greatly advanced the moral, social and 
 financial condition of our people." ' 
 
 D. W. Wilder, Superintendent of the State 
 Insurance Department: "Kansas is very pros- 
 perous, gaining very fast in wealth and people. 
 But her greatest gain has been in the abolition 
 of saloons." 2 
 
 William Sims, State Treasurer: "The loss to 
 our business interests resulting from the re- 
 moval of those heretofore engaged in the liquor 
 traffic has been more than compensated for by 
 the increase of legitimate business, and the 
 immigration hither of those seeking homes' 
 where the open saloon is unknown ; and no de- 
 pression in value can, in my judgment, be 
 traced, directly or indirectly, to the enforcement 
 of Constitutional Prohibition. " ' 
 
 As is shown on pp. 508-9, the Probate Judges 
 of the counties of Kansas, upon being asked 
 whether "the loss of revenue from former 
 saloon licenses" had been "more than made 
 good by . . , the directing of the money form- 
 erly spent in the saloons now into legitimate 
 channels of trade," answered almost unani- 
 mously in the affirmative. 
 
 The formal declaration issued in 1889 and 
 signed, among others, by the Governor, the 
 Secretary of State, the Auditor of State, the 
 Treasurer of State, the Superintendent of Public 
 Instruction, the Attorney-General, the Chief- 
 Justice and two Associate-Justices of the 
 Supreme Court, to which we have alluded on 
 p. 509, embraced unqualified statements like the 
 following : 
 
 "In its practical operation the law promotes the wel- 
 fare and prosperity of our citizens of all classes and 
 conditions, especially of laboring men, and of all men 
 who are struggling by honest work to maintain their 
 families and educate their children. ... In connection 
 with other influences the contest successfully waged in 
 this State against the saloon has increased our popula- 
 tion, it has enlarged our wealth and it has powerfully 
 advanced the material, educational and moral interests of 
 our people. The State of Kansas is far more prosperous 
 to-day than it ever has been at any former period in its 
 history." 
 
 Pair-minded men at the East who have busi- 
 ness investments in Kansas, or who have 
 visited it for the purpose of ascertaining whether 
 investment there was desirable or of investi- 
 gating the results of the liquor law, all pro- 
 nounce Prohibition a leading factor in advancing 
 its prosperity. The Stockholders' Committee 
 of the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 
 which is under the direction of Eastern capital- 
 ists and deals extensively in Kansas farm mort- 
 gages, said in its annual report to the company in 
 December, 1888 : 
 
 " Believing it to be a matter of financial interest and 
 otherwise to our stockholders, we digress somewhat to 
 treat upon a question which has been and is agitating the 
 moral, social, religious and political welfare of all sec- 
 tions of onr common country. We have no motive other 
 than to apply the deductions therefrom obtained to the 
 value of your Kansas investments. Noting the 
 practical effects of Prohibition upon the people of the 
 State, our observations lead us to believe that this move- 
 ment is a grand success in Kansas, which adds, and will 
 continue to add, value to ail the lands in the State. What- 
 ever makes human existence less burdensome, reduces 
 
 » The Voice, Oct. 9, 1890. ' Ibid. ' Ibid, Oct. 16, 1890. 
 
 taxation, prevents crime and destroys pauperism is sure 
 to give tangible and materia] wealth to any State. . . . 
 We look upon the above facts [concerning the success of 
 Kansas Prohibition], vouched for by such high authority, 
 as a strong argument in favor of loans in a State 
 advancing so rapidly in moral as well as material 
 progress." 4 
 
 D. O. Bradley, a prominent banker of Tarry- 
 town, N. Y., whose sympathies had always been 
 with High License in preference to Prohibition, 
 published a letter in the Tarrytown Argus in 
 1889 in which he said : 
 
 " I have just returned from seven dayB spent in roam- 
 ing over the State of Kansas, with a party of New York 
 City bank officers who were delegates to the annual 
 Bankers' National Convention which was held on Sept. 
 25 and 26 at Kansas City, Mo. We were entertained in 
 various ways by the bank officers who lived at the towns 
 which we visited. Topeka, Hutchinson and other cities 
 made careful provision to welcome us. We were brought 
 into contact with the leading business men of various 
 localities, under the most favorable auspices. Our 
 curiosity and interest in the matter tempted us every- 
 where to introduce the Prohibition question. The 
 testimony was concurrent and unanimous . . . that 
 the business men and property owners of the State are as 
 thoroughly united in support of the Prohibitory law as 
 on any otner question of politics or morals. I heard 
 many men in different localities talk, and all without 
 exception were decisive and positive supporters of the 
 present order of things. Polygamy and Mormonism 
 could be introduced into the State as easily as the rum 
 traffic. I have never entered better or more prosperous 
 hotels, either in this country or in Europe, than I found 
 all over Kansas. Their proprietors scouted the idea that 
 the sale of liquors constituted in any way a legitimate 
 part of their business. They all agreed that the Pro- 
 hibitory law had given character, dignity and profit to 
 their calling." fi 
 
 L. A. Maynard, representing the New York 
 Observer, went to Kansas in 1889 to make an im- 
 partial study of the Prohibitory law. "I have 
 heard so much in the East about the way that 
 Prohibition kills the towns," he wrote, "that I 
 was quite prepared to find a lot of dead munici- 
 palities. . . . On the contrary I have found an 
 amazing amount of life and vigor in these 
 villages and cities that ought to be dead, accord- 
 ing to the whiskey logic of the East : many of 
 them growing so fast that it is as much as ever 
 the mother government of the State can do to 
 keep them properly dressed up in municipal 
 clothes. I have met scores of persons, mer- 
 chants, bankers and solid business men, who 
 have told me that they were not in favor of Pro- 
 hibition when the question was first submitted ; 
 they fought and voted against it, but now they 
 say they would not be willing to take the saloon 
 back again on any terms. They have become 
 so thoroughly convinced of the good results of 
 the law upon the business interests of the State, 
 as well as upon other interests, that they stand 
 openly and firmly in favor of its continuance." 6 
 
 No attempt can here be made to quote 
 from individual business men of Kansas : 
 separate quotations would add little to 
 the preceding opinions from the most 
 responsible and representative sources, 
 and our space is insufficient for such an 
 elaborate review as would be necessary in 
 undertaking a general presentation of 
 private experience. Yet in private expe- 
 
 4 Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 51. 
 
 5 The Voice, Oct. 24, 1889. 
 
 • Political Prohibitionist for 1889, pp. 48-9. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 541 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 rience lies the final test of Prohibition's 
 «ffects upon trade. It may be claimed 
 that the politician merely echoes views 
 that are most agreeable to him, and that 
 public officials speak only for partisans 
 who, while in the majority for the time 
 being, may possibly be mistaken. Such 
 a claim cannot by any reasonable process" 
 of judgment be suggested in qualifica- 
 tion of the weighty declarations of Kan- 
 sas public men: these declarations are 
 too specific to be read with any tinge of 
 distrust, and the facts sustaining them 
 are too strong; besides (remembering 
 that it is the rarest of things for public 
 men to exaggerate the good of Prohibi- 
 tion), it would be nothing less than fan- 
 tastic to assert that a Governor who op- 
 posed the law when it was enacted, a 
 conservative United States Senator, the 
 Chief-Justice and other Judges of the 
 Supreme Court, the State Treasurer, the 
 Secretary of State, the State Auditor, the 
 Attorney-General, the Secretary of the 
 State Board of Agriculture, the Super- 
 intendent of the Insurance Department 
 and numerous other officials of every 
 grade are all ignorant of the true com- 
 mercial situation, or are engaged in a 
 conspiracy to falsify the facts, or would 
 dare praise the law on business grounds 
 if the material interests of Kansas were 
 really suffering in consequence of it. 
 But the truth can be most significantly 
 shown by inquiry among the men whose 
 fortunes are staked in commercial enter- 
 prises. Their general opinion has been 
 ascertained repeatedly, by the New York 
 banker from whom we have quoted, by 
 the Observer's correspondent, by the 
 State authorities, and by various news- 
 paper editors and others who have sent 
 letters to representative business men 
 throughout the State. The Voice in 
 1890 forwarded a large number of such 
 letters, and the replies were favorable 
 with few exceptions. Represented among 
 those who answered encouragingly were 
 four bankers of Topeka, real estate deal- 
 ers, manufacturers and tradesmen of 
 many avocations. A few of the re- 
 sponses were published by the Voice in 
 its issue for Oct. 16, 1890. 
 
 To sum up : The most cautious stu- 
 dent must at least concede that, so far as 
 Kansas is concerned, the statistical facts 
 as well as the presumptions deduced 
 from public and private assertion throw 
 
 the burden of proof upon the opponents 
 of Prohibition. It may be admitted that 
 the evidence submitted is partial and that 
 some public men esteemed reputable in 
 Kansas, together with some honorable 
 merchants, are not prepared to indorse 
 it and even speak counter to it; but no 
 important consensus of hostile opinion 
 has been presented. Much has been said 
 against the law by the Resubmissionists, 
 who avow that they attack it for the 
 sake of the State's prosperity ; but there 
 is a strong suggestion of intolerance and 
 localism in their arguments, and it is not 
 encouraging to find that their character- 
 istic supporters among the masses are 
 persons who desire to sell liquor, persons 
 who desire freedom to drink it and per- 
 sons of criminal or objectionable profes- 
 sions or tendencies. On the side of the 
 law are distinctively ranged the best citi- 
 zens, in opposition to it the worst ones : 
 this contrast may not be decisive, but it 
 must surely emphasize the belief that 
 the burden of proof rests with the law's 
 foes. No disturbance of judgment need 
 be occasioned by the fact that an ele- 
 ment of respectable business men may 
 by diligent search be found associated 
 with the opposition : a division of opin- 
 ion concerning any policy of only ten 
 years' standing is unavoidable. Trades- 
 men are always willing to think that 
 their prosperity is not satisfactory, and 
 it would be remarkable if the represen- 
 tations against Prohibition that are so 
 industriously spread did not find some 
 credence among merchants in Kansas. 
 Tradesmen of particular kinds in par- 
 ticular towns have plausible reasons for 
 discontent: they remember the lively 
 times of years gone, forgetting that 
 those were times of crudity and improvi- 
 dence, which must have come to an end 
 in any case, and that more substantial 
 conditions have been evolved. 
 
 The testimony for Ioiva is equally 
 abundant and strong. 
 
 William Larrabee, Governor of the State 
 from 1885 to 1889: "The assertion that Prohi- 
 bition has been ruinous to the business interests 
 of Iowa, and that real estate and values of 
 other property are depressed, and that people 
 are leaving the State to escape the 'blight of 
 Prohibition,' is too absurd for notice. Iowa has 
 never been more prosperous than now. The 
 beneficial results of Prohibition are observable 
 on every hand where the law has been enforced. 
 Moral, intellectual and material welfare have 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 543 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 been advanced." 1 "As to the depreciation of 
 value of real estate occasioned by Prohibition, 
 it is the sheerest nonsense. Values have, I be- 
 lieve, been sustained in Iowa as well as adjoin- 
 ing States where Prohibition is not the rule. 
 The same causes that have afEected values else- 
 where have undoubtedly had their effect here. 
 Crops grow, herds multiply and the markets of 
 the world continue open to us the same as be- 
 fore, and why should business suffer 1 Money 
 is now spent for the necessaries of life and for 
 legitimate uses instead of being spent at the 
 saloon. The banking business of a State is 
 perhaps as fair a barometer of business as can 
 be found. The number of banks in the State 
 has increased from 186 in 1883 to 244 in 1888; 
 deposits have increased from $27,231,719.74 to 
 $39,935,362.68 in 1888." 2 
 
 J. A. Lyons, Auditor of State: "It is my 
 opinion the Prohibitory law of this State has 
 not depreciated the value of real estate, but has 
 promoted legitimate lines of business." s 
 
 Henry Sabine, State Superintendent of Public 
 Instruction: "My official duties have taken me 
 into every section of the State during the past 
 summer. I have nowhere found any signs of 
 blight or depression among our people. I have 
 had especial occasion to note the condition of 
 our educational institutions. There never was 
 a time in the history of Iowa when our institu- 
 tions of learning were as full of earnest, ener- 
 getic young men and women as they are to-day. 
 Our denominational colleges, our private 
 schools and our State institutions without ex- 
 ception report an increased number of students. 
 This could hardly be true if values were de- 
 pressed and people leaving the State to escape 
 the 'blight of Prohibition.'" 4 
 
 M. Stalker, State Veterinary Surgeon: "Since 
 the passage of the Prohibitory law in Iowa I 
 have been in as many as 90 counties of the 
 State in one summer. I have endeavored to 
 note carefully and impartially the effects follow- 
 ing the operation of this law. I was very 
 doubtful of its results at the time of its pass- 
 age. I am now of the opinion that the law 
 has been and is now an incalculable benefit to 
 the State, and that no material or other legiti- 
 mate interest has suffered to the extent of a 
 single penny, unless you choose to place the 
 liquor traffic in that category. No man has 
 left the State on account of this law without 
 bringing up the moral average of the State he 
 left." 6 
 
 R. C. "Webb, Superintendent of the Iowa 
 State Agricultural Society: "As for our land 
 depreciating in value that is a fearful mistake. 
 Land in Iowa is as high in price as it ought to 
 be for farming purposes. Land is from $25 to 
 $100, and even up to $200. Our State is in a 
 healthy condition, out of debt, and we stand in 
 the front rank for education and Christianity. 
 Money with us is plenty, and it is hard work to 
 get 8 per cent, on loans, and many are loaning 
 at 6 per cent, and glad to get it." ° 
 E. H. Conger, Member of Congress: "In my 
 
 i The Voice, Oct. 9, 1890. 
 
 * Prom a letter to Eev. William Fuller of Aberdeen, 
 S. D., Feb. 16. 1889. (See the "Political Prohibi- 
 tionist for 1889," p. 53.) 
 
 » The Voice, Oct. 9, 1890. l Ibid. " Ibid. • Ibid. 
 
 home city, Des Moines, the population has 
 doubled under it, property has continually ap- 
 preciated and a considerable majority of our 
 citizens are delighted with the operation of the 
 law, and would strenuously and bitterly oppose 
 its repeal. In a certain railroad town with 
 which I am very familiar, when operating under 
 the license system, it was with the greatest diffi- 
 culty that merchants secured payment of their 
 accounts at pay-day, but under Prohibition the 
 cases of non-payment were rare indeed, and 
 merchants easily collected the entire bills from 
 these railroad employes. But on the very first 
 pay-day after the 'original package' saloons 
 were recently established, from one-third to one- 
 half of the bills were left unpaid. Yet during 
 the same month one vendor of ' original pack- 
 ages 'in this town deposited over $1,100 of 
 profits in bank.'" 7 
 
 Specimen letters from Iowa business 
 men themselves may be found in the 
 Voice for Oct. 16, 1890. These repre- 
 sent a number of the cities which figure re- 
 peatedly in the highly-colored reports of 
 Prohibition's hurtful effects. The Presi- 
 dent of the National Bank of Sioux City 
 writes : " Our city has made a marvellous 
 growth since the law was enacted, and 
 while we do not attribute it all to the 
 law, there is no question in my mind but 
 a portion of our prosperity is due directly 
 to the beneficial results of the law." 
 "Five years ago," says the Secretary of 
 the Board of Trade of Ottumwa, "we 
 had three National banks whose com- 
 bined deposits were about $600,000. 
 These three banks have to-day about 
 $800,000 on deposit. Some two years 
 ago two savings-banks were started here, 
 and their deposits now amount to nearly 
 $300,000." A lumber merchant of Bur- 
 lington expresses the opinion that " if 
 the city has suffered for the lack of 
 legitimate business it is because Prohibi- 
 tion has not been enforced." A wagon 
 company of the same city declares that 
 "there is no one living in Nebraska or in 
 Burlington who can convince us that 
 Prohibition of the liquor traffic is detri- 
 mental to our business." A Des Moines 
 wholesale dealer in boots and shoes de- 
 clares : " Many of our customers through- 
 out the State have assured us that their 
 trade in boots and shoes has been larger 
 since the close of the saloons in their 
 towns. We find collections better in 
 Iowa than in any other Western State, 
 excepting possibly Colorado." The post- 
 master of Muscatine remarks that " We 
 people of Iowa know that the Prohibitory 
 
 'Ibid. ' 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 543 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 law is a blessing in the proportion that it 
 is enforced." A Dubuque manufacturer 
 of lard oil, soap and candles, testifies: 
 " Instead of Prohibition having injured 
 my business it has enabled me to double 
 my business, and my per cent, of bad 
 debts has decreased about one-half. I 
 have carried on this business 30 
 years in this city, and my trade covers 
 the northern half of the State. And I 
 believe my experience is not different 
 from that of other manufacturers in 
 Iowa." "After 25 years' experience in 
 business in this city I am convinced that 
 Prohibition does not injure trade," writes 
 a Des Moines jeweler. All the testimony 
 so far presented by persons who have 
 made impartial attempts to learn the 
 general opinion of the Iowa tradespeople 
 indicate that expressions like the fore- 
 going are representative of the sentiment 
 not only of a large majority but of the 
 most intelligent and least prejudiced 
 business men. It is undoubtedly true, 
 however, that the judgment of Iowa as to 
 the wholesome commercial consequences 
 of the law is not so sweeping as that of 
 Kansas. This is another illustration of 
 the fact that Prohibitory laws are recog- 
 nized as beneficial in proportion to the 
 length of trial and the completeness of 
 enforcement; for the system has been in 
 force in Iowa only about half as m'any years 
 as in Kansas, and the resistance to it has 
 been more successful in the former State 
 than in the latter. It is also instructive 
 that the complaints of merchants against 
 Prohibition are most numerous from 
 those cities, like Council Bluffs, Du- 
 buque, Davenport and Burlington, where 
 the statute has been violated, while in 
 places like Des Moines and Sioux City, 
 where the most striking enforcement 
 work has been done, the business men 
 are least disposed to criticise. 
 
 The reader who has carefully followed 
 this evidence, while probably admitting 
 that the Prohibitionists have the better 
 of the discussion so far as Maine, Kansas 
 and Iowa are concerned, will recall the 
 formidable list of States that have re- 
 pealed Prohibition and the confident as- 
 sertions so often made by saloon advo- 
 cates that the injury inflicted upon the 
 business community was everywhere a 
 chief cause of repeal. Yet it is safe to 
 say that no reader, however vivid his 
 
 recollection of these assertions may be, 
 can mention any specific proofs of them. 
 The case of Rhode Island is the most 
 recent and is most frequently instanced by 
 the anti-Prohibitionists. In that State 
 many manufacturers and other business 
 men in 1889 signed a declaration against 
 the Prohibitory law. Stripped of ex- 
 planations this circumstance may be 
 thought damaging to the belief that 
 Prohibition did no harm in Rhode Is- 
 land. But the petitions for resubmis- 
 sion of the Constitutional Amendment 
 had only about 5,000 signatures, while 
 those against resubmission received more 
 than IOjOOO. 1 Naturally the canvassers- 
 on both sides sought indorsements prin- 
 cipally from persons of influence and 
 respectability; and although it is prob- 
 able that the anti-repeal petitions, being 
 hastily prepared, did not contain so 
 many prominent names as the petitions 
 of the repealers, the much larger total 
 number of signatures to the former 
 deprives the argument based on business, 
 opposition to the law of all conclusive- 
 ness. 
 
 The reputable repealers objected not 
 to Prohibition but to unenforced Prohi- 
 bition. There had been no opportunity 
 in the State for observing the effects of 
 genuine Prohibition. Disgust had been 
 excited by the scandalous unfaithfulness 
 of some of the chief officials and by the 
 political " deals " that had been perpe- 
 trated. The thousands of conservative 
 men who either voted against the Amend- 
 ment in 1886 or supported it with strong 
 distrust now felt a keener prejudice, and 
 many who had looked forward with confi- 
 dence to the execution of the law were 
 ready to advocate a change. But in the 
 city of Providence the act had been 
 partly enforced, and, as we have seen, 
 the arrests for drunkenness and crime 
 had been noticeably diminished. (See 
 p. 525.) If it is true that the pros- 
 perity of Ehode Island was disturbed 
 by any influences reasonably attributable 
 to the Prohibition policy the years of 
 the law's existence must have been bad 
 years for general business in Providence.. 
 On the contrary they were uncommonly 
 good years, as the following figures show : 2 
 Bank Clearings m Providence. — For 188S 
 
 • Political ProhibitioniBl for 1889, p. 36. 
 2 On the authority of Walter B. FroBt of Providence. 
 (See the Voice, March 7, 18890 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 544 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 (license), $237,148,800 ; 1884 (license), $217,448,- 
 300 ; 1885 (license), $216,465,200— net decrease 
 in 1885 compared with 1883, $20,683,600. For 
 1886 (one-half Prohibition), $232,688,200 ; 1887 
 (Prohibition), $244,977,100; 1888 (Prohibition), 
 $248,669,640— net increase in 1888 as compared 
 with 1885 (the last year of license), $32,204,440. 
 
 Savings Bank Deposits (for the entire State). — 
 In 1882 (license), $48,320,671.80; in 1885 
 (license), $51,816,390.42— increase in three years, 
 $3,495,628.62, or 7.2 per cent. On Nov. 21, 
 1888 (Prohibition), $57,699,884.94— increase 
 since 1885 (the last year of license), $5,883,494.- 
 52, or 11.4 per cent. The actual increase forthe 
 three years ending 1888 was 68 per cent, larger 
 than the actual increase for the three years end- 
 ing 1885 (the last year of license). 
 
 Total Valuation of Real Estate in Providence. 
 —In 1885 (the last year of license), $92,887,- 
 400; in 1888, $100,915,860— increase, $8,028,460, 
 or 8.6 per cent. 
 
 Total Valuation of Personal Property in 
 Providence. — In 1885 (the last year of license), 
 $31,314,600; in 1888, $35,837,840— increase, 
 $3,523,240, or 11.2 per cent. 
 
 Without exception the reports that 
 Prohibition has been abandoned in other 
 States because of injury done to business 
 either are designing misrepresentations 
 or have absolutely no element of proof 
 to sustain them. 
 
 The results under Local Option laws 
 are equally cheering from the business 
 point of view. We have not space for a 
 detailed examination of various locali- 
 ties. The flourishing Southern city of 
 Atlanta, it will be admitted, is typical of 
 all the large and active communities 
 where the policy has had a temporary 
 trial. There can be no higher authority 
 cited in reference to the trade affairs of 
 Atlanta than the Daily Constitution of 
 that city. In a careful editorial article 
 (June 21, 1887) on the results of a year's 
 trial of the Prohibitory law, the Consti- 
 tution said : 
 
 ' ' Prohibition has not injured the city finan- 
 cially. According to the Assessors' books, prop- 
 erty in the city has increased over $2,000,000. 
 Taxes have not been increased. Two streets in 
 the city, Decatur and Peters, were known as 
 liquor streets. It was hardly considered proper 
 for a lady to walk these streets without an escort. 
 Now they are just as orderly as any in the city. 
 Property on them has advanced from 10 to 25 
 per cent. The loss of $40,000 revenue conse- 
 quent on closing the saloons has tended in no 
 degree to impede the city's progress in any 
 direction. Large appropriations have been 
 made to the water-works, the public schools, the 
 Piedmont Fair and other improvements. The 
 business men have raised $400,000 to build the 
 Atlanta & Hawkinsville Railroad. The number 
 of city banks is to be increased to five. The 
 
 coming of four new railroads has been settled 
 during the year. Fifteen new stores containing 
 house-furnishing goods have been started since 
 Prohibition went into effect. These are doing 
 well. More furniture has been sold to mechan- 
 ics and laboring men in the last 12 months than 
 in any 12 months during the history of the city. 
 The manufacturing establishments of the city 
 have received new life. A glass factory has 
 been built. A cotton seed oil mill is being built, 
 worth $125,000. All improvement companies 
 with a basis in real estate have seen their stock 
 doubled in value since the election on Pro- 
 hibition. 
 
 "Stores in which the liquor trade was con- 
 ducted are not vacant, but are now occupied by 
 other lines of trade. According to the real 
 estate men more laborers and men of limited 
 means are buying lots than ever before. Bents 
 are more promptly paid than formerly. More 
 houses are rented by the same number of fami- 
 lies than heretofore. Before Prohibition, some- 
 times as many as three families would live in 
 one house. The heads of those families not now 
 spending their money for drink are each able to 
 rent a house, thus using three instead of one. 
 Workingmen who formerly spent a great part 
 of their money for liquor now spend it in food 
 and clothes for their families. The retail gro- 
 cery men sell more goods and collect their bills 
 better than ever before. Thus they are able 
 to settle more promptly with the wholesale 
 men. 
 
 ' ' A perceptible increase has been noticed in 
 the number of people who ride on the street 
 cars. According to the coal-dealers many people 
 bought coal and stored it away last winter who 
 had never been known to do so before. Others 
 who had been accustomed to buying two or 
 three tons on time, this last winter bought seven 
 or eight and paid cash for it. A leading pro- 
 prietor of a millinery store said that he had sold 
 more hats and bonnets to laboring men for their 
 wives and daughters than before in the history 
 of his business. Contractors say their men do 
 better work, and on Saturday evenings, when 
 they receive their week's wages, spend the same 
 for flour, hams, drygoods, or other necessary 
 things for their families. Thus they are in 
 better spirits, have more hope, and are not in- 
 clined to strike and growl about higher wages." 
 
 Two months after Prohibition had taken 
 effect in Atlanta Mr. M. M. Welch, Secre- 
 tary of the Chamber of Commerce, wrote a 
 very thorough statement of the condition 
 of the city. This was at a time when any 
 ill effects of the system should have 
 been especially noticeable, for the liquor 
 traffic (which is said to be an ally to 
 general trade) had just suffered complete 
 paralysis and the city had not yet fully 
 adjusted itself to the new order of 
 things. Yet nine months had elapsed 
 since the vote on Prohibition had been 
 taken, and therefore there had been seven 
 months of warning — a period long 
 enough to have caused a marked depres- 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 545 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 sion if serious apprehensions were cher- 
 ished. Secretary Welch said, in part : 1 
 
 ' 'There have been more new houses built in the 
 city during the last 12 months than there are 
 Tacant houses of every description in the city at 
 present, . . and the number of vacant houses 
 is not so great at present as it was one year 
 ago. . . . Our manufacturers are all doing well, 
 with good markets for their products, contented 
 labor and constantly increasing capacity. . . . 
 A review of the trade of the city for the year 
 closing with the 1st of this month is very grati- 
 fying in its results, and the outlook for the en- 
 suing year more encouraging than that of any 
 preceding year within the history of the city. I 
 am prepared to substantiate these general state- 
 ments by reliable information collected from 
 dealers, which shows a decided increase in the 
 volume of trade during the year in every line of 
 wholesale business except the grocery trade, and 
 that has held its own, with a number of new 
 houses opened during the year. There are 
 special reasons that have operated against the 
 wholesale grocery trade during the year, but in 
 the face of this fact the volume of business has 
 been equal to that of any preceding year. 
 
 ' ' Every line of retail trade in this city shows an 
 increase over any preceding year of from 10 to 
 25 per cent, and in some lines in excess of this 
 -amount. The increase in the retail grocery 
 trade is especially notable for the year, while 
 during the last 60 days [the exact period since 
 Prohibition took effect — Ed.] it will amout to at 
 least 30 per cent, in excess of a similar period 
 during any preceding year. It is a fact, also, that 
 this increase consists largely in the sale of fancy 
 groceries. Patrons who formerly purchased for 
 their families only plain corn meal and bacon 
 now add to these substantials fancy goods, such 
 as canned meats, sardines, canned fruits and 
 vegetables, pickles, etc. There are evidences of 
 a spirit of frugality springing up among the 
 laboring classes. Some are leaving regularly on 
 deposit, in the offices of their employers, a por- 
 tion of their week's earnings, others investing 
 in houses on the installment plan." 
 
 Henry W. Grady, in his celebrated 
 speech during the Atlanta repeal cam- 
 paign (November, 1887), exhaustively 
 showed from the testimony of individual 
 real estate dealers and other business 
 men, as well as from official statistics, 
 that the people were more prosperous 
 "than they had ever been. " What harm 
 has it done ? " said he. " They [the 
 anti-Prohibitionists] said we were going 
 to be ruined, that bats and owls would 
 fly in and out, and the real estate men 
 have the renting of nine out of ten 
 houses that are rented. They testify 
 without a break, absolutely without a 
 break, that they have fewer houses on 
 -their lists than they have ever had since 
 they have been in business. Two of 
 
 i The Voice, Sept. 28, 1886. 
 
 them have advertised in the last few days 
 for 100 houses, and to-day Mr. Tally told 
 me that he actually left his office because 
 he was bored by people who wanted to 
 get somewhere to live in this town. Mr. 
 Scott told me that he could put tenants 
 in 500 houses in 30 days from to-mor- 
 row." (Further quotations from Mr. 
 Grady, together with a summary of re- 
 cent interesting correspondence with 
 tradesmen, are given under the head of 
 " Benefits to the Wage- Workers and the 
 Poor/') 
 
 Effects upon Taxation and Population. 
 
 These effects of Prohibitory law are 
 incidental to its relations to commercial 
 prosperity, as those relations are to its 
 moral and social influences. As we have 
 said before, we cannot fully separate the 
 different classes of effects, except arbi- 
 trarily: evidence upon one branch of 
 the subject continually runs into evi- 
 dence upon other branches. Thus fre- 
 quent allusions to taxation and popula- 
 tion are scattered through the testimony 
 already introduced. In that remarkable 
 series of letters from the Probate Judges 
 of Kansas, as is pointed out on p. 108, 
 reports from 90 of the 97 represented 
 counties declared emphatically that the 
 loss of the revenue from former saloon 
 licenses had been " more than made good 
 by the decreasing burdens of pauperism 
 and crime resulting from Prohibition," 
 etc. And the County Prosecuting At- 
 torneys of Iowa answered similarly — 49 
 of them in a total of 57 heard from. 
 (See p. 515.) Such statements, if trust- 
 worthy, carry with them, of course, the 
 implication that taxes, so far as they are 
 affected by Prohibition, are made rela- 
 tively less onerous; for the distinctive 
 fiscal effect of the policy is to remove 
 from the public treasury the liquor rev- 
 enue, and if this revenue is " more than 
 made good" by a decrease of certain 
 public expenses nothing remains to be 
 said touching the tax aspect of the 
 question. 
 
 It is no unimportant thing to prove 
 that the taxes laid upon the community 
 in general do not necessarily become 
 proportionately heavier with the relin- 
 quishment of license moneys and the 
 complete or measurable destruction of a 
 rich and widespread traffic. In -both 
 Kansas and Iowa tolorably high license 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 546 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 charges prevailed when the Prohibitory- 
 statutes were adopted. The saloon rev- 
 enue was a considerable factor of the 
 public income in every town and county 
 where licenses were granted. Each liquor 
 establishment represented also a round 
 sum of accumulated capital, which could 
 be levied on at general tax rates so long 
 as the business existed, but would prob- 
 ably be wiped out, or materially reduced, 
 or taken to another State, upon the en- 
 forcement of Prohibition. Therefore the 
 new legislation threatened each pro- 
 license locality with an immediate loss 
 of revenue large enough to perceptibly 
 increase the tax-bills of all assessed 
 people, unless a compensating diminu- 
 tion of expenditures should ensue. Eec- 
 ognition of the claim that such a 
 diminution has ensued in Kansas and 
 Iowa, and will probably ensue wherever 
 Prohibition is well executed, and has 
 been and will be accomplished in the 
 very departments whose costliness every 
 good citizen deplores — the departments 
 devoted to the arrest, conviction and 
 punishment of offenders, the mainten- 
 ance of paupers, etc., — must be counted 
 as one of the crowning triumphs of the 
 temperance reform. 
 
 But if we glance at the relation of 
 strict liquor offenses to the total offenses, 
 and from the aggregate cost of police 
 services deduce that part of the cost 
 occasioned by the saloons, it will in- 
 stantly be concluded that effectual Pro- 
 hibition, by its necessary influence upon 
 the cost of the police department alone, 
 cannot fail to do much toward squaring 
 the losses due to extinguishment of liquor 
 licenses. Comparisons are made in the 
 table on p. 547 for 38 leading cities, the 
 figures in each case being for the munici- 
 pal year ending in 1889 or early in 
 1890. In every instance the arrests for 
 " drunkenness and disorderly conduct " 
 are for those specific offenses only, and 
 the returns under such titles as "va- 
 grancy," "loitering," "suspicious per- 
 -sons," " persons assisted to their homes," 
 and under similar designations which 
 veil mere liquor ofEenses, are ignored. 
 No doubt this accounts for the compar- 
 atively small percentages in cities like 
 Cincinnati, New Orleans, Kansas City 
 (Mo.), Memphis, Eichmond (Va.), Los 
 Angeles and Charleston (S. C), some of 
 which are among the most notorious 
 
 rum centers of the country. There is 
 no discoverable reason why the "drunks 
 and disorderlies" should constitute 85 
 per cent, of the total arrests in a com- 
 paratively' quiet place like Trenton and 
 only 27 per cent, in a city like Cincinnati 
 which has so long been known as a 
 Sodom of the saloon, 80 per cent, in 
 Mobile and only 30 per cent, in Memphis, 
 77 per cent, in Hartford and only 21 per 
 cent, in Kansas City (Mo.) The average 
 percentage of 53 is really much too 
 small, 1 but considering that it has been 
 obtained without resorting to any process 
 of interpretation, but simply by taking 
 those figures that the designing police 
 officials have not covered up with vague 
 titles, it is significant enough." 
 
 1 A percentage that is nearer the real one, and yet 
 probably under the mark, is that given for the city of 
 Boston in 1881 by Carroll D. Wright, in his notable in- 
 vestigation of the " Influence of Intemperance upon. 
 Crime" in Massachusetts. (See footnote, p. 529.) Mr. 
 Wright found that in the year covered by his inquiry 
 72 per cent, of all the commitments for offenses in 
 Boston was for "distinctively rum offenBes," and that 
 this percentage was increased to 84 by counting the caBes 
 of persons who were in liquor at the time of committing 
 offenses. It is not possible that so careful a statistician as 
 Mr. Wright would have used these Boston figures for the 
 purpose of a dispassionate study if the percentage of 
 commitments for rum offenses shown by them had Deen. 
 above a fair average for large cities. 
 
 2 The table on the next page is taken from the Voice 
 for Nov. 20, 1890. (In all instances the figures as pub- 
 lished in the Voice have been compared with original 
 data; and some inaccuracies have been corrected.) 
 
 This table (p. 547) supplies an excellent basis for calcu- 
 lating the approximate total number of arrests cauBed 
 peculiarly by drink, and the approximate total expendi- 
 ture for police purposes on account of these drink-caused 
 arrests, for all the cities of the United States. 
 
 According to the Census of 1880 (the 1890 returns for 
 all cities not being available at the time this is written), 
 the total population of all the cities having over 4,000 in- 
 habitants was in that year 18,234,796. Of this population 
 the 38 cities represented in the table had 6,614,140, or 
 almost exactly one-half. Assuming that the remaining 
 cities have as many arrests and spend as much for their 
 police departments as the 88 cities instanced, we get the 
 following figures: 
 
 Total arrests annually in all the cities having 4,000' 
 or more inhabitants, with an aggregate population of 
 13,234,796 (as shown by the Census of 1880), 1,026,722. 
 
 Total annual expenses of the police departments of 
 these cities, $33,370,600. 
 
 How many of these total arrests and how much of this- 
 total expenditure for the police are to be charged dis- 
 tinctively to drink? Clearly we cannot get at reliable 
 results by using the average percentage of " drunks and 
 disorderlies "given in the table. That percentage is ridicu- 
 lously low. Even Mr. Carroll D. Wright's percentage of 
 72 for the city of Boston was too small for that city, and 
 taking Mr. Wright's inquiry as a foundation we find that 
 84 is nearer the true percentage. (See footnote, p. 529.) 
 But assuming that the arrests due to drink in the cities 
 will average, in round numbers, 80 per cent, of all the 
 arrests, the following conclusions are obtained: 
 
 Total annual arrests due to drink in cities having an 
 aggregate of 13,234,796 population (Census of 1880), 820,978. 
 
 Total expenditures (proportionate) in these cities for 
 police duty on account of the drink traffic, $26,696,480. 
 
 These figures are based on police returns for the year 
 1889 and population returns for the year 1880. The popu- 
 lation of all the cities represented has increased largely 
 since 1880, so that their aggregate number of inhabitants 
 is probably now not less than 17,000,000. Therefore all 
 the preceding eetimate6 should be for a city population of 
 about 17,000,000 instead of 13,234,796. 
 
 The total population of the United States, city and 
 country, is about 63,000,000. Consequently the new cities 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 547 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 Cities. 
 
 Total 
 Arrests. 
 
 Arrests for 
 
 Drunkenness 
 
 and Disorderly 
 
 Conduct. 
 
 Per cent, op 
 Arrests that 
 are for Drunk 
 and d isor- 
 
 DERLY. 
 
 Total Expense 
 of Maintaining 
 the Police De- 
 partment. 
 
 Proportionate 
 Cost of Policing 
 Drunks and Dis- 
 orderlies. 
 
 
 82,200 
 
 48,119 
 
 42,678 
 
 34,681 
 
 19,724 
 
 40,066 
 
 31,420 
 
 28,549 
 
 15,695 
 
 10,377 
 
 20,150 
 
 21,150 
 
 9,315 
 
 8,746 
 
 7,436 
 
 7,779 
 
 6,964 
 
 7,213 
 
 6,901 
 
 6,888 
 
 6,617 
 
 5,488 
 
 4,557 
 
 3,949 
 
 3,735 
 
 3,594 
 
 3,756 
 
 3.452 
 
 3,843 
 
 3,214 
 
 3,133 
 
 2,950 
 
 2,862 
 
 2,705 
 
 2,504 
 
 2,347 
 
 2,314 
 
 1,855 
 
 47,666 
 27,536 
 20,097 
 19,592 
 9,207 
 25,418 
 20,100 
 12,773 
 4,169 
 6,414 
 ' 7,266 
 7,443 
 4,533 
 5,259 
 4,069 
 1,667 
 4,748 
 2,129 
 2,610 
 3,447 
 3,658 
 3,851 
 3,318 
 8,032 
 1,863 
 1,763 
 1,163 
 1,018 
 2,581 
 2,242 
 1,660 
 1,459 
 1,470 
 1,096 
 2,001 
 1,995 
 1,226 
 1,007 
 
 58 
 
 57 
 47 
 57 
 47 
 63 
 64 
 54 
 27 
 62 
 36 
 35 
 49 
 60 
 55 
 21 
 68 
 30 
 38 
 50 
 55 
 70 
 72 
 77 
 50 
 49 
 31 
 29 
 77 
 69 
 53 
 50 
 51 
 41 
 80 
 85 
 53 
 54 
 
 $4,426,347.11 
 
 1,602,594.60 
 
 1,807,700.40 
 
 1,588,439.99 
 
 571,850.00 
 
 1,181,914.46 
 
 780,010.79 
 
 535,498.79 
 
 469.195.61 
 
 32<128.80 
 
 180,000.00 
 
 451,440.00 
 
 102,000.00 
 
 331,877.56 
 
 194,341.55 
 
 163,500.00 
 
 180,000.00 
 
 57,583.88 
 
 97.222.50 
 
 178,983.02 
 
 270,333.12 
 
 189,000.00 
 
 89,954.07 
 
 98,241.82 
 
 49,917 50 
 
 48,120.75 
 
 78,000.00 
 
 67.335.00 
 
 66,000.00 
 
 85,000.00 
 
 133,817.18 
 
 45.000.00 
 
 45,000.00 
 
 63,756.09 
 
 28,520.00 
 
 38,000.00 
 
 22,600.11 
 
 52,180.12 
 
 $2,567,281.32 
 
 913,478.(12 
 
 849,019.19 
 
 905.410.79 
 
 268,769.50 
 
 744,606.11 
 
 499,206.91 
 
 289,166.65 
 
 126,682.81 
 
 200,959.86 
 
 64,800.00 
 
 158,004.00 
 
 49,980.00 
 
 193,126.54 
 
 106,832.85 
 
 34,335.00 
 
 122,400 00 
 
 17,275.16 
 
 36,944.55 
 
 89,491.51 
 
 148,683.22 
 
 132,300.00 
 
 64,766.93 
 
 75,646.20 
 
 24,958.75 
 
 23,579.17 
 
 24,180.00 
 
 19,527.15 
 
 50,820.00 
 
 58,650.00 
 
 70,923.11 
 
 23,500.00 
 
 22,950.00 
 
 26,140.00 
 
 22,816.00 
 
 32,300.00 
 
 11,978.06 
 
 28,177.26 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Washington, D. C 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Paul 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Charleston, S. C 
 
 
 Albany, N. Y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Totals 
 
 513,361 
 
 272,430 
 
 53 
 
 $16,686,299.82 
 
 $8,843,208.90 
 
 
 i There is an apparent discrepancy between these figures of arrests in Minneapolis and the figures given in the 
 table on p. 521. But as is explained in the summary appended to that table, the police year was m 1889 changed so as 
 to end on Dec. 31 instead of March 30, so that the arrests given on p. 531 include only nine months of the year 1889. 
 To these figures for nine months we have added, in the table above the figures for the three months from Dec. 81, 
 1889, to March 31, 1890— making a full year. The expenses of the Police Department of Minneapolis for the year 
 March 31, 1889, to March 31, 1890, are estimated. 
 
 This table shows in a practical way 
 that if Prohibition can, as it does, 
 greatly reduce arrests for drunkenness 
 and disorderly conduct, a considerable 
 part of the lost license revenue will at 
 once be offset by a decrease in the cost 
 of the police. Another large part of 
 the police expense arises from the numer- 
 ous contributions made by the saloons to 
 the number of apprehensions for offenses 
 other than " drunk and disorderly " (see 
 Mr. Wright's statistics, footnote p. 529), 
 and thus enforced Prohibition will effect 
 another saving in the police department. 
 
 that have reached the 4,000 mark since 1880, the smaller 
 citie6, the towns and the rural districts contain about 
 46,000,000 inhabitants. Among these are many Prohibi- 
 tory localities. The work and cost of the police are rela- 
 tively less in these than in the large centers already con- 
 sidered. Let us asBume that the whole of these 46,000,- 
 000 people produce no more offenders and pay no more 
 for police service than the 17,000,000 city people; never- 
 theless the number of arrests caused by the saloons for 
 the whole country will then be not less than 1.600,000 
 annually, and the proportionate amount paid the police 
 for making these saloon caused arrests will be more than 
 $53,000,000 annually for the nation at large. 
 
 A policy that lightens the work of the 
 police must lighten the burden of the 
 Courts and jails. And the public expend- 
 iture for almshouses, hospitals, asylums, 
 reformatories and houses of refuge can- 
 not fail to be materially lessened by a 
 measure that so gratif yingly lessens crime 
 and disorder. 
 
 All this simply applies the test of 
 facts and common sense to the statements 
 of the Kansas Probate Judges and the 
 Iowa Prosecuting Attorneys. The fami- 
 liar answer that ideal Prohibition and 
 unexecuted Prohibition are entirely dif- 
 ferent things, and that unexecuted Pro- 
 hibition is the more frequently encoun- 
 tered in the great cities, does not affect 
 the fundamental consideration that the 
 Prohibition policy, even as a fiscal meas- 
 ure, has within it the possibilities of 
 beneficence, and that wide experience 
 has failed to condemn even partial Pro- 
 hibition on fiscal grounds. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 548 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 Nor does the second part of this asser- 
 tion require any qualification. All Pro- 
 hibition up to this date has been but par- 
 tial. Given some encouraging degree of 
 enforcement, and we shall invariably 
 find that the tax assessments upon the 
 general community are lighter or at most 
 are not appreciably heavier because of 
 the sacrifice of license revenues. 
 
 At times, it is true, there is an appa- 
 rent increase. But when the reasons are 
 sought it is seen that the advance has 
 been brought about by special causes, 
 oftenest by public improvements made 
 possible (presumably) by greater pros- 
 perity. Thus the Hon. Charles Dan- 
 forth, Justice of the Supreme Court of 
 Maine for 25 years, gives the following 
 discriminating account of the situation 
 in that State : 
 
 "I can very well remember the condition of 
 the community in regard to temperance before 
 and at the time the Prohibitory law was passed. 
 The same financial evils were then prophesied 
 as resulting from it as now. But so far as can 
 be perceived none of them have come to pass. 
 It is evident that less liquor is sold now than 
 then. It is equally true that more of other and 
 more wholesome business is done now. It is 
 true taxes are higher now, but the difference is 
 more than accounted for in the increased facili- 
 ties for doing business, and improvements in 
 better roads, schools, protection from fires and 
 diseases, in lighted streets and more comfortable 
 public buildings, as well as in all those things 
 which pertain to a better life and higher civiliza- 
 tion. So the increased public expense is more 
 than compensated for by increased advantages 
 to individuals. It is quite certain that the Pro- 
 hibitory law has had nothing to do with this 
 increased public expense. If it has tended to 
 diminish intemperance it is self-evident that its 
 tendency must be the other way." 
 
 Similar reports come from the Western 
 Prohibition States. Taxes have de- 
 creased or have not increased — so testify 
 the officials of most of the counties of 
 Kansas and Iowa. 1 But those who con- 
 fess an increase almost without exception 
 account for it by saying that extensive im- 
 provements have been inaugurated since 
 Prohibition took effect. 
 
 The writers who defend the liquor- 
 saloons have unscrupulously attacked 
 Prohibition by comparing tax-rates in 
 Kansas and Iowa with tax-rates in cer- 
 tain selected license cities. For example, 
 a leaflet used in all the recent Amend- 
 ment campaigns, of which probably 
 millions of copies were scattered, gave 
 
 J See especially the Voice, April 4 and May 16, 1889. 
 
 these figures: Tax-rate in Des Moines, 
 6.2 per cent. ; in Atchison, 5.65 per cent. ; 
 in Topeka, 3.28 per cent.; in Kansas 
 City (Mo.), 1.4 per cent. Any fair com- 
 parison of tax-rates in different com- 
 munities involves the necessity of deli- 
 cate distinctions. In some places natural 
 conditions are more favorable to low 
 taxes than in others ; in some, at a given 
 time, heavy but temporary burdens are 
 imposed because of public enterprises, 
 while in others no such enterprises 
 are afoot; in some, extravagant and cor- 
 rupt men are in charge, while in others 
 economical and honorable officials ad- 
 minister affairs ; in some, property is 
 assessed for taxation purposes at but a 
 mere fraction of its market value, while 
 in others it is assessed at nearly or quite 
 its actual value. Throughout Kansas 
 and Iowa the custom is to assess property 
 at from one-third to one-sixth its real 
 worth, and thus a seemingly high tax- 
 rate prevails, although the fact is that 
 the tax-bills paid by citizens are, on the 
 average, proportionately smaller than in 
 neighboring license States. 
 
 Proof of this has been established by 
 painstaking investigations. The Hon. 
 Albert H. Horton, Chief-Justice of the 
 Kansas Supreme Court, is authority for 
 this statement : 
 
 "From 1880 to 1889 the assessed value of 
 property in Kansas has increased over $200,- 
 000, 000. In Nebraska, under license, its valu- 
 ation has increased only a little over $92,000,- 
 000. The average rate of increase in Kansas 
 has been $20,000,000 annually, while in 
 Nebraska it has been only $9,000,000. The 
 increase in wealth in Kansas has more than 
 doubled that of Nebraska, although the latter 
 has been aided by its $1,000 license tax. 
 
 "The tax-rate for State purposes [in Kansas] • 
 has steadily decreased since 1880, when it was 
 55 cents on $100, to 40 cents in 1889; while in 
 Nebraska it has increased from 39 cents and 5 
 mills in 1880 to 63 cents and 3 mills in 1889. 
 Its average rate [in Nebraska] for the last nine 
 years has been 56 cents and 7 mills, making 
 its present rate more than 50 per cent, higher 
 than in Kansas, showing clearly that license 
 for revenue increases instead of diminishing 
 taxation."" 
 
 And the Voice, in 1890, by means of 
 persistent correspondence, secured data 
 from a majority of the county officials of 
 Kansas, Iowa and Nebraska, which when 
 analyzed showed conclusively that taxes 
 were relatively higher in the High 
 License State than in the two Prohibi- 
 
 2 The Void, Sept. 18, 1890. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 549 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 tion States.. We summarize the Voice's 
 exhaustive tables. 1 
 
 Kansas: 73 of the 106 Counties.— Total as- 
 sessed valuation of property in counties report- 
 ing, $280,984,573.07; total actual value, $1 - 
 016,782,230.61 ; total taxes levied for county 
 purposes in counties reporting, $2,640,389.29- 
 average amount represented by $100 of assessed 
 valuation, $362 ; average rate on $100 of as- 
 sessed valuation, $0,939 ; average actual rate of 
 taxation on $100 in the counties reporting, 
 
 Iowa: 82 of the 99 Counties.— Total assessed 
 valuation of property in counties reporting 
 $435,570,141.50; total actual value, $1,346,- 
 104,100 ; total taxes levied for county purposes 
 in counties reporting, $3,851,061.07 ; average 
 amount represented by $100 of assessed valua- 
 tion, $310 ; average rate on $100 of assessed 
 valuation, $0,884 ; average actual rate of taxa- 
 tion on $100 in the counties reporting, $0,286 ; 
 average actual rate in 72 counties, exclusive of 10 
 Mississippi river counties in which it is said the 
 Prohibitory law is not enforced, $0,269. 
 
 Nebraska: 68 of the 88 Counties.— Total as- 
 sessed valuation of property in counties report- 
 ing, $141,094,705.16; total actual value, $802,- 
 215,068.80; total taxes levied for county pur- 
 poses in counties reporting, $2,226,857.34 ; 
 average amount represented by $100 of assessed 
 valuation, $568 ; average rate on $100 of as- 
 sessed valuation, $1,577; average actual rate of 
 taxation on $100 in the counties reporting, 
 $0,277. 
 
 Summary of Actual Tax-Rates (County Pur- 
 poses). — Kansas, $0,259 per $100 ; Iowa (omit- 
 ting 10 Mississippi river counties), $0,269 per 
 $100 ; Nebraska, $0,277 ; per $100. 
 
 Average Tax-Mates for County and State Pur- 
 poses Combined. — Kansas (73 counties), $1,349 
 per $100 of assessed valuation, or $0,372 per 
 $100 of actual value. Iowa (72 counties), 
 $1,134 per $100 of assessed valuation, or $0,350 
 per $100 of actual value. Nebraska (68 counties), 
 $2,227 per $100 of assessed valuation, or 
 $0,391 per $100 of actual value. 
 
 These scrupulously fair and most valu- 
 able comparisons remove all possibility 
 of doubt as to the harmlessness of a 
 tolerably well-enforced Prohibitory law 
 in its effects upon State and county taxa- 
 tion. But they do not illustrate the con- 
 sequences upon taxation for city pur- 
 poses. In regard to city taxation it is very 
 difficult, indeed impracticable, to make 
 general averages for a whole State. Local 
 differences cause wide variations in local 
 tax-rates, and to strike a general average 
 for various cities would be much like 
 averaging different fractions without re- 
 ducing them to a common denominator 
 — an impossible task. But if several 
 typical cities of Prohibition and license 
 States, respectively, are examined, it can 
 
 i See the Voice, Oct. 30, 1890. 
 
 at least be learned whether the tendency 
 in the Prohibition cities gives color to- 
 unfavorable representations. The Voice 
 supplemented its county tax returns by 
 comparing cities of Kansas with cities of 
 Nebraska and Missouri, and cities of 
 Iowa with cities of Michigan, Minnesota 
 and Wisconsin, as follows : 2 
 
 
 ss'd valua- 
 tion of all 
 property, 
 real or per- 
 sonal (1889). 
 
 oh. a MS- P 3 
 
 S'g 
 
 3- 
 
 Cities. 
 
 ax levied ; 
 city pu 
 poses, 
 ctndin 
 8chool(186 
 
 ^ a 5 
 
 ° « § 
 
 
 
 <J 
 
 frn 
 
 ¥$ 
 
 « 
 
 Kansas : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Topeka , . 
 
 $9,228,838.60 
 
 $278,710.93 
 
 $500 
 
 $3.02 
 
 $.60 
 
 Kan. City 
 
 8,000,000.00 
 
 237,600.00 
 
 350 
 
 2.97 
 
 .85 
 
 Salina . . , 
 
 1,735,189.79 
 
 50,667.54 
 
 400 
 
 2.92 
 
 .73 
 
 Ottawa.. . 
 
 1,300,000.00 
 
 43,600.00 
 
 400 
 
 3.35 
 
 .84 
 
 Abilene . . 
 
 815,000.00 
 
 29,340.00 
 
 450 
 
 3.60 
 
 .80 
 
 fl'br'ska: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Omaha... 
 
 20,047,589.00 
 
 994,881.42 
 
 700 
 
 4.96 
 
 .71 
 
 Lincoln . . 
 
 5,600,000.00 
 
 217,342.05 
 
 600 
 
 3.95 
 
 .66 
 
 G'd Isla'd 
 
 1,059,068.00 
 
 44,701.30 
 
 600 
 
 4.22 
 
 .70 
 
 Fremont . 
 
 837,000.00 
 
 35,363.25' 
 
 800 
 
 4.25 
 
 .53 
 
 wanoo. . . 
 
 290,000.00 
 
 11,890.00 
 
 500 
 
 4.10 
 
 .82 
 
 Missouri : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Joseph 
 
 23,610,000.00 
 
 389,465.00= 
 
 230 
 
 1.65 
 
 .72 
 
 Hannibal 
 
 3,402,830.00 
 
 62,952.34 
 
 150 
 
 1.85 
 
 1.24 
 
 Carthage . 
 
 1,645,678.00 
 
 31,267.88 
 
 300 
 
 1.90 
 
 .63 
 
 Moberly .. 
 
 1,050,000.00 
 
 25,200.00 
 
 300 
 
 2.40 
 
 .80 
 
 Clinton... 
 
 1,114,020.00 
 
 16,710.30 
 
 200 
 
 1.50 
 
 .75 
 
 1 Fremont's report does not include water-works and 
 interest on water bonds and City Hall, Court House and 
 intersection bonds. 2 Not stated whether school tax is in- 
 cluded. 
 
 Cities. 
 
 d valua- 
 n of all 
 
 p e r ty, 
 
 1 and per- 
 ml (1889). 
 
 levied for 
 y pur- 
 ses f or 
 i, school 
 included. 
 
 P 
 
 (fiO m 
 
 a-^ p 
 a o 
 
 »% B 
 
 aj 
 
 S * "£ 
 
 +J 
 
 oag 
 
 
 
 H-OJOM 
 
 
 a*, a 
 a > 
 
 » 
 
 s > 
 K 
 
 Iowa : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Burling'n 
 
 $4,393,445.00 
 
 $184,446.78 
 
 $400 
 
 $4.20 
 
 $1.05 
 
 Cedar I 
 
 Rapids j 
 
 D. Moines 
 
 3,172,300.00 
 
 90,029.32: 
 
 400 
 
 2.84 
 
 .71 
 
 11,396,840.00 
 
 331,648,04 2 
 
 500 
 
 2.91 
 
 .58 
 
 Dubuque. 
 
 17,868,940.00 
 
 188,500.09= 
 
 200 
 
 1.05 
 
 .52 
 
 MuscHine 
 
 2,462,567.00 
 
 66,489.30 
 
 300 
 
 2.70 
 
 .90 
 
 Osk'loosa 
 
 1,299,979.00 
 
 57,605,47 
 
 400 
 
 4.43 
 
 1.11 
 
 Waterloo. 
 
 1,035,689.00 
 
 39,515.08 
 
 250 
 
 3.73 
 
 1.50 
 
 Michigan: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Jackson . . 
 
 7,037,040.00 
 
 148,509.93 
 
 300 
 
 2.11 
 
 .70 
 
 E. Sag- i 
 inaw 3 . f 
 
 10,665,220.00 
 
 251,353 20 
 
 150 
 
 2.36 
 
 1.57 
 
 Saginaw 3 
 
 5,300,000.00 
 
 112,890.00 
 
 150 
 
 2.13 
 
 1.42 
 
 Battle Ck 
 
 3,780,151.00 
 
 48,500.00 2 
 
 2U0 
 
 1.28 
 
 64 
 
 Manistee . 
 
 2,378,610.00 
 
 69,931.13 
 
 300 
 
 2.94 
 
 .98 
 
 Mm'sola: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Min'polis 
 
 127,101,861.00 
 
 2,948,290.95 
 
 400 
 
 2.32 
 
 .58 
 
 Duluth... 
 
 22,047,322.00 
 
 414,489.65 
 
 
 1.88 
 
 
 Winona . . 
 
 6,832,228.00 
 
 198,818.66 
 
 '250 
 
 2.91 
 
 1.16 
 
 Red Wing 
 
 1,770,988.00 
 
 27.987.33 2 
 
 300 
 
 1.58 
 
 .53 
 
 Hastings . 
 
 1,186,790.00 
 
 19.049.61 
 
 150 
 
 1.60 
 
 1.07 
 
 Brainerd . 
 
 1,641,621.00 
 
 34,474.04 
 
 150 
 
 2.10 
 
 1.40 
 
 Anoka 
 
 1,417,531.00 
 
 30,496.92 
 
 200 
 
 2.15 
 
 1.08 
 
 Wise 1 sin : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Madison . 
 
 6,396,917.00 
 
 79,618.57 
 
 150 
 
 1.24 
 
 .83 
 
 Milw'kee. 
 
 100,498,200.00 
 
 1,831,746.71 
 
 21)11 
 
 1.82 
 
 .91 
 
 Oshkosh.. 
 
 7,093,005.00 
 
 167,040.56 
 
 200 
 
 2.35 
 
 1.18 
 
 Sheb'gan. 
 
 3,742,435.00 
 
 97,951.35 
 
 250 
 
 2.62 
 
 1.05 
 
 Appleton. 
 
 3,504,725.00 
 
 84,176.60 
 
 300 
 
 2.40 
 
 .80 
 
 Manito- 1 
 woe. J 
 
 1,821,325.00 
 
 46,291.65 
 
 200 
 
 2.54 
 
 1.27 
 
 1 Not stated whether school tax is included. 2 School 
 tax not included. 3 Saginaw and East Saginaw are now 
 one. 
 
 2 Ibid, Oct. 2, 1890. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 550 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 Naturally the city tax-rates in all the 
 States instanced show marked differ- 
 ences. But there is nothing in the 
 Kansas and Iowa figures to fortify the 
 anti-Prohibitionists' assertions. 
 
 If the evidence that we have given is 
 taken with some allowance because it 
 has been collated by Prohibitionist par- 
 tisans, the same objection will not attach 
 to the following Census statistics : 
 
 a n> p-o m a cd 
 2 O l-H S- o- P S ■ 
 
 a " p c m — 
 
 _ f ft— . 
 
 §'l£gtt 
 
 a&- 3°%s.2*z$ 
 
 3 fel 
 
 
 ; ". 
 
 ~2 c 
 
 gggsss 
 
 3Es 
 
 a « ■ • 
 » S " • 
 
 
 O CO CO Or -1 OS CD 
 
 ■.',-■ ". ■£> B OS W W 
 OlO-QOCOO^ 
 
 (OjICSCOCOiOiJi'-' 
 
 . otoo 
 
 or tojo^ coco 
 
 fcS GO «3 Otfv'ts'iO 
 JO j£ j~J OS *■- j~5 to 
 
 "bi "ta os ^- i oi"^- 1 co 
 
 OS I-* OS if- CO " -3 
 
 CtCHCOOOC 
 
 .u 
 
 -qoscoct 
 -q *o i& as & c 
 
 .KOOOOC 
 
 CO CO JS- -1 OS «5 C7T 
 COCO>— 'QOi^OSQOCO 
 rfi. C7T CO Q0_CO OS O UI 
 
 ^tOCSOTGOGOOi'lO 
 -1 OS -1 to to CD co *» 
 i—^-acooscn*.os 
 
 5£ toSSor 
 5w So S3 w 
 
 » ft K ABES 
 
 CO OS ^ (O 
 CD -3 OS OS 
 
 CO J* }S*3tD*-L JJI 
 rf». W *1 OS «3*V5 >-*CO 
 O CO -1 ©JO_f-i_^ «l 
 
 ococs^lcocsiZ^- 
 
 COCOCOCCtOOO-J 
 
 © COCOC" OS 
 
 CO Ml -1 io £ C" SO 
 
 OS-l Co"rf*."C7T"VoOD 
 -I -1 O i-"X OS i- 1 
 o en co en i& i- 1 co 
 
 *~ to CO I en to t> 
 
 lO C *- CI CS UI C 
 
 5 rf* Oi OS CO rf>- 
 
 CCOS-vl>- l Crt-300s 
 ►-*. to -1 o en co co i-* 
 ao^ coj-^ w -q o 
 o>os"k--"'-i'^i'co'coo i f 
 
 OCJIXitUOMi-' 
 
 £*.aocnosco<jicorf*. 
 
 —7 COQMI- 
 CS CO CO C CD Q 
 
 © >->• to co cs c 
 
 5j in-!"" 1 co ~l co os 
 
 mMr co os oop os 
 
 cSqwwocoooS 
 tocowoccco^jto 
 
 CO -1 CO OS *1 CO OS 
 
 * or co to co co 6 
 
 -1 OS COM 
 l-i OS OI OS Oi CO fc 
 C7I -Q CO CO CO C7T - 
 
 u 
 z 
 B 
 e 
 
 M ^ 
 
 O 
 
 13 s 
 ►■p 
 
 W ^ M *0 
 ► H« H 
 to Si »j S 
 
 3> 
 
 
 
 R * 
 
 a 3 882 ^ 
 
 1 H ' 
 
 The table is from the Census returns 
 for 1890, under the title of " Total Debts 
 and Available Eesources of Representa- 
 tive Municipalities in Various States for 
 1880 and 1890," as given in Census Bul- 
 letin No. 14 (Table 51), issued by the 
 Census Bureau near the end of 1890. 
 Not all the cities in the respective States 
 are included — only certain ones selected 
 by the Census officials as typical. 
 
 It is not a little significant that the 
 tax argument has least weight with citi- 
 zens who have actually experienced the 
 results of Prohibition and may be re- 
 garded as more candid judges than the 
 drunkard-makers and their subsidized 
 editors and pamphleteers. Year after 
 year the tax-payers of four-fifths of the 
 Massachusetts towns and a number of 
 the cities of that State steadily decline 
 to accept license money from saloons, 
 although the statute places no limit upon 
 the fee which any locality may fix for 
 the privilege of liquor-selling. No in- 
 telligent man, knowing the practical 
 spirit of the Massachusetts "Yankee," 
 will say that this sturdy opposition is 
 caused by mere blind fanaticism or runs 
 counter to sound fiscal policy. It is in- 
 deed a most instructive fact that a vast 
 majority of the communities of so con- 
 servative a State, after nearly half a cen- 
 tury of alternate trials of Prohibition 
 and license, have come to the settled con- 
 clusion that it is best on all grounds not 
 to invite the saloons to assist in paying 
 taxes. The town of Dracut, Mass., with 
 a population of about 2,000, made a novel 
 experiment in 1890. Only one liquor 
 license was issued, and the great price of 
 $8,000 was charged for it. The licensee 
 immediately prepared to conduct busi- 
 ness on a large scale, and the prospects 
 seemed bright for him, since the city of 
 Lowell, close by, had voted for Prohi- 
 bition and had no licensed saloons to 
 supply the demand. For two days 
 Dracut was thronged with a drunken 
 rabble, and then the Town Selectmen, 
 with the approval of the citizens who 
 had most at stake, cancelled the $8,000 
 license. 1 Always it is found, where Pro- 
 hibition is in effect or is proposed, that 
 as a class the well-to-do citizens, the 
 men who have tax-bills to pay and whose 
 judgment as to consequences is keenest, 
 
 i The Voice, May 22, 1890. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 551 
 
 are inclined to discountenance license on 
 any terms, and that the scum of the 
 population, the thieves and loafers, the 
 irresponsible and the illiterate individ- 
 uals, are the readiest supporters of the 
 proposition that license promotes the 
 public welfare and reduces taxes. 
 
 The assertion that Prohibition has a 
 depopulating tendency is founded either 
 on dense ignorance or on heartless mis- 
 representations. Intrinsically it is ludi- 
 crous. The evidence that enforced Pro- 
 hibition cleanses a community of its 
 crime-producing and disorder-breeding 
 institutions, makes less work for the 
 police, the Courts and the prison and 
 almshouse keepers, and is of benefit also 
 to the material interests of the people as 
 a whole, is too abundant and positive to 
 be disputed. By what method of reason- 
 ing can it be predicted that in conse- 
 quence of the very policy which has 
 such effects the increase of population 
 will be retarded ? The saloon-keepers, 
 bartenders, brewers and distillers, and 
 numbers of rogues and ruffians of high 
 and low degree, will probably move 
 away: that is admitted. But their ag- 
 gregate number is relatively small, and 
 even if no better people come to take 
 their places the loss must be esteemed an 
 economic gain. It is said that a consid- 
 erable element of " liberal " citizens, re- 
 spectable and estimable, will not brook 
 Prohibitory interference with their per- 
 sonal liberty and will hasten away from 
 the puritanical spot. But while some 
 highly intolerant persons of this class 
 may impulsively desire to leave, very few 
 whose retention is really desirable will 
 actually do so. Local ties are strong; es- 
 tablished business and social interests are 
 not sacrificed by prudent men for the 
 sake of a prejudice or a whim; the per- 
 sonal grievance will be endured with a 
 certain fortitude, sustained by a confi- 
 dence in the resources of the express 
 office and a willingness to await tangible 
 evidence of the probability of improving 
 the existing lot. Therefore it may be 
 expected that the offended drinking man, 
 if he is indeed a useful member of the 
 community, will emulate the example set 
 by a well-known capitalist, who in a 
 heated Presidential campaign announced 
 that if a particular candidate were suc- 
 cessful he would sell his property at 50 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 cents on the dollar, but after the election 
 of the abhorred aspirant clung to his 
 possessions with unrelaxed tenacity. 
 The behavior of the' violent Boston 
 partisan, who committed suicide on the 
 night of another Presidential election 
 because the returns showed the defeat of 
 his favorite, has few parallels. It is 
 natural for individuals — and worthy in- 
 dividuals — of strong prejudices to de- 
 clare that they will shake the dust of a 
 certain locality from their feet if a meas- 
 ure distasteful to them is carried; but it 
 is equally natural for all men of ordinary 
 sense to remain in the old place of resi- 
 dence until there is visible proof that the 
 conditions of life will be bettered by re- 
 moving to another place. 
 
 "If any person," says Justice Valen- 
 tine of the Supreme Court of Kansas, 
 " has refused to immigrate to this State 
 because of the Prohibition of liquor- 
 saloons, then the State is undoubtedly 
 that much better for it, and if any per- 
 son has removed from the State because 
 of the Prohibition of liquor-saloons the 
 State is equally benefited." 1 This opinion, 
 however uncomplimentary to some who 
 drink in "moderation" and with "in- 
 nocence," expresses a conviction that is 
 deep-rooted in the most observant men 
 of Kansas and every other Prohibition 
 State. " As regards the assertion that 
 Prohibition has driven people out of the 
 State," writes ex-Governor Larrabee of 
 Iowa, " I think not a person has left the 
 State on account of Prohibition whom 
 it is desirable to have return." 2 It is 
 needless to amplify such testimony. An 
 overwhelming majority of the State, 
 county and local officials, and of the 
 most respectable private citizens, declare 
 that the Prohibitory laws have operated 
 to increase rather than to diminish the 
 total population, and, what is more im- 
 portant, to elevate its character. And 
 there is nowhere a keener sensitiveness 
 to all influences that may disturb growth 
 than in Iowa and Kansas. 
 
 In the following table the populations 
 (1870, 1880 and 1890) of the Prohibition 
 States are compared with those of their 
 nearest license neighbors, and in each 
 instance where a State Census was taken 
 in 1885 the figures are given : 
 
 1 The Voice, Oct. 9, 1890. 
 
 2 Letter to Eev. William Puller of Aberdeen, S. D., 
 Feb. 16, 1889. (See the "Political Prohibitionist for 
 1889," p. 53.) 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 552 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 States. 
 
 1870. 
 
 Maine 
 
 Vermont 
 
 New Hampshire 
 Massachusetts 
 Connecticut . . 
 Rhode Island. 
 
 Kansas 
 
 Iowa 
 
 North Dakota. 
 South Dakota. 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 626,915 
 330,551 
 318,300 
 1,457,351 
 537,454 
 217,353 
 
 364,399 
 1,194,020 
 
 !■ 14,181 1 
 
 123,993 
 
 1,721,295 
 
 439,706 
 
 1880. 
 
 648,936 
 832,386 
 346,991 
 1.783,085 
 622,700 
 276,531 
 
 996,096 
 1,624,615 
 
 452,402 
 
 2,168,380 
 
 780,773 
 
 1885. 
 
 1,943,141 
 
 304,284 
 
 1,268,530 
 1,753,980 
 
 1 415,610 j 
 
 740,645 
 
 1,117,798 
 
 661,086 
 332,422 
 376,530 
 2,238,943 
 746,258 
 345,506 
 
 1,427,096 
 1,911,896 
 182,719 
 328.808 
 1,058,910 
 2,679,184 
 1,301,826 
 
 Maine and Vermont have each been under Prohibition 
 for more than 30 years. New Hampshire while prohibit- 
 ing the retail sale licenses the manufacture. Massachu- 
 setts and Connecticut have been steadily under license in 
 the last decade. Rhode Island was under license from 
 1880 to 1886 and from 1889 to 1890; under Prohibition 
 from 1886 to 1889. Kansas voted for Prohibition in 1880 
 and Iowa in 1883. The Dakotas, while voting for Pro- 
 hibition in 1889, were steadily under license up to that 
 time, as were Nebraska, Missouri and Minnesota. 
 
 Below are given the actual increases 
 and the percentages of increase. 
 
 States. 
 
 1870 to 1880. 
 
 1880 to 1890. 
 
 INCREASE. 
 
 INCREASE. 
 
 Vermont 
 
 NewHamp- 1 
 
 Massachu- 1 
 
 Connecticut. . 
 Rhode Island 
 
 NorthDakota 
 South Dakota 
 Nebraska — 
 Missouri — 
 Minnesota . . . 
 
 22,021, or 3.51 i 
 1,735 " 0.52 " 
 
 28,691 " 9.01 " 
 
 325,734 " 28.35 " 
 
 85,246 " 15.86 " 
 59,178 " 27.23 " 
 
 631,697 " 173.35 " 
 430,595 " 36.06 " 
 
 I 120,996 " 853.23 " 
 
 329.409 " 267.83 " 
 447,085 " 25.97 " 
 341,067 " 77.57 " 
 
 12,150 or 1.87 % 
 136 " 0.04 " 
 
 29,539 " 8.51 " 
 
 455,868 " 25.57 " 
 
 123,558 " 19.84 " 
 68,975 " 84.94 " 
 
 431,000 " 43.27 " 
 287,281 " 17.68 " 
 145,810 "395.05 " 
 280.540 " 284.60 " 
 606,508 " 134.60 " 
 510,804 " 23.56 " 
 521,053 " 66.74 " 
 
 Increases in States Reporting Population Figures 
 for 1885.— Massachusetts: 1880 to 1885, 159,056, or 8.9 per 
 cent.; 1885 to 1890, 296,802, or 15.3 per cent. Rhode 
 Island: 1880 to 1885. 27,753, or 10 percent; 1885 to 1890, 
 41,222, or 13.5 per cent. Kansas: 1880 to 1885, 272,434, or 
 
 27.4 per cent.; 1885 to 1890, 158,566, or 12.5 per cent. 
 Iowa: 1880 to 1885, 129,365, or 8 per cent.; 1885 to 1890, 
 157,916, or 9 per cent. The Dakotas: 1880 to 1885, 
 280,433, or 207.5 per cent.; 1885 to 1890, 95,917, or 23.1 per 
 cent. Nebraska: 1880 to 1885, 288,243, or 63.7 per cent.; 
 1885 to 1890, 318,265, or 43 per cent. Minnesota: 1880 to 
 1885, 337,025, or 43.2 per cent.; 1885 to 1890, 184,028, or 
 
 16.5 per cent. 
 
 Viewed apart from explanations it 
 may be thought that these statistics 
 make an unfavorable showing for the 
 Prohibition States. This conclusion is 
 not borne out by impartial study. 
 
 In Maine and Vermont, the complete 
 Prohibition States of New England, 
 agriculture, lumbering and similar in- 
 dustries engage the people, and manu- 
 factures have not been developed. There 
 are no large cities to concentrate popula- 
 tion and induce rapid growth. Besides, 
 the soil is less favorable to profitable 
 agriculture than that of most other parts 
 of the Union, many farms have been 
 
 abandoned because of their unproduc- 
 tiveness, and as the young men grow up 
 they seek the richer lands of the West. 
 The same is partly true of New Hamp- 
 shire, although several cities of that 
 State are assuming importance and manu- 
 facturing is a more prominent industry 
 than in Maine and Vermont — an explan- 
 ation that fully accounts for the advan- 
 tage in point of increase of popula- 
 tion that this semi-Prohibition State 
 has over the complete Prohibition States 
 adjacent to it. In Massachusetts, Con- 
 necticut and Khode Island, the remain- 
 ing States of the group, manufacturing 
 is conducted on a great scale and large 
 cities are numerous — hence the larger 
 growth. The Census Bureau, in its re- 
 view of the New England population 
 returns, officially attributes these differ- 
 ences to the very causes above indicated, 
 and to no other causes. It says that the 
 small rate of increase in Maine, Vermont 
 and New Hampshire is " probably due to 
 the fact of a large migration of the farm- 
 ing population to the far West, and 
 manufactures not having yet assumed 
 sufficient prominence," and that Massa- 
 chusetts, Connecticut and Khode Island 
 have enjoyed greater growth because in 
 them "manufactures have assumed so 
 great prominence." ' If Prohibition has 
 had a prejudicial effect in New England 
 the State of Rhode Island ought to 
 exhibit a relatively small increase for the 
 half -decade 1885-90, since a Prohibitory 
 law was in effect during three years of 
 the five ; but the increase in that period 
 was 41,222, or 13.5 per cent., as against 
 27,753, or 10 per cent., in the half-decade 
 1880-5, when license was the law unin- 
 terruptedly. 
 
 Of the Western States represented in 
 the tables it is observable that Iowa and 
 Kansas, with the single exception of 
 Missouri, had the largest populations in 
 1880. Missouri's superiority in that year 
 was due partly to the fact that it was an 
 older State than any of the others and 
 partly to the great population of such 
 cities as St. Louis, Kansas City and St. 
 Joseph: 505,903 of its inhabitants in 
 1880 were embraced in cities having 
 above 4,000 inhabitants, while in Kansas 
 there were only 84,907 inhabitants in 
 such cities and in Iowa 201,800. Natural 
 
 i Census Bulletin No. 16 (1890), p. 1. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 553 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 circumstances kept Missouri in the lead 
 during the decade 1880-90; yet with all 
 the advantages in its favor it shows only 
 23.56 per cent, of increase as against 
 43.27 per cent, in the Prohibition State 
 of Kansas. Mere percentages, however, 
 are misleading, for when a State has at- 
 tained a development greater than that 
 of its younger neighbor its growth (if the 
 younger commonwealth presents induce- 
 ments to immigrants) is quite certain to 
 be smaller in percentage, even though 
 the numerical increase may be larger. 
 The significant fact in comparing Kan- 
 sas and Missouri is that the former has 
 had nearly as large a numerical increase 
 as the latter, notwithstanding the pres- 
 tige that such centers as St. Louis and 
 Kansas City give to Missouri in the race 
 for supremacy. 
 
 The same distinctions must govern 
 comparisons between Iowa and Kansas on 
 the one hand and Nebraska, Minnesota 
 and the Dakotas on the other. Here the 
 older States are Iowa and Kansas. The 
 other three were comparatively unde- 
 veloped in 1880. Their vast unoccupied 
 lands offered greater possibilities to 
 greater numbers. Anyone who is disin- 
 clined to attach much importance to this 
 explanation will recognize its weight 
 when the history of Oklahoma Territory 
 is recalled. Oklahoma is a rich region, 
 but no richer than many other parts of 
 the "West; yet when it was thrown open 
 to settlement in 1889 its virgin fields 
 were so eagerly coveted that more than 
 60^000 people took residence there within 
 a year. Besides, the Nebraska cities of 
 Omaha and Lincoln and the Minnesota 
 cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis were 
 in their infancy in 1880 : the enormous 
 growth that these places enjoyed in the 
 succeeding 10 years is almost without 
 precedent. The Dakotas, on the con- 
 trary, have no cities comparable with 
 Minnesota's and Nebraska's, and the Da- 
 kota increase of population has been 
 almost wholly in the rural districts. 
 While very large it is numerically less 
 than Kansas's. 
 
 Therefore we see that the operation of 
 natural laws of development fully ac- 
 counts for the larger gains made by Mis- 
 souri, Minnesota and Nebraska. Another 
 vital fact is to be mentioned. In Kan- 
 sas there have been disastrous crop fail- 
 ures, caused by insufficient rainfall and 
 
 lack of artificial irrigation. Thousands 
 of farms in central and western Kansas 
 have been abandoned for this reason. 
 (See Census Bulletin No. 16 [1890], p. 8.) 
 The annual State Censuses of Kansas 
 give the following totals of population 
 for 1885 and succeeding years: 1885, 
 1,268,530; 1886, 1,406,738; 1887, 1,514,- 
 578; 1888, 1,518,552; 1889, 1,464,914. 
 In 1890, as shown by the Federal Census, 
 there- was a further decrease of 37,818. 
 In the period from 1880 to 1888 (during 
 which the enforcement of Prohibition 
 had constantly become more rigid) the 
 population increased from 996,096 to 
 1,518,552. In face of such figures it is 
 absurd to suppose that the subsequent 
 decline could have been brought about by 
 Prohibition. Our interpretation of the 
 facts is the interpretation made by the 
 State officials of Kansas, who certainly 
 would be glad to remove the impres- 
 sion, if possible, that crops are fail- 
 ing and therefore that Kansas is losing 
 its former eminence as an agricultural 
 State. 
 
 Candid inspection of Iowa's Census re- 
 turns is equally reassuring. The Prohibi- 
 tory law took effect in 1885. The popula- 
 tion during the years 1880-5 (license) 
 increased 129,365, or 8 per cent., but 
 during 1885-90 (Prohibition) there was a 
 gain of 157,916, or 9 per cent. 
 
 As a specimen of the flagrant false- 
 hoods propagated by the liquor advocates 
 in discussing the relations of Prohibition 
 to population, the case of the city of 
 Leavenworth, Kan., may be cited. In 
 1889 the statement was telegraphed over 
 the country that Leavenworth had lost 
 14,000 inhabitants in the year just closed 
 because of the enforcement of the Pro- 
 hibitory law. This report was on the 
 authority of the Clerk of the county. 
 Inquiry proved that the Clerk and other 
 local officials were under the control of 
 the liquor element. For years they had 
 systematically overstated the population 
 of Leavenworth. In 1889 the true 
 figures were published, and as they were 
 14,000 smaller than those for 1888 the 
 blame was laid to Prohibition. But ac- , 
 cording to municipal returns the personal 
 property assessed for taxation had a 
 larger aggregate value in 1889 than in 
 1888, the number of children of school 
 age was about the same as in 1888, the 
 number of names in the City Directory 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 554 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 had not changed materially and the pros- 
 perity of the city had advanced. 1 
 
 Benefits to the Wage-Workers and the 
 Poor. 
 
 Under this head, if Prohibitory legis- 
 lation accomplishes its fundamental pur- 
 pose of closing the public drinking- 
 places and greatly limiting opportunities 
 to obtain drink, must fall its crowning 
 results. The wage-workers and the poor 
 support the saloons to their own bitter 
 injury. Constituting a great majority of 
 the people, whatever is most hurtful to 
 these classes, to the development of thrift, 
 education, good habits, good citizenship 
 and a satisfactory home life among them, 
 cannot fail to be most hurtful to the 
 whole community and all its interests. 
 To say this is to state the most manifest 
 of truths. The question whether Pro- 
 hibition may not be an unnecessary or 
 unwarranted device so far as certain in- 
 dividuals or even certain elements of the 
 population are concerned, does not affect 
 the proposition that if no drink could 
 be had the condition of the masses 
 would be improved. The broadest con- 
 sequences of effectual Prohibition must 
 always be shown in the positive good 
 done and the positive harm prevented 
 among the multitude. 
 
 In what has already been written, tes- 
 timony incidental to this topic abounds. 
 The remarkable blessings of Prohibition 
 in cities like Pullman and Saltaire, 
 peopled almost exclusively by day-labor- 
 ers; the gratifying decrease of arrests 
 during the Prohibition years in other 
 typical workingmen's cities like Lowell, 
 Lawrence, Fall Eiver and Atlanta, the 
 practical disappearance of pauperism 
 wherever Prohibition is strictly enforced 
 in Kansas and other States, the increased 
 prosperity of tradesmen under well-exe- 
 cuted Prohibitory laws everywhere, are 
 results that could not have been attained 
 without a general improvement of the 
 working classes. 
 
 Chief-Justice Horton of the Supreme 
 Court of Kansas says : 
 
 "All classes in Kansas have been benefited 
 by Prohibition. Its beneficent influence has 
 reached rich and poor, but most of all it has 
 helped the laboring man. . . . Prohibition 
 drove out the robber and despoiler of the poor. 
 The effect of the passage of the law in our 
 
 » See the Voice, Sept. 19, 1889. 
 
 manufacturing towns was immediate. The 
 hand of the liquor-seller, before stretched out 
 between the employer ,and the employe, dis- 
 appeared from the pay-table. Grocers, bakers, 
 dealers in clothing noticed a change. The 
 money came to them, for the necessaries of life, 
 that before had been expended for its bane and 
 curse. So it was continued. The traps before 
 set at every step for the feet of the laboring 
 man disappeared. The father is no longer 
 allured, with the consent of the State, to squan- 
 der the money of his wife and little children. 
 He no longer takes the furniture or the scanty 
 clothing from his little house, and, exchanging 
 it for money at the pawn-shop, spends the pro- 
 ceeds at the nearest saloon. Employers have 
 repeatedly testified to the benefits which came 
 with the change. However numerous may he 
 that class which the enemies of Prohibition 
 gleefully assert exists, who send hundreds of 
 miles for liquor to be consumed secretly within 
 the State, it may safely be assumed that the 
 laboring men, the men who earn daily wages 
 by the toil that consumes the day, do not go to the 
 trouble and expense of sending out of the State 
 that they may start a home saloon of which 
 their children are to be the customers. These 
 thousands of workingmen, the bone and sinew, 
 are worth to the State all that Prohibition may 
 have cost, and the State will most certainly 
 continue to maintain that law, which, whatever 
 it may be to the rich, is the salvation of the 
 poor." * 
 
 The following is a part of the speech 
 made by Henry W. Grady jn Atlanta, 
 Nov. 3, 1887, after a year and one-half of 
 Prohibition in that city : 
 
 " In getting evidence of improvement or de- 
 terioration in a city you must go to the work- 
 ing classes. Especially is this true of Atlanta, 
 because this is the third city in the United States 
 in the proportion of workers to population. 
 Lawrence, Mass., leads with 51 per cent, of her 
 population wage-earners, Lowell follows with 48 
 per cent., and Atlanta and Fall Liver tie for 
 third place with 47 per cent. Now here is a 
 class of people representing in the workers of 
 our number 47 per cent, of the entire population. 
 Add the women and children who do not work, 
 and we see this class represents 66 or 70 per 
 cent, of our population. If this class is ben- 
 efited in an unspeakable manner by the untried 
 experiment of Prohibition, is it not our duty to 
 continue this experiment that the greatest good 
 may come to the greatest number ? 
 
 "When you go to get the effect of a new 
 movement for good or evil, where do you go ? 
 Hot to the rich and idle, because you may swell 
 or diminish their income and yet not change 
 their habits ; you simply diminish the hidden 
 surplus. Nor to the middle class, because when 
 you diminish their income they simply pinch 
 themselves and pinch so quietly that their neigh- 
 bors do not know it, or swell their incomes and 
 they loosen out a little and pass something up to 
 surplus. You cannot tell it there ; but go to the 
 poorer classes — the men who labor for their daily 
 
 " Speech at Lincoln, Neb., Sept. 9, 1890. (See the 
 Voice, Sept. 18, 1890.) 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 555 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 bread, and whose wages barely suffice to give 
 it to them ; and there you find the first signs of 
 a good or evil movement. It is at once the 
 truth and reproach of our civilization that star- 
 vation follows so close on labor that an evil 
 movement is detected in the hollow cheeks of 
 little children and the haggard faces of women 
 before it is made manifest to the higher classes. 
 
 "Mr. George Adair rents houses to 1,300 ten- 
 ants. He states that he has issued in the last 
 year one distress warrant where he issued 20 two 
 years ago. [Applause.] I claim to be an in- 
 telligent man with some courage of conviction ; 
 but I pledge you my word, if that one fact were 
 established to my satisfaction, I would vote for 
 this thing if I never heard another word on this 
 subject. Have you thought what that means— 
 a distress warrant 1 It means eviction ; it means 
 the very thing that is to-day kindling the heart of 
 this world for poor Ireland. It means eviction ! 
 It means turning woman and her little children 
 out of the home that covers them, and to which 
 they are entitled. I was astonished at Col. 
 Adair's statement. Mr. Tally, who rents 600 or 
 800 houses, says : ' I used to issue two or three 
 distress warrants — four or five — a month. I 
 have not issued a single one in 18 months. ' [Ap- 
 plause.] 
 
 "Now, both of them are Prohibitionists. Let 
 me try you with Harry Krouse. He was an 
 anti-Prohibitionist. He said : ' My distress war- 
 rants averaged 36 to the year, and I have not 
 issued one in 12 months.' I said : 
 
 "' Then, my friend, I don't carry your con- 
 science, but how can you be an anti-Prohibi- 
 tionist ? ' 
 
 " ' I ain't. My knowledge of the thing, day 
 by day, among people I used to pester and evict, 
 has changed my convictions, and I am a red- 
 hot Prohibitionist.' 
 
 " I went down to Mr. Scott, who did not vote 
 for Prohibition, and asked him. He said : ' I have 
 issued as many as 25 distress warrants in a 
 month, and I have issued 6 in the last 18 months, 
 and 5 were to get people out of houses because 
 they were obnoxious to the neighbors. I have 
 issued one single distress warrant for failure to 
 pay rent.' 
 
 "I said, ' You didn't vote for Prohibition ? ' 
 
 "He said, 'I did not believe it was practi- 
 cable.' 
 
 "I asked, ' What do you think now ? ' 
 
 "He said, 'I am going to vote, and vote for 
 Prohibition.' [Applause.] 
 
 ' ' Mr. Roberts was a Prohibitionist. He says : 
 ' My testimony is the same. I formerly issued 
 two or three distress warrants every month, and 
 I have not issued one in 12 months.' 
 
 ' ' Is there any possible answer to that ? Is 
 there any industrial, any social, any economic 
 revolution that has been worked since this world 
 began that would account for the diminution in 
 this most vicious and intolerable of legal enact- 
 ments ? Have you thought about what a dis- 
 tress warrant is ? Have you ever thought about 
 a woman being turned out of her house — the 
 little cottage that covers her and her children? 
 Can you picture — you who live in comfortable 
 homes filled with light and warmth and books 
 and joy, — can you think of these people — human 
 beings, our brothers and sisters, — the poor 
 
 mother, brave though her heart is breaking, 
 huddling her little children about her, and the 
 father, weak but loving, and loving all the 
 deeper because he knows his weakness has 
 brought them to this want and degradation, and 
 little children, those of whom our Saviour said : 
 * Suffer them to come unto me and forbid them 
 not,' there asking, ' Mamma, where will we 
 sleep to-night 1 ' — can you picture that and then 
 their taking themselves up and the woman put- 
 ting her hand with undying love and faith in 
 the hand of the man she swore to follow through 
 good and evil report, and marching up and down 
 the street — this pitiable procession, — through the 
 unthinking streets, by laughing children and 
 shining windows, looking for a hole where, like 
 the foxes, they may hide their poor heads ? My 
 friends, they talk to you about personal liberty, 
 that a man should have the right to go into a 
 grogshop and see this pitiable procession — now 
 stopped — parading up and down our streets 
 again. They talk to you about the shades of 
 Washington, Monroe and Jefferson. I would 
 not give one happy, rosy little woman, uplifted 
 from that degradation, happy again in her home, 
 with the cricket chirping on her hearthstone 
 and her children about her knee, her husband 
 redeemed from drink at her side — I would not 
 give one of them for all the shades of all the 
 men that ever contended since Cataline con- 
 spired and Caesar fought ! . . . 
 
 ' ' I have talked to you about the rent, about 
 the house that a man and his wife live in; I 
 have shown you, not by my own assertion, but 
 by the statements of the only experts in the city 
 — the real estate men, who for years have 
 handled from 3,000 to 4,000 houses, — I have 
 shown you, I say, that where 20 suffered before 
 19 are protected under ' Prohibition that don't 
 prohibit.' What would we have with Prohibi- 
 tion that did prohibit ? The next step is to get 
 our employers and ask their testimony. I went 
 to Mr. Boyd, of Van Winkle & Co., and he 
 said, ' Where I formerly had 10 or 15 garnish- 
 ments at a time to answer, I now have none.' 
 
 ' ' The garnishment, next to the distress war- 
 rant, is the most iniquitous form of debt col- 
 lection. It means that the law lays its hand 
 on a man's wages and holds them in its grasp, 
 though his little children may clamber about 
 his knees and cry for bread. Now, where 
 there were twenty necessary then, there is 
 one now. 
 
 "Mr. Boyd is a Prohibitionist; let me give 
 you Grant Wilkins. He is a man of profound 
 convictions. . . . He said he was one of the 
 most violent, if that word may be used, of the 
 anti-Prohibitionists. He said: ' I have told them 
 I was not going to attend their "Anti" meet- 
 ings, that Idid not intend to have anything to 
 do with it this time. I came to that conclusion 
 simply because I work 220 men, and I see what 
 Prohibition has done for them, and I believe my 
 duty requires I should let it alone. My foreman 
 goes to their homes and sees them; they live 
 better, their houses are better, they have shoes 
 where they were shoeless, and they have plenty 
 to eat where they formerly barely lived. I 
 have had 30 garnishments at once in my shop, 
 and I have been running seven months, and I 
 have not answered one single garnishment.' . . . 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 556 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 I could absolutely weary you with testimony 
 like that. . . . 
 
 "There are 829 more children in attendance 
 at the schools this year than last. How do you 
 account for that 1 It has been two years since 
 Prohibition was adopted, and there are 829 more 
 children in the schools. That means one of 
 two things, and you can take either horn of the 
 dilemma: either there are more people here, or 
 there are more people able to send to school. 
 
 " Take the fact of owning houses. . . . In 
 the last two years there have been 687 citizens 
 who have become home-owners, against 153 in 
 the two years previous — citizens owing no man 
 and owning no man as master, wearing the 
 collar of no faction, free-born American citizens, 
 not quibbling about personal liberty, but stand- 
 ing with wife and little ones, honest and in- 
 dependent, above penury and degradation ! " 
 
 Two years after Atlanta had repealed 
 her Prohibitory law — and in the interval 
 a rigid High License system had been 
 in force — the Voice submitted a series of 
 questions to a list of Atlanta tradesmen, 
 physicians and real estate dealers, made 
 up from a business directory with no 
 knowledge of their opinions. 
 
 To the inquiry whether sales to workingmen 
 had increased or decreased since the return of 
 the open barrooms there were replies from 38 
 retail merchants, of whom 24 declared emphat- 
 ically that they had decreased. Many of these 
 statements were highly suggestive. A general 
 merchandise dealer said: " A decrease of 20 per 
 cent.;" a furniture dealer said: "The first 
 Saturday night after the repeal of Prohibition 
 we had a decrease of $28 in our sales, which 
 are now about one-half what they were to 
 laboring people during Prohibition ;" a dealer 
 in family groceries reported "a decrease of 25 per 
 cent. ;" a boot and shoe dealer asserted that his 
 sales to workingmen had decreased " about one- 
 half;" a dealer in coal and wood said: "When 
 the barrooms were closed I sold to the working 
 people at the rate of half a ton at a time, but 
 now they buy 25 and 50 cents' worth." Of the 
 remaining 14 retailers nine wrote that the vol- 
 ume of their trade with workingmen had not 
 changed materially since the return of the bar- 
 rooms, and three of these nine were, judging 
 from their replies to other questions, personally 
 prejudiced against' Prohibition and presumably 
 depended somewhat upon saloon patronage ; 
 while two were booksellers and binders. There 
 remain five retail tradesmen not classified above: 
 of these, two said that they did not have deal- 
 ings with the working classes in their lines of 
 business, one that trade had improved but that 
 the improvement was due to the growth of the 
 city and to better crops — not to the saloons, and 
 two that their sales to workingmen had in- 
 creased. These last two — the only retailers who 
 had been positively benefited in their relations 
 with the wage classes because of Prohibition's re- 
 peal — were both liquor-dealers : one of them, who 
 combined rumselling with groceries, declared 
 that there had been "about 200 per cent, in- 
 crease " in his business, and the other, a plain 
 
 saloon-keeper, wrote: "My sales to working- 
 men have increased." Answers to the question 
 from three merchants doing an exclusively 
 wholesale business were received, of whom two 
 reported a decrease and one said that, having 
 little to do with the workingmen, he could not 
 make a satisfactory reply. Thus of the Atlanta 
 merchants responding categorically, yes or no, 26 
 affirmed that their sales to the wage-earning 
 citizens had fallen off since the return to license, 
 and only two reported an increase of such sales — 
 and these two were engaged in the liquor traffic. 
 
 The replies given by the tradesmen to the 
 other questions of the Voice were of the same 
 tenor. It was asked whether the number of 
 cash sales to laborers had not decreased and the 
 credit sales correspondingly increased, and of 
 39 who answered 28 made affirmative state- 
 ments, nine said there was no change or wrote 
 indefinitely and the two liquor-dealers were 
 alone in reporting that their cash business with 
 wage-earning customers was better. "They 
 do not ask for credit but pay as they go," con- 
 tentedly wrote the saloon-keeper — the only 
 man in the list, except his groceries-rum col- 
 league, who had found that license had im- 
 proved the cash business. The testimony was 
 strong to the effect that it was harder to make 
 collections than it had been in the Prohibition 
 years, that "bad debts" were more numerous 
 and that the working people purchased a 
 cheaper class of goods. ' ' The working people 
 buy cheaper grades of goods," wrote a dry- 
 goods dealer. "For instance, under Prohi- 
 bition they bought hosiery worth 25 cents and 
 now they want 10 and 15 cents hosiery ; for 
 flannels they would pay 35 to 50 cents but now 
 they pay 20 to 30 cents; they used to buy shoes 
 worth $1.50 to $2, but now they give only $1 
 to $1.50." 
 
 Letters were received from 15 Atlanta physi- 
 cians, of whom two-thirds declared that in 
 their practice among the working people they 
 noticed more poverty and destitution than there 
 had been when the Prohibitory law existed, and 
 the majority who answered at all said that it 
 was harder than it had formerly been to collect 
 bills from the working classes and that these 
 classes had fewer of the comforts of life. 
 
 Only 10 answers came from real estate men. 
 "While some of the writers were clearly anti- 
 Prohibitionists, the replies to the question, ' 'Are 
 you obliged to issue more or fewer distress war- 
 rants to this [working] class of people than you 
 did under Prohibition ?" were very significant. 
 Two ignored the question altogether, two evaded 
 it by saying they had issued no distress war- 
 rants since Prohibition was voted down, but did 
 not state whether they had issued any during 
 the Prohibition era, one said he had issued none 
 in several years, and five said positively, 
 "More." " Yes, more by three to one," was the 
 assertion of one dealer. The same general tes- 
 timony was given by the real estate agents in 
 answer to the questions whether it was not 
 harder to collect rents from the laboring men 
 than it had been under Prohibition and whether 
 the families of these men were not worse housed 
 and less comfortable. ' 
 
 j The Voice, Jan. 2 and 9, 1890. 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 557 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 With the same impartiality and thor- 
 oughness the Voice canvassed the opin- 
 ions of business men and other repre- 
 sentative and observant citizens in the 
 State of Rhode Island eight months after 
 the Prohibition repeal of June, 1889. 
 Eighty replies were received to the ques- 
 tion, "Do you think the general social and 
 financial condition of the masses has 
 been benefited or otherwise by the re- 
 turn of the license system ?" Fifty-six 
 expressed the belief that it had not been 
 benefited (many saying that it had been 
 seriously injured), five said that they ob- 
 served little or no difference, ten that 
 they were unable to answer and nine that 
 they saw benefits. 1 (In Rhode Island, it 
 will be remembered, the Prohibitory law 
 was not well enforced.) 
 
 To give further illustrations of the 
 beneficial workings of Prohibition and 
 the bad effects of license upon the wel- 
 fare of the masses would be to draw with 
 more or less discrimination upon a fund 
 of information that is inexhaustible. It 
 is unnecessary. The detailed evidences 
 of the general benefits of Prohibition, 
 given in other parts of this article, are 
 sufficiently plentiful; and to reasonable 
 minds they will in each case take the 
 place of specific testimony regarding the 
 improvement of the poor, so apparent is 
 it that any successful anti-liquor policy 
 must operate peculiarly for the elevation 
 of the great class that suffers most from 
 drink. 
 
 In bringing this extended review to a 
 close prominence should be given to one 
 conclusion that is suggested to the re- 
 flecting person at each stage of the in- 
 vestigation and by each series of facts : 
 it is not as a mere undertaking for the 
 betterment of individual morals, habits 
 or happiness, but as a measure of public 
 policy, that Prohibition is advocated and 
 its results are to be judged. The drink 
 traffic is damaging to individuals, but in 
 each instance the final remedy is to be 
 applied by personal, by temperance and 
 by religious agencies; if the State makes 
 such work easier by removing the temp- 
 tation, so much the better, but it is not 
 the direct purpose of the State's action 
 to merely correct the vices or the misfor- 
 tunes of individuals. The traffic injures 
 
 i The Voice, March 6, 1890. 
 
 the State, and on this ground alone Pro- 
 hibition is urged. If legislated Prohibi- 
 tion is enforced the State is benefited in 
 every essential respect : this is the teach- 
 ing of reason as well as of all experience. 
 And the advantages do not end with the 
 removal of tipphng-places, the diminu- 
 tion of offenses and pauperism, the sav- 
 ing of public money, the wider distribu- 
 tion of private accumulations, the im- 
 provement of many branches of legiti- 
 mate trade and the promotion of virtue 
 and comfort among the people. The 
 purification of politics and the advance- 
 ment of the cause of better and more 
 intelligent government are results that 
 may also be hoped for. "We have but to 
 examine the effects of Prohibition in 
 many noteworthy instances to be assured 
 of this. 
 
 The most serious problem of adminis- 
 trative government now before the peo- 
 ple of the United States (excepting, per- 
 haps, the problem of creditable govern- 
 ment in the cities) is that arising from 
 the race question at the South. The 
 difficulties in that section have invariably 
 been lessened if not wholly ended in 
 localities that have adopted Prohibition 
 and scrupulously enforced it. The county 
 of Copiah, in Mississippi, was formerly 
 notorious for its bloody race conflicts. 
 But in 1884 the State Legislature passed 
 a special act placing Copiah County 
 under Prohibition, and there came a 
 change so marked that the New York 
 Times said, July 1, 1886 : 
 
 " Copiah has become the most orderly and 
 enlightened county in Mississippi, under a strict 
 enforcement of her Prohibition laws. Money 
 that went formerly to pay for criminal prose- 
 cutions now goes to keep open the public 
 schools." '' 
 
 2 The best judges of Southern conditions agree that the 
 race question is essentially a whiBkey question. There is 
 no more prominent or respected organ of Southern pub- 
 lic opinion than the St. Louis Daily Republic. The Re- 
 public says (Sept. 21, 1889): 
 
 "While there is no election on hand, while we 
 may reasonably expect a hearing for the truth, we 
 wish to re-enforce this presentation of fact by con- 
 densing into one word the chief cause of all ' race 
 troubles,' of nearly all crimes committed by negroes and 
 against them, of the negro's poverty, of his failure to 
 secure the respect of respectable people, and of his dis- 
 orderly habits. The word is 'whiskey.' The negro who 
 ?ets into trouble with a white man is generally drunk, 
 f he is not, the white man is. They [the negroes] spend 
 every day for whiskey money enough to endow a univer- 
 sity and to found a hundred schools. And if this money 
 is not in some way saved for schools the equivalent of it 
 will have to be invested in police clubs and militia 
 rifles. That is ' the negro problem.' " 
 
 The Atlanta Daily Constitution, also among the fore- 
 most journals of the South, adds (Sept. 13, 1889): 
 
 " Mean whiskey makes its victims of both races 
 neglect work, ana when men are idle and drunk their 
 
Prohibition, Benefits of.] 
 
 558 
 
 [Prohibition, Benefits of. 
 
 The people of the county recognized 
 the blessings of the law, and on the ques- 
 tion of its repeal, in 1886, they voted 
 overwhelmingly in the negative, some 
 localities almost unanimously : — for ex- 
 ample, the town of Wesson opposed 
 repeal by 280 to 2 and Crystal Springs 
 by 324 to 34. 1 One of the roots of 
 the Southern problem unquestionably 
 springs from the illiteracy and lawless- 
 ness of certain elements of the whites, 
 especially in the mountain regions. 
 Rowan County, Ky., has had a most un- 
 savory reputation because of the fre- 
 quency of murders and other crimes 
 there. An investigating committee of 
 the Legislature of Kentucky, sent to in- 
 quire into the situation in Eowan County, 
 said in its report : 
 
 "During all the social chaos since August, 
 1884, spirituous liquors have been sold with and 
 without license in nearly every part of the 
 county, adding fury and fire and venom to the 
 minds and hearts of murderers, and dragging 
 into the terrible vortex of drunkenness and 
 crime and murder even those who were not 
 originally in the feuds, the proof showing 
 that crimes and murders were committed in the 
 various precincts in proportion to the number 
 of places where whiskey was sold." 2 
 
 On the other hand the mounta.n coun- 
 ties of Kentucky that enforce Prohibition 
 are practically free from violence and 
 are as progressive as the best rural coun- 
 ties of the country. (For confirmation 
 of this see the Voice, May 2, 1889.) 
 Another root of the Southern difficulties 
 is nourished by the improvidence of the 
 negroes. These people, wherever they 
 have seriously tried the Prohibition 
 remedy, have made remarkable advances. 
 The Georgia county of Washington is a 
 typical black county, having had in 1880 
 a population of 12,515 negroes and 9,449 
 whites. Previously to 1886 it was under 
 the license system, but in that year it 
 voted for Prohibition. The public 
 records show the following facts : 
 
 "In 1885 there were 1,849 colored polls in 
 the county, owning 5,886 acres of land valued 
 at $19,310, or $3.28 per acre, and that the total 
 taxable property was valued at $107,675, or 
 $58.23 to each colored poll. These figures rep- 
 resent the accumulated savings of the colored 
 people of the county during 20 years of labor 
 
 wrath is easily excited and very slight provocation leads 
 to violence. Of course an outrage, a misunderstanding 
 and certain social and political questions sometimes cauBe 
 trouble between sober whites and blacks, but in too 
 many instances it cannot be denied that whiBkey plays 
 an important part in our race troubles. This phase of 
 the problem deserves serious consideration.' 1 
 1 See the Voice, July 8, 1886. 2 Ibid, May 10, 1888. 
 
 under a liquor license system. In 1888, with 
 1,813 colored polls, the county returned 11,690 
 acres of land owned by negroes, this land being 
 valued at $54,748, or $4.68 per acre, and the 
 total taxable property of the colored citizens 
 was valued at $149,759, or $82.60 per poll. 
 Further examination of the Comptroller-Gen- 
 eral's books shows that the number of acres 
 owned by the colored people was 5,886 at the 
 beginning of 1885 (license), 6,001 at the be- 
 ginning of 1886 (license), 6,046 at the beginning 
 of 1887 (Prohibition) and 11,690 at the beginning 
 of 1888 (Prohibition). Thus in a single year of 
 Prohibition the negroes of Washington County 
 had gained 5,644 acres, nearly as many as they 
 had acquired in the whole of the 20 years of 
 license ; and the increased value of their lands 
 per acre showed that they had noticeably im- 
 proved their homes." 3 
 
 It might be proved from common ex- 
 perience that the solution of most of the 
 other serious problems of local economy 
 and local government, particularly of 
 those gravest problems that are con- 
 stantly developed by saloon rule and bar- 
 room politics in the cities, is prevented 
 under every system of license and 
 regulation, but in Prohibition com- 
 munities is satisfactorily approached 
 according to the degree of enforcement. 
 But so long as loyalty to Prohibition is 
 not made a recognized test of fealty 
 by party organizations, the temptation 
 to use the law for partisan advantage, 
 by tolerating violations committed by 
 party henchmen, is strong. Upon this 
 consideration the weightiest political ob- 
 jection to a persevering trial of Prohibi- 
 tion is based. Understanding the con- 
 tempt or unconcern with which practical 
 political managers regard mere principle, 
 and their willingness to use the services 
 of the worst men, many good citizens 
 permit forebodings to master conscience 
 and inclinations, and accordingly supply 
 whatever influence is needed to avert 
 successful results. The fear, or rather 
 the so-called certainty, of non-enforce- 
 ment in the large cities, is the one thing 
 that gives general plausibility to the 
 claim that Prohibition is still in its 
 experimental stages and of "doubtful 
 utility." Yet we have seen that this 
 fear is very much exaggerated and that 
 there is no element of certainty to con- 
 firm it. The results in cities like Topeka, 
 Greeley and Pullman demonstrate that 
 absolute success is possible ; in cities like 
 Worcester, Lowell, Lawrence, Cambridge, 
 
 3 Ibid, Jan. 3, 1889. (Inaccuracies in some of the fig- 
 ures as given in the Voice have been corrected.) 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 559 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 Providence, Atlanta, Raleigh, Charleston 
 (W. Va.), Rockford, Sioux City, Des 
 Moines, Leavenworth and Atchison, that 
 although comparative non-enforcement 
 may ensue it may be believed, even under 
 the most discouraging circumstances, 
 that actual benefits will be reaped. The 
 expediency of making a trial, however 
 hazardous seemingly, becomes less ques- 
 tionable when it is remembered that 
 nothing can be lost by an experiment, 
 that under no form of license (if un- 
 assailed testimony is to be trusted) can 
 the evils of the liquor business be abated, 
 and that the erection of a high standard 
 is worth something to humanity and 
 perhaps may be worth much to the cause 
 of the public welfare. When the ques- 
 tion is upon the adoption of general 
 rather than local Prohibition there are 
 still stronger reasons for overcoming 
 distrust. It can no longer be doubted 
 that general Prohibitory laws have done 
 much good in all the States that have 
 maintained them, good that is not at all 
 clouded by comparative local failures, 
 since no violations can by any possibility, 
 even locally, increase the evils fostered 
 by the license system. And this brings 
 us to the expression of the final conclu- 
 sion derived from our study : the general 
 results of Prohibition are beneficial, 
 decidedly so when the Prohibition is 
 genuine and actual; in exceptional and 
 local instances the results are unsatis- 
 factory when measured with the fruits 
 of real Prohibition, but far from un- 
 encouraging when compared with the 
 effects of all systems of license. 
 
 Prohibition Party. 1 — One of the 
 
 national political organizations of the 
 United States, established in 1869 on the 
 basis of uncompromising opposition to 
 the drink traffic and to all parties not 
 harmoniously and unmistakably pledged 
 against that traffic, and steadily main- 
 tained since then (though with occasional 
 slight changes of name). Its creed is 
 thoroughly defined in the "platforms" 
 adopted by its different National Con- 
 ventions, all of which are given without 
 abridgment in this article, because of 
 the historical interest attaching to them. 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to Hon. James Black for many 
 of the historical facts contained in this article. The 
 votes of the Prohibition party for the years 1869-88 are 
 taken from the " Political Prohibitionist." Other elec- 
 tion returns are from the World and Tribune Almanacs. 
 
 Its policy has uniformly been in accord 
 with its aggressive principles : at no time 
 has there been a general disposition to 
 sacrifice its integrity for the sake of a 
 temporary access of influence, and this 
 fact gives it a unique place among so- ' 
 called " third " parties, for even the 
 Abolition or Liberty party did not pre- 
 serve its distinct identity without inter- 
 ruption. The strength of the Prohibi- 
 tion party in Presidential campaigns has 
 never exceeded 250,000, but its aggregate 
 vote at State elections has reached nearly 
 300,000; while it has never secured a 
 majority for its candidates except in 
 small localities, it has frequently held 
 the balance of power in the most impor- 
 tant States, withstanding desperate at- 
 tempts to break down or seduce its fol- 
 lowing. The results of its agitation are 
 differently interpreted, some believing 
 that they have been positively hurtful to 
 the Prohibition movement and others 
 that they have greatly advanced its best 
 interests in general as well as in detail. 
 This much is not contradicted : the party 
 has always been and is to-day the only na- 
 tional party reliably committed to Prohib- 
 ition and against license ; it has done more 
 than has been accomplished through any 
 other purely political agency to keep the 
 issue constantly before the people ; it has 
 often been a menace to the stronger 
 organizations and has disciplined and 
 chastened them in not a few instances ; it 
 is supported by a large majority of the re- 
 presentative Prohibition leaders ; it has en- 
 gaged in no discreditable intrigues and its 
 characteristic methods have been honora- 
 ble and straightforward; its development 
 has unquestionably been attended (from 
 whatever cause) by a concentration of 
 organized sentiment, a great extension of 
 Prohibitory territory and an increasing 
 eagerness among the enemies of the cause 
 to effect compromises. 
 
 HISTORY. 
 
 In the early struggles for Prohibition 
 (1850-60) it was generally agreed that 
 the policy should stand or fall in accord- 
 ance with the spontaneously-expressed 
 will of the people, and politicians found 
 few inducements to manipulate or resist 
 public opinion, for the liquor traffic was 
 not a great organized political power. 
 The question whether the Maine law 
 should be adopted in a State was sub- 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 '560 
 
 [Prohibition Party, 
 
 mitted in good faith to the electors for 
 decision, and an affirmative vote was 
 followed by the desired legislation, which 
 was retained on the statute-book as long 
 as there was good reason for believing 
 , that a majority of the people — even 
 though a passive majority — would ob- 
 ject to its removal. In some States the 
 Legislatures, while wishing to repeal Pro- 
 hibition and having full authority to 
 arbitrarily do so, were so considerate and 
 cautious as to invite the impartial and 
 uninfluenced judgment of the people 
 before taking the step : as an instance, iD 
 Ehode Island the Legislature of 185b 
 was hostile to the Prohibitory law, but 
 would not venture to disturb it without 
 popular approval, and entirely abandoned 
 its opposition when the people, at the 
 next election, gave an emphatic negative. 
 At times, as in New York and Maine, 
 there were noticeable developments of 
 political antagonism and conspiracy, but 
 these were exceptional. Few Prohibi- 
 tionists realized in those days that the 
 good cause which they were striving to 
 promote, a cause proposing nothing but 
 the elevation of humanity, would ulti- 
 mately be sacrificed without mercy by 
 political parties, and that in every battle 
 waged in its behalf the prestige of party 
 influence would be with the foes of 
 morals and good government and the out- 
 laws of society. In the Prohibition 
 literature of that period we find little to 
 suggest the present radical tactics. It is 
 considered a memorable if not an un- 
 paralleled circumstance that Eev. Charles 
 F. Deems published, before the war, a 
 newspaper which especially urged the 
 importance of independent political ac- 
 tion by the advocates of Prohibition. 
 This journal was printed at Greensburg, 
 1ST. 0., in 1854, and only a few numbers 
 were issued. 
 
 Origin of the Party. — In the Civil "War 
 (1861-5) all political questions save the 
 supreme questions arising from that con- 
 flict were lost sight of. The liquor 
 traffic was given a new footing by the In- 
 ternal Revenue legislation. Brought 
 into political prominence and schooled 
 in political arts by its close relations with 
 the Federal Government, the liquor ele- 
 ment gradually asserted itself in State 
 politics. No new Prohibitory measure 
 was enacted at the North during the 
 
 war. Rhode Island's statute was re- 
 pealed in 1863, other State laws were 
 weakened and nearly all were flagrantly 
 violated. Soon after the restoration of 
 peace it became evident that the liquor- 
 traffickers were bent on sweeping away, 
 by political operation, all the Prohibitory 
 legislation of the Union. In Massachu- 
 setts, the most populous of the Prohibi- 
 tion States, the rumsellers made an 
 aggressive political canvass in 1867, re- 
 sulting in the election of a Legislature 
 which rescinded the law the next year, 
 In Connecticut, in 1867, an active agita- 
 tion for repeal was begun. In the same 
 year the National Brewers' Congress (at 
 Chicago, June 5, 1867) adopted the fol- 
 lowing resolution : 
 
 " Whereas, The action and influence of the 
 temperance party is in direct opposition to the 
 principles of individual freedom and political 
 equality upon which our American Union is 
 founded ; therefore 
 
 "Resolved, That we will use all means to 
 stay the progress of this fanatical party, and to 
 secure our individual rights as citizens, and that 
 we will sustain no candidate, of whatever party, 
 in any election, who is in any way disposed to- 
 ward the total abstinence cause. " 
 
 These and other evidences of serious 
 political dangers aroused the Prohibi- 
 tionists. As early as February, 1867, the 
 State Temperance Convention of Penn- 
 sylvania declared that "if the adversa- 
 ries of temperance shall continue to re- 
 ceive the aid and countenance of present 
 political parties we shall not hesitate to 
 break over political bands and seek re- 
 dress through the ballot-box." The 
 Grand Lodge of Good Templars of Penn- 
 sylvania, at Pittsburgh, June 17, 1867, 
 passed a similar resolution, and the 
 Right Worthy Grand Lodge of Good 
 Templars (the supreme body of the 
 Order), in session at Richmond, Ind., 
 May 28, 1868, recommended "to the tem- 
 perance people of the country the organ- 
 ization of a national political party 
 whose platform of principles shall con- 
 tain Prohibition of the manufacture, im- 
 portation and sale of intoxicating liquor 
 to be used as a beverage." Two months 
 later (July 29 and 30, 1868) the sixth 
 National Temperance Convention (of 
 the series beginning with the Convention 
 of 1833), held at Cleveland, 0., made 
 this utterance : 
 
 "Resolved, That temperance, having its 
 political as well as moral aspects and duties, 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 561 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 demands the persistent use of the ballot for its 
 promotion, . . and we exhort the friends of 
 , temperance by every practical method, in their 
 several localities, to secure righteous political 
 action for the advancement of the cause." 
 
 The Eight Worthy Grand Lodge of 
 Good Templars, when it convened in 
 1869 (at 'Oswego, N. Y., May 27), ex- 
 pressed the opinion " That we esteem the 
 present as an auspicious period in the 
 history of our political affairs for the in- 
 auguration of this movement, and there- 
 fore recommend the calling of a National 
 Convention for the purpose at an early 
 day." On this occasion a meeting of 
 those favoring separate political action 
 was held, with Jonathan H. Orne of 
 Marblehead, Mass., as President, and J. 
 A. Spencer of Cleveland, 0., as Secre- 
 tary. The duty of preparing a call 
 for a National Convention to organize a 
 National Prohibition party was assigned 
 to a committee of five, composed of Kev. 
 John Eussell of Detroit, Mich., Prof. 
 Daniel Wilkins of Bloomington, 111., J. 
 A. Spencer of Cleveland, 0., John N. 
 Stearns of New York and James Black 
 of Lancaster, Pa. The call was duly 
 issued, as follows : 
 
 "To the Friends of Temperance, Law and Order 
 in the United States : 
 
 "The moral, social and political evils of in- 
 temperance and the non-enforcement of the 
 liquor laws are so fearful and prominent, and 
 the causes thereof are so intrenched and pro- 
 tected by governmental authority and party in- 
 terest, that the suppression of these evils calls 
 upon the friends of temperance ; and the duties 
 connected with home, religion and public peace 
 demand that old political ties and associations 
 shall be sundered, and a distinct political party, 
 with Prohibition of the traffic in intoxicating 
 drinks as the most prominent feature, should 
 be organized. 
 
 " The distinctive political issues that have for 
 years past interested the American people are 
 now comparatively unimportant, or fully settled, 
 and in this aspect the time is auspicious for a 
 decided and practical effort to overcome the 
 dread power of the liquor trade. 
 
 ' ' The undersigned do therefore earnestly in- 
 vite all friends of temperance and the enforce- 
 ment of law, and favorable to distinct political 
 action for the promotion of the same, to meet 
 in general mass convention in the city of 
 Chicago, on "Wednesday, the 1st day of Sep- 
 tember, 1869, at 11 o'clock a. m., for the pur- 
 pose of organizing for distinct political action 
 for temperance. 
 
 "All churches, Sunday-schools and temper- 
 ance societies of all names are requested to 
 send delegates, and all persons favorable to this 
 movement are invited to meet at the time and 
 place above stated. 
 
 "R. M. Foust (Philadelphia, Pa.), J. H. Orne 
 (Marblehead, Mass.), Joshua Wadsworth (Cin- 
 cinnati, O.), S. W. Hodges (Boston, Mass.), 
 J. A. Sp«ncer (Cleveland, O.), R. C. Bull 
 (Philadelphia, Pa.), H. D. Cushing (Boston, 
 Mass.), Rev. Peter Stryker, D.D. (Philadelphia, 
 Pa.), Joshua Nye (Waterville, Me.), Rev. Sam- 
 uel McKean (Cambridge, N. Y.), T. M. Van 
 Court (Chicago, 111.), Rev. J. G. D. Stearns 
 (Clearwater, Minn.), William Hargreaves, 
 M.D. (Reading, Pa.), D. W. Gage (Ames, la.), 
 Rev. J. C. Stoughton (Chicago, 111.), P. Mason 
 (Somerville, N. J.), Rev. Edwin Thompson 
 (Boston, Mass.), Rev. Elnathan Davis (Fitch- 
 burg, Mass.), Ebenezer Bowman (Taunton, 
 •Mass.), B. E. Hale (Brooklyn, N. Y.), J. F. 
 Forbes (Cincinnati, O.), Samuel Foljambe 
 (Cleveland, O.), L. B. Silver (Salem, O.), O. P. 
 Downs (Warsaw, Ind. ), G. N. Jones (Chicago, 
 111.), Dr. C. H. Merrick (Cleveland, O.), Jay 
 Odell (Cleveland, O.), Rev. William C. Hen- 
 drickson (Bristol, Pa.), Enoch Passmore (Ken- 
 nett Square, Pa.), Neal Dow (Portland, Me.), 
 Rev. John Russell (Detroit, Mich.), James Black 
 (Lancaster, Pa.), Charles Jewett (Pomona, 
 Tenn.), Rev. James B. Dunn (Boston, Mass.), 
 Rev. George Lansing Taylor (New York City), 
 John O'Donnell (Lowville, N. Y.), Rev. Wil- 
 liam M. Thayer (Franklin, Mass.), Rev. N. E. 
 Cobleigh, D.D. (Athens, Tenn.), Peterfield 
 •Trent, M.D. (Richmond, Va.), J. N. Stearns 
 (New York City), Rev. William Hosmer 
 (Auburn, N. Y.), Rev. S. H. Piatt (Brooklyn, 
 N. Y.), S. T. Montgomery (Indianapolis, Ind.), 
 Rev. G. H. Ball (Buffalo, N. Y.), George P. 
 Burwell (Cleveland, O.), G. N. Abbey (Cleve- 
 land, O.), Luther S. Kauffman (Minersville, 
 Pa.), A. T. Proctor (Cleveland, O.), George S. 
 Tambling, Jr. (Cleveland, O.), H. V. Horton 
 (Cincinnati, O.), Rev. Moses Smith (Xenia, O.), 
 Gen. J. S. Smith (Kingston, N. Y.), T. P. Hunt 
 Wilkesbarre, Pa.), D. R. Pershing (Warsaw, 
 Ind.), George Gabel (Philadelphia, Pa.), Wil- 
 liam H. Fries (Clifton, Pa,), S. J. Coffin (Easton, 
 Pa.)." 
 
 From 1869 to 1872.— The organizing 
 Convention met in Farwell Hall, 
 Chicago, on the specified day (Sept. 1, 
 1869), with nearly 500 delegates in at- 
 tendance, from the States of California, 
 Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, 
 Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota, 
 Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, New 
 Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
 Tennessee, Vermont and Wisconsin, and 
 the District of Columbia. John Eussell of 
 Michigan was Temporary Chairman, 
 James Black of Pennsylvania was Per- 
 manent Chairman, and J. A. Spencer of 
 Ohio was Secretary. It was voted to 
 publish an address to the people of the 
 United States, prepared by Hon. Gerrit 
 Smith of New York. At first it was de- 
 cided to call the new organization the 
 Anti-Dramshop party, but the Conven- 
 tion finally named it the National Pro- 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 562 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 hibition party. The following is the 
 text of the platform of principles 
 adopted : 
 
 "Whereas, Protection and allegiance are re- 
 ciprocal duties, and every citizen who yields 
 obedience to the just commands of his Govern- 
 ment is entitled to the full, free and perfect 
 protection of that Government in the enjoyment 
 of personal security, personal liberty and pri- 
 vate property ; and 
 
 " Whereas, The traffic in intoxicating drinks 
 greatly impairs the personal security and per- 
 sonal liberty of a large mass of citizens, and 
 renders private property insecure ; and 
 
 " Whereas, The existing parties are hope- 
 lessly unwilling to adopt an adequate policy on 
 this question ; therefore 
 
 "We, in National Convention assembled, as 
 citizens of this free Republic, sharing the duties 
 and responsibilities of its Government, in dis- 
 charge of a solemn duty we owe to our coun- 
 try and our race, unite in the following declara- 
 tion of principles : 
 
 "1. That while we acknowledge the pure 
 patriotism and profound statesmanship of those 
 patriots who laid the foundations of this Gov- 
 ernment, securing at once the rights of the 
 States severally, and their inseparable union by 
 the Federal Constitution, we would not merely 
 garnish the sepulchers of our republican fathers, 
 but we do hereby renew our solemn pledges of 
 fealty to the imperishable'principles of civil and 
 religious liberty embodied in the Declaration of 
 American Independence and our Federal Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 "2. That the traffic in intoxicating beverages is 
 a dishonor to Christian civilization, inimical to 
 the best interests of society, a political wrong of 
 unequalled enormity, subversive of the ordinary 
 objects of government, not capable of being 
 regulated or restrained by any system of license 
 whatever, but imperatively demanding for its 
 suppression effective legal Prohibition, both by 
 State and National legislation. 
 
 ' ' 3. That in view of this, and inasmuch as 
 the existing political parties either oppose or 
 ignore this great and paramount question, and 
 absolutely refuse to do anything toward the 
 suppression of the rum traffic, which is robbing 
 the nation of its brightest intellects, destroying 
 internal prosperity and rapidly undermining its 
 very foundations, we are driven by an imperative 
 sense of duty to sever our connection with these 
 political parties and organize ourselves into a 
 National Prohibition party, having for its pri- 
 mary object the entire suppression of the traffic 
 in intoxicating drinks. 
 
 "4. That while we adopt the name of the 
 National Prohibition party, as expressive of our 
 primary object, and while we denounce all re- 
 pudiation of the public debt and pledge fidelity 
 to the principles of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence and the Federal Constitution, we deem 
 it not expedient at present to give prominence 
 to other political issues. 
 
 ' ' 5. That while we recognize the good provi- 
 dence of Almighty God in supervising the in- 
 terests of this nation from its establishment to 
 the present time, we would not, in organizing 
 our party for the legal prohibition of the liquor 
 
 traffic, forget that our reliance for ultimate sue- 
 cess must be upon the same omnipotent arm. 
 
 " 6. That a Central Executive Committee, of 
 one from each State and Territory and the 
 District of Columbia, be appointed by the 
 Chair, whose duty it shall be to take such ac- 
 tion as, in their judgment, will best 'promote the 
 interests of the party." 
 
 At the fall elections of 1869 Ohio was 
 the only State returning votes for the 
 Prohibition party as a distinct organiza- 
 tion, 679 being reported from that State. 
 But Maine and Minnesota each cast votes 
 for " Eepublican-Prohibition " candi- 
 dates — the former 4,743 and the latter 
 1,761. 
 
 In 1870 support was received at the 
 the polls in six States, as follows : Illi- 
 nois, 3,712; Massachusetts (Lieutenant- 
 Governor), 8,692; Michigan, 2,170; New 
 Hampshire, 1,167; New York, 1,459; 
 Ohio, 2,812— total, 20,012. In Massa- 
 chusetts the Prohibition candidate for 
 Governor this year was Wendell Phil- 
 lips, and, being indorsed by the Labor 
 party and independent Eepublicans, he 
 polled 21,946 votes — many more than 
 were cast for the other candidates of the 
 Prohibitionists. Yet the distinctive Pro- 
 hibition vote of that State — nearly 8,700 
 — was large when it is remembered that 
 this was the first year in which the party 
 took the field ; it was cast as a protest 
 against the repeal of the Massachusetts 
 Prohibitory law in 1868 and the beer- 
 exemption clauses of the re-enacted stat- 
 ute of 1869. There is nothing specially 
 interesting in the developments in other 
 States in 1870, except that in New York 
 the candidate for Governor was Myron 
 H. Clark, who had been elected Governor 
 on the Maine law issue in 1854. 1 
 
 1 Governor Clark's election was secured in this way : 
 The New York Legislature of 1853 passed a Prohibitory 
 law, which Governor Horatio Seymour (Dem.) vetoed- 
 This veto aroused strong reeling, and the State Tem- 
 perance Convention which met at Auburn. Sept. 29. 1853, 
 decided to take the question into politics, declaring in 
 its resolutions: " We advocate and will labor for the 
 enactment of a law prohibiting the traffic in intoxicating 
 beverages. . . . We regard the enactment of such a 
 law as the greatest and most vital issue in State politics, 
 and we cannot subordinate this question to any other 
 nor defer its settlement to any more convenient season. 
 . . . We ask a Legislature that will enact such a law, 
 a Governor who will approve and magistrates and other 
 officers who will enforce it." The re-enactment of the 
 vetoed bill was a leading issue in the election for 
 Governor in 1854, and the vote was as follows : Myron 
 H. Clark (Whig, Temp., Free Dem. and Hep., on a strong 
 Prohibition platform), 156,804; Horatio Seymour (Dem., 
 on an ami- Prohibition platform), 156,495; TJllman (Know- 
 Nothing, personally opposed to Prohibition, though the 
 platform of his party was silent in regard to the ques- 
 tion),12a,28S ; Bronson (Hardshell Dem , opposed to Prohi- 
 bition), 35,850- Clark's plurality, 309. The Prohibitory bill 
 was passed again by the Legislature of 1855, and 
 Governor Clark signed it, but after it had been in force 
 for a few months it was pronounced unconstitutional in 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 563 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 Only a few of the States held elections 
 in 1871. Five returned Prohibition 
 votes: Massachusetts, 6,598; New Hamp- 
 shire, 314; New York, 1,820; Ohio, 4,084, 
 and Pennsylvania, 3,186— total, 16,002. 
 In Massachusetts Judge Eobert C. Pit- 
 man headed the ticket, and by retaining 
 nearly the whole of the previous year's 
 strength demonstrated to the politicians 
 that the new movement was founded on 
 something more serious than a momen- 
 tary outburst. In New York the party 
 took the name of "Anti-Dramshop." 
 In Pennsylvania it appeared for the first 
 time. 
 
 From 1872 to 1876.— The first National 
 Nominating Convention was held on 
 Washington's Birthday (Feb. 22) in 
 1872, at Columbus, 0. It was called to 
 order by Eev. John Russell, Chairman of 
 the National Committee, and the States 
 of California, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, 
 Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan,Min- 
 nesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 
 New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and 
 West Virginia, with the District of Co- 
 lumbia, were represented by delegates. 
 The officers were : Temporary Chairman, 
 Henry Fish of Michigan; Permanent 
 Chairman, S. B. Chase of Pennsylvania; 
 Secretaries, Elroy M. Avery of Ohio, G. 
 F. McFarland of Pennsylvania and J. 
 W. Nichols of Illinois. James Black of 
 Pennsylvania and John Eussell of Michi- 
 gan were unanimously nominated for 
 President and Vice-President, respect- 
 ively, and this platform was adopted : 
 
 "Resolved, That we reaffirm the following 
 resolutions adopted by the National Prohibition 
 Convention, held at Chicago, Sept. 2, 1869: 
 
 *' * Whereas, Protection and allegiance are reciprocal 
 duties, and every citizen who yields obedience to the just 
 commands of the Government is entitled to the full, free 
 and perfect protection of that Government in the enjoy- 
 ment of personal security, personal liberty and private 
 property; and 
 
 " ' Whereas, The traffic in intoxicating drinks greatly 
 impairs the personal security and personal liberty of a 
 large mass of citizens, and renders private property inse- 
 cure; and 
 
 " ' Whereas, All other political parties are hopelessly 
 unwilling to adopt an adequate policy on this question; 
 therefore 
 
 ' " ' We, in National Convention assembled, as citizens of 
 this free Republic, sharing the duties and responsibilities 
 of its Government, in discharge of a solemn duty we owe 
 to our country and our race, unite in the following decla- 
 ration of principles: 
 
 " ' 1. That while we acknowledge the pure patriotism 
 and profound statesmanship of those patriots who laid 
 the foundations of this Government, securing at once the 
 rights of the States severally, and their inseparable union 
 
 certain provisions by the Court of Appeals. The Legisla- 
 ture of 1856 was the first one in New York that the 
 Republican party controlled in both branches, and it 
 passed a license law. (See the "Political Prohibi- 
 tionist for 1887," p. 100.) 
 
 by the Federal Constitution, we would not merely garnish 
 the sepulchers of our republican fathers, but we do 
 hereby renew our solemn pledges of fealty to the im- 
 perishable principles of civil and religious' liberty em- 
 bodied in the Declaration of American Independence and 
 our Federal Constitution. 
 
 11 '2. That the traffic in intoxicating beverages is a 
 dishonor to Christian civilization, inimical to the best in- 
 terests of society, a political wrong of unequalled enormity, 
 subversive of the ordinary objects of government, not 
 capable of being regulated or restrained oy any system of 
 license whatever, but imperatively demanding for its sup- 
 pression effective legal Prohibition by both State and 
 National legislation. 1 
 
 "3. That while we recognize the good provi- 
 dence of Almighty God in supervising the in- 
 terests of this nation from its establishment to 
 the present time, having organized our party 
 for the legal Prohibition of the liquor traffic, 
 our reliance for success is upon the same omni- 
 potent arm. 
 
 "4. That there can be no greater peril to the 
 nation than the existing party competition for 
 the liquor vote ; that any party not openly op- 
 posed to the traffic, experience shows, will en- 
 gage in this competition, will court the favor of 
 the criminal classes, will barter away the public 
 morals, the purity of the ballot, and every ob- 
 ject of good government, for party success. 
 
 "5. That while adopting national political 
 measures for the Prohibition of the liquor traffic, 
 we will continue the use of all moral means in 
 our power to persuade men away from the in- 
 jurious practice of using intoxicating beverages. 
 
 ' ' 6. That we invite all persons, whether total 
 abstainers or not, who recognize the terrible in- 
 juries inflicted by the liquor traffic, to unite 
 with us for its overthrow, and to secure thereby 
 peace, order and the protection of persons and 
 property. 
 
 "7. That competency, honesty and sobriety 
 are indispensable qualifications for holding pub- 
 lic office. 
 
 "8. That removals from public service for 
 mere difference of political opinion is a practice 
 opposed to sound policy and just principles. 
 
 "9. That fixed and moderate salaries should 
 take the place of official fees and perquisites ; 
 the franking privilege, sinecures, and all unnec- 
 essary offices and expenses should, be abolished, 
 and every possible means be employed to pre- 
 vent corruption and venality in office ; and by a 
 rigid system of accountability from all its offi- 
 cers, and guards over the public treasury, the 
 utmost economy should be practiced and en- 
 forced in every department of the Government. 
 
 "10. That we favor the election of President, 
 Vice-President and United States Senators by 
 direct vote of the people. 
 
 "11. That we are in favor of a sound national 
 currency, adequate to the demands of business 
 and convertible into gold and silver at the will 
 of the holder, and the adoption of every meas- 
 ure compatible with justice and the public 
 safety, to appreciate our present currency to 
 the gold standard. 
 
 "12. That the rates of inland and ocean 
 postage, of telegraphic communication, of rail- 
 road and water transportation and travel, should 
 be reduced to the lowest practicable point, by 
 force of laws wisely and justly framed, with 
 reference not only to the interest of capital em- 
 ployed but to the higher claim of the general 
 good. 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 564 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 " 13. That an adequate public revenue being 
 necessary, it may properly be raised by impost 
 duties and by an equitable assessment upon the 
 property and legitimate business of the country; 
 nevertheless we are opposed to any discrimina- 
 tion of capital against labor, as well as to all 
 monopoly and class legislation. 
 
 "14. That the removal of the burdens, moral, 
 physical, pecuniary and social, imposed by the 
 traffic in intoxicating drinks will, in our judg- 
 ment, emancipate labor and practically thus 
 promote labor reform. 
 
 "15. That the fostering and extension of 
 common schools under the care and support of 
 the State, to supply the want of a general and 
 liberal education, is a primary duty of a good 
 government. 
 
 "16. That the right of suffrage rests on no 
 mere circumstance of color, race, former social 
 condition, sex or nationality, but inheres in the 
 nature of man ; and when from any cause it 
 has been withheld from citizens of our country 
 who are of suitable age and mentally and mor- 
 ally qualified for the discharge of its duties, it 
 should be speedily restored by the people in 
 their sovereign capacity. ' 
 
 " 17. That a liberal and just policy should be 
 pursued to promote foreign immigration to our 
 shores, always allowing to the naturalized citi- 
 zens equal rights, privileges and protection 
 under the Constitution with those who are 
 native-born." 
 
 The following table gives the Presi- 
 dential vote of the party in 1872 and the 
 vote at State elections in 1873, 1874 and 
 1875 : 
 
 States. 
 
 Presi- 
 dent, 
 1872. 
 
 1873. 
 
 1874. 
 
 1875. 
 
 
 '205 
 
 l',271 
 
 '266 
 
 201 
 
 ! 2,100 
 
 1,630 
 
 2,54i 
 
 l',050 
 
 1,779 
 3,272 
 10,081 
 
 4,960 
 
 516 
 
 2,277 
 
 3,937 
 
 l',346 
 2,100 
 11,768 
 7,815 
 4,632 
 
 356 
 2,932 
 
 9,i24 
 
 l',6o6 
 
 '773 
 
 11,103 
 
 2,593 
 
 13,244 
 
 460 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TotalB 
 
 5,607 
 
 18,723 
 
 39,351 
 
 42,185 
 
 
 Popular Tote for President in 1872: Grant (Eep.), 
 3,597,070 ; Greeley (Liberal Eep. and Dem.), 2,834,079 ; 
 O'Conor (straight Dem.), 29,408 ; Black (Proh.), 5,607. 
 
 In the campaign of 1872 the Prohibi- 
 tionists made no efforts to secure votes. 
 Electoral tickets were nominated in only- 
 six States. Even Massachusetts, which 
 had given the party thousands on State 
 issues in 1870 and 1871, refused to recog- 
 nize it as a national organization. The 
 candidacy of Horace G-reeley, whose Pro- 
 hibition record was well-known, and the 
 
 1 This resolution gave rise to prolonged debate. A 
 motion was made to strike out the word " sex," but only 
 22 voted in support of it. 
 
 Easter resolution of the Eepublicans 
 (see Eepublican Paety), probably oper- 
 ated to reduce the natural strength of 
 Black and Eussell. In this year, at the 
 State elections, 1,542 votes were obtained 
 in Connecticut and 478 in New Hamp- 
 shire. 
 
 The returns for 1873 have several in- 
 teresting features. Connecticut cast 
 2,541 Prohibition votes, the rise of the 
 party there being due to the repeal of the 
 Prohibitory law in 1872. In Massachu- 
 setts the formidable vote of former years 
 was wholly wiped out : this is explained 
 by the action of the Legislature, in the 
 spring of 1873, in putting an end to the 
 exemption of beer and thus restoring the 
 effectiveness of' the Prohibitory law. In 
 New York there was a noticeable increase, 
 caused probably by Governor Dix's veto 
 of the Local Option bill in that year and 
 the consequent repudiation of a pledge 
 made by the Eepublican party. In Ohio 
 the large vote of 10,081 was an indica- 
 tion of the rising sentiment that flamed 
 out a few months later in the Woman's 
 Crusade. 
 
 The year 1874 was a notable one in 
 American politics. In consequence of 
 the panic of 1873 and a general dissatis- 
 faction with Grant's Administration the 
 Democrats secured a large majority in 
 the House of Eepresentatives at the Con- 
 gressional elections. There was a loosen- 
 ing of party ties, from which the new 
 party profited. The number of States 
 contributing votes to it was increased to 
 nine. Special influences were at work in 
 several States. In Connecticut and New 
 York the discontent of the Prohibition- 
 ists expressed at the polls in the preced- 
 ing year was emphasized. In Pennsylva- 
 nia the avowed purpose of the liquor 
 element to choose a Legislature that 
 would destroy the Local Option law 
 stimulated the radical Prohibitionists. 
 In Ohio, despite the Woman's Crusade 
 and the submission of a License Amend- 
 ment to the Constitution, there was a 
 decline; but the vote was large, con- 
 sidering that only unimportant State 
 officers were chosen in 1874 and that the 
 License Amendment plot was a device of 
 the Democratic party and therefore 
 brought much temperance support to the 
 Eepublican ticket. 
 
 Comparatively few States held elec- 
 tions in 1875, but the Prohibition party 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 565 
 
 [Prohibition Party- 
 
 had a following in nine States, and its 
 aggregate vote reached the respectable 
 figure of 42,185. Of this vote more 
 than 33,000 came from New York, Penn- 
 sylvania and Massachusetts. The resent- 
 ment of the temperance people in New 
 York was unabated. In Pennsylvania 
 the co-operation of the Eepublicans with 
 the Democrats in repealing the Local 
 Option act brought thousands of recruits 
 to the Prohibition party. The reappear- 
 ance of the party in Massachusetts was 
 occasioned by the repeal of the Prohibi- 
 tory law in that year. In Connecticut a 
 disposition was shown to accept the 
 situation. 
 
 Throughout these early years of inde- 
 pendent political agitation, and for 
 nearly ten years more, there was practi- 
 cally no general acceptance of the claims 
 of the National Prohibition party. Oper- 
 ations were confined to separate States, 
 and the results gained, while promising 
 in a number of cases, were temporary and 
 were not followed up. The election re- 
 turns frequently describe the Prohibition 
 votes of this period as " Temperance " or 
 " Anti-Dramshop." In Rhode Island the 
 Prohibition question changed the face of 
 politics for several years. A Legislature 
 and a Governor friendly to Prohibition 
 were chosen in 1874, and a Prohibitory 
 law was accordingly enacted. A con- 
 spiracy to annul it was immediately in- 
 stituted, and the parties were split into 
 factions for and against repeal. In 1875, 
 on the question of repeal, three candi- 
 dates for Governor were nominated, and 
 the candidate committed to the reten- 
 tion of the measure (Howard, Republi- 
 can and Prohibitionist) received a plu- 
 rality, but the liquor men carried the 
 Legislature and seated an anti-Prohibi- 
 tion Governor. The political complica- 
 tions growing out of the developments of 
 1875 continued until 1880, and in each 
 year the Prohibition element polled a 
 heavy vote, ranging above 6,000. 
 
 Renewed interest in the general aspects 
 of the party cause was shown in 1875, 
 when a National Conference of the Pro- 
 hibition party was held at Sea Cliff, N. Y. 
 (July 13). S. B. Chase of Pennsylvania 
 presided. 
 
 From 1876 to 1880.— More than 100 
 delegates, representing the States of Con- 
 necticut, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, 
 
 Michigan, Minnesota, Massachusetts r 
 New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsyl- 
 vania and Wisconsin, were in attendance 
 at the second National Nominating Con- 
 vention, which met in Cleveland on the 
 17th of May, 1876. Gen. Green Clay 
 Smith of Kentucky was the Temporary 
 Chairman and Rev. II. A. Thompson of 
 Ohio the Permanent Chairman ; the Sec- 
 retaries were Charles P. Russell of Mich- 
 igan and J. O. Brayman of Illinois. 
 Green Clay Smith of Kentucky was 
 nominated for President and Gideon T. 
 Stewart of Ohio for Vice-President. An 
 address to the people of the United 
 States, prepared by John Russell, was 
 adopted and the publication of it was 
 ordered. James Black of Pennsylvania 
 was made Chairman and John Russell of 
 Michigan Secretary of the National Com- 
 mittee. "The National Prohibition Re- 
 form Party " was substituted for the old 
 name. The platform was as follows : 
 
 " The Prohibition Reform party of the United 
 States, organized in the name of the people to 
 revive, enforce and perpetuate in the Govern- 
 ment the doctrines of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, submit in this Centennial year of the 
 Republic for the suffrages of all good citizens 
 the following platform of national reforms and 
 measures : 
 
 "1. The legal Prohibition in the District of 
 Columbia, the Territories and in every other 
 place subject to the laws of Congress, of the im- 
 portation, exportation, manufacture and traffic 
 of all alcoholic beverages, as high crimes against 
 society ; an Amendment of the National Con- 
 stitution to render these Prohibitory measures 
 universal and permanent, and the adoption of 
 treaty stipulations with foreign Powers to pre- 
 vent the importation and exportation of all alco- 
 holic beverages. 
 
 "2. The abolition of class legislation and of 
 special privileges in the Government, and the 
 adoption of equal suffrage and eligibility to 
 office without distinction of race, religious creed, 
 property or sex. 
 
 "3. The appropriation of the public lands in 
 limited quantities to actual settlers only ; the re- 
 duction of the rates of inland and ocean postage, 
 of telegraphic communication, of railroad and 
 water transportation and travel to the lowest 
 practical point by force of laws, wisely and 
 justly framed, with reference not only to the in- 
 terests of capital employed but to the higher 
 claims of the general good. 
 
 "4. The suppression, by law, of lotteries and 
 gambling in gold, stocks, produce and every 
 form of money and property, and the penal in- 
 hibition of the use of the public mails for ad- 
 vertising schemes of gambling and lotteries. 
 
 "5. The abolition of those foul enormities, 
 polygamy and the social evil, and the protection 
 of purity, peace and happiness of homes by- 
 ample and efficient legislation. 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 566 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 " 6. The national observance of the Christian 
 Sabbath, established by laws prohibiting ordi- 
 nary labor and business in all departments of 
 public service and private employments (works 
 of necessity, charity and religion excepted) on 
 that day. 
 
 "7. The establishment by mandatory pro- 
 visions in National and State Constitutions, and 
 by all necessary legislation, of a system of free 
 public schools for the universal and forced edu- 
 cation of all the youth of the land. 
 
 ' ' 8. The free use of the Bible, not as a ground 
 «of religious creeds, but as a text-book of purest 
 morality, the best liberty and the noblest litera- 
 ture, in our public schools, that our children 
 may grow up in its light and that its spirit and 
 principles may pervade our nation. 
 
 " 9. The separation of the Government in all 
 its departments and institutions, including the 
 public schools and all funds for their mainte- 
 nance, from the control of every religious sect or 
 other association, and the protection alike of all 
 sects by equal laws, with entire freedom of re- 
 ligious faith and worship. 
 
 "10. The introduction into all treaties, here- 
 after negotiated with foreign Governments, of a 
 provision for the amicable settlement of interna- 
 tional difficulties by arbitration. 
 
 "11. The abolition of all barbarous modes 
 and instruments of punishment ; the recogni- 
 tion of the laws of God and the claims of 
 humanity in the discipline of jails and prisons, 
 and of that higher and wiser civilization worthy 
 of our age and nation, which regards the re- 
 form of criminals as a means for the prevention 
 .of crime. 
 
 "12. The abolition of executive and legisla- 
 tive patronage, and the election of President, 
 Vice-President, United States Senators, and of 
 all civil officers, so far as practicable, by the 
 direct vote of the people. 
 
 "13. The practice of a friendly and liberal 
 policy to immigrants from all nations, the 
 guaranty to them of ample protection and of 
 . .equal rights and privileges. 
 
 " 14. The separation of the money of Govern- 
 ment from all banking institutions. The Na- 
 tional Government only should exercise the 
 high prerogative of issuing paper money, and 
 that should be subject to prompt redemption on 
 demand, in gold and silver, the only equal stand- 
 ards of value recognized by the civilized 
 world. 
 
 "15. The reduction of the salaries of public 
 officers in a just ratio with the decline of wages 
 and market prices, the abolition of sinecures, un- 
 necessary offices and official fees and perquisites; 
 the practice of strict economy in Government ex- 
 penses, and a free and thorough investigation 
 into any and all alleged abuses of public trusts." 
 
 Without resources or encouragement, 
 the party conducted no canvass in 1876. 
 This was the exciting Tilden-Hayes year, 
 and electors were especially unwilling to 
 break away from their old parties. But 
 the Prohibition vote, though light, was 
 distributed over 18 States, twice as many 
 States as had furnished support in any 
 
 former year. The votes for State offi- 
 cers in 1876 were: Kansas, 393; Massa- 
 chusetts (Proh. and Greenb.), 12,274 ; 
 Michigan, 874 ; New Hampshire, 425 ; 
 New York, 3,412 ; Ohio, 1,863— total, 
 19,241. 
 
 Below are the votes by States for Presi- 
 dent in 1876 and State candidates in 
 1877, 1878 and 1879 : 
 
 States. 
 
 Presi- 
 dent, 
 1876. 
 
 1877. 
 
 1878. 
 
 1879. 
 
 
 378 
 
 141 
 
 38 
 
 36 
 
 110 
 
 818 
 
 10 
 
 84 
 
 767 
 
 144 
 
 64 
 
 1,599 
 
 "43 
 2,329 
 1,636 
 1,319 
 68 
 
 153 
 
 lo',545 
 16,354 
 
 l',438 
 7,230 
 4,836 
 2,827 
 
 1,079 
 2,228 
 
 l",913 
 
 3,469 
 
 "85 
 
 4,294 
 5,682 
 3,759 
 
 3,258 
 
 l',645 
 2,868 
 
 4,437 
 4,145 
 3,219 
 
 '387 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9,737 
 
 43,230 
 
 22,509 
 
 19,959 
 
 
 Popular vote for President in 1876: Tilden (Dem.), 
 4,285,992 ; Hayes (Kep.), 4,033,950 ; Cooper (Greenb.), 
 81,737; Smith (Proh.), 9,737. 
 
 The intention of continuing the na- 
 tional struggle was shown in 1877, when 
 a National Conference of the party was 
 held in New York City (Sept. 26 and 27). 
 
 The elections of 1877 were signalized 
 by votes of 10,545 in Iowa (a State that 
 had ignored the movement) and 16,354 in 
 Massachusetts. Iowa's action proved to be 
 of far-reaching importance ; the bold step 
 taken by her Prohibitionists alarmed 
 the Republican leaders and prepared 
 the way for the Constitutional Amend- 
 ment agitation and the subsequent sub- 
 mission and legislation. (See p. 105.) 
 The Massachusetts temperance people 
 made a stronger protest than they had 
 done before against the repeal of the 
 Prohibitory law, Judge Pitman being 
 again their candidate for Governor. 
 New Jersey for the first time vouchsafed 
 votes for the party Prohibitionists. In 
 Pennsylvania the failure to regain ground 
 indicated that the revolt of 1875 was to 
 be without effect. New York and Ohio, 
 while not touching the marks registered 
 in former years, showed a disposition to 
 steadily maintain the party organization, 
 a disposition that was adhered to in these 
 States, as well as in Pennsylvania, in 
 1878 and 1879. 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 567 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 The aggregate votes of the party were 
 smaller in 1878 and 1879 than they 
 had been in any year (excepting 1876) 
 since 1873. There was a subsidence in 
 all the important States excepting Illi- 
 nois, Michigan and Minnesota. In Con- 
 necticut the vote sank below that given 
 at the State election of 1872. In Iowa 
 the election of 1878 was for minor State 
 ■officers and the Prohibitionists did not 
 participate in it, but in 1879, at the Gu- 
 bernatorial and legislative elections, while 
 not holding their strength of 1877 they 
 again convinced the political managers 
 that it would be unwise to resist their 
 demands. 
 
 From 1880 to 1884.— The third Na- 
 tional Nominating Convention, at Cleve- 
 land, June 17, 1880, contained 142 dele- 
 gates from the States of Arkansas, Con- 
 necticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
 Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, 
 Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wiscon- 
 sin. Eev. H. A. Thompson of Ohio pre- 
 sided as Temporary Chairman and Eev. 
 A. A. Miner, D.D., of Massachusetts, as 
 Permanent Chairman, with Mrs. Mary 
 A. Woodbridge of Ohio, Mrs. Mattie 
 McClellan Brown, George Erwin of Penn- 
 sylvania, D. P. Sagendorph of Michigan, 
 Mrs. E. M. J. Cooley of Wisconsin and 
 Mrs. A. J. Gordon of Massachusetts as 
 Secretaries. Neal Dow of Maine was 
 nominated for President and Eev. H. A. 
 Thompson of Ohio for Vice-President. 
 Below is the platform : 
 
 "The Prohibition Reform party of the United 
 ■States, organized in the name of the people to 
 revive, enforce and perpetuate in the Govern- 
 ment the doctrines of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence, submit for the suffrages of all good 
 citizens the following platform of national re- 
 forms and measures : 
 
 " 1. In the examination and discussion of the 
 temperance question it has been proven, and is 
 .an accepted truth, that alcoholic drinks, whether 
 fermented, brewed or distilled, are poisonous 
 to the healthy human body, the drinking of 
 which is not only needless but hurtful, neces- 
 sarily tending to form intemperate habits, in- 
 creasing greatly the number, severity and fatal 
 termination of diseases, weakening and derang- 
 ing the intellect, polluting the affections, hard- 
 ening the heart and corrupting the morals, 
 depriving many of reason and still more of its 
 healthful exercise, and annually bringing down 
 large numbers to untimely graves, producing in 
 the children of many who drink a predisposition 
 to intemperance, insanity and various bodily 
 and mental diseases, causing a diminution of 
 .strength, feebleness of vision, fickleness of pur- 
 pose and premature old age, and producing to 
 
 all future generations a deterioration of moral 
 and physical character. The legalized impor- 
 tation, manufacture and sale of intoxicating 
 drinks minister to their uses and teach the 
 erroneous and destructive sentiment that such 
 use is right, thus tending to produce and per- 
 petuate the above-mentioned evils. Alcoholic 
 drinks are thus the implacable enemy of man 
 as an individual. 
 
 "2. That the liquor traffic is to the home 
 equally an enemy, proving a disturber and a 
 destroyer of its peace, prosperity and happiness, 
 taking from it the earnings of the husband, de- 
 priving the dependent wife and children of 
 essential food, clothing and education, bringing 
 into it profanity and abuse, setting at naught 
 the vows of the marriage altar, breaking up the 
 family and sundering children from parents, 
 and thus destroying one of the most beneficent 
 institutions of our Creator, and removing the 
 sure foundation for good government, national 
 prosperity and welfare. 
 
 "3. That to the community it is equally an 
 enemy, producing demoralization, vice and 
 wickedness ; its places of sale being often re- 
 sorts for gambling, lewdness and debauchery, 
 and the hiding places of those who prey upon 
 society, counteracting the efficacy of religious 
 effort and of all means for the intellectual ele- 
 vation, moral purity, social happiness and the 
 eternal good of mankind, without rendering 
 any counteracting or compensating benefits, 
 being in its influence and effect evil and only 
 evil, and that continually. 
 
 "4. That to the State it is equally an enemy, 
 legislative inquiry, judicial investigation and 
 the official reports of all penal, reformatory and 
 dependent institutions showing that the manu- 
 facture and sale of such beverages is the pro- 
 moting cause of intemperance, crime and 
 pauperism, of demands upon public and private 
 charity ; imposing the larger part of taxation, 
 thus paralyzing thrift, industry, manufacture 
 and commercial life, which but for it would be 
 unnecessary ; disturbing the peace of the streets 
 and highways ; filling prisons and poorhouses ; 
 corrupting politics, legislation and the execution 
 of the laws ; shortening lives, diminishing 
 health, industry and productive power in 
 manufacture and art ; and is manifestly unjust 
 as well as injurious to the community upon 
 which it is imposed, and contrary to all just 
 views of civil liberty, as well as a violation of a 
 fundamental maxim of our common law to use 
 your own property or liberty so as not to injure 
 others. 
 
 " 5. That it is neither right nor politic for the 
 State to afford legal protection to any traffic or 
 system which tends to waste the resources, to 
 corrupt the social habits and to destroy the 
 health and lives of the people ; that the impor- 
 tation, manufacture and sale of intoxicating 
 beverages is proven to be mimical to the true 
 interests of the individual, the home, the com- 
 munity, the State, and destructive to the order 
 and welfare of society, and ought, therefore, to 
 be classed among crimes to be prohibited. 
 
 ' ' 6. That in this time of profound peace at 
 home and abroad the entire separation of the 
 general Government from the drink traffic, and 
 its Prohibition in the District of Columbia, the 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 568 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 Territories and in all places and ways over 
 which (under the Constitution) Congress has 
 control or power, is a political issue of first im- 
 portance to the peace and prosperity of the 
 nation. There can be no stable peace and pro- 
 tection to personal liberty, life or property until 
 secured by National and State Constitutional 
 Prohibition enforced by adequate laws. 
 
 "7. That all legitimate industries require 
 deliverance from taxation and loss which the 
 liquor traffic imposes upon them, and financial 
 or other legislation can not accomplish so much 
 to increase production and cause demand for 
 labor, and as a result, for the comfort of living, 
 as the suppression of this traffic would bring to 
 thousands of homes as one of its blessings. 
 
 "8. That the administration of Government 
 and the execution of the laws being by and 
 through political parties, we arraign the Republi- 
 can party, which has been in continuous power 
 in the nation for 20 years, as being false to its 
 duty, as false to its loudly -proclaimed princi- 
 ples of ' equal justice to all and special favors to 
 none,' and of protection to the weak and de- 
 pendent ; and that through moral cowardice it 
 has been and is unable to correct the mischief 
 which the trade in liquor has constantly inflicted 
 upon the industrial interests, commerce and 
 social happiness of the people. On the con- 
 trary, its subjection to and complicity with the 
 liquor interest appears : (1) By the facts that 
 5,652 distilleries, 2,830 breweries, and 175,266 
 places of sale of the poisonous liquors, involving 
 an annual waste, direct and indirect, to the na- 
 tion of $1,500,000,000, and a sacrifice of 100,000 
 lives, have under its legislation grown up and 
 been fostered as a legitimate source of revenue .; 
 (2) That during its history six Territories have 
 been organized and five States admitted into the 
 Union with Constitutions provided and ap- 
 proved by Congress, but the Prohibition of this 
 debasing and destructive traffic has not been pro- 
 vided for, nor even the people given at the time 
 of admission the power to forbid it in any one 
 of them ; (3) That its history furthersliews-that 
 not in a single instance has an original Prohibi- 
 tory law been enacted in any State controlled by 
 it, while in four States so governed the laws 
 found on its advent to power have been re- 
 pealed ; (4) That at its National Convention of 
 1872 it declared as a part of its party faith that 
 ' it disapproves of a resort to unconstitutional 
 laws for the purpose of removing evils by inter- 
 ference with the right not surrendered by the 
 people to either State or National Government,' 
 which the author of this plank says ' was adopt- 
 ed by the Platform Committee with the full and 
 explicit understanding that its purpose was the 
 discountenancing of all so-called temperance 
 (Prohibitory) and Sunday laws ; ' (5) That not- 
 withstanding the deep interest felt by the people 
 during the last quadrennium in the legal sup- 
 pression of the drink curse, shown by many 
 forms of public expression, this party at its 
 last National Convention, held in Chicago 
 during the present month, in making new 
 promises by its platform, says not one word on 
 this question, nor holds out any hope of relief. 
 
 "9. That we arraign also the Democratic 
 party as unfaithful and unworthy of reliance on 
 this question ; for although not clothed with 
 
 power, but occupying the relation of me opposi- 
 tion party during 20 years past, strong in num- 
 ber and organization, it has allied itself with the 
 liquor-traffickers and has become in all the 
 States of the Union their special political de- 
 fenders. In its National Convention in 1876, as 
 an article of its political faith, it declared 
 against Prohibition and just laws in restraint of 
 the trade in drink by saying it was opposed to 
 what it was pleased to call ' all sumptuary laws.' 
 The National party » has been dumb on the 
 question. 
 
 "10. That the drink-traffickers, realizing that 
 history and experience, in all ages, climes and 
 conditions of men declare their business de- 
 structive of all good, and finding no support 
 from the Bible, morals or reason, appeal to mis- 
 applied law for their justification, and entrench 
 themselves behind the evil elements of political 
 party for defense, party tactics and party in- 
 ertia having become the battling forces protect- 
 ing this evil. 
 
 "11. That in view of the foregoing facts and 
 history, we cordially invite all voters, without 
 regard to former party affiliation, to unite with 
 us in the use of the ballot for the abolition of 
 the drink system now existing under the 
 authority of our National and State Govern- 
 ments. We also demand as a right that women, 
 having in other respects the privileges of 
 citizens, shall be clothed with the ballot for 
 their protection, and as a rightful means for a 
 proper settlement of the liquor question. 
 
 "12. That to remove the apprehensions of 
 some who allege that loss of public revenue 
 would follow the suppression of the drink 
 trade, we confidently point to the experience of 
 government abroad and at home, which shows 
 that thrift and revenue from consumption of 
 legitimate manufactures and commerce have so 
 largely followed the abolition of the drink as to 
 fully supply all loss of liquor taxes. 
 
 " 13. That we recognize the good providence 
 of Almighty God, who has preserved and pros- 
 pered us as a nation, and, asking for his spirit 
 to guide us to ultimate success, we will look for 
 it, relying upon his omnipotent arm." 
 
 Votes of 1880-3 : 
 
 States. 
 
 California 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Maine 
 
 Massachusetts . . . 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 New Hampshire . 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New York 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Pennsylvania. . . . 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Totals. 
 
 Pbes., 
 1880. 
 
 1881. 
 
 1882. 
 
 1883. 
 
 61 
 
 
 5,772 
 
 
 409 
 
 
 1,034 
 
 
 443 
 
 
 11,344 
 
 
 592 
 
 
 
 
 858 
 
 
 4,392 
 
 
 93 
 
 
 387 
 
 
 682 
 
 1,040 
 
 2,137 
 
 1,881 
 
 942 
 
 18,774 
 
 5,854 
 
 13,950 
 
 286 
 
 708 
 
 
 4,924 
 
 180 
 
 
 345 
 
 
 191 
 
 
 2,004' 
 
 4,153 
 
 1,517 
 
 4,445 
 
 85,783 
 
 18,816 
 
 2,616 
 
 16,597 
 
 13,802 
 
 8,362 
 
 1,319 
 
 4,507 
 
 5,196 
 
 6,602 
 
 20 
 
 253 
 
 
 
 69 
 
 7,002 
 
 13,800' 
 
 
 9,678 
 
 47,326 
 
 90,250 
 
 58,688 
 
 1 Aggregates on Congressmen. 
 
 Popular vote for President in 1880 : Garfield (Rep.), 
 4,454,416 : Hancock (Dem.), 4,444,952 ; Weaver (Greenb.), 
 308,578 ; Dow (Proh.), 9,678. 
 
 1 Another name for the Greenback-Labor party. 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 569 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 Sixteen States gave votes in 1880 as 
 against 18 in 1876. Again the party was 
 too feeble to make a formal campaign. 
 Just before the election the report was 
 widely published that Mr. Dow had with- 
 drawn. To announce the retirement of 
 Prohibitionist nominees is always a favor- 
 ite device of not over-scrupulous politi- 
 cians. Votes for State candidates in 
 1880: Connecticut, 488; Massachusetts, 
 1,059; Michigan, 1,114; New Jersey, 
 195; Ohio, 2,815; Pennsylvania, 1,898— 
 total, 7,489. (It is probable, however, 
 that this list does not include all the 
 States that ran tickets.) 
 
 The years 1881 and 1882 mark a new 
 epoch in the history of the national or- 
 ganization. At the Lake Bluff Convoca- 
 tion (held near Chicago) in August, 1881, 
 some of the influential Prohibition lead- 
 ers who had not been very actively iden- 
 tified with the party or had held aloof 
 from it decided to secure, if possible, a 
 more vigorous championship and a 
 stronger support for it. George W. Bain 
 of Kentucky, A. J. Jutkins of Illinois, 
 Miss Prances E. Willard of Illinois and 
 E. W. Nelson of Illinois were appointed 
 a committee to organize a so-called 
 " Home Protection party " as "a political 
 party whose platform is based on Consti- 
 tutional and statutory Prohibition of the 
 manufacture and sale of alcoholic bever- 
 ages in the State and nation." A call for 
 a National Convention, joined in by the 
 others interested, was issued, and the 
 body met in Farwell Hall, Chicago, Aug. 
 23 and 24, 1882, 341 delegates being pres- 
 ent from 22 States. Theodore D. Ka- 
 nouse of Wisconsin presided and Mrs. 
 Mary A. Woodbridge of Ohio was Secre- 
 tary. A new name, the "Prohibition 
 Home Protection Party," was adopted, 
 and the National Committee was reor- 
 ganized with Gideon T. Stewart of Ohio 
 as Chairman, A. J. Jutkins of Illinois as 
 Secretary and Samuel D. Hastings of 
 Wisconsin as Treasurer. The platform 
 adopted was comparatively brief. It was 
 as follows : 
 
 "All questions not of a national character be- 
 long to the party within the several States and 
 Territories to define its views, policy and action 
 respecting them, not inconsistent with this na- 
 tional platform. 
 
 "We declare in favor of the following na- 
 tional principles and measures, to he incorpo- 
 rated in the National Constitution and enforced 
 by Congress and the Government ; 
 
 " 1. The prohibition, as public crimes, of the 
 importation, exportation, manufacture, sale and 
 supply of all alcoholic beverages. 
 
 "2. The prohibition of all taxation, license, 
 regulation and legal sanction in any form of 
 these or any other public crimes. 
 
 "3. The civil and political equality and en- 
 franchisement of women. This reform, so far 
 as concerns the States severally, is remitted to 
 the party in those States. 
 
 "4. The abolition of polygamy. 
 
 "5. The abolition of executive, judicial and 
 legislative patronage, and election of all officers 
 by the people as far as practicable, and civil ser- 
 vice reform in other appointments. 
 
 "6. The abolition of sinecures and unneces- 
 sary offices. 
 
 "7. The universal and enforced education of 
 the youth of the nation (including instruction in 
 regard to the effects of alcohol on the human 
 body), with ample provision for the support of 
 an adequate and efficient system of free public 
 schools in all the States and Territories. 
 
 " 8. The preservation of the public lands for 
 homes for the people, and their division in 
 limited portions to actual settlers only. 
 
 "9. The abolition of all monopolies, class 
 legislation and special privileges from Govern- 
 ment injurious to the equal rights of citizens. 
 
 "10. The control of railroad and other cor- 
 porations, to prevent abuses of power and to 
 protect the interests of labor and commerce." 
 
 There was substantial growth at the 
 State elections of 1881, 1882 and 1883, 
 the more encouraging because it was the 
 consequence of steadily rising sentiment 
 more than of passing discontent in par- 
 ticular States. In California, Illinois, 
 Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New 
 Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania 
 and Wisconsin the advances made were 
 progressive steps toward further gains 
 in subsequent years. In several States 
 that held elections in all the three years 
 the vote fluctuated : in Michigan it de- 
 clined in 1882 and rose again in 1883 ; in 
 New York it reached the maximum point 
 in 1882; in Ohio it was highest in 1881 
 and lowest in 1883. But the general ten- 
 dancy was upward. For the first time 
 there were signs that the party, instead 
 of being a mere temporary refuge for 
 bolters, was taking permanent root, that 
 men of influence and practical spirit were 
 identifying themselves with it through- 
 out the Union, and that at last the doc- 
 trine, " Prohibition with a party behind 
 it," was to command general attention 
 and seriously disturb political condi- 
 tions. But in some States the votes cast 
 in these years were swollen by special 
 causes. In New York, in 1882, the un- 
 precedented total of 25,783 (for A. A. Hop- 
 kins for Governor) came largely from 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 570 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 unconverted Republicans, whose sole rea- 
 son for acting with the Prohibitionists 
 was dissatisfaction with the management 
 of their party. (This was the year in 
 which Grover Cleveland obtained his 
 remarkable plurality of 192,000 for Gov- 
 ernor of New York.) The sudden de- 
 A r elopment of the party in California in 
 1882, with a strength of 5,772, is ac- 
 counted for chiefly by the personal popu- 
 larity of its leader, R. H. McDonald. 
 
 From 1884 to 1888.— The Nominating 
 Convention of 1884 was called to meet at 
 Pittsburgh, May 21. But it was desired 
 by some of the new leaders, and by many 
 who had not fully made up their minds, 
 to make a final test of the tendencies of 
 the other political parties before enter- 
 ing the field. The date was changed to 
 July 23, and prominent representatives of 
 the movement were sent to the Repub- 
 lican National Convention (at Chicago, 
 June 5) and the Democratic National 
 Convention (at Chicago, July 10) to 
 appeal to those bodies to favorably recog- 
 nize the temperance question as one of 
 the political issues of the day. The 
 Platform Committees of the two Con- 
 ventions, after listening with scant cour- 
 tesy to the advocates, ignored their re- 
 quests. Many who had hoped that the 
 Republican or the Democratic party 
 "would take up the cause in due time 
 were now convinced of the hostility of 
 both these organizations, and when the 
 Prohibition Convention assembled at 
 Pittsburgh on the 23d of July it was 
 evident that a profound impression had 
 been made on the country. Thirty-one 
 .States and Territories (including the 
 District of Columbia) sent 465 accredited 
 delegates, the only ones not represented 
 being the States of Colorado, Delaware, 
 Florida, Iowa, Mississippi, Nevada, North 
 Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont and 
 Virginia, and the Territories of Idaho, 
 Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Washing- 
 ton and Wyoming. The Convention 
 chose as its officers William Daniel of 
 Maryland for Temporary Chairman, 
 Samuel Dickie of Michigan for Perma- 
 nent Chairman and Mary A. Woodbridge 
 ■of Ohio, Charles S. Carter of the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, S. Cairns of Missouri, 
 C. A. Hovey of New Hampshire and L. 
 S. Freeman of New York for Secretaries. 
 John P. St. John, ex-Governor of Kansas, 
 
 was unanimously nominated for Presi- 
 dent and William Daniel of Maryland 
 for Vice-President. The name of the 
 party was once more changed, the origi- 
 nal name of " Prohibition Party " being 
 restored. John B. Finch of Nebraska 
 was placed at the head of the National 
 Committee, with A. J. Jutkins and J. A. 
 Van Fleet (both of Illinois) as Secretaries 
 and Samuel D. Hastings of Wisconsin as 
 Treasurer; the temperance women were 
 given special representation in the Com- 
 mittee by the selection of Miss Frances 
 E. Willard of Illinois and Mrs. Stewart 
 of Ohio as members-at-large. The plat- 
 form follows : 
 
 "1. The Prohibition party, in National Con- 
 vention assembled, acknowledge Almighty God 
 as the rightful sovereign of all men, from whom 
 the just powers of government are derived and 
 to whose laws human enactments should con- 
 form as an absolute condition of peace, prosper- 
 ity and happiness. 
 
 " 2. That the importation, manufacture, sup- 
 ply and sale of alcoholic beverages, created and 
 maintained by the laws of the National and 
 State Governments during the entire history of 
 such laws, are everywhere shown to be the pro- 
 moting cause of intemperance, with resulting 
 crime and pauperism, making large demands 
 upon public and private charity; imposing large 
 and unjust taxation for the support of penal and 
 sheltering institutions, upon thrift, industry, 
 manufactures and commerce; endangering the 
 public peace; desecrating the Sabbath; corrupt- 
 ing our politics, legislation and administration 
 of the laws ; shortening lives, impairing health 
 and diminishing productive industry; causing 
 education to be neglected and despised; nulli- 
 fying the teachings of the Bible, the church 
 and the school, the standards and guides of our 
 fathers and their children in the founding and 
 growth of our widely-extended country; and 
 which, imperilling the perpetuity of our civil 
 and religious liberties, are baleful fruits by 
 which we know that these laws are contrary to 
 God's laws and contravene our happiness. "We 
 therefore call upon our fellow-citizens to aid in 
 the repeal of these laws and in the legal sup- 
 pression of this baneful liquor traffic. 
 
 " 3. During the 24 years in which the Repub- 
 lican party has controlled the general Govern- 
 ment and many of the States, no effort has 
 been made to change this policy. Territories 
 have been created, Governments for them es- 
 tablished, States admitted to the Union, and in 
 no instance in either case has this traffic been 
 forbidden or the people been permitted to pro- 
 hibit it. That there are now over 200,000 dis- 
 tilleries, breweries, wholesale and retail dealers 
 in their products, holding certificates and claim- 
 ing the authority of Government for the con- 
 tinuation of the business so destructive to the 
 moral and material welfare of the people, to- 
 gether with the fact that they have turned a 
 deaf ear to remonstrance and petition for the 
 correction of this abuse of civil government, is 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 571 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 conclusive that the Republican party is insensi- 
 "ble to or impotent for the redress of these 
 -wrongs, and should no longer be entrusted with 
 the powers and responsibilities of government. 
 Although this party in its late National Conven- 
 tion was silent on the liquor question, not so its 
 candidates, Messrs. Blaine and Logan. Within 
 the year past Mr. Blaine has recommended that 
 the revenue derived from the liquor traffic be 
 distributed among the States; and Senator Logan 
 has, by bill, proposed to devote these revenues 
 to the support of the public schools. Thus 
 both virtually recommend the perpetuation of 
 the traffic, and that the States and their citizens 
 become partners in the liquor crime. 
 
 "4. That the Democratic party has in its 
 national deliverances of party policy arrayed 
 itself on the side of the drink-makers and 
 .sellers by declaring against the policy of Pro- 
 hibition under the false name of 'sumptuary 
 laws ;' that when in power in many of the 
 States it has refused remedial legislation, and 
 that in Congress it has obstructed the creation 
 of a Commission of Inquiry into the effects of 
 -this traffic, proving that it should not be en- 
 trusted with power and place. 
 
 "5. That there can be no greater peril to the 
 nation than the existing competition of the 
 Republican and Democratic parties for the 
 liquor vote. Experience shows that any party 
 not openly opposed to the traffic will engage in 
 this competition, will court the favor of the 
 criminal classes, will barter the public morals, 
 the purity of the ballot and every trust and ob- 
 ject of good government for party success. 
 Patriots and good citizens should, therefore, 
 immediately withdraw from all connection with 
 these parties. 
 
 "6. That we favor reforms in the abolition of 
 •all sinecures with useless offices and officeis, and 
 in elections by the people instead of appoint- 
 ments by the President ; that as competency, 
 honesty and sobriety are essential qualifications 
 for office, we oppose removals except when 
 absolutely necessary to secure effectiveness in 
 vital issues ; that the collection of revenues from 
 alcoholic liquors and tobacco should be abol- 
 ished, since the vices of men are not proper sub- 
 jects of taxation ; that revenue from customs 
 duties should be levied for the support of the 
 Government economically administered, and in 
 such manner as will foster American industries 
 and labor; that the public lands should be held 
 for homes for the people, and not bestowed as 
 gifts to corporations, or sold in large tracts 
 for speculation upon the needs of actual settlers; 
 that grateful care and support should be given 
 to our soldiers and sailors disabled in the service 
 of their country, and to their dependent widows 
 and orphans ; that we repudiate as un-American 
 -and contrary to and subversive of the principles 
 of the Declaration of Independence, that any 
 person or people should be excluded from resi- 
 dence or citizenship who may desire the bene- 
 fits which our institutions confer upon the op- 
 pressed of all nations ; that while these are 
 important reforms, and are demanded for purity 
 of administration and the welfare of the people, 
 their importance sinks into insignificance when 
 compared with the drink traffic, which now 
 Annually wastes $800,000,000 of the wealth 
 
 created by toil and thrift, dragging down 
 thousands of families from comfort to poverty, 
 filling jails, penitentiaries, insane asylums, 
 hospitals and institutions for dependency, im- 
 pairing the health and destroying the lives of 
 thousands, lowering intellectual vigor and dull- 
 ing the cunning hand of the artisan, causing 
 bankruptcy, insolvency and loss in trade, and 
 by its corrupting power endangering the per- 
 petuity of free institutions; that Congress should 
 exercise its undoubted power by prohibiting the 
 manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages 
 in the District of Columbia, the Territories of 
 the United States and all places over which the 
 Government has exclusive jurisdiction ; that 
 hereafter no State should be admitted to the 
 Union until its Constitution shall expressly and 
 forever prohibit polygamy and the manufacture 
 and sale of intoxicating beverages, and that 
 Congress shall submit to the States an Amend- 
 ment to the Constitution forever prohibiting the 
 importation, exportation, manufacture and sale 
 of alcoholic drinks. 
 
 "7. We earnestly call the attention of the 
 mechanic, the miner and manufacturer to the 
 investigation of the baneful effects upon labor 
 and industry of the needless liquor business. 
 It will be found the robber who lessens wages 
 and profits, foments discontent and strikes, and 
 the destroyer of family welfare. Labor and all 
 legitimate industries demand deliverance from 
 the taxation and loss which this traffic imposes ; 
 and no tariff or other legislation can so healthily 
 stimulate production, or increase the demand 
 for capital and labor, or insure so much of com- 
 fort and content to the laborer, mechanic and 
 capitalist as would the suppression of this 
 traffic. 
 
 "8. That the activity and co-operation of the 
 women of America for the promotion of tem- 
 perance has in all the history of the past been a 
 strength and encouragement which we grate- 
 fully acknowledge and record. In the later 
 and present phase of the movement for the 
 Prohibition of the traffic, the purity of purpose 
 and method, the earnestness, zeal, intelligence 
 and devotion of the mothers and daughters of 
 the Woman's Christian Temperance Union have 
 been eminently blessed of God. Kansas and 
 Iowa have been given them as ' sheaves ' of re- 
 joicing, and the education and arousing of the 
 public mind, and the now prevailing demand 
 for the Constitutional Amendment, are largely 
 the fruit of their prayers and labors. Sharing 
 in the efforts that shall bring the question of 
 the abolition of this traffic to the polls, they 
 shall join in the grand ' Praise God, from whom 
 all blessings flow,' when by law victory shall 
 be achieved. 
 
 "9. That, believing in the civil and the polit- 
 ical equality of the sexes, and that the ballot in 
 the hands of woman is her right for protection 
 and would prove a powerful ally for the aboli- 
 tion of the liquor traffic, the execution of the 
 law, the promotion of reform in civil affairs, 
 the removal of corruption in public life, we 
 enunciate the principle and relegate the practi- 
 cal outworking of this reform to the discretion 
 of the Prohibition party in the several States 
 according to the condition of public sentiment 
 in those States. 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 572 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 "10. That we gratefully acknowledge the 
 presence of the divine spirit guiding the coun- 
 sels and granting the success which has been 
 vouchsafed in the progress of the temperance 
 reform ; and we earnestly ask the voters of 
 these United States to make the principles of 
 the above declaration dominant in the Govern- 
 ment of the nation." 
 
 With the Presidential campaign of 
 1884 the National Prohibition party- 
 ceased to be a merely nominal organiza- 
 tion and began its active career. A head- 
 quarters was opened at Chicago and an 
 energetic canvass was made. Mr. St. 
 John and numerous other able speakers 
 addressed large audiences in many States. 
 Mr. Finch, as Chairman of the National 
 Committee, developed great executive 
 talent, shrewdness, tact, judgment and 
 foresight. He set before himself the 
 object of winning the largest possible 
 vote in the States of greatest political 
 importance, in order to give strategic 
 position to the party. New York, as the 
 pivotal State, received chief attention. 
 The work was so effective that the most 
 strenuous efforts were made to counter- 
 act it by the politicians whose interests 
 were endangered. These efforts were 
 eminently unscrupulous; the Eepublican 
 National Committee even entered form- 
 ally into a scheme to procure Mr. St. 
 John's withdrawal by bribery. 1 After 
 the election this undertaking was laid 
 bare, and though the most malignant 
 charges were made against Mr. St. John 
 it was proved that he was above sus- 
 picion. The opposing political leaders 
 did not venture to meet the issues for 
 which the Prohibitionists stood. The 
 Democrats, it is true, very frankly de- 
 clared against their policy whenever 
 representative Democratic opinion was 
 sought, but without discussing the prin- 
 ciples involved. The Eepublicans evaded 
 the question, and the most noteworthy 
 attempt to answer the interrogations with 
 which they were ceaselessly plied was 
 Mr. Blaine's deprecating assertion that 
 Prohibition should be regarded as a State 
 issue and should not have a place in 
 national politics. (See p. 109.) 
 
 The party was strengthened by co-oper- 
 ation from certain elements of voters who 
 conscientiously opposed both Mr. Cleve- 
 land and Mr. Blaine on grounds of person- 
 ality, and who, recognizing in Mr. St. 
 John a pure man and in his cause a 
 
 1 See the " Political Prohibitionist for 1888," p. 84. 
 
 movement of good aspirations, sustained 
 the Prohibition ticket because (from 
 their points of view) no other acceptable 
 one was presented. Prominent among 
 citizens of this class were Dr. Howard 
 Crosby, Judge Noah Davis, Dr. Theodore 
 L. Cuyler and Henry H. Faxon. The 
 influential New York Independent advo- 
 cated Mr. St. John's candidacy. In 
 Massachusetts, New York and Vermont 
 the number of "independent " allies was 
 especially large. 
 
 Among those who had stood before 
 the public for years as the foremost 
 champions of temperance reform the 
 sentiment in behalf of St. John seemed 
 to be overwhelming. Of course there 
 were important exceptions: men like 
 Dr. Daniel Dorchester and women like 
 Mrs. J. Ellen Foster were antagonistic. 
 Even Neal Dow, who had been the can- 
 didate of the party in 1880, was known 
 to prefer Mr. Blaine. 2 But as a class the 
 best-known leaders of temperance 
 opinion were so nearly united for the 
 ticket that exceptions excited remark. 
 On the other hand there was no such 
 strength and concert of feeling among 
 those prominent citizens who, while not 
 at the front in the anti-liquor agitation, 
 were yet sincere sympathizers with it : 
 these individuals were generally unwill- 
 ing to sacrifice their lifelong political 
 affiliations. Most of the temperance 
 organizations took neutral ground., leav- 
 ing their members free to vote as they 
 chose ; for these organizations existed, 
 for educational and social rather than for 
 political purposes. But many of the 
 Woman's Christian Temperance Unions, 
 following the example of their national 
 organization (which had done so much to 
 concentrate the demand for faithful 
 political support of Prohibition) gave 
 cordial encouragement. Highly im- 
 portant was the help that came from the 
 churches. Here again there was nothing 
 like unanimity, and there is no doubt 
 that, counting the clergymen of all de- 
 nominations, a large majority were 
 (avowedly or unavowedly) opposed to 
 the movement; but considering th« in- 
 tensity of the dislike and even hatred 
 with which the "third" party was re- 
 garded in most communities it is remark- 
 able that so enthusiastic and so aggress-: 
 1 
 
 ' Mr. Dow, however, soon returned to the Prohibition, 
 party. 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 573 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 ive a championship was accorded by a 
 very large element of ministers. 
 
 This memorable campaign brought 
 fresh vigor to the Prohibition press. 
 The first number of the Voice was issued 
 Sept. 25, 1384. After the November 
 election it was suspended until the 1st of 
 January, 1885, and since that uate its 
 publication has been continued without 
 interruption, under the general supervi- 
 sion of I. K. Funk, D.D., and, for the most 
 of the time, the directing editorship of 
 Mr. E. J. Wheeler. The newspaper 
 organs of the party that were in exist- 
 ence previously to 1884 illustrated the 
 difficulties and hardships against which 
 the pioneers of the cause contended. 
 They also displayed the zeal, the singular 
 perseverence and tenacity and the devo- 
 tion that made larger results possible. 
 There was in those days no permanent 
 constituency of voters from which a sup- 
 port sufficient to maintain an expensive 
 periodical advocating political Prohibi- 
 tion could be reliably drawn; conse- 
 quently most of the journals of that 
 period were local in scope, circulation 
 and influence. The first, unquestionably, 
 to formally urge the creation of a dis- 
 tinctive Prohibition party, was the Pe- 
 ninsular Herald, published and edited by 
 Eev. John Eussell and his son, Charles 
 P. Eussell, in Detroit, Mich. It was 
 established at Borneo, Mich., in 1864, as 
 a temperance paper, and removed to De- 
 troit in 1866. Early in 1867 it began to 
 show reasons for the Prohibition party 
 plan. In 1873 it passed into other 
 hands. The Delaware Signal, also par- 
 ticularly deserving of mention, was 
 started in 1873, at Delaware, 0., and for 
 many years was conducted by Thomas 
 Evans, Jr., one of the noblest of Ohio's 
 Prohibitionists; in 1886 it was merged 
 with the Neiv Era (Springfield, 0). The 
 National Liberator, another early news- 
 paper of the party, was in 1884 consoli- 
 dated with the Lever (which up to that 
 time had been a Eepublican temperance 
 paper, published at Grand Eapids and 
 afterward at Detroit) ; the new journal, 
 called the Lever and National Liberator, 
 under the management of J. A. Van 
 Fleet, was issued at Chicago and became 
 one of the chief defenders of the new 
 idea. The National Reformer (New 
 York), edited by A. A. Hopkins and W. 
 McK. Gatchell, was at the head of the 
 
 Eastern newspapers committed to the 
 programme ; it was absorbed by the Voice 
 soon after the campaign of 1884. The 
 Witness of New York, a general religious 
 weekly with a great circulation, won the 
 lasting gratitude of the party Prohibi- 
 tionists by espousing their principles in 
 the St. John fight and adhering to them 
 afterward; the popular New York 
 Pioneer (George E. Scott, editor) was an 
 outgrowth of the Witness. To even 
 enumerate the noticeably intelligent and 
 useful Prohibition journals that have 
 sprung up since 1884 would be a difficult 
 task, which does not come within the 
 scope of an article treating of outlines 
 rather than minutiae. It is enough to say 
 that the number of these periodicals has 
 steadily increased, and is now probably 
 in the neighborhood of 250, and that 
 among them are fully a score of excep- 
 tionally strong and aggressive sheets, of 
 national and State importance. 
 
 The following are the votes cast for 
 the Prohibition candidates in the four 
 years beginning with 1884 : 
 
 States. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 California 
 
 Colorado 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 Delaware 
 
 Florida 
 
 Georgia 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 KaneaB 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts... 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 Missouri 
 
 Nebraska 
 
 New Hampshire. 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina.. 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Oregon 
 
 Pennsylvania — 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Texas 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Virginia 
 
 West Virginia... 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Presi- 
 dent, 
 1884. 
 
 1885. 
 
 7,656 
 
 Totals 150,626 151,323 394,863 154,465 
 
 1,405 
 39,405 
 
 2,146 
 4,714 
 14,708 
 
 4,445 
 
 9,199 a 
 30,867 
 
 28,081 
 
 15,047 
 1,206 
 
 1886. 
 
 766 
 6,432 
 3,597' 
 4,699 
 7,835 
 
 19,766 
 
 9,185 
 
 518 
 
 8,094 
 
 3,873 
 7,195 
 8,251 
 
 25,179 
 8,966 
 3,504 
 8,175 
 2,137 
 
 19,808 
 
 36,437 
 4,107 3 
 
 28,983 
 2,753' 
 
 32,458 
 2,585 
 
 19,186 
 1,541 
 
 l',492 
 17,089 
 
 1887. 
 
 9,390 
 
 4,416 
 10,945 
 18,530 
 
 12,6002 
 41,850 
 
 18,471 
 1,895 
 
 1 Aggregates on Congressmen. 
 
 2 Aggregates on memberB of Legislatures. 
 
 Popular vote for President in 1884: Cleveland (Dem.), 
 4,874,986; Blaine (Rep.), 4,851,981; Butler (Greenb.), 
 175,370; St. John (Proh.), 150,626. 
 
 Thirty-four of the 38 States yielded 
 votes in 1884, the missing States being 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 574 
 
 [Prohibition Pearly. 
 
 Arkansas, Mississippi, Nevada and South 
 Carolina. This was the first year in the 
 history of the party in which it had an 
 appreciable following in the South : of 
 the 16 States constituting the so-called 
 "Solid South," 13 gave rotes to St. John 
 aggregating 15,560. There was a marked 
 advance throughout the principal States 
 of the North. New York decided the 
 Presidential election in favor of Cleve- 
 land, but by a very small plurality 
 (1,047); and, assuming that the acces- 
 sions to the Prohibition party came 
 chiefly from the Republicans, it is evi- 
 dent that the result in the country at 
 large would have been reversed if no 
 Prohibition ticket had been run. In 
 other close States (Connecticut and New 
 Jersey) the Prohibitionists also held the 
 balance of power. In several instances 
 the votes for State officers were signi- 
 ficant: Missouri gave John A. Brooks 
 (candidate for Governor) 10,426, and in 
 Michigan David Preston, the prominent 
 banker, received 22,207; in Massachu- 
 setts the State ticket was headed by the 
 distinguished Julius H. Seelye, President 
 of Amherst College, but his vote was 
 only 8,581, considerably, less than St. 
 John's, proving that the Presidential 
 candidate was supported in Massachu- 
 setts by many citizens who did not 
 accept the creed of the party. 
 
 The defeat of Blaine caused an out- 
 burst of Republican wrath against the 
 Prohibitionists, akin to the violent abuse 
 that was heaped on the Abolitionists 40 
 years before, when their action in the 
 State of New York deprived Henry Clay 
 of the Presidency. A few days after the 
 election the New York Tribune printed 
 an editorial entitled " Intemperate Tem- 
 perance Men," arraigning the partisans 
 of St. John. Bitter persecutions fol- 
 lowed. The Prohibition leader was 
 burned or hanged in effigy throughout 
 the Country, ministers who had supported 
 him were dismissed from their pulpits, 
 business men were boycotted and saloons 
 were brought back to Local Option 
 towns. These manifestations of intoler- 
 ance became less' frequent as time passed, 
 but in all the succeeding years the Pro- 
 hibitionists suffered from incendiary and 
 scurrilous attacks. The temper of a 
 large element of Republicans was char- 
 acteristically expressed by Mr. Murat 
 Halstead in the Cincinnati Commercial 
 
 Gazette, July 4, 1887 : " The Republicans 
 have made a mistake in not fighting the 
 St. John frauds with fire and brimstone, 
 clubs, pitchforks and butcher-knives." 
 
 Preparations were speedily made for 
 continuing the agitation. A National 
 Conference was held in New York, 
 Jan. 7«and 8, 1885. It was decided to 
 make special efforts to develop the party 
 at the South, in promotion of one of its 
 cardinal ideas, that a non-sectional politi- 
 cal organization was one of the impera- 
 tive needs of the day. Accordingly 
 several of the best speakers (notably 
 A. A. Hopkins and Rev. C. H. Mead) 
 were placed in the Southern States and 
 sent there to renew the work in subse- 
 quent years. Attention was given to 
 the strengthening of both the National 
 and State Committees of the party. 
 Special organizations were created, the 
 most important being the National Pro- 
 hibition Bureau (organized in November, 
 1885, with Gen. Clinton B. Fisk as Presi- 
 dent and W. McK. Gatchell as Secre- 
 tary), the National Inter-Collegiate Pro- 
 hibition Association (organized by Mr. 
 "Walter Thomas Mills but abandoned 
 after some months), the Junior Prohi- 
 bition Clubs and the National Young 
 Men's Prohibition Association. The 
 Bureau undertook to make engagements 
 for speakers and performed valuable 
 service, but since its work legitimately 
 belonged to the National Committee it 
 was discontinued in 1889. The death of 
 John B. Finch in October, 1887, was a 
 heavy blow to the party. His place as 
 Chairman was filled in November of the 
 same year by the selection of Samuel 
 Dickie of Michigan. 
 
 Throughout the four years follow- 
 ing the St. John campaign there was 
 an increasing realization of the 
 value of solidification and discipline. 
 Every exertion was made to strengthen 
 the national organization, and the im- 
 provement of the party's position and 
 prospects in 'the States was sought not 
 for State purposes but for the advance- 
 ment of the national cause. Great gen- 
 erosity was exhibited by individual Pro- 
 hibitionists, and while funds were never 
 overabundant the financial resources at 
 the disposal of the managers became 
 ampler with each year. 
 
 The vote polled in 1885 was cheering. 
 In 11 States a strength was shown that 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 575 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 exceeded St. John's in the entire Union. 
 But a large part of the Kentucky vote 
 of nearly 40,000 did not belong prop- 
 erly to the Prohibition party : the Ee- 
 publicans made no nominations in 1887, 
 and a great many of them supported the 
 Prohibition candidate (Judge Fontaine 
 T. Fox) rather than accept the Demo- 
 cratic ticket or abstain. It is probable 
 that the normal " straight " Prohibition 
 vote of Kentucky in this year did not 
 exceed 5,000, and if this is true the 
 aggregate in the 11 States was not above 
 116,000. Very encouraging was the ad- 
 vance in Ohio from 11,069 to 28,081, 
 gained by the aggressive canvass of 
 A. B. Leonard, D.D., the candidate for 
 Governor. 
 
 In 1886 there were general elections, 
 and the party was represented in the 
 returns from 29 States (Arkansas, Geor- 
 gia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
 Nevada, South Carolina, Tennessee and 
 Virginia being the nine States where no 
 Prohibition candidates were run, the 
 failure to nominate being caused in most 
 cases by the fact that no State offi- 
 cers, but only Members of Congress, were 
 to be chosen). The balance of power was 
 held in 14 States, as follows : California, 
 Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, 
 Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, 
 New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, 
 West Virginia and "Wisconsin. In the 
 South the total was increased to 44,328. 
 Congressional candidates were in the field 
 in 209 districts. The marked progress in 
 Michigan, New Jersey and Pennsylvania 
 was due to the leadership of Samuel 
 Dickie, Clinton B. Fisk and Charles S. 
 Wolfe. 
 
 In 1887, with 11 States contributing 
 to the support of the party, the record of 
 1885 was surpassed. The most inter- 
 esting results were in New York, which 
 repeated the gain that had been made 
 each year since 1883, and in Ohio, which 
 again increased the Leonard vote. 
 
 From 1888 to 1891.— After the election 
 of 1884 it was a common remark among 
 the advocates of the Prohibition party 
 that they had " elected their issue " to a 
 conspicuous place in national politics. 
 Their hope was that it would soon be 
 made the dividing issue, and that a re- 
 construction of parties* would be accom- 
 plished. Many believed that the ex- 
 
 pected result would come to pass at the 
 Presidential contest of 1888. But the 
 rising interest in the tariff discussion 
 interfered with their plans. The aggres- 
 sive low tariff message sent by President 
 Cleveland to Congress in December, 1887, 
 plainly showed that the coming battle 
 would be fought on the lines there 
 drawn. From the fervor with which the 
 President's attitude was defended and 
 the vigor with which it was attacked it 
 might have been foreseen that the con- 
 sideration of other questions would be 
 postponed until the tariff controversy 
 should be definitely adjusted. Kesults 
 demonstrated that the confident Prohibi- 
 tionists undervalued the influence of the 
 tariff issue. It administered a check to 
 their movement whose effects, while not 
 immediately apparent, were recognized 
 after the election of 1888. 
 
 The party held its National Conven- 
 tion at Indianapolis on the 30th and 31st 
 of May. Forty-two States and Terri- 
 tories, and the District of Columbia, sent 
 regularly-chosen delegates, numbering 
 1,029 ; the States of Mississippi and South 
 Carolina, and the Territory of Wyoming, 
 were not represented. The Temporary 
 Chairman was Eev. H. A. Delano of 
 Connecticut ; Permanent Chairman, John 
 P. St. John of Kansas; Secretaries, Sam 
 W. Small of Georgia, J. B. Cranfill of 
 Texas, Mrs. Mattie McClellan Brown of 
 Ohio and G. F. Wells of Minnesota. By 
 voluntary subscriptions a campaign fund 
 in excess of $25,000 was raised. Samuel 
 Dickie was continued as Chairman and 
 Samuel D. Hastings as Treasurer of the 
 National »Committee, and J. B. Hobbs of 
 Illinois was made Secretary. The nomi- 
 nations for President and Vice-Presi- 
 dent were given, respectively, to Gen. 
 Clinton B. Fisk of New Jersey and 
 John A. Brooks of Missouri. The fol- 
 lowing is the platform : 
 
 "The Prohibition party, in National Conven- 
 tion assembled, acknowledging Almighty God 
 as the source of all power in government, do 
 hereby declare : 
 
 "1. That the manufacture, importation, ex- 
 portation, transportation and sale of alcoholic 
 beverages should be made public crimes, and 
 prohibited as such. 
 
 "2. That such Prohibition must be secured 
 through Amendments to our National and State 
 Constitutions, enforced by adequate laws 
 adequately supported by administrative author- 
 ity; and to this end the organization of the Pro- 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 576 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 hibition party is imperatively demanded in State 
 and Nation. 
 
 "3. That any form of license, taxation or 
 regulation of the liquor traffic is contrary to 
 good government ; that any party which sup- 
 ports regulation, license or taxation enters into 
 alliance with such traffic and becomes the act- 
 ual foe of the State's welfare, and that we 
 arraign the Republican and Democratic parties 
 for their persistent attitude in favor of the 
 license iniquity, whereby they oppose the de- 
 mand of the people for Prohibition.and, through 
 open complicity with the liquor crime, defeat 
 the enforcement of law. 
 
 "4. For the immediate abolition of the Inter- 
 nal Revenue system, whereby our National 
 Government is deriving support from our great- 
 est national vice. 
 
 "5. That an adequate public revenue being 
 necessary, it may properly be raised by import 
 duties ; but import duties should be so reduced 
 that no surplus shall be accumulated in the 
 Treasury, and that the burdens of taxation shall 
 be removed from foods, clothing and other com- 
 forts and necessaries of life, and imposed on 
 such articles of import as will give protection 
 both to the manufacturing employer and pro- 
 ducing laborer against the competition of the 
 world. 
 
 "6. That the right of suffrage rests on no 
 mere circumstance of race, color, sex or nation- 
 ality, and that where, from any cause, it has 
 been withheld from citizens who are of suitable 
 age, and mentally and morally qualified for the 
 exercise of an intelligent ballot, it should be 
 restored by the people through the Legislatures 
 of the several States, on such educational basis 
 as they may deem wise. 1 
 
 1 There was a protracted controversy over this declara- 
 tion, both in the Committee on Resolutions and in the 
 Convention. Woman Suffrage had long been a disturbing 
 question in the party. From the first the principle of 
 Woman Suffrage had been indorsed in the platforms, and 
 emphasis had oeen given to former utterances after the 
 reorganization of 1888 and the alliance with the Woman's 
 Christian Temperance Union. It was generally felt that 
 the party owed much of its growth to the assistance 
 coming from this important body of women, and there 
 was a disposition to grant all that was dgsired by its 
 leaders. This sympathetic tendency was strengthened by 
 a belief, entertained by a very large element of Prohibi- 
 tioniBts, that the demand for the ballot for women had a 
 righteous basis, and that the Prohibition cause would be 
 much stronger at the polls if the women were permitted 
 to vote. But the party contained a factor of anti- 
 Woman Suffragists and a larger factor opposed on 
 grounds of expediency to championship of the move- 
 ment. These factors had able leaders. 
 
 In the Committee on Resolutions Miss Frances E. 
 Willard, President of the National Woman's Christian 
 Temperance Union, insisted on a renewal of the Woman 
 Suffrage plank of 1884 and an additional declaration in 
 behalf of a Woman Suffrage Amendment to the Federal 
 Constitution. The opposition contended for strict neu- 
 trality. After long discussion the resolution given above 
 was framed as a compromise, and a paragraph was added 
 at the end of the platform to soothe the anti-Suffragists. 
 But John M. Olin of Wisconsin brought in a minority 
 resolution, as follows: 
 
 " We believe that the right of equal suffrage to woman 
 is one that should be settled by the several States accord- 
 ing to the public sentiment in those States; and we 
 promise as a party that as rapidly aB we come into power 
 we will submit this question to a vote of the people in the 
 several States to be settled by them at the ballot-box." 
 
 The decision was then left with the Convention, which, 
 after a fervid and brilliant debate (for which see the 
 Voice, June 7, 1888), rejected the Olin resolution. 
 Twenty-eight votes were counted in support of it. . 
 
 "7. That civil service appointments for all 
 civil offices, chiefly clerical in their duties, 
 should be based upon moral, intellectual and 
 physical qualifications, and not upon party ser- 
 vice or party necessity. 
 
 " 8. For the abolition of polygamy and the 
 establishment of uniform laws governing mar- 
 riage and divorce. 
 
 " 9. For prohibiting all combinations of cap- 
 ital to control and to increase the cost of prod- 
 ucts for popular consumption. 
 
 " 10. For the preservation and defense of 
 the Sabbath as a civil institution, without op- 
 pressing any who religiously observe the same 
 on any other than the first day of the week. 
 
 "11. That arbitration is the Christian, wise 
 and economical method of settling national dif- 
 ferences, and the same method should, by judi- 
 cious legislation, be applied to the settlement 
 of disputes between large bodies of employes 
 and their employers ; that the abolition of the 
 saloon would remove the burdens moral, physi- 
 cal, pecuniary and social, which now oppress 
 labor and rob it of its earnings, and would 
 prove to be a wise and successful way of pro- 
 moting labor reform, and we invite labor and 
 capital to unite with us for the accomplishment 
 thereof ; that monopoly in land is a wrong to 
 the people, and the public lands should be re- 
 served to actual settlers ; and that men and 
 women should receive equal wages for equal 
 work. 
 
 " 12. That our immigration laws should be 
 so enforced as to prevent the introduction into 
 our country of all convicts, inmates of other de- 
 pendent institutions, and others physically inca- 
 pacitated for self-support, and that no person 
 should have the ballot in any State who is not a 
 citizen of the United States. 
 
 "13. Recognizing and declaring that Pro- 
 hibition of the liquor traffic has become the 
 dominant issue in national politics, we invite to 
 full party fellowship all those who, on this one 
 dominant issue, are with us agreed, in the full 
 belief that this party can and will remove sec- 
 tional differences, promote national unity, and 
 insure the best welfare of our entire land." 
 
 Additional Resolutions. 
 
 " Resolved, That we hold that men are born 
 free and equal, and should be made secure in all 
 their civil, legal and political rights. 
 
 ' ' Resolved, That we condemn the Demo- 
 cratic and Republican parties for persistently 
 denying the right of self-government to the 
 600,000 people of Dakota." 
 
 Great energy and zeal characterized 
 the Fisk and Brooks campaign. The Na- 
 tional Committee had its headquarters in 
 New York, and all the chief States were 
 systematically canvassed. The expenses 
 of the Committee (as shown by an item- 
 ized statement) aggregated $33,397.96. 2 
 The Voice raised from its readers funds 
 that enabled the publishers to send that 
 paper to the 60,000 clergymen of the 
 country and (for several weeks) to 500,000 
 
 » Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 24. 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 577 
 
 [Prohibition Party* 
 
 farmers. The attacks upon the party were 
 more artfully managed than in any 
 previous contest. The Anti-Saloon Re- 
 publicans, who had made organized 
 efforts since 1886 to win back the Prohi- 
 bition vote to the Republican party, 
 operated a campaign bureau, and a 
 " Woman's Republican League," headed 
 hy Mrs. J. Ellen Foster, made special at- 
 tempts to counteract the political in- 
 fluence of the Woman's Christian Tem- 
 perance Union. In New York the 
 Republican candidate for Governor con- 
 ducted an active campaign on the High 
 License issue and appealed with remark- 
 able urgency for temperance support, 
 the object being (as he admitted after- 
 ward) to save the national ticket of his 
 party by breaking the ranks of the Pro- 
 hibitionists. The Boutelle resolution of 
 the National Republican platform (see 
 Republican Paety) was. accepted by 
 many temperance people as justifying 
 continued action with the Republicans. 
 The weapons of persecution and slander 
 were also freely used : numerous Prohi- 
 hition meetings were dispersed and other 
 outrages were committed. It was per- 
 sistently charged, as usual, that the Pro- 
 hibition party was in alliance with the 
 Democrats and was sustained by Demo- 
 cratic money. The New York Tribune, 
 after giving utterance to this charge, was 
 challenged by Chairman Dickie to sub- 
 stantiate it, and although Mr. Dickie 
 offered to pay $5,000 upon the presenta- 
 tion of proof that would be satisfactory 
 to fair-minded Republicans, the Tribune 
 submitted no proof and did not even 
 notice the challenge. 1 
 
 In every State but South Carolina 
 there were ballots for Fisk and Brooks. 
 While the total was less than at the State 
 elections of 1886 the effort to diminish 
 the importance of the party had utterly 
 iailed. The shrinkage in New York has 
 already been explained; the loss of 
 12,000 in New Jersey and nearly as many 
 in Pennsylvania was accounted for by 
 the unsteadiness of the temporary con- 
 verts of 1886 and the strong feeling on 
 the tariff question. But the comparative 
 firmness of the party in States like Ohio, 
 Massachusetts, Michigan and Connec- 
 ticut, notwithstanding the fierce and in- 
 sidious assaults, and the gains in Indi- 
 ana, Nebraska, Illinois and especially 
 
 i Ibid, p. 29. 
 
 Minnesota, raised hopes for the future. 
 To the Presidential vote of 1888 should 
 be added local votes in Territories — 1,336 
 in Dakota, 148 in Montana and 1,137 in 
 Washington, — bringing the total up to 
 252,566. The Congressional vote (29 
 States) was 242,977, and the vote for 
 State candidates (22 States) was 218,044. 
 Votes of 1888, 1889 and 1890 : 
 
 States. 
 
 Presi- 
 dent, 
 1888. 
 
 1889.1 
 
 1890." 
 
 
 583 
 
 614 
 
 5,761 
 
 2,191 
 
 4,234 
 
 400 
 
 417 
 
 1,808 
 
 21,695 
 
 9,881 
 
 3,550 
 
 6,779 
 
 5,225 
 
 160 
 
 2,691 
 
 4,767 
 
 8,701 
 
 20,942 
 
 15,316 
 
 218 
 
 4,539 
 
 9,429 
 
 41 
 
 1,594 
 
 7,939 
 
 30,231 
 2,787 
 
 24,356 
 1,677 
 
 20,947 
 1,251 
 5,969 
 4,749 
 1,460 
 1,682 
 
 l',084 
 14,277 
 
 2,218 
 
 1,353 
 3,35i 
 
 3,74i 
 15,108 
 16,380 
 
 5',821 
 
 6,853 
 26,763 
 
 26',504 
 
 22,46i 
 1,346 
 
 1,380 
 
 10',073 
 
 1,089 
 
 3,413 
 
 250 
 
 22,306 
 12,106 
 1,646 
 1,230 
 4,340 
 
 2,981 
 3,927 
 13,554 
 28,651 
 8,424 
 
 '988 
 
 389 
 
 3,676 
 
 l',375 
 
 8,425 
 
 33,621 
 
 23',837 
 2,856 
 
 16,108 
 1,820 
 
 11,082 
 1,986 
 1,161 
 2,126 
 2,819 
 898 
 
 11,246 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 249,945 
 
 131,839 
 
 239,783 
 
 
 
 
 1 Compiled from the World and Tribune Almanacs. 
 5 Compiled by the Editor of the Voice. 
 
 Popular vote for President in 1888: Cleveland (Dem.), 
 5,536,242 ; Harrison (Rep.), 5,440,708 ; Fisk (Proh.), 
 249,945; Streeter (Union Labor), 146,836; Cowdrey (United 
 Labor), 3,073; Curtis (American), 1,591; all others, 9,845. 
 
 In the unimportant contests of 1889 
 gains in some States were offset by losses 
 in others : the most satisfactory results 
 were the advances in Massachusetts, 
 Ohio and Pennsylvania, and the most 
 discouraging one was a further decline in 
 New York. In 1890 the overwhelming 
 defeat of the Republicans, attributed 
 chiefly to their [McKinley] tariff legisla- 
 tion, indicated anew that the opportunity 
 to divide the country for and against 
 Prohibition would be deferred until the 
 tariff issue should be settled. But the 
 party retained its respectable strength in 
 all sections of the country, and the 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 578 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 growth in such States as Indiana, Ten- 
 nessee, Michigan, New York and New 
 Jersey was proof of unwavering con- 
 stancy. 
 
 The national organization has been 
 steadily at work since 1888. Mr. Dickie 
 has remained at its head. Mr. Hobbs 
 was succeeded as Secretary by John 
 Lloyd Thomas. The lines of principle 
 and policy as laid down in 1888 have not 
 been changed. A National Conference 
 was held in Louisville, Feb. 13 and 14, 
 1889, at which new plans and methods 
 were discussed and the partisans and 
 opponents of the "Woman Suffrage plank 
 exchanged opinions, but no departure 
 was taken. 
 
 EESULTS. 
 
 Since the Prohibition party has not 
 risen to power in any State and has never 
 secured a foothold in Congress it has 
 acted on public policy only in an indirect 
 manner. No original legislation has been 
 passed by it, and its representatives have 
 not been charged with administrative 
 responsibility. 
 
 There is much controversy as to the 
 general tendency of the influence that it 
 has exercised. With great heat the ene- 
 mies of the party declare that it is "power- 
 less for good but powerful for evil," that 
 it spreads and perpetuates dissensions 
 among the friends of temperance, alien- 
 ates or discourages political leaders who 
 are favorably inclined, belittles the Pro- 
 hibition cause in the public estimation 
 by its failure to control more than a 
 handful of votes, defeats sympathizers 
 and elects friends in many close consti- 
 tuencies, etc. All these criticisms seem 
 to have an element of justice — provided 
 separate instances are examined without 
 regard for general bearings. But such 
 conclusions are not so readily suggested 
 when a broad view is taken. 
 
 Let us look first at the Prohibition 
 States — those that have had Prohibitory 
 laws for part or all of the time since the 
 party was founded. 
 
 In Massachusetts the miserable conse- 
 quences of the license act of 1868 devel- 
 oped so vigorous a demand for its repeal 
 (see p. 528) that the Prohibition statute 
 was re-enacted in 1869. Yet the new 
 measure (as amended in 1870) was fatally 
 defective, for it excepted malt liquors. 
 The temperance leaders, with men like 
 
 Wendell Phillips and Judge Pitman at 
 their head, instantly organized a Pro- 
 hibition party which polled large votes 
 at the State elections of 1870 and 1871: 
 in 1873 the Legislature eliminated the 
 beer-exemption provision. Moreover, the 
 improved law was enforced with signal 
 success. (See pp. 528-9.) The new party 
 then disappeared, and no candidates 
 were presented in its name in 1872, 1873 
 and 1874. Therefore x he destruction of 
 the measure in 1875 could not have been 
 occasioned in any degree by "third 
 party" interference. 
 
 In Connecticut the Prohibitory law 
 was removed from the statutes before 
 the Prohibition party had an existence 
 in that State. 
 
 In Rhode Island the enactment of the 
 law of 1874 was brought about by power- 
 ful public sentiment. There was no- 
 Prohibition party to " divide the friends 
 of the cause," yet the act went under in 
 a single year. The Eepublican Prohi- 
 bitionists made a factional endeavor to 
 save it and afterward to restore it, bolt- 
 ing their party repeatedly and thus set- 
 ting an instructive precedent. The Con- 
 stitutional Amendment of 1886, like the 
 law of 1874, was enacted in obedience to- 
 the earnest desire of the people. In the 
 momentous political struggles of 1887, 
 1888 and 1889 the Prohibition party was. 
 never an important factor, for its vote 
 was always less than 2,000. It could not 
 have been responsible for the repeal of 
 1889. It is more probable that the in- 
 significance of the distinctive Prohibition 
 vote quieted all misgivings that the polit- 
 ical conspirators might have had and 
 emboldened them to fulfill the desires of 
 the liquor element. 
 
 In Michigan the Prohibitory law was 
 so weak that its repeal (1875) was hardly 
 a loss to the cause. It is a coincidence 
 that the Prohibition party was also weak. 
 Its operations did not give the politicians 
 concern, and the fact that they repealed 
 the measure instead of strengthening it 
 cannot be explained by blaming the 
 "third " party. 
 
 In Maine there was no independent 
 Prohibition vote of any consequence 
 until 1884 ; in 1886 this vote was in- 
 creased. In 1887 the most important 
 amendments (providing for prima facie 
 evidence and raising penalties) that had 
 been added to the Maine law in many 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 579 
 
 [Prohibition Party. 
 
 years were enacted. The campaigns of 
 the Prohibition party have been ener- 
 getically conducted in Maine, chiefly on 
 the issue of the enforcement of the law 
 and for the cultivation of national Pro- 
 hibition sentiment, but there are no 
 signs that the agitation has injured the 
 support of the law. On the other hand 
 there has been a positive improvement. 
 The party, however, has no considerable 
 influence in Maine, and Eepublican 
 supremacy is not threatened by it. This 
 may or may not help to account for the 
 violations permitted in certain cities — 
 violations that bring the policy into dis- 
 credit and greatly weaken the influence 
 which Maine's example should have for 
 the general advancement of Prohi- 
 bition. 
 
 In Vermont also the Prohibition party 
 is feeble. The law, too, is relatively 
 feeble (at least so far as penalties are 
 concerned), and its enemies are aggressive 
 and hopeful. 
 
 In New Hampshire for years the 
 statute has been less satisfactory than 
 that of any other Prohibition State. 
 Beer was formerly exempted and the 
 manufacture is still permitted. The 
 dominant party, being able to retain the 
 temperance vote without perfecting the 
 measure, has performed little work of 
 value. For ten years up to 1884 the 
 Prohibition party scarcely had an ex- 
 istence in New Hampshire. The most 
 useful enforcement amendment (pro- 
 viding for injunction) was added in 
 1887, the year after the Prohibition vote 
 reached its highest point. 
 
 In Kansas the Constitutional Amend- 
 ment was unexpectedly adopted, and 
 for five years the statute built upon it 
 was not satisfactorily executed. During 
 nearly the whole of that period there 
 was no Prohibition party in the State. 
 The growth of the organization was not 
 attended by disasters but by a uniformly 
 increasing stringency of enforcement. 
 It is not claimed that the success of the 
 law since 1884 is to be credited to the ac- 
 tivity of the Prohibition party, but (to say 
 the least) the work of the party has not 
 been detrimental to the cause in Kansas. 
 
 In the case of Iowa it is demonstrable 
 that the submission of the Constitutional 
 Amendment, which led to its adoption 
 and to the passage of the present statute, 
 was a direct result of the large vote given 
 
 the Prohibition ticket in 1877. (See 
 p. 105.) After the Amendment had been 
 annulled by the Supreme Court a dis- 
 position to ignore the will of the people 
 was manifested by the partisan managers, 
 but at an imposing assemblage of the 
 Prohibitionists of the State it was delib- 
 erately declared that a political revolt 
 would follow if the desired legislation 
 were not granted, and this put an end to 
 all plots. There is no doubt that the 
 fear of a Prohibition rising operated to 
 deter the Eepublican leaders from mak- 
 ing concessions to the liquor-sellers at' 
 the legislative session of 1889. 
 
 In South Dakota the work which led 
 up to the successful Amendment cam- 
 paign of 1889 was inaugurated with the 
 formation of the Prohibition party and 
 the canvass made under the auspices of 
 that party in the winter of 1888-9. The 
 certainty that a formidable Prohibition 
 party would take the field unless the 
 Eepublicans should espouse the move- 
 ment was the chief cause of the accept- 
 ance of the issue by the Eepublican State 
 Convention. (See p. 126.) 
 
 In the license and Local Option States 
 we find that, as a rule, the most notable 
 concessions (or attempted concessions) 
 to temperance demands have been made 
 where the Prohibition party has reached 
 important development. The "third" 
 party vote of more than 16,000 in Massa- 
 chusetts in 1877 was responded to, soon 
 afterward, by the enactment of the most 
 comprehensive Local Option act of the 
 Union. Contrast this act with the 
 weaker one of Connecticut, a State in 
 which the Prohibitionists were slow to 
 resort to independent tactics. In Georgia, 
 where nearly all the counties are under 
 Prohibition in consequence of local ma- 
 jorities, there has been no Prohibition 
 party, and no progress has been made 
 beyond Local Option. Similar comments 
 may be made on the situation in several 
 other Southern States. The most im- 
 portant era of liquor legislation since 
 the Civil War is that beginning with 
 1884, the year in which the national 
 vote of the Prohibitionists first assumed 
 considerable proportions. 1 It is true 
 most of this legislation is of a compromise 
 nature and of little real value, but it 
 reflects a growth of interest that is re- 
 markable. 
 
 » See the " Political Prohibitionist for 1888," p. 61. 
 
Prohibition Party.] 
 
 580 
 
 [Public Sentiment. 
 
 Far from dividing the temperance 
 forces or reducing their organized 
 strength, the growth of the Prohibition 
 party has been accompanied by a great 
 increase in the membership of all tem- 
 perance societies, a deepening of convic- 
 tion and a harmonizing of purpose. 
 
 Yet it is said that friendly individuals 
 associated with other parties, men of 
 high character and sincere devotion to 
 the temperance reform — sometimes men 
 who would do much of practical value 
 for the Prohibition movement if chosen 
 to official position, are made to suffer by 
 the indiscriminate warfare which the 
 Prohibition party wages, while the votes 
 drawn off from these deserving candi- 
 dates decide elections in favor of disrep- 
 utable men, subservient tools of the 
 saloon. Thus (it is asserted) the chance 
 of accomplishing positive good, even 
 though local and temporary good, is 
 thrown away for the sake of upholding a 
 faction that cannot possibly achieve suc- 
 cess. But most of these complaints are 
 based on assumptions that experience 
 does not justify : individual " good men " 
 who accept nominations from license 
 parties are nearly always under restraints 
 that destroy their capabilities and neu- 
 tralize their intentions. In view of the 
 bitter disappointments that have so fre- 
 quently attended fusions and indorse- 
 ments, and the probability that an ad- 
 vantage gained by such methods will be 
 of brief duration, it is felt by the Pro- 
 hibitionists to be more important to 
 maintain their organization and their 
 high standard than to enter into shifting 
 or experimental alliances against the 
 solid forces of the rum power. Besides, 
 the discipline of defeat is not necessarily 
 unwholesome in its influence upon halt- 
 ing friends. And if the general effect of 
 separate party action is to promote the 
 larger interests of the cause (as the ad- 
 vocates of the party fully believe), there 
 are strong reasons for uniformity of ac- 
 tion. 
 
 In the Northern States the accessions 
 to the party come principally from the 
 Eepublicans, in the Southern States from 
 the Democrats. Conditions have pre- 
 vented general development in the South : 
 the intense earnestness with which a 
 large majority of the whites in that sec- 
 tion insist upon maintaining the Demo- 
 cratic party, under existing social and 
 
 political conditions, operates against a 
 wide acceptance of the propaganda there. 
 To obtain some indication of the relative 
 representation of former Eepublicans and 
 former Democrats in the party, the Voice, 
 in 1888, solicited correspondence from its 
 readers. Cards were received from 2,429 
 voting members of the Prohibition party, 
 of whom 1,856 were former Republicans, 
 468 were former Democrats, 50 were for- 
 mer Greenbackers, 19 had been Indepen- 
 dents and 36 had never voted any other 
 ticket than the Prohibition. Less than 
 200 replies were from the South. 1 
 
 Protestant Episcopal Church. — 
 
 No official action touching the temper- 
 ance question is taken by this denomina- 
 tion. But the Church Temperance So- 
 ciety (see p. 81) has the approval of the 
 Bishops, At the General Convention of 
 the House of Bishops in Philadelphia in 
 1883, the following declaration was sub- 
 mitted and signed : 
 
 ' ' Inasmuch as intemperance is an evil of such 
 magnitude as to call for special effort for its 
 suppression, in the interests of social order, of 
 morality and of religion; and 
 
 "Inasmuch as the Society known as the 
 Church Temperance Society recognizes the 
 grace of God as the only sufficient remedy for 
 such an evil, the church of God as the only 
 sufficient instrument for its suppression, and the 
 word of God as the only sufficient guide in the 
 prosecution of temperance reform; and 
 
 "Inasmuch as the said Society rests upon the 
 Scriptural principle that temperance is the law 
 of the gospel and total abstinence a rule of ex- 
 pediency, a measure of necessity or an act of 
 self-abnegation in certain cases, thus avoiding 
 any breach of the great law of Christian liberty; 
 and 
 
 ' ' Inasmuch as the said Society during the 
 past two years and a half has borne faithful 
 witness to these important principles and has 
 labored zealously in the pursuit of its great 
 aims, 
 
 "We, Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church of the United States, hereby express 
 our cordial sympathy with the Church Tem- 
 perance Society and commend its work to the 
 attentive consideration of the whole church." 
 
 In 1890 60 of the 63 Bishops were 
 among the Vice-Presidents of the Church 
 Temperance Society. 
 
 Public Sentiment. — Among the Mo- 
 hammedan nations, where the voice of in- 
 stinct is supported by religious precepts 
 and legal statutes, public opinion is 
 almost unanimous in recognizing the 
 
 ' The Voice, July 12, 1888. 
 
Public Sentiment.] 
 
 581 
 
 [Rechabites. 
 
 evils of the alcohol vice and the necessity 
 for the suppression of the liquor traffic. 
 True science has never failed to second 
 the protests of nature, and among the 
 twelve principal nations of Christendom 
 the opposition to the outrage of the 
 poison traffic may be said to be strictly 
 proportioned to the degree of general in- 
 telligence. Still it is well to recognize 
 the full extent of the adverse bias, and 
 the prejudice against the enactment of 
 Prohibitory laws may be traced to the 
 influence of the following principal 
 agencies : 
 
 1. Government Abettors. — In several 
 countries of continental Europe the traffic 
 in alcoholic liquors is directly encouraged 
 by Governments deriving a large percent- 
 age of their revenues from the sale of in- 
 toxicating beverages and thus, as it were, 
 coining gain from the misery of their tax- 
 paying subjects. In Russia, as the trav- 
 eller Kohl informs us, villagers refusing to 
 join the topers of the public tavern are 
 liable to be " denounced as bad patriots, 
 because the Government of our father, 
 the Czar, gets its main income from the 
 sale of vodka." 
 
 2. Literary Influences. — By means of 
 pamphlets, circulars, partisan journals 
 and numberless advertisements the re- 
 presentatives of the liquor traffic manage 
 to influence public opinion at an expense 
 which demonstrates their dread of the 
 hostile sentiment gaining force from year 
 to year. In the United States alone 
 the annual expenditure for direct and 
 indirect advertisements of that sort has 
 been estimated to exceed $50,000,000. 
 
 3. Political Intrigues. — The political 
 influence of the rumsellers' party has 
 rarely failed to secure them the con- 
 nivance of a class of politicians who, as a 
 Southern temperance orator forcibly ex- 
 presses it, "would at any time sign a 
 private agreement with the Prince of 
 Darkness to import voters from hell at so 
 much per legion, unless the debt could be 
 cancelled by a reciprocation of political 
 services." 
 
 4. Hereditary Passions. — The morbid 
 appetency created by the habitual abuse 
 of alcoholic beverages is, to a large de- 
 gree, hereditary, and there are families 
 who have transmitted a passion for 
 special poisons to many successive gen- 
 erations of their descendants. It would 
 be exaggeration to say that any human 
 
 being was ever born with an unconquer- 
 able penchant for alcoholic excesses, but- 
 the inherited bias will always assert its 
 influence in making its subject apt to 
 yield to slight temptations and rather dis- 
 inclined to entirely renounce the use of 
 noxious stimulants even in deference to 
 the most urgent appeals. 
 
 But the steady increase of general 
 intelligence, aided by the revival of 
 health-worship and the progress of 
 social science and rational hygiene, 
 guarantee the ultimate victory of the 
 temperance movement. " If anyone," 
 says Goldwin Smith, " doubts the general 
 preponderance of good over evil in 
 human nature, he has only to study the 
 history of moral crusades. The enthu- 
 siastic energy and self-devotion with 
 which a great moral cause inspires its 
 soldiers have always prevailed, and 
 always will prevail, over any amount of 
 self-interest and material power arrayed 
 on the other side." 
 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Rechabites are supposed to have been 
 originally not Israelites but Kenites, who 
 became identified with the Jews. They 
 were descended from Jonadab, the son of 
 Rechab, and constituted a kind of hered- 
 itary clan and religious order, noted for 
 its piety and the abstinence that its 
 members practiced. They wholly ab- 
 jured wine and other luxuries, lived in 
 tents, planted no vineyards and would 
 not even cultivate grain. Their tenets 
 are thus stated by the prophet Jeremiah 
 (Jer. 35 : 6-7) : " But they said, we will 
 drink no wine : for Jonadab the son of 
 Rechab our father commanded us, say- 
 ing, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye 
 nor your sons for ever : neither shall ye 
 build house nor sow seed nor plant vine- 
 yard, nor have any : but all your days ye 
 shall dwell in tents; that ye may live 
 many days in the land where ye are strang- 
 ers." For their faithfulness to the com- 
 mands of their father Jonadab — who had 
 assisted Jehu in overthrowing Baal-wor- 
 ship (2 Kings 10 : 15-17) — they were pro- 
 mised by Jeremiah (Jer. 35 : 19) : 
 "Therefore thus saith the Lord of 
 Hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the 
 son of Rechab shall not want a man to 
 stand before me for ever," which promise 
 was fulfilled by their admission to the 
 tribe of Levi. 
 
Rechabites, Independent Order.] 582 
 
 [Rectification. 
 
 Rechabites, Independent Order 
 
 of. — The name includes two distinct Or- 
 ders, having totally different laws, rituals, 
 etc., but recently united under a " bond 
 of union," by which members of either 
 Order are allowed to visit the other. 
 The older and larger, known as the Sal- 
 ford Unity, was founded at Salford, 
 Lancashire, Bng., in August, 1835, being 
 the oldest of the modern secret temper- 
 ance societies. It is an incorporated 
 total abstinence beneficial society, paying 
 weekly sick benefits in sums proportion- 
 ate to the dues contributed by the different 
 members, and funeral benefits determined 
 in like manner. The present membership 
 of this branch, comprising three divi- 
 sions — for men, women and children — 
 is about 150,000, and it is rapidly increas- 
 ing. The governing powers are vested 
 in District Tents, meeting annually and 
 semi-annually, and in a High Tent or 
 High Moveable Conference, meeting bi- 
 ennially, composed of representatives 
 from the District Tents. Those inter- 
 ested are referred to Henry Wardropper, 
 H.C.R., No. 12 Azalea Terrace, South 
 Sunderland, Eng., for further informa- 
 tion. 
 
 " The Independent Order of Rechabites 
 in North America " has nothing in com- 
 mon with the other Order except the name, 
 the titles of some of the officers and the 
 pledge. This Order was founded in 
 New York- City, Aug. 2, 1842, and there- 
 fore it is one year older than the Sons 
 of Temperance, and the oldest secret 
 total abstinence organization in America. 
 At first it grew rapidly, its Tents num- 
 bering above 1,000; but in 1856 it began 
 to decline and since the Civil War it has 
 never recovered its former strength, 
 its place being now largely taken by 
 the Independent Order of Good Templars 
 jind the Sons of Temperance. 
 
 The objects, as given in the constitu- 
 tion, are " Mutual benefit in the exercise 
 •of temperance, fortitude and justice; 
 securing to its membership sympathy 
 and relief in times of sickness and dis- 
 tress, and in the event of death the 
 decent observance of necessary funeral 
 obsequies; and it is based upon and seeks 
 the extension of the principles of total 
 abstinence from all intoxicating drinks." 
 The membership is in three classes: 
 Primary Tents, composed of "white 
 males of good moral character, not under 
 
 16 years of age, believing in the exist- 
 ence and omnipotence of God, and will- 
 ing to sign our pledge; " Woman's Tents, 
 composed of " white women and girls of 
 good moral character and not less than 
 12 years of age," with any member in 
 good standing in a male Primary Tent 
 who may be admitted by ballot, and 
 Junior Tents, composed of " white youths 
 of good moral character, who believe in 
 a Supreme Being and are willing to sign 
 our pledge of total abstinence, who are 
 between the ages of 10 and 18 years." 
 The pledge is as follows : 
 
 " I hereby declare that I will abstain from all 
 intoxicating liquors, including wine, beer and 
 cider ; and I will not give or offer them to 
 others, except in religious ordinances, or when 
 prescribed in good faith by a medical practi- 
 tioner ; I will not engage in the traffic of them, 
 and in all suitable ways will discountenance the 
 use, manufacture and sale of them ; and to the 
 utmost of my power I will endeavor to spread 
 the principles of total abstinence from all in- 
 toxicating liquors." 
 
 All power is vested in Grand Tents, 
 having control of the different States, 
 and a High Tent, with supreme control. 
 The High Tent meets annually, and is 
 composed of one representative from each 
 Primary, Woman's, Junior and Grand 
 Tent in good standing, and Past High 
 Representatives who continue in good 
 standing. 
 
 Since the war factional strife has pre- 
 vented satisfactory growth, the present 
 membership numbering scarcely a hun- 
 dred Tents, with a few thousand mem- 
 bers, scattered over Connecticut, New 
 York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Vir- 
 ginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, 
 Kansas, West Virginia, Illinois, Michigan 
 and the District of Columbia. In August, 
 1888, a large faction that had broken 
 away from the original Order, under an 
 organization and incorporation of its 
 own, was induced to give up its incor- 
 poration and return. At present the 
 Rechabites are slowly increasing in this 
 country, and under good management 
 may in time regain their old footing. 
 Frank D. Russell. 
 
 Rectification is repeated distillation, 
 conducted for the purpose of refining 
 and concentrating alcoholic spirits. 
 Strong and pure alcohol cannot be pro- 
 duced by a single act of distillation, for 
 a large percentage of water, with very 
 noxious impurities (such as fusel oil and 
 
Rectification.] 
 
 583 
 
 [Reformed Drinkers. 
 
 the higher alcohols), are generated. To 
 eliminate these redistillation, care- 
 fully managed, is essential. Beverage 
 liquors (whiskey, rum, etc.) are not recti- 
 fied, because rectification destroys the 
 characteristic flavors and other qualities 
 of special varieties of liquor, yielding 
 only clear alcohol, which has an unattrac- 
 tive taste. These beverages (if honestly 
 obtained) are purified by being retained 
 in the warehouse two or three years ; for 
 with the lapse of time chemical changes 
 occur in the liquor, destroying the fusel 
 oil, _ etc. But the largest part of the 
 spirits used for drinking purposes is not 
 systematically aged. This is notorious. 
 And a very considerable quantity of it is 
 not carefully rectified. This is equally 
 notorious. In the fiscal year ending 
 June 30, 1889, there were 91,133,550 
 gallons of tax- paid spirits produced in 
 the United States. In the same year only 
 61,013,966 gallons were classed as " recti- 
 fied," while the quantity reserved by dis- 
 tillers for conversion into genuine aged 
 liquors was probably not above 15,000,000 
 gallons. 1 
 
 It is of course impossible to determine 
 how large a percentage of the 61,013,966 
 gallons classed as "rectified" in the 
 Internal Eevenue report was only par- 
 tially or nominally rectified. But there 
 are the best of reasons for declaring that 
 (aside from the portion intended for 
 medicinal uses, etc.) very little of it under- 
 went rectification at all. Candid experts 
 admit the truth of this statement, con- 
 fessing that almost the entire amount of 
 beverage spirits is the product of but a 
 single distillation, or at the most of two 
 distillations — the second one being con- 
 ducted more for reducing the percentage 
 of water than for getting rid of the 
 impurities. 
 
 Besides, it is well known that most of 
 the "rectifiers'" permits .issued by the 
 United States officers are procured by 
 wholesale liquor-dealers and others whose 
 especial business is to mix, compound, 
 blend and " cut " liquors. The Internal 
 Revenue laws define a " rectifier," first, 
 as one who "rectifies, purifies or refines 
 distilled spirits or wines by any process 
 
 1 This estimate of the Quantity so reserved is based on 
 the statement of John M. Atherton, before a Congres- 
 sional Committee in 1888, that the average annual product 
 of honest Kentucky whiskey would not exceed 10,000,- 
 000 or 12,000,000 gallons, and that the amount of liquor 
 aged in other States than Kentucky was small. 
 
 other than by original and continuous 
 distillation from mash, wort or wash, 
 through continuous closed vessels and 
 pipes," or second, as a "wholesale or 
 retail liquor-dealer who has in his posses- 
 sion any still or leach-tub, or who keeps 
 any other apparatus for the purpose of 
 refining in'any manner distilled spirits," 
 or third, any "person who, without 
 rectifying , purifying or refining distilled 
 spirits, shall, by mixing such spirits, 
 wine or other liquor with any materials, 
 manufacture any spurious, imitation or 
 compound liquors for sale, under the 
 name of whiskey, brandy, gin, rum, 
 wine, spirits, cordials or wine-bitters, or 
 any other name." s The annual United 
 States tax on rectifiers is $200 if the prod- 
 uct is as much as 500 barrels (reckoning 
 40 gallons to the barrel), or $100. if less 
 than 500 barrels. If the distillers were 
 solicitous for the purity of their stuff 
 they would naturally combine rectifying 
 with their business ; but they do not. 
 In the fiscal year 1888-9, while 4,3^.3 
 distilleries were operated only 1,368 per- 
 sons paid the rectifier's special tax. And 
 most of these 1,368 were not rectifiers at 
 all, but mere compounders, who took the 
 corrupt product of the distilleries, and, 
 without redistilling it, mixed it with 
 other liquors, neutralized the objection- 
 able taste with chemicals and sold the 
 doctored article to the dealers. 
 
 [See also Distillation and Spirituous 
 Liquors.] 
 
 Reformed Drinkers. — Among tem- 
 perance people in general there is a ten- 
 dency to overrate the difficulty of total ab- 
 stinence, but it is equally certain that the 
 difficuly of complete reform is apt to be 
 considerably underrated. A reformed 
 toper has lost the advantages of the un- 
 seduced child whose disposition to heed 
 the warnings of its parents and pre- 
 ceptors is supported by the voice of in- 
 stinct — the intuitive aversion to the 
 first taste of the intoxicating poison. 
 After that instinct has been once per- 
 verted the morbid craving for strong 
 drink may be overcome by years of 
 resolute abstinence, but the abnormal 
 diathesis remains in a latent form, and 
 is apt to awaken at the slightest encour- 
 agement. "What takes place in the 
 
 ' Internal Eevenue Laws (1889), Section 3344. 
 
Reformed Drinkers.] 
 
 584 [Reformed Presbyterian Church. 
 
 stomach of a reformed drunkard," says 
 Dr. Sewall, " of the individual who aban- 
 dons the use of all intoxicating drink ? 
 The stomach, by that extraordinary 
 self -restorative power of nature, gradu- 
 ally resumes its natural appearance. Its 
 engorged blood-vessels become reduced 
 to their original size, and a few weeks or 
 months will accomplish this renovation, 
 after which the individual has no longer 
 any suffering or desire for alcohol. It 
 is nevertheless true, and should ever be 
 borne in mind, that such is the sensibil- 
 ity of the stomach of the reformed 
 drunkard that a repetition of the use of 
 alcohol in the slightest degree, and in 
 any form, under any circumstance, re- 
 vives' the appetite. The blood-vessels 
 again become dilated and the morbid 
 sensibility of the organ is reproduced." 
 " People sometimes wonder," says Dr. 
 Isaac Jennings, "why such and such 
 men, possessing great intellectual power 
 and firmness of character in other re- 
 spects, cannot drink moderately, and not 
 give themselves up to drunkenness. They 
 become drunkards by law — fixed, im- 
 mutable law. Let a man with a consti- 
 tution as perfect as Adam's undertake to 
 drink alcohol, moderately and persever- 
 ingly, with all the caution and deliberate 
 determination he can command, and if 
 he could live long enough he would just 
 as certainly become a drunkard — get 
 to a point where he could not refrain 
 from drinking to excess — as he would go 
 over Niagara Falls when -placed in a 
 canoe in the river above the falls and 
 left to the natural operation of the cur- 
 rent. And proportionately as he de- 
 scended the stream would his alcoholic 
 attraction for it increase, so that he 
 would find it more and more difficult to 
 get ashore, until he reached a point 
 where escape was impossible. And if 
 this man, after having commenced his 
 progress down the river of intemperance, 
 were to go ashore at any time, or from 
 any point in the river, and remain on 
 shore a longer or shorter period and then 
 take to his canoe again, he would start 
 afresh for the falls at the very point from 
 which he left. For even when the in- 
 ebriate abandons all use of alcoholic 
 drinks and the economy of life immedi- 
 ately puts in operation a train of action 
 that generally results in an apparent re- 
 novation of the system, a deep, latent 
 
 and serious evil of some kind neverthe- 
 less remains." 
 
 Hence the fallacy of the compromisers 
 who recommend the milder alcoholics 
 as antidotes for the brandy vice. For a 
 time the surrogate may bring a delusive 
 relief, but it cannot satisfy the thirst for 
 the stronger tonic and only serves to 
 perpetuate the stimulant-diathesis — the 
 poison-hunger, which will sooner or later 
 revert to the wonted object of its pas- 
 sion. Unswerving loyalty to the pledge 
 of total abstinence is not at first the 
 easiest, but is eventually the surest way; 
 for even after weeks of successful re- 
 sistance to the importunities of the 
 tempter a mere spark may rekindle the 
 smothered flames. The road to intem- 
 perance is paved with mild stimulants, 
 and the only safe, consistent and effective 
 plan of reform is total abstinence from 
 all stimulating poisons. 
 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Reformed Episcopal Church. — 
 
 The latest deliverance of its General 
 Council on the liquor question was in 
 May, 1887, in the following words (unan- 
 imously adopted) : 
 
 " Whereas, The enormous traffic in intoxicating 
 liquors is one of the overshadowing evils of the 
 day and a great obstacle to the advancement of 
 Christ's kingdom on earth; and 
 
 " Whereas, It is painfully true that many 
 professing Christians countenance or fail to op- 
 pose this great iniquity; therefore be it 
 
 " Resolved, (1) That all Christian men and 
 women should, both by precept and example, 
 uphold the cause of temperance, and do all in 
 their power to suppress the liquor traffic. (2) 
 That no Christian can consistently engage in 
 this traffic, or profit by it, either by leasing or 
 letting the buildings in which to carry it on, or 
 otherwise. (3) That no Christian can consist- 
 ently aid this traffic by signing petitions for 
 license to engage in the same." 
 
 Reformed Presbyterian Church. 
 
 — The General Synod, representing the 
 Eeformed Presbyterian Church of North 
 America, during its national session held 
 in May, 1889, declared : 
 
 "The Reformed Presbyterian Church has in 
 the past stood forth as the champion of op- 
 pressed humanity. In the last great conflict 
 she was among the foremost to lift her voice to 
 condemn slavery and to demand the liberation 
 of the slave. A mightier conflict is upon this 
 nation to-day. . . . Inaction is opposition. We 
 arraign the liquor traffic as the 'crime of 
 crimes,' as the overshadowing curse of the age, 
 as the prolific parent of vice, misery and pau- 
 perism. We arraign the saloon as the peculiar 
 
Republican Party.] 
 
 institution of the devil, as the inveterate foe of 
 (rod and man, as the school of anarchy, as a 
 constant menace to the home, the church and 
 the State ; as an uncontrolled and uncontroll- 
 able power that has successfully defied all re- 
 strictive laws. The logic of experience has 
 demonstrated that there is but one effective 
 remedy, namely, extermination— Prohibition." 
 
 Republican Party. 1 — Founded for 
 the great object of opposing the aggres- 
 sions of the slave power the Republican 
 party, if viewed in the light of its origi- 
 nal purpose, is justly characterized as 
 "the party of moral ideas" and "the 
 grand old party." Even if there is any 
 lingering disposition to doubt the wis- 
 dom of its early aims or the beneficence 
 of the resulting achievements, none will 
 deny that it sprang from noble impulses. 
 With a peculiar hope, therefore, a very 
 large element of people have looked to 
 this party to promote the legislative and 
 other political interests of the temper- 
 ance reform as old questions became 
 settled and the issue against the liquor 
 traffic became clearly defined. With a 
 determination amounting to passionate 
 skepticism multitudes have refused to be- 
 lieve that the accumulating evidences of 
 the party's hostility have indicated its 
 real tendency or have called for a with- 
 drawal of their co-operation. Much has 
 been expected, and. an extraordinary 
 faith has been reposed in the party: 
 these facts suggest that here is an organ- 
 ization which has uniformly had a large 
 constituency of progressive men and 
 upon which grave responsibilities have 
 been laid; consequently that the record 
 made by it should be analyzed with 
 scrupulous candor. For such an organiza- 
 tion great allowances may be made; but 
 on the other hand if the net results are 
 unsatisfactory and the outlook for the 
 future is discouraging conclusions must 
 be stated with an emphasis proportioned 
 to the disappointment. 
 
 The name "Republican" was first 
 borne by the Anti-Federalist party in 
 the early days of our national existence. 
 The Federalists stood for a strong cen- 
 tralized Government, the Anti-Federal- 
 ists or Republicans for the sovereignty 
 of the States. The name was retained 
 until 1805, when it was dropped and the 
 new one, " Democratic party," was taken. 
 Afterward the supporters of John Quincy 
 
 1 The editor is indebted to Rev. I. Villars, D.D. 
 
 585 
 
 [Republican Party. 
 
 Adams and opponents of Andrew Jack- 
 son called themselves " National Repub- 
 licans " until their organization became 
 known as the Whig party. Thus both 
 the Democrats and Whigs, who divided 
 the control of the Government for many 
 years, were originally called Repub- 
 licans. 
 
 THE SLAVERY , ISSUE. 
 
 The downfall of the Whig party came 
 at the Presidential election of 1852. It 
 was foreshadowed by the utter rejection 
 by its leaders of the demand that it 
 should resist the encroachments of slav- 
 ery, and by their willingness to speak in 
 quite as strong terms against the Anti- 
 Slavery policy as even the Democrats 
 employed. This is strikingly shown by 
 a comparison of the Democratic and. 
 Whig National platforms of 1852 : 
 
 From the Democratic From the Whig Na- 
 
 if a tion al Platform, 
 adopted at Baltimore, 
 June 1, 1852: 
 
 "Resolved, . . . 
 That all efforts of 
 Abolitionists or others, 
 made to induce Con- 
 gress to interfere with 
 the questions of slav- 
 ery, or to take incip- 
 ient steps in relation 
 thereto, are calculated 
 to lead to the most 
 alarming and danger- 
 ous consequences, and 
 that all such efforts 
 have an inevitable ten- 
 dency to diminish the 
 happiness of the people 
 and to endanger the 
 stability and perma- 
 nence of the Union, 
 and ought not to be 
 countenanced by any 
 friend of our political 
 institutions. 
 
 "Resolved, That 
 the foregoing proposi- 
 tion covers, and is in- 
 tended to embrace, the 
 whole subject of slav- 
 ery agitation in Con- 
 gress; and therefore 
 the Democratic party 
 of the Union, standing 
 on this national plat- 
 form, will abide by 
 and adhere to a faithful 
 execution of the act 
 known as the Com- 
 promise measures of 
 the last Congress — the 
 act for reclaiming fugi- 
 tives from service or 
 
 tional Platform, adopt- 
 ed at Baltimore, June 
 16, 1852: 
 
 "Resolved, That 
 the series of acts of 
 the 31st Congress 
 known as the Com- 
 promise measures of 
 1850 — the act known 
 as the Fugitive Slave 
 law included, — are re- 
 ceived and acquiesced 
 in by the Whig party 
 of the United States 
 as a settlement in prin- 
 ciple and substance of 
 the dangerous and ex- 
 citing questions which 
 they embrace ; and so 
 far as they are con- 
 cerned we will main- 
 tain them and insist 
 on their strict enforce- 
 ment till time and ex- 
 perience shall demon- 
 strate the necessity of 
 further legislation to 
 guard against the eva- 
 sion of the laws on the 
 one hand, and the 
 abuse of their powers 
 on the other — not im- 
 pairing their present 
 efficiency; and we dep- 
 recate all further agi- 
 tation of the question 
 thus settled, as danger- 
 ous to our peace, and 
 will discountenance all 
 efforts to continue or 
 renew such agitation, 
 whenever, wherever 
 and however the at- 
 tempt may be made; 
 
Republican Party.] 
 
 586 
 
 [Republican Party. 
 
 labor included, which and we will maintain 
 act, being designed to this system as essential 
 cany out an express to the nationality of 
 provision of the Con- the Whig party and 
 stitution, cannot with the integrity of the 
 fidelity thereto be' re- Union." 
 pealed nor so changed 
 as to destroy or impair 
 its efficiency. 
 
 " Resolved, That 
 the Democratic party 
 will resist all attempts 
 at renewing, in Con- 
 gress or out of it, the 
 agitation of the slavery 
 question, under what- 
 ever shape or color the 
 attempt may be made." 
 
 The men most interested in maintaining 
 the policy thus denned regarded the 
 Democratic party with greater confidence 
 than the Whig, and consequently the 
 the latter was overwhelmed. A period 
 of seeming calm followed, and for a time 
 it was really thought that the question 
 was disposed of. The calm was broken 
 by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, the repeal of the Missouri Compro- 
 mise and the virtual concession of full 
 freedom to the slaveholders to introduce 
 their system into all the Territories and 
 erect new slave States. The passage of 
 the Kansas-Nebraska bill was secured 
 May 27, 1854, after four months of dis- 
 cussion. " The advocates and opponents 
 of slavery," says Mr. Blaine, "were in- 
 vited to, a trial of strength on the public 
 domain of the United States. No pre- 
 vious Anti-Slavery excitement bore any 
 comparison to that which spread over the 
 North as the discussion progressed, and 
 especially after the bill became a law. It 
 did not merely call forth opposition — it 
 produced amost a frenzy of wrath on the 
 part of thousands and tens of thousands 
 in both the old parties who had never 
 before taken any part whatever in the 
 Anti-Slavery agitation." ' And speaking 
 of the political developments of the agi- 
 tation Mr. Blaine says: "A new party 
 sprang into existence, composed of Anti- 
 Slavery Whigs and Anti-Slavery Demo- 
 crats. The latter infused into the ranks 
 of the new organization a spirit and an 
 energy which Whig traditions could 
 never inspire. The same name was not 
 at once adopted in all the States in 1854, 
 but by the ensuing year there was a gen- 
 eral recognition throughout the North 
 
 1 Twenty Years of Congress, vol. 1, pp. 115-16. 
 
 that all who intended to make a serious 
 fight against the pro-slavery Democracy 
 would unite under the flag of the Eepub- 
 lican party. In its very first effort, with- 
 out a compact organization, without dis- 
 cipline, it rallied the Anti-Slavery senti- 
 ment so effectually as to carry nearly all 
 the free States and to' secure a plurality 
 of the House of Eepresentatiyes. The 
 indignation of the people knew no 
 bounds. Old political landmarks disap- 
 peared and party prejudices of three gen- 
 erations were swept aside in a day." * 
 
 But the Eepublican party did not at 
 once propose the abolition of slavery or 
 even the curtailment of the institution 
 as it then existed in the Southern States. 
 At its first National Convention (Phila- 
 delphia, June 17, 1856) the attitude of 
 the party was thus defined : 
 
 " Resolved, That with our republican fathers 
 we hold it to be a self-evident truth that all 
 men are endowed with the inalienable rights to 
 life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and 
 that the primary object and ulterior designs of 
 our Federal Government were to secure these 
 rights to all persons within its exclusive juris- 
 diction; that as our republican fathers, when 
 they had abolished slavery in all our national 
 territory, ordained that no person should be 
 deprived of life, liberty or property without 
 due process of law, it becomes our duty to 
 maintain this provision of the Constitution 
 against all attempts to violate it for the purpose 
 of establishing slavery in any Territory of the 
 United States, by positive legislation prohibiting 
 its existence and extension therein. That we 
 deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial 
 Legislature, of any individual or association of 
 individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in 
 any Territory of the United States while the 
 present Constitution shall be maintained. 
 
 " Resolved, That the Constitution confers 
 upon Congress sovereign power over the Ter- 
 ritories of the United States, for their govern- 
 ment; and that in the exercise of this power it 
 is both the right and the duty of Congress to 
 prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of 
 barbarism — polygamy and slavery." 
 
 To prohibit the extension of slavery 
 was the fundamental object of the Eepub- 
 lican party. There was no retreat from 
 that position, but the views of the lead- 
 ers became more and more aggressive. 
 Thus, Abraham Lincoln in his famous 
 speech at Springfield, 111., June 17, 1858, 
 accepting the nomination for United 
 States Senator from Illinois, uttered 
 these memorable words : 
 
 "'A house divided against itself cannot 
 stand.' I believe this Government cannot en- 
 dure permanently half slave and half free. 1 
 
 a Ibid, pp. 117-18. 
 
Republican Party.] 
 
 587 
 
 [Republican Party. 
 
 do not expect the Union to be dissolved, I do 
 not expect the house to fall, ... but I do 
 expect it will cease to be divided. It will be- 
 -come all one thing, or all the other. Either the 
 opponents of slavery will resist the further 
 spread of it, and place it where the public 
 mind will rest in the belief that it is in the 
 •course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates 
 will push it forward till it shall become alike 
 lawful in all the States, old as well as new. To 
 meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty 
 is the work now before all those who would 
 prevent that consummation. This is what we 
 have to do." 
 
 The accession of the Republicans to 
 power in 1860 and the secession of the 
 slave States were followed, in due 
 course of time, by the abolition of slavery 
 in the District of Columbia and the 
 Territories (1862), the Emancipation 
 Proclamation 1 (Jan. 1, 1863), the com- 
 plete subjugation of the Confederacy 
 (1865), the adoption of the 13th (1866), 
 14th (1868) and 15th (1870) Amend- 
 ments to the Federal Constitution, and 
 the reconstruction of the revolted section. 
 During the 24 years from 1861 to 1885 
 the party had unbroken possession of the 
 Government, although President John- 
 son's Administration was not in harmony 
 with its programme and the Democrats 
 became masters of the House of Represen- 
 tatives and, for a brief period, of the 
 Senate. 
 
 Upon the completion of the war and 
 the legislation growing out of it there 
 arose a belief that old party ties were no 
 longer binding, that it was proper to 
 enter into new affiliations and that new 
 questions should be pushed to the front. 
 Horace Greeley in 1872 led a defection 
 from the Republican party. Many dis- 
 tinguished men, who had ardently sup- 
 ported the Republicans throughout the 
 war, went over to the Democratic party. 
 As early as 1874 (July 27) the New York 
 Evening Post (then under the direction 
 of William Cullen Bryant), representing 
 
 1 It is of interest to remember that the Emancipation 
 Proclamation was not issued until after formal notice had 
 been served upon the Confederacy that, if the authority 
 of the Government were not recognized within a reason- 
 able time, the slaves would be declared free. This notice 
 implied that the Government was prepared to treat 
 with the Sout.i on some other terms than abolition. And 
 && late as February, 1865, only two months before Lee's 
 surrender, President Lincoln submitted to the Cabinet a 
 proposition to grant $400,000,000 of compensation for 
 liberated slaves, one-half to be paid to the Confederate 
 States in case they should cease armed resistance by the 
 1st of April, 1865, and the other half in case the 13th 
 Amendment (abolishing slavery) should be ratified by the 
 requisite number of States by the ensuing 1st of July. 
 <See Nicolay and Hay's "Abraham Lincoln," vol. 10, 
 pp. 133-4.) 
 
 the best political thought of the nation, 
 made this comment upon the situation : 
 "The truth is that during all these years 
 there has been no rallying point about which 
 the opposition could honestly and unanimously 
 gather, and the Republican party has now 
 carried all its ends and has nothing further 
 to offer to the people. The disintegration of 
 both the late parties is complete. They have a 
 name to live, but they are dead. What is it to 
 be a Republican? No living man can answer 
 that question. We have looked through the 
 long address of the so-called Congressional 
 Committee of the party to find a solid answer to 
 that question, but we cannot find it. There is no 
 answer to that question, because there is no single 
 point of vital public policy at present on which 
 those who call themselves Republicans are 
 agreed. What is it to be a Democrat to-day? 
 That question is easily put, but impossible to be 
 answered, for the same reasons as before. The 
 parties are dead. Let the people understand 
 this once for all, and not let themselves be put 
 in awe any longer by mere gibbering ghosts of 
 what once was." 
 
 THE TEMPERANCE ISSUE — 1854 TO 1866. 
 
 Just before the organization of the 
 Republican party the Prohibition move- 
 ment had swept a number of States. 
 Credit is due the Democrats for most 
 of the legislation of that period. (See 
 p. 148.) It is proper to say, however, that 
 the statutes were enacted in obedience 
 to favorable votes of the people, and that 
 if other parties had been in power in 
 those States they would undoubtedly 
 have passed similar measures. For ex- 
 ample, Vermont's law was passed by the 
 Whigs in 1852 ; and the Know-Nothings, 
 Free-Soilers and Anti-Nebraska men 
 participated in Prohibitory legislation 
 in several States (notably Connecticut, 
 Delaware, Massachusetts and Indiana). 
 The election of Myron H.. Clark as Gov- 
 ernor of New York in the fall of 1854, 
 with a Legislature in harmony with him, 
 was substantially a victory for the then 
 incipient Republican party; therefore 
 the New York Maine law of 1855 may 
 be regarded as a Republican act. In one 
 other State — New Hampshire, 1855 — 
 Prohibition was adopted in part as a 
 Republican measure, though the Govern- 
 or who signed the bill was a Know- 
 Nothing. But the new division of polit- 
 ical parties was not completed until most 
 of the legislative sessions of 1855 were 
 ended, and by that time the feeling on 
 the slavery question was so intense that 
 interest in Prohibition ceased. Thus the 
 Republican party, not having come to 
 
Republican Party.] 
 
 588 
 
 [Republican Party. 
 
 the front when conditions were favor- 
 able for action against the drink traffic, 
 did not make conspicuous contributions 
 to the early Prohibition successes. And 
 its failure to do so in the years between 
 1855 and the opening of the Civil War — 
 in which not a single original Prohibit- 
 ory law was enacted 1 — is explained by 
 the increasing fierceness of the Anti- 
 Slavery contest and the decreasing 
 importance of all other issues. Un- 
 doubtedly it would have been quick 
 to respond to public sentiment then if 
 public sentiment had been manifested 
 and if, as in former years, there had 
 been no special reasons to fear the polit- 
 ical influence of the liquor-sellers; for 
 many of the most eminent temperance 
 leaders of the day were among the 
 founders of the party, and a majority of 
 the best elements of citizens in the North, 
 was with it. 
 
 "With 1856 began the supremacy of 
 the Republican party in the States of the 
 North. For the next ten years its ener- 
 gies were absorbed by the gigantic task 
 that had been prepared for it by its 
 founders. Every other design that its 
 individual members may have had was 
 subordinated to the aim of strengthening 
 its attitude on the slavery question and 
 waging the conflict. Not only was Pro- 
 hibition neglected but its interests were 
 sacrificed. Whatever excuses may be 
 made, however, for the Tepeals of Pro- 
 
 1 In Maine, however, the Democrats, who had enacted 
 the original statute (1851) now became its opponents and 
 the Republicans became its champions. At the election 
 of 1854 the repeal of the Maine law was one of the issues, 
 and it was understood that the repealers drew their 
 strength chiefly from the Democrats. But the Republi- 
 cans swept the State, electing the Governor and a 
 majority in the Legislature; and at the session of 1855 
 this triumph was emphasized by a re-enactment and 
 strengthening of the measure, intended, probably, to con- 
 vince the people that the new party was thoroughly com- 
 mitted to it. But the election of 1855 gave the Democrats 
 the Legislature, and as there was no choice of Governor 
 by the people a Democrat was seated. Controlling all 
 branches of the State Government, the Democratic party 
 repealed Prohibition early in 1856 and re-euacted license. 
 There was another great Republican victory at the polls 
 in the fall of 1856, but Prohibition was not immediately 
 re-established; to make sure of its position the party 
 decided to test the sentiment of the people. The prefer- 
 ence of the voters for the Republican party was again 
 demonstrated at the September election of 1857. Accord- 
 ingly in 1858 (March 20) the Prohibitory law was restored, 
 but to settle all controversy the question was submitted to 
 the electors whether they would have the Prohibitory act 
 of 1858 or the license act of 1856. The popular vote 
 was taken June 7, 1858, and resulted in 28,864 for Prohibi- 
 tion and 5,912 against it. The new measure took effect 
 July 15, 1858. 
 
 The appearance of the Republican party in Maine 
 revolutionized the politics of that State. It had formerly 
 been reliably Democratic. The advocacy of rum by a 
 large section of the Democratic party waB responsible "for 
 its loss of power there. The championship of the two 
 causes of Anti-Slavery and Prohibition established the 
 supremacy of the Republican party in Maine. 
 
 hibitory laws, it is our duty to record the 
 facts. The following is a list of the State 
 measures abrogated or materially weak- 
 ened in this period by the Eepublicans : 2 
 
 New York. — The law of 1855 was de- 
 clared unconstitutional in certain par- 
 ticulars by the Court of Appeals (see 
 p. 90). The Republican Legislature of 
 1856 could have retained and strength- 
 ened those provisions which were not un- 
 constitutional (pending a decision from 
 the United States Supreme Court). But 
 it preferred to repeal the act and to re- 
 store the license system. 
 
 Iotva. — The Republican Legislature of 
 1856, desiring to accomplish indirectly 
 the destruction of the law of 1855, en- 
 acted a statute permitting County 
 Judges to grant licenses in all counties 
 voting for license. This was declared 
 unconstitutional and therefore did not 
 take effect. But the next Republican 
 Legislature (1858) amended the law so as 
 to permit the manufacture and sale of 
 beer, cider and domestic wines. 
 
 Indiana. — The law of 1855, having 
 been pronounced unconstitutional, was 
 promptly wiped out by the Republicans 
 in 1858, and no attempt was made to 
 enact new Prohibitory legislation. A 
 license law (placing the fee at $50) was 
 substituted for it. 
 
 Rhode Island. — In 1863 the Republi- 
 cans put an end to the Prohibitory law 
 of 1852. 
 
 Michigan. — In 1861 the manufacture 
 and sale of beer, wine and cider (with 
 certain limitations, for which see p. 315),, 
 and the manufacture of " alcohol, 80 per 
 cent, pure," for sale out of the State, 
 were excepted from the prohibitions of the 
 law of 1855. 
 
 Throughout these 10 years, on the 
 other hand, the Prohibition system was 
 maintained in the Republican States of 
 Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and 
 Connecticut. But in New Hampshire 
 the imperfections of the law of 1855 
 (tolerating the manufacture of liquors) 
 were not remedied. 
 
 The blows dealt the Prohibition cause 
 in this era in individual States were 
 light compared with the one adminis- 
 tered by the enactment of the Internal 
 Revenue law (1862) and the subsequent 
 amendments to it. This act gave the 
 
 2 In Nebraska (then a Territory) the law of 1855 was 
 killed by a Republican Legislature in 1858. 
 
Republican Party.] 
 
 589 
 
 [Republican Party; 
 
 liquor traffic a legal footing in the nation, 
 brought its representatives into close 
 political relations with the Federal Gov- 
 ernment and, by creating an enormous 
 liquor revenue, caused the people to look 
 to it as a legitimate source of public in- 
 come. But the Internal Eevenue law in 
 its inception was purely a war measure ; 
 and remembering that even at the pres- 
 ent day some temperance leaders do not 
 regard it as hurtful to their movement, 
 it would be unfair to criticise the motives 
 of the men who originated the law. Yet 
 it is a fact that in adjusting its details 
 great consideration was shown for the 
 wishes and interests of both the distillers 
 and the brewers ; by providing that the 
 act should not go into force until some 
 months after its passage, and by making 
 similar provisions when the liquor taxes 
 were increased in later years, the distillers 
 were enabled to make great profits by 
 speculations; while the tax on beer was 
 lo.wered for a time at the demand of the 
 brewers. 
 
 from 1866 to 1876. 
 
 The termination of the war made the 
 Republican party absolute master of the 
 country. It proceeded to establish the 
 results gained by extending the suffrage 
 to the emancipated race and "recon- 
 structing " the Southern .States. In 
 pursuance of this policy it encountered 
 some opposition, but its majority was 
 overwhelming, and everywhere there was 
 a tendency among the people to recog- 
 nize that new issues should now be made 
 prominent. A very great (and perhaps 
 not very discriminating) generosity is 
 necessary if it is sought to account for 
 the repeals of Prohibition in the years 
 following the war on the ground that the 
 exigencies of the distinctive work which 
 the Republicans had to perform debarred 
 them from giving fair attention to the 
 . claims of the temperance reform. The 
 Prohibition agitation was renewed, the 
 best citizens rallied to its support, and it 
 could no longer be said that Prohibitory 
 laws were dropped from the statutes be- 
 cause there was no organized feeling in 
 behalf of their retention. The party 
 that opposed this sentiment did so, 
 therefore, at the risk of being regarded 
 as deliberately hostile to the cause and 
 to the representative and well-matured 
 arguments of its advocates. But in or- 
 
 der to show due iespect for all possible 
 objections the action of the party in the 
 10 years from 1866 to 1876 will be sepa- 
 rately presented. This division indicates 
 1876 as the latest limit of the period in 
 which the party's treatment of the tem- 
 perance question may possibly be de- 
 fended by charitable pleas. 
 
 At the beginning of the period there 
 were encouraging signs in Massachusetts. 
 The Prohibitory law was enforced there 
 with much vigor. The liquor element 
 at once organized to repeal it, and the 
 Republicans quickly surrendered. One 
 of their leading organs, the Boston 
 Transcript, smoothed the way by saying : 
 " What would be the verdict of history 
 upon a political party that carried the 
 Republic safely through a civil war, and 
 then lost its influence in the nation by 
 attempts to regulate the sale of cider and 
 lager beer ?" In 1868 the Legislature 
 (Republican by four to one in the Senate 
 and by 100 majority in the House) re- 
 pealed Prohibition and enacted license. 
 But in the next year, perceiving the dire 
 effects of the new measure and obeying 
 the almost unanimous demand of the 
 respectable citizens, the Republicans re- 
 enacted Prohibition. Again in 1870 a 
 Republican Legislature catered to the 
 wishes of the drink-dealers, the manu- 
 facture and sale of malt liquors being 
 excepted. The opposition that this pro- 
 vision aroused caused the party, in 1871, 
 to make the licensing of malt liquors 
 subject to Local Option votes, and (in 
 the same year) to establish a State Con- 
 stabulary. Opposition continued, until, 
 in 1873, the beer-exemption features were 
 stricken from the statute. Then came 
 earnest enforcement, giving rise to an- 
 other formidable license conspiracy. 
 The Republicans once more acquiesced 
 in the wishes of the liquor people, and 
 the Legislature of 1875 (Republican by 
 70 majority in the House and 8 in the 
 Senate) definitely destroyed the whole 
 Prohibitory law. 
 
 In Connecticut the work was done 
 more rudely. The Legislature of 1867 
 (Republican by 46 majority in the House 
 and 5 in the Senate) adopted a license 
 act but held it in suspension. It was 
 not approved at the next session. But 
 in 1872 (the Republicans controlling the 
 House by 21 majority and the Senate by 
 5) the Prohibitory system that had been 
 
Republican Party.] 
 
 590 
 
 [Republican Party. 
 
 in force for 18 years gave way to license. 
 
 In Michigan, after a vain attempt 
 (1869) against the anti-license article of 
 the Constitution, the Kepublicans for 
 several years left the Prohibitory statute 
 undisturbed, though doing nothing to 
 improve it. In 1875 (with 6 majority 
 in the House and 4 in the Senate) 
 they rescinded it and substituted a tax 
 measure. The State Supreme Court, 
 soon afterward, declared that this act 
 was not in conflict with the Constitution, 
 and then the Legislature submitted to 
 the people the question of removing the 
 anti-license article. Finding that the 
 article was of no practical value the peo- 
 ple consented. 
 
 In 1874 Prohibition was re-established 
 by the Eepublicans in Rhode Island. 
 But the liquor-sellers were so strong 
 in the party that they compelled it to 
 change to license again in 1875 (the Re- 
 publicans being in the majority by five 
 to one in the House and nearly two to 
 one in the Senate). 
 
 In Iowa and New Hampshire the weak 
 Prohibitory laws were not strengthened. 
 In Maine and Vermont few or no im- 
 provements were instituted, but there 
 were no backward steps. 
 
 In the license States some progress was 
 made, which was offset by reactionary 
 developments. The Republican State 
 Convention of 1868 in New York pledged 
 Local Option, and the Legislature of 
 1873 passed an act in keeping with this 
 pledge, but it was vetoed by Governor 
 Dix (Rep.). Provision for Local Option 
 by counties was made in Pennsylvania 
 in 1872; but after many counties had 
 adopted Prohibition the Legislature of 
 1875 (Republican in the Senate) voted to 
 annul the measure and the Republican 
 Governor (Hartranft) signed the repeal 
 bill. In Ohio, despite the Woman's Cru- 
 sade and other manifestations of power- 
 ful sentiment, there was no advance. 
 Similarly in such Republican States as 
 Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ne- 
 braska nothing of consequence was done. 
 But in Kansas the unorganized counties 
 were placed under complete Prohibition 
 (1867). Town Local Option was granted 
 in Connecticut, but as we have seen 
 (pp. 526-7) this was but slight compen- 
 sation for the loss of State Prohibition. 
 
 During this period the Internal Reve- 
 nue legislation was preserved by the 
 
 Republican party, and more than once 
 fraternal greetings were exchanged with 
 the brewers by Government officials. 
 (See United States Government and 
 the Liquor Traffic.) The extensive 
 " whiskey frauds " on the revenue belong 
 to this time. 
 
 The National Republican party at its 
 Convention in 1872 (Philadelphia, June 6) 
 inserted in its platform the following, 
 known as the Raster resolution : 
 
 "The Republican party propose to respect the 
 rights reserved by the people to themselves as 
 carefully as the powers delegated by them to 
 the State and Federal Government. It dis- 
 approves of the resort to unconstitutional laws 
 for the purpose of removing evils by interfering 
 with the rishts not surrendered by the people to 
 either the State or National Government." 
 
 In explanation of the meaning of this, 
 Mr. Herman Raster, its author, wrote the 
 following letter : 
 
 "Chicago, III., July 10, 1872. J. M. Miller. 
 — Bear Sir: In reply to yours of July 8, I 
 have to say that I have written the sixteenth 
 resolution of the Philadelphia platform, and 
 that it was adopted by the Platform Committee 
 with the full and explicit understanding that its 
 purpose was the discountenancing of all so-, 
 called temperance (Prohibitory) and Sunday 
 laws. This purpose was meant to be expressed 
 by reference to the rights of the people which 
 had not been delegated to either National or 
 State Governments ; it being assumed that the 
 right to drink what one pleases (being responsi- 
 ble for the acts committed under the influence 
 of strong drink), and the right to look upon the 
 day on which Christians have their prayer- 
 meetings as any other day, were among the 
 rights not delegated by the people, but reserved 
 to themselves. Whether this explanation of 
 the meaning of the resolution will satisfy you, I 
 do not know. But as you want to serve the 
 cause of truth, so do 1 ; and what I have stated 
 here in regard to the true meaning and intent of 
 the sixteenth resolution of the Philadelphia 
 platform is the truth. 
 
 "Very respectfully yours, 
 
 "Herman Raster." 
 
 It has been denied that Mr. Raster's 
 statements were warranted by the facts. 
 But 15 years later he repeated them, 
 even more explicitly, to a correspondent 
 of the Voice, and testimony supporting 
 his declarations was obtained. x 
 
 There seems to be no doubt that the 
 resolution was adopted because of Mr. 
 Raster's dogged insistence and his threat 
 that a large element of Germans would re- 
 volt from the party if it were rejected. It 
 may also be true that the leaders of the 
 party had little or nothing to do with the 
 
 1 See the "Political Prohibitionist for 1888," pp. 29, 142. 
 
Republican Party.] 
 
 591 
 
 [Republican Party. 
 
 creation of it, and accepted it passively 
 and perhaps with distrust. But the sub- 
 ject was thoroughly discussed in the 
 Convention's Committee on Resolutions, 
 which, with a full understanding of the 
 significance of such an utterance, per- 
 mitted the party to be bound by it. And 
 it is certain that the liquor men showed 
 their appreciation by heartily supporting 
 the Republican ticket in 1872. At the 
 Convention of the United States Brew- 
 ers' Association, held in New York on 
 the same day that the Republican Nation- 
 al Convention met, Mr. Clausen, the 
 President, said : 
 
 " The Presidential election which takes place 
 this fall may change the aspects of that [the 
 Democratic] party. At the Cincinnati Conven- 
 • tion they have placed at the head of their ticket 
 a man [Horace Greeley] whose antecedents will 
 warrant him a pliant tool in the hands of the 
 temperance party, and none of you, gentlemen, 
 can support him. It is necessary for you to 
 make an issue at this election throughout the 
 entire country, and although I have belonged 
 to the Democratic party ever since I had a vote, 
 I would sooner vote for the Republican ticket 
 than cast my vote for such a candidate. 
 [Cheers.]" 
 
 And the next year President Clausen, 
 at the Brewers' Congress (Cleveland, 
 June 4, 1873), alluding to the defeat of 
 Mr. Greeley and the Republican victory, 
 said: 
 
 "The last Presidential election has shown us 
 what unity among us can do. Let our votes 
 and work in the future be heard from in every 
 direction." 
 
 PROM 1876 TO 1891. 
 
 The steadily increasing zeal of the 
 Prohibitionists in this third and last 
 period has wrung concessions from all 
 parties. The amount of liquor legis- 
 lation enacted is unprecedented. Much 
 of it is remarkable also for stringency. 
 But when the strength of the movement 
 is considered, the high respectability of 
 its champions and the low and disrep- 
 utable average character of its represen- 
 tative opponents, the results seem inade- 
 quate — especially inadequate in the 
 States controlled by the party of " moral 
 ideas." We briefly summarize the results 
 in these States : 
 
 Kansas, Maine, South Dakota and 
 North Dakota have secured Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition by majority votes of 
 their people. Iowa also decided for Con- 
 stitutional Prohibition, but the State 
 Supreme Court overthrew the Amend- 
 
 ment for technical reasons, whereupon 
 the Republican party enacted a complete 
 Prohibitory law, which has been pre- 
 served. Ohio, too, showed a strong 
 preference for this most radical form of 
 anti-liquor law, but the Amendment did 
 not become a part of the Constitution, 
 and the Republicans though having full 
 power to frame statutory Prohibition in 
 subsequent years failed to do so, but set 
 up the wretched Dow Tax law (with inci- 
 dental Local Option) instead. Rhode 
 Island gave a three-fifths vote for Con- 
 stitutional Prohibition, but by intrigues 
 and non-enforcement of the statute (for 
 which the Republican party was largely 
 responsible) a plot to repeal the Amend- 
 ment was gradually developed; early in 
 1889 the Legislature (Republican by 
 large majorities in both branches) voted, 
 to resubmit the question to the people ; 
 the next Legislature, in June, 1889 (also 
 Republican in both branches) approved 
 this action ; the Republican managers 
 labored for repeal at the popular election 
 held to decide the issue, and, after the 
 repeal had been consummated, their 
 Legislature and Governor joined in 
 enacting a license law. 
 
 More significant are the defeats of Con- 
 stitutional Prohibition in the Republican 
 States of Michigan, Oregon, New Hamp- 
 shire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, 
 Washington and Nebraska, and the 
 semi-Republican State of Connecticut. 
 In all cases the weight of Republican 
 influence was thrown to prevent the 
 obtainment of popular majorities. In 
 other States controlled in whole or in 
 part by the Republicans, like New York, 
 Neiv Jersey, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, 
 Minnesota, Colorado and California, it 
 has been the policy of the party to 
 refuse the people opportunity to vote on 
 Prohibitory Amendments at times when 
 it has seemed probable or possible that 
 such Amendments would be carried if 
 submitted. 
 
 Much Local Option has been bestowed 
 by the Republicans in this period, but as 
 an alternative for State Prohibition. For 
 example, the southern half of the Ter- 
 ritory of Dakota gave a favorable major- 
 ity in 1885 on the question of incorpo- 
 rating a Prohibitory Amendment in a 
 prospective State Constitution; but the 
 Republican Legislature, instead of pass- 
 ing a statute in harmony with the 
 
Republican Party.] 
 
 592 
 
 [Republican Party. 
 
 expressed desire of the electors, enacted 
 County Local Option. Massachusetts, 
 Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota, Ohio, 
 Nebraska and Illinois are the typical 
 States in which the Republicans have 
 made Local Option concessions. In other 
 States, like New York and Pennsylvania, 
 even the poor boon of Local Option has 
 been persistently denied. 
 
 The High License acts of Nebraska, 
 Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and 
 Massachusetts, the High Tax law of 
 Michigan, the medium license laws of 
 New Jersey, Wisconsin, Oregon and 
 Rhode Island, the Dow law of Ohio, and 
 measures of kindred character in some 
 other states, originated with the Repub- 
 lican party. These, excepting possibly 
 Nebraska's and Illinois's, were intended 
 to be not progressive but obstructive, and 
 they have been obstructive in fact, with- 
 out any exception. 
 
 Legislation requiring scientific temper- 
 ance instruction in public schools has 
 been widely introduced, and the Repub- 
 licans, always glad to find some means, 
 short of Prohibition, for pleasing the 
 temperance poople, have permitted edu- 
 cational acts to pass in' many States. 
 Yet even these strictly non-political 
 measures have been fought by Repub- 
 licans at times, as in Ohio. Besides, 
 while they have been more generally 
 favored at the North by the Republicans 
 than by the Democrats, the latter have 
 supported them in noteworthy instances : 
 the New York law was signed by a 
 Democratic Governor and the United 
 States law was passed by a Democratic 
 House and received the approval of a 
 Democratic President. 
 
 There is no more important result of 
 the last decade's work than the incor- 
 poration of injunction and nuisance 
 provisions in Prohibitory acts. Such 
 provisions have been formulated by the 
 Republicans in Kansas, Iowa, the Da- 
 kotas and (though less satisfactorily) 
 New Hampshire and Vermont. The 
 people, thoroughly believing in the prin- 
 ciple of Prohibition, have demanded the 
 . most perfect instrument for its enforce- 
 ment that could be devised, and the Re- 
 publicans have given them the injunc- 
 tion and nuisance plan. In doing so, 
 however, they have merely elaborated 
 and made available a well-recognized 
 common law remedy. And they have 
 
 not uniformly taken the desired action : 
 in Rhode Island, though they solemnly 
 promised to strengthen the law by add- 
 ing injunction features, they rejected an 
 Injunction bill at two successive legis- 
 lative sessions when put to -the test. 
 
 Broadly surveying now the deeds of 
 the party in the separate States we fail 
 to discern grounds for much encourage- 
 ment. Where the people have over- 
 whelmed all political opposition by the 
 ardor of their Prohibition enthusiasm 
 the Republican party has executed their 
 will, sometimes with seeming alacrity, 
 sometimes reluctantly. Yet there are not 
 wanting instances of absolute defiance of 
 popular desire, and the examples of 
 Rhode Island and Ohio are to be classed 
 with the worst cases of Democratic hos- 
 tility. The party leaders have endeavor- 
 ed to postpone and finally to defeat Pro- 
 hibition oftener than they have con- 
 sented to it. Their boasted High License 
 has proved itself the most dangerous of 
 compromises, practically worthless for 
 all purposes save the purpose of retard- 
 ing Prohibition and intrenching the 
 traffic. Their Local Option cannot com- 
 pare with the Local Option of the Demo- 
 cratic South. Their enforcement, while 
 highly successful where the people will 
 not brook violations, has been so imper- 
 fect in representative cities as to seriously 
 embarrass the cause in the country at 
 large. 
 
 Below are analyses of State Republi- 
 can platforms for two important years : 
 
 1886. — Favoring the adoption of Prohibition, 
 none ; favoring the submission of the Prohibi- 
 tion question to popular vote, ' Arkansas, Massa- 
 chusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New 
 Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee 
 and Texas — 10 ; favoring High License and 
 Local Option, Minnesota — 1 ; impliedly favor- 
 ing Local Option, New Jersey — 1 ; favoring 
 (with more or less definiteness) the continued 
 maintenance of Prohibitory laws in Prohibition 
 States, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire 
 and Vermont — 5 ; favoring the strengthening or 
 enforcement of license laws, Massachusetts and 
 Michigan — 2 ; indefinite expressions, 2 Alabama, 
 
 1 These pledges were of no practical value. In Arkan- 
 sas and Missouri the Republicans made no attempt to 
 redeem their promise, and in all the other eight States 
 here mentioned the Republican party managers (or the 
 most influential of them) helped to defeat Prohibitory 
 Amendments at the polls. 
 
 2 The following, adopted by the Alabama Republican 
 State Committee, is a specimen of these indefinite utter- 
 ances: 
 
 " The organization of temperance men in Alabama 
 meets our hearty approval, and we recognize in it the 
 Bpirit of him who came among us aud taught, L A new 
 command I give, I would that ye love one another. 1 " 
 
Republican Party.] 
 
 593 
 
 [Republican Party- 
 
 Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Ohio and Wis- 
 consin— 6; favoring the liquor traffic, Califor- 
 nia— 1 ; silent, Illinois, Nevada, New York, 
 North Carolina and Rhode Island — 5 ; no repre- 
 sentative State meetings of the party held, 
 Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisi- 
 ana, Maryland, Mississippi, South Carolina, 
 Virginia and West Virginia — 10. 
 
 1888.— Favoring the adoption of Prohibition, 
 none ; silent, Alabama, Arkansas, California, 
 Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, 
 Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Ne- 
 vada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South 
 Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Vir- 
 ginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin— 33 ; de- 
 claring for the continued support of Prohibitory 
 laws in Prohibition States, Iowa, Kansas, Maine 
 and Rhode Island — 4 ; recognizing or allud- 
 ing to the national aspects of the question. * 
 Delaware, Massachusetts, Maine and Minne- 
 sota — 4 ; favoring High License or Local Op- 
 tion, or both, Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, 
 Minnesota aad New York — 5 ; favoring "the 
 submission of Constitutional Prohibition, Ne- 
 braska and Pennsylvania — 2 ; indefinite, New 
 Hampshire and New Jersey — 2. 
 
 The representative opinion of lead- 
 ers and press shows a strong balance 
 of sentiment against recognizing Prohi- 
 bition as a policy to be embodied in the 
 general tenets of the Eepublican party. 
 Of course it would be unfair to cite indi- 
 vidual expressions as conclusive if a 
 reasonable doubt as to the prevailing 
 view could be entertained. It may also 
 be admitted that this dominant anti- 
 Prohibition opinion, however emphatic, 
 is merely the opinion of the past and 
 the present, and does not necessarily in- 
 dicate the opinion of the future; and 
 that, concerning the tendency of future 
 opiniou, each individual may form his 
 own views, governed by a recognition of 
 past and existing circumstances. But 
 this article would be defective if the 
 truth were not frankly shown ; and we 
 believe no intelligent observer will doubt 
 
 1 The most important of these utterances was the fol- 
 lowing, adopted by the Massachusetts Republican Con- 
 vention (Boston, April 26), which was held for the pur- 
 pose of electing delegates to the National Convention: 
 
 "The Republican party of Massachusetts has com- 
 mitted itself in favor of pronounced and progressive 
 temperance legislation. It has demanded the restriction 
 of the liquor traffic by every practicable measure, and now 
 it calls upon the National Republican Convention to 
 recognize the saloon as the enemy of humanity; to 
 demand for the people the privilege of deciding its fate at 
 the ballot-box; to insist that it shall be crippled by every 
 restraint and disability which local public sentiment will 
 sanction; in short, to take that attitude upon the tem- 
 perance question which will win to the party all foes of 
 the liquor traffic and all friends of good order." 
 
 Notwithstanding this apparently uncompromising 
 " plank," the Republican party of Massachusetts, as an 
 organization, ignored the merits of the Prohibitory 
 Amendment question when it came up for decision the 
 nest year, and its representative newspapers and 
 shrewdest politicians did ail that was possible to defeat 
 the Amendment. 
 
 that the following citations display the 
 average views of the authoritative lead- 
 ers and organs upon the question of 
 party advocacy of Prohibition : 
 
 James G. Blaine, candidate for President 
 in 1884 (in a letter to the Philadelphia Press, 
 Nov. 29, 1883): " Instead, therefore, of repealing 
 the tax on spirits, the National Government can 
 assign it to the States in proportion to their 
 population. The machinery of collection is to- 
 day in complete operation. A bill of 10 lines 
 could direct the Secretary of the Treasury to 
 pay the whole of it, less the small expense of 
 collection, to the States and Territories in the 
 proportion of their population, and to continue 
 it permanently as a part of their regular annual 
 revenues. ... It [this plan] makes the taxes on 
 spirituous and malt liquors a permanent resource 
 to all the States, enabling them thereby defin- 
 itely to readjust and reduce their own taxa- 
 tion." (For Mr. Blaine's definition of Prohibi- 
 tion as a State and not a national issue, see 
 p. 109.) 
 
 Benjamin Harrison, President (in a speech at 
 Danville, Ind., Nov. 26, 1887): " Heretofore the 
 Republican party [of Indiana] has had some 
 dalliance with the liquor traffic. . . We said 
 in our State platform that we were in favor of 
 clothing local communities with power to act 
 upon this question. There I stand, for one, to- 
 day. I do not believe in State Prohibition as 
 the best method of dealing with this question.'' 
 (This speech, however, was a plea for Local 
 Option, and Gen. Harrison took occasion in it to 
 condemn the influence of the liquor element in 
 politics. The vital point is, his practical recom- 
 mendations went no farther than Local Option, 
 but distinctly repudiated State Prohibition. ) 
 
 John Sherman, United States Senator from 
 Ohio (in a speech at Alliance, O., in 1873): 
 ' ' All parties, to be useful, must be founded 
 upon political ideas which affect the frame- 
 work of our Government, or the rights and im- 
 munities secured by law. Questions based 
 upon temperance, religion, morality, in all their 
 multiplied forms, ought not to be the basis of 
 parties. " 
 
 New York Tribune, Oct. 9, 1890: "The Re- 
 publican party as a party is squarely committed 
 to High License. " The same paper said, June 20, 
 1889: "The outcome in Pennsylvania [defeat 
 of the Prohibitory Amendment] is cause for 
 general congratulation. It is a splendid triumph 
 for High License." 
 
 Chicago Tribune, July 13,1886: "In the 
 great Western States the large majority of the 
 beer-saloon-keepers are Republicans, and their 
 patrons are largely Republicans. If they are 
 to be stigmatized [by the Anti-Saloon Conven- 
 tion] as 'public enemies,' and dealt with as 
 such, the inevitable result will be that they 
 will find welcome shelter with the whiskey- 
 Democratic party, and that the Republican 
 party will lose thousands upon thousands of 
 honorable votes, the loss of which cannot be 
 made good." (It was this paper that gave 
 utterance to the memorable opinion that ' ' Pro- 
 hibition must be prohibited in the Republican 
 party.") 
 
 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, Feb. 7, 1887: 
 
Republican Party.] 
 
 594 
 
 [Republican Party. 
 
 "It is vain to say that the Republican party 
 must and shall become a Prohibition party. It 
 must and shall do no such thing. Those who 
 are in it simply to make it so might as well go 
 at once, for they will not succeed." In its 
 issue for Aug. 27, 1888, the Commercial Gazette 
 said: "Hundreds of saloons in Ohio are sub- 
 stantially Republican club-houses." 
 
 St. Paul Pioneer Press, Feb. 28, 1888: "The 
 Republican party, nationally, is not a Prohibi- 
 tion party, and it is not likely to be so trans- 
 formed at any future date. It does not recog- 
 nize the liquor question as an issue properly 
 national at all." 
 
 Brooklyn Times, Aug. 5, 1886: "The temper- 
 ance question is only one and not the most 
 important of the great issues that make up the 
 Republican party, and it is the question on 
 which there is least agreement of sentiment 
 within the party." 
 
 Indianapolis Journal, June 21, 1888: "The 
 Republican party is not in favor of Prohibition 
 and cannot be placed in that position without 
 palpable insincerity or duplicity on the part of 
 the [National] Convention." This is of especial 
 interest because the Journal, at that time, was 
 warmly advocating the claims of Gen. Benjamin 
 Harrison for the Republican nomination for the 
 Presidency, and felt that it was politic to reflect 
 his anti-Prohibition ideas. After Harrison'8 
 election and inauguration the Indianapolis 
 Journal was known as his personal organ, and 
 on Nov. 8, 1889, it printed a very significant 
 editorial in which it said: "The Republican 
 party, as a political party, has no identification 
 nor sympathy with Prohibition as a political 
 movement, and Republicans in all the State 
 should so declare. That done, let it adopt 
 High License, Local Option and restrictive 
 police laws as a finality, and call a halt to agita- 
 tion on the liquor question." 
 
 New York Mail and Express, Nov. 18, 1889 : 
 "So the Republicans of Iowa are coming into 
 line with Republicans elsewhere — in New York, 
 in New Jersey, in Pennsylvania, in Illinois — in 
 believing that the best temperance law is a 
 judicious combination of Local Option and High 
 License. It is the ground we have always 
 occupied, and it is ground on which Repub- 
 licans, if they stand together, can always win." 
 
 As a national organization the party- 
 has not materially changed the position 
 that it took in 1872. Its platforms in 
 11876, 1880 and 1884 contained no words 
 that could be construed as repudiating 
 the Easter resolution or suggesting a dis- 
 position to look with kindness upon the 
 anti-saloon creed. At the National Con- 
 vention of 1884 a formal plea was made 
 before the Committee on Resolutions by 
 Miss Frances B. Willard, President of 
 the National Woman's Christian Tem- 
 perance Union. Miss Willard did not 
 ask for a radical declaration but for a 
 sympathetic one. She warned the party 
 that many thousands of the best citizens 
 were awaiting its action with the deepest 
 
 solicitude and would sever their connec- 
 tion with it if practical words of en- 
 couragement were not spoken. The only 
 response that the platform gave was a 
 declaration that " the Eepublicans of the 
 United States, in National Convention 
 assembled, renew their allegiance to the 
 principles upon which they have tri- 
 umphed in six successive Presidential 
 elections." 
 
 Again in 1888 the Convention was be- 
 sought to place the party in harmony 
 with its temperance element. The Anti- 
 Saloon Eepublicans, who had been striv- 
 ing for more than two years to induce 
 the leaders to take up the question, sent 
 a deputation, headed by H. K. Carroll, 
 LL.D., of the New York Independent. 
 Dr. Carroll made an impressive speech 
 before the Platform Committee, reciting 
 the moral, religious and political reasons 
 why the Eepublicans should declare 
 themselves foes to the drink traffic. He 
 especially dwelt upon the importance of 
 relieving the party of the incubus of the 
 Easter resolution. Mrs. J. Ellen Foster 
 also submitted recommendations. But 
 the platform as adopted (June 21) gave 
 no hint of a friendly purpose. On the 
 other hand it embraced these words i 
 " We reaffirm our unswerving devotion 
 to . . . the autonomy reserved to the 
 States under the Constitution; to the 
 personal rights and liberties of the citi- 
 zens in all the States and Territories in 
 the Union." This was interpreted by 
 Herman Easter, author of the Easter re- 
 solution, as an implied repetition of that 
 celebrated utterance. ' Just before ad- 
 journment (June 25), the following, pre- 
 sented by C. A. Boutelle, and known as 
 the Boutelle resolution, was passed : 
 
 "The first concern of all good government is 
 the virtue and sobriety of the people and the 
 purity of the home. The Republican party 
 cordially sympathizes with all wise and well- 
 directed efforts for the promotion of temperance 
 and morality." 
 
 This Boutelle resolution, so indefinite 
 in its terms, was not acceptable to any of 
 the temperance leaders who had been in- 
 clined to independence. There was an 
 understanding that it had been sub- 
 mitted to a prominent brewer before it 
 was offered in the Convention, and had 
 been approved by him. 2 The news- 
 
 1 See the Voice, June 28, 1888. 
 
 * Political Prohibitionist for 1889, p. 13. 
 
Republican Party.] 
 
 595 
 
 [Restriction. 
 
 papers of the liquor traffic warmly 
 commended it, particularly Bonfort's 
 Wine and Spirit Circular, which said 
 (July 10, 1888) : 
 
 " And pray, Who withholds indorsement from 
 such propositions as these ? In behalf of the 
 wine and spirit trade, we hereby accord this 
 declaration our unreserved approval. The man 
 who would do otherwise would be very apt to 
 contend that two and two do not make four." 
 
 The frank-spoken Eepublican organs 
 did not hesitate to inform the temper- 
 ance people that the party was no farther 
 committed than it had been before. 
 "The Boutelle resolution," said the 
 Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, July 17, 
 1888, "was a simple piece of sentimental- 
 ism, equally harmless and unnecessary. 
 If it had meant anything it wouldn't 
 have passed." 
 
 It is needless to give additional illus- 
 trations. Those seeking more detailed 
 information are referred to the " Politi- 
 cal Prohibitionist" for 1888 and 1889. 
 The relations of the Republican party to 
 the drink trade as shown by its adminis- 
 tration of Government affairs are indi- 
 cated in brief in our article on United 
 States Government and the Liquor 
 Traffic. 
 
 Attached to this great organization 
 are numberless individuals of intense 
 temperance convictions. Among its 
 recognized leaders are able men whose 
 anti-saloon ideas are positive and undis- 
 guised. It is impossible to broach the 
 Prohibition question in any hamlet, city 
 or State where the Eepublican party is 
 represented by its better elements with- 
 out securing very cordial Republican 
 support. This support is neutralized 
 too often by political machinations, by 
 local circumstances and by misleading 
 issues ; but there is no doubt that a host 
 of Republicans is prepared at all times 
 to sustain advanced measures, and that a 
 scarcely less favorable tendency is latent 
 in other hosts. The ultimate decision 
 in the case of every reform rests with the 
 people and not with their party organi- 
 zations. Obstructive tactics, violent disa- 
 vowals and artful expedients are tempo- 
 rarily successful, and may be successful 
 for a long period of years. But with 
 sufficient perseverance may come finally 
 revolution. Knowing the strength and 
 high respectability of the following 
 already secured, and thoroughly believ- 
 
 ing in the soundness of their economic 
 policy, the advocates of Prohibition feel 
 assured that their cause will outlive and 
 eventually subdue all party antagonism. 
 
 Restriction, broadly denned, is any 
 legislative policy short of Prohibition 
 that narrows the liquor traffic or the 
 privileges and freedom of the persons 
 engaged in it. By requiring the traffick- 
 ers to pay license fees, even if no other 
 conditions are prescribed, a certain re- 
 striction is effected, for the legal right 
 to conduct the business is thereby lim- 
 ited to individuals who comply with the 
 requirement. Similar restrictions are 
 those which prescribe certain formali- 
 ties of procedure to be observed by the 
 would-be liquor-trader before he can be 
 qualified to receive a license — such form- 
 alities as the filing of an application for 
 license, certifying that the applicant is 
 "of good moral character," etc., and 
 signed by a specified number of neigh- 
 boring property-holders or citizens, in 
 some cases a small number being ade- 
 quate and in others a large number, even 
 a majority, being necessary ; the filing 
 of a bond obligating the licensee to 
 observe all the provisions of the liquor 
 laws, this bond to be guaranteed by one 
 or more responsible persons, who become 
 pecuniarily liable for any misconduct 
 on the part of the licensee ; and the pro- 
 curement of consent from a Board of Ex- 
 cise, Board of Commissioners, Board of 
 Aldermen or Council, Court, magistrate 
 or other authority having jurisdiction 
 over license applications. Other occa- 
 sional restrictions antecedent to the 
 granting of license provide that the 
 applicant shall be a citizen of the United 
 States and one who has never been con- 
 victed of offending against the law; that 
 his bondsman or bondsmen shall reside 
 in the ward, town, etc., where the liquor 
 establishment is to be conducted, and 
 shall not be pecuniarily interested in the 
 sale of liquors ; that the aggregate num- 
 ber of licenses issued shall be reducible 
 to the ratio of one for a minimum num- 
 ber of inhabitants (as 300, 500 or 1,000) ; 
 that the license shall not in any manner 
 be transferred or disposed of (unless 
 absolutely surrendered) by the holder, 
 and shall not be continued in case of his 
 death, etc. 
 Restrictions like these operate essen-. 
 
Restriction.] 
 
 596 
 
 [Restriction. 
 
 tially to raise revenue for the Govern- 
 ment, to determine the proportions of 
 the traffic and to make license an 
 exceptional privilege, more or less diffi- 
 cult of obtainment. Their peculiar 
 effect is to circumscribe the bounds of 
 legalization, yet to legalize to some 
 extent and with certainty. It is true 
 they imply that the Government recog- 
 nizes in the liquor traffic a perilous insti- 
 tution which should be singled out for 
 special discriminations ; and the sound- 
 ness of the Government's instinct is 
 amply justified by practical results, for 
 the men who apply for liquor licenses 
 are, as a class, the very worst men in the 
 community. But restrictions that deal 
 merely with the method or extent of 
 licensing have little to do with principle. 
 They involve a limited sanction, but a 
 sanction nevertheless. Therefore these 
 are seldom regarded as restrictions 
 proper by individuals who look upon the 
 whole traffic as wrong and harmful. And 
 in practice they are not frequently found 
 to be genuine temperance restrictions: 
 this is sufficiently demonstrated by the 
 failure of the High License system. In- 
 deed, the revenue features of license laws 
 are believed to be the reverse of restrictive, 
 for they create in licensees a strong in- 
 centive to increase their sales and so 
 extend the consumption of liquor. But 
 apart from the revenue features the 
 regulations governing the manner and 
 volume of licensing are not singly com- 
 bated with any particular formality. 
 The whole policy is condemned, yet if 
 the license programme as a whole cannot 
 be defeated the radicals are not disposed 
 to manifest much interest concerning its 
 details unless these details are clearly 
 formulated with a view to giving the 
 liquor-sellers special favors or intrench- 
 ing their business. 
 
 Another class of restrictions embraces 
 prohibitions that the dealers are ex- 
 pected to live up to in the conduct of 
 their vocation. These are of very wide 
 range, and, as expressed in the laws of 
 the States, cover all conceivable devices 
 for minimizing the evils of the traffic and 
 the " abuse " of drink. Thus the sale to 
 minors, common drunkards and intox- 
 icated persons, insane and idiotic indi- 
 viduals, Indians, etc., is prohibited; the 
 sale on Sundays and (in some States) on 
 all holidays is unqualifiedly forbidden ; 
 
 saloon-keepers are not permitted to em- 
 ploy barmaids and are often required to 
 exclude all women from their places ; 
 sales during certain hours of the night are 
 unlawful ; gambling must not be tole- 
 rated on licensed premises, and all games, 
 as well as music, dancing, etc., are pro- 
 hibited in a number of States ; liquor- 
 dealers are frequently required to have 
 no screens on their premises and no 
 obstructions to a clear view of the in- 
 terior from the street ; sometimes it is 
 prescribed that no liquor shall be con- 
 sumed in the place where sold ; in other 
 instances liquor cannot be sold for con- 
 sumption on the premises unless meals 
 are ordered by the purchasers ; the prac- 
 tice of "treating" has been prohibited 
 by certain statutes ; wholesalers must 
 not vend at retail ; manufacturers in 
 Prohibition localities must not sell to 
 residents of those localities, etc. To sus- 
 tain these various provisions penalties for 
 violations are imposed, ranging in sever- 
 ity from a nominal fine to fine and im- 
 prisonment and revocation of license ; 
 while individuals injured in property, 
 person or means of support in conse- 
 quence of the sale of liquor are entitled 
 to bring civil action for damages against 
 the sellers and against the owners of the 
 premises. 
 
 Such restrictions as those just noticed 
 are uncompromising and are backed by 
 principle. The Prohibitionists do not 
 oppose but welcome them. Yet, being 
 incidental to the license system, their 
 practical value is comparatively slight. 
 Knowing the unscrupulous character of 
 the men who "sell rum for a livelihood," 
 as well as the strong temptations that 
 continually beset them, it is childish to 
 hope that observance will be shown un- 
 less the consequences of disobedience are 
 likely to prove very serious ; and the influ- 
 ence of the traffic is nearly always power- 
 ful enough to keep the police inactive, or 
 to avert prosecutions, or to perjure wit- 
 nesses, or to prevent convictions by juries. 
 In exceptional cases (notably where 
 vigorous work has been done by Law and 
 Order Leagues) the liquor-sellers have 
 been compelled to respect the restrictive 
 laws, but ordinary experience is highly 
 discouraging. 
 
 Genuine restriction, then, as under- 
 stood by the advanced temperance advo- 
 cates, though unsatisfactory in results is 
 
Revenue.] 
 
 597 
 
 [Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 not objectionable in principle or tenden- 
 cy. _ The word " restriction " does not 
 excite antipathy, like " license," and is not 
 misleading, like "regulation." But the 
 coupling of license with restriction is 
 distasteful to those who are consci- 
 entiously opposed to license. Accord- 
 ingly it has often been suggested that a 
 basis of agreement between the moderate 
 and the radical temperance people might 
 be reached through a policy of " restric- 
 tion without license " — that is, a policy 
 retaining and strengthening all the sepa- 
 rate restraints of present license laws, 
 but eliminating the feature of express 
 sanction. This is proposed on the 
 ground that so far as the law speaks 
 concerning the status of the drink traffic 
 or any other vicious business it should 
 speak in words of prohibition — that if 
 not prepared at once to prohibit the 
 whole traffic, the State should prohibit 
 certain features of it, as is now done, 
 but without sanctioning those features 
 not now forbidden, and without taking 
 revenue from the business. (For a 
 full discussion of this subject see 
 the address delivered by I. K. Funk, 
 D.D., in "Proceedings of the National 
 Temperance Congress, Held in the 
 Broadway Tabernacle, New York, June 
 11 and 12, 1890.") 
 
 [For the restrictions embraced in various 
 liquor laws the reader is referred to Legis- 
 latiok.] 
 
 Revenue. — See Cost of the Drink 
 Traffic and Internal Revenue. 
 
 Rhode Island. — See Index. 
 
 Riley, Ashbel Wells. — Born in 
 Glastonbury, Hartford County, Conn., 
 March 19, 1795; died in Rochester, N.Y., 
 April 3, 1888. He took up his resid- 
 ence in Rochester in 1816 and was one 
 of the first five village Trustees. When 
 the village became a city he was made 
 one of its Aldermen. In 1828 he was 
 appointed Brigadier-General in the New 
 York State Militia. While an Alderman 
 of Rochester he began visiting the jail 
 and distributing tracts among the pris- 
 oners. In 1836 with two other Alder- 
 men he refused to grant licenses for the 
 sale of liquor. He first became an advo- 
 cate of Prohibition, as he stated in a 
 speech before the International Temper- 
 ance Conference at Philadelphia in 1876, 
 while watching a tavern burn in a little 
 
 town in Montgomery County, N. Y., and 
 hearing the wife of a man who had been 
 made a drunkard in that tavern exclaim, 
 " Glory to God ! I prayed for that." He 
 was a strong Abolitionist, and the first 
 Abolition meeting held in Rochester met 
 in his house 1 . He was also an ardent 
 Sabbatarian and lost several thousand 
 dollars in an attempt to sustain a Sab- 
 bath-observing line of boats on the Erie 
 Canal. He began lecturing for temper- 
 ance about 1838. Though not an edu- 
 cated man he was a very effective agita- 
 tor. Some of his methods were novel. 
 Sometimes he paid liquor-sellers to come 
 and hear him. Prof. A. A. Hopkins 
 says : " Gen. Riley was the first total ab- 
 stinence worker to use the pledge in a 
 systematic fashion." A medal which he 
 presented to pledge-signers bore a pic- 
 ture of the "old oaken bucket;" more 
 than 6,000 of these medals were distribu- 
 ted. He paid his own expenses and 
 worked for the love of the cause, travel- 
 ling extensively and making several 
 thousand speeches in the United States, 
 and lecturing also in various parts of the 
 United Kingdom, France and Italy. 
 The mother of Miss Frances E. Willard 
 took the pledge after listening to one of 
 his addresses. A thorough-going radi- 
 cal, he believed in the principles of the 
 Prohibition party and cast his sixty- 
 eighth annual ballot for its ticket. 
 
 Roman Catholic Church. — From 
 very early times it has been the universal 
 practice of priests in the confessional to 
 administer the total abstinence pledge as 
 a penance to persons addicted to the ex- 
 cessive use of intoxicants, and to make 
 abstinence on the part of such persons a 
 condition of partaking of the sacra- 
 ments. The attitude of the church in 
 this country in relation to the use and 
 sale of alcoholic beverages is stated in the 
 decrees issued by the 3d Plenary Council 
 of Roman Catholic Prelates in the United 
 States, held at Baltimore in 1884-5. Of 
 these decrees the following are the most 
 important ones touching temperance : 
 
 " 113. A Christian should carefully avoid not 
 only what is positively evil, but what has even 
 the appearance of evil, and more especially 
 whatever commonly leads to it. Therefore 
 Catholics should generously renounce all recre- 
 ations and all kinds of business which may 
 interfere with keeping holy the Lord's day, or 
 which are calculated to lead to the violation of 
 the laws of God or of the State. The worst, 
 
Roman Catholic Church.] 
 
 598 
 
 [Roman Catholic Church; 
 
 without doubt, is the carrying on of business in 
 barrooms and saloons on Sunday, a traffic by 
 means of which so many and such grievous in- 
 juries are done to religion and society. Let pas- 
 tors earnestly labor to root out this evil ; let 
 them admonish and entreat ; let them even re- 
 sort to threatenings and penalties, when it be- 
 comes necessary. They should do all that be- 
 longs to their office to efface this stain, now 
 nearly the only blot remaining among us, obscur- 
 ing the splendor of the day of the Lord. 
 
 ' ' 260. There is no doubt but that among the 
 evils we especially deplore in this country the 
 abuse of intoxicating drinks is to be numbered, 
 for this excess is the constant source of sin and 
 the fruitful origin of misery. Utter ruin has 
 thereby come to innumerable individuals and 
 whole families, and it has dragged many souls 
 headlong to eternal destruction. And, since 
 this vice has spread not a little even among the 
 Catholics, scandal is thus given to non-Catholics 
 and a great obstacle is set up against the spread 
 of religion. Both love of religion and of coun- 
 try therefore urge all Christians to use every 
 effort to stamp out this pestiferous evil. 
 
 "261. It is from the priests of the Church 
 that we especially hope for assistance in this 
 work ; for upon them has God imposed the 
 duty of imparting the "Word of Life, and of 
 propagating sound morality among the people. 
 Let them never cease to cry out boldly against 
 drunkenness, and whatsoever leads to it ; and 
 let this be done more especially during such 
 reasons of devotion as retreats and missions. 
 Let them bear in mind the teaching of the 
 Apostle and earnestly admonish their people 
 that ' drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom 
 of God.' (i Cor. 6:10.) Those of their flocks 
 who presumptuously deem themselves above the 
 ■ danger of temptation should be warned that ' he* 
 that loveth the danger shall perish in it.' 
 (Ecclesiasticus 3:27.) And since the moving 
 force of instruction should be strengthened by 
 the attractive power of good example, the clergy 
 themselves should in this matter be patterns to 
 their flocks, exhibiting in. their own conduct 
 living models of the virtue of temperance. 
 
 "262. Following in the footsteps of the 
 Fathers, the other councils of Baltimore, and 
 supported by the teachings of the Angelic Doc- 
 tor, we heartily approve and commend the 
 praiseworthy custom of many who in our day 
 abstain entirely from the use of intoxicating 
 liquors, thus to overcome more certainly the 
 vice of intemperance, either by removing from 
 themselves the occasions thereof or by present- 
 ing to others a splendid example of the virtue of 
 temperance, whose zeal we willingly admit is 
 according to knowledge and has already brought 
 forth abundant fruit and promises still greater 
 in the future. 
 
 "263. Lastly, we warn our faithful people 
 who sell intoxicating liquors to consider se- 
 riously by how many and how serious dangers 
 and occasions of sin their business — although 
 not unlawful in itself — is surrounded. If they 
 can, let them choose a more honorable way of 
 making a living; but if they cannot, let them 
 study by all means to remove from themselves 
 and others the occasions of sin. Let them not 
 sell drink to the young — that is, to those who 
 
 are not of age, — nor to those who they foresee 
 will abuse drink. Let them keep their saloons 
 closed on Sundays, and at no time let them al- 
 low blasphemy, cursing or obscene language 
 within the walls of their taverns. If through 
 their culpable neglect of co-operation religion is 
 brought into contempt and souls ruined, they 
 must know that in Heaven there is an Avenger 
 who will exact the severest punishment from 
 them." 
 
 These declarations of the Plenary 
 Council, and the principles and work oi 
 the Catholic Total Abstinence Union 
 (see Catholic Tempekance Societies), 
 were recognized and warmly commended 
 by the present Pope, Leo XIII., in a 
 letter to Bishop Ireland of Minnesota, as 
 follows : 
 
 "To Our Venerable Brother, John Ire- 
 land, Bishop of St. Paul, Minn., Leo XIII. , 
 Pope. — Venerable Brother: Health and apos- 
 tolic benediction. The admirable works of 
 piety and charity by which our faithful children 
 in the United States labor to promote not only 
 their own temporal and eternal welfare but also 
 that of their fellow-citizens, and which you 
 have recently related to us, give to us exceeding 
 great consolation. And above all we have re- 
 joiced to learn with what energy and zeal, by 
 means of various excellent associations, and es- 
 pecially through the Catholic Total Abstinence 
 Union, you combat the destructive vice of in- 
 temperance. For it is well known to us how 
 ruinous, how deplorable is the injury both to 
 faith and to morals that is to be feared from in- 
 temperance in drink. Nor can we sufficiently 
 praise the prelates of the United States who re- 
 cently in the Plenary Council of Baltimore with 
 weightiest words condemned this abuse, declar- 
 ing it to be a perpetual incentive to sin and a 
 fruitful root of all evils, plunging the families 
 of the intemperate into the direst ruin, and 
 drawing numberless souls down to everlasting 
 perdition; declaring moreover that the faithful 
 who yield to this vice of intemperance become 
 thereby a scandal to non-Catholics, and a great 
 hinderance to the propagation of the true re- 
 ligion. 
 
 " Hence we esteem worthy of all commenda- 
 tion the noble resolve of your pious associations, 
 by which they pledge themselves to abstain to- 
 tally from every kind of intoxicating drink. 
 Nor can it at all be doubted that this determi- 
 nation is the proper and the truly efficacious 
 remedy for this very great evil; and that so 
 much the more strongly will all be induced to 
 put this bridle upon appetite by how much the 
 greater are the dignity and influence of those 
 who give the example. But greatest of all in 
 this matter should be the zeal of priests, who, 
 as they are called to instruct the people in the 
 word of life and to mould them to Christian 
 morality, should also and above all walk be- 
 fore them in the practice of virtue. Let pas- 
 tors, therefore, do their best to drive the plague 
 of intemperance from the fold of Christ by 
 assiduous preaching and exhortation, and to 
 shine before all as models of abstinence, that so 
 the many calamities with which this vice 
 
Roman Catholic Church.] 
 
 599 
 
 [Roman Catholic Church. 
 
 threatens both church and State may by their 
 strenuous endeavors be averted. 
 
 '' And we most earnestly beseech Almighty 
 God that, in this important matter, he may 
 graciously favor your desires, direct your coun- 
 sels and assist your endeavors; and as a pledge 
 of the Divine protection, and a testimony of our 
 paternal affection, we most lovingly bestow 
 upon you, Venerable Brother, and upon all 
 your associates in this holy league, the apos- 
 tolic benediction. 
 
 "Given at Rome, from St. Peter's, this 27th 
 day of March, in the year 1887, the tenth year 
 of our Pontificate. 
 
 "Leo XIII. , Pope." 
 
 As the attitude of the Eoman Catholic 
 clergy of the United States was defined 
 by the decrees already quoted, so the 
 views of the laity were declared by the 
 1st Congress of Catholic Laymen, held in 
 Baltimore in November, 1889. The de- 
 liverances of that Congress embraced 
 the following: 
 
 "We should seek alliance with non-Catho- 
 lics for proper Sunday observance. Without 
 going over to the Judaic Sabbath we can bring 
 the masses over to the moderation of the Chris- 
 tian Sunday. To effect this we must set our 
 faces sternly against the sale of intoxicating 
 beverages on Sunday, The corrupting influ- 
 ence of saloons in politics, the crime and pau- 
 perism resulting from excessive drinking, re- 
 quire legislative restriction, which we can aid 
 in procuring by joining our influence with that 
 of the other enemies of intemperance. Let us 
 resolve that drunkenness shall be made odious 
 and give practical encouragement and support 
 to Catholic temperance societies. We favor the 
 passage and enforcement of laws rigidly closing 
 saloons on Sunday and forbidding the sale of 
 liquors to minors and intoxicated persons." 
 
 In the controversy between the sup- 
 porters of High License and restriction 
 and the radicals who insist on absolute 
 Prohibition, the church does not for- 
 mally take sides. The Catholic Pro- 
 hibitionists naturally derive much com- 
 fort, as well as weighty arguments, from 
 the strong utterances of the Plenary 
 Council and the words of the Pope. But 
 it seems to be understood at present that 
 most of the Catholic leaders hold con- 
 servative opinions so far as legislative 
 policy is concerned— that is, while pre- 
 pared to approve High License and 
 similar measures they seem to be slow to 
 urge complete Prohibition as the sole 
 remedy. On the other hand Prohibition 
 sentiment is steadily gaining ground, 
 and there is no doubt that many of its 
 important champions are influential 
 Catholics. 
 
 Some of the most pronounced and 
 
 memorable of all utterances on drinking 
 and drink have come from fathers of the 
 church and very eminent contemporary 
 prelates. In the 8th Century St. Boni- 
 face, in a letter to the Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, administered this rebuke : 
 
 "It is reported that in your diocese the vice 
 of drunkenness is too frequent, so that not only 
 certain Bishops do not hinder it but they them- 
 selves indulge in excess of drink and force 
 others to drink till they are intoxicated. This 
 is certainly a great crime for a servant of God 
 to do or to have done, since the ancient canons 
 decree that a Bishop or a priest given to drink 
 should either resign or be deposed." ' 
 
 St. Thomas Aquinas, the "Angelic 
 Doctor" referred to in the Plenary 
 Council decrees, who lived in the 13th 
 Century, taught that "There are things 
 contrary to soundness or a good condi- 
 tion of life, and the temperate man does 
 not use these in any measure, for this 
 would be a sin against temperance." 2 
 
 Among the highly distinguished Cath- 
 olic divines of this day Cardinal Man- 
 ning (England) and Archbishop Ireland 
 (United States) are especially emphatic 
 in speaking for the abolition of the 
 saloon. (It should be said by way of 
 qualification, however, that both Cardi- 
 nal Manning and Archbishop Ireland 
 have shown a tendency to accept com- 
 promise legislation while waiting for 
 complete Prohibition.) In a celebrated 
 speech at Bolton, Eng., Cardinal Man- 
 ning said : 
 
 "I impeach the liquor traffic of high crimes 
 and misdemeanors against the commonwealth, 
 and I ask you, in the name of common sense 
 and common justice, can you withhold from 
 those intrusted with the high responsibility of 
 the ballot the power of applying their votes in 
 the form of a veto when it is proposed, without 
 consulting them, to put in the midst of them 
 these places for the sale of intoxicating 
 drinks ? ... It is mere mockery to ask us to 
 put down drunkenness by moral and religious 
 means, when the Legislature facilitates the 
 multiplication of incitements to intemperance on 
 every side. You might as well call upon me 
 as the captain of a sinking ship, and say : 
 ' Why don't you pump the water out ? ' when 
 you are scuttling the ship in every direction. 
 If you will cut off the supply of temptation I 
 will be bound by the help of God to convert 
 drunkards ; but until you have taken off this 
 perpetual supply of intoxicating drink we 
 never can cultivate the fields. You have sub- 
 
 1 Discipline of Drink, by Eev T. E. Bridgett (London, 
 1876), p. 77. 
 
 2 Summse Theologicse (Parma, 1854), Quseatio cxU, 
 art. 6. 
 
Roman Catholic Church.] 
 
 600 
 
 [Ross, William. 
 
 merged them, and if ever we reclaim one por- 
 tion you immediately begin to build upon it 
 a gin palace or some temptation to drink. The 
 other day, when a benevolent man had estab- 
 lished a sailors' home, I was told there were two 
 hundred places of drink round about it. How, 
 then, can we contend against these legalized 
 and multiplied facilities and temptations to in- 
 toxication ? This is my answer to the bland 
 objurgation of those who tell us the ministers 
 of religion are not doing their part: let the Leg- 
 islature do its part and we will answer for the 
 rest." 
 
 Archbishop Ireland, in an address be- 
 fore the Minnesota Catholic Total Absti- 
 nence Union, June 5, 1889, at Minne- 
 apolis, said, in part : 
 
 ' ' We thought we meant business years ago 
 in this warfare, but I hope God will forgive us 
 for our weakness, for we went into the battle- 
 field without sufficient resolution. We labored 
 under the fatal mistake that we could argue 
 out the question with the rumsellers. We 
 imagined that there was some power in moral 
 suasion, that when we would show them the 
 evil of their ways they would abandon the 
 traffic. We have seen that there is no hope of 
 improving in any shape or form the liquor 
 traffic. There is nothing now to be done but 
 to wipe it out completely." ' 
 
 The relations of individual Catholics 
 to the drink traffic were graphically 
 stated by Archbishop Ireland in an arti- 
 cle in the Catholic World for October, 
 1890, the occasion being the centennial 
 anniversary of the birthday of Father 
 Mathew : 
 
 "In the centennial of Father Mathew there is 
 a deep significance. It speaks to us, in accents 
 that will not be stilled, of our own duty. In- 
 temperance is among us, doing fearful harm to 
 bodies and to souls. It has not the unlimited 
 sway which former years accorded to it : there 
 are serried battalions in the field opposing it. 
 Public opinion no longer fawns to it ; both its 
 victims and its agents are held in ill-repute. 
 Yet, withal, the slimy serpent lives, and through 
 all ranks of society it trails its poison-laden 
 lengths, distilling in all directions its pestilen- 
 tial breathings. Who is there who has not sor- 
 rowed over its ravages ? Let me speak as a 
 Catholic. . . . Intemperance to-day is doing 
 Holy Church harm beyond the power of pen to 
 describe, and unless we crush it out Catholicity 
 can make but slow advance in America. I 
 would say, intemperance is our one misfortune. 
 With all other difficulties we can easily cope, 
 and cope successfully. Intemperance, as noth- 
 ing else, paralyzes our forces, awakens in the 
 minds of our non-Catholic fellow-citieens vio- 
 lent prejudices against us and casts over all the 
 priceless treasures of truth and grace which the 
 church carries in her bosom an impenetrable veil 
 of darkness. Need I particularize ? Catholics 
 nearly monopolize the liquor traffic ; Catholics 
 
 i The Voice. June 13. 1889. 
 
 loom up before the Criminal Courts of the land, 
 under the charge of drunkenness and other vio- 
 lations of law resulting from drunkenness, in 
 undue majorities ; poorhouses and asylums are 
 thronged with Catholics, the immediate or me- 
 diate victims of drink ; the poverty, the sin, 
 the shame that fall upon our people result 
 almost entirely from drink, and, God knows, 
 those afflictions come upon them thick and 
 heavy ! No one would dare assert, so strong 
 the evidence, that the disgrace from liquor- 
 selling and liquor-drinking taken from us, the 
 most hateful enemy could throw a stone at us, 
 or that our people would not come out in broad 
 daylight before the country as the purest, the 
 most law-abiding, the most honored element in 
 its population." 
 
 Ross, William. — Born in London,, 
 Eng., Dec. 25, 1812 : died in Dover, 111., 
 Dec. 18, 1875. As a boy he learned to- 
 drink at the table of his father, who was 
 a Colonel in the British army, stationed 
 atMontreal, Canada. He had many wild 
 youthful escapades, became dissipated 
 and at 20 was turned into the street 
 one cold night by a tavern-keeper, with 
 whom he was boarding. A gentleman, 
 found him lying in the snow, his hand 
 having been crushed by the door as it 
 was shut after him. A few days later, 
 with his arm in a sling, he made his first 
 temperance speech at Kochester, N. Y. 
 Soon after this he was led to devote his 
 life to fighting the drink curse by a 
 tragic circumstance. His twin sister, 
 wife of a British army officer, was killed 
 by a blow from a glass thrown by her 
 husband in a fit of drunken passion at a. 
 servant. Mr. Boss studied medicine at 
 Woodstock, Vt., that he might be better 
 prepared to treat the subject of alcohol 
 from a pathological point of view. In 
 his earlier lectures he carried a small 
 still by means of which he illustrated 
 the adulteration of liquors. He lectured 
 extensively in nearly every State of the 
 East, South and North, and in central 
 New York. At the outbreak of the Civil 
 War he was living in Missouri, but was 
 compelled, because of Union principles, 
 to move to Illinois. He entered actively 
 into the campaign of 1864 for the Re- 
 publican party. In his temperance work 
 he early became convinced that *' moral 
 suasion for the victim, legal suasion for 
 the victimizer " was the true basis upon 
 which the reform should be wrought 
 out, and for him is claimed the honor of 
 introducing and having adopted by the 
 State Temperance Convention at Bloom- 
 ington, 111., Dec. 9, 1868, the first un- 
 
Royal Templars of Temperance. J 601 
 
 [Rush, Benjamin. 
 
 qualified Prohibition party resolution 
 enunciated by a State temperance organ- 
 ization. The platform, as originally pre- 
 sented in this Convention, made the fol- 
 lowing declaration: "We accept the 
 issue made by the liquor-dealers and 
 Beer Congresses and will meet them at 
 the polls." At the instance of Dr. Eoss 
 this amendment was added: "and m 
 support of these sentiments we will pro- 
 ceed to form a Prohibition party." 
 
 Royal Templars of Temper- 
 ance. — This Order was originally or- 
 ganized in Buffalo, N. Y., in 1869, as a 
 league of temperance workers who were 
 members of the Good Templars, Sons of 
 Temperance and Temple of Honor, the 
 object being to labor "unceasingly for 
 the promotion of the cause of temper- 
 ance, morally, socially, religiously and 
 politically." It was intended to be wholly 
 educational in its methods, and no 
 special efforts were made to establish the 
 Order outside the city of Buffalo. In 
 February, 1877, it was reorganized on 
 the present basis as a beneficiary insu- 
 rance Order. The membership consists 
 of beneficiary members and honorary 
 members. At the end of 1889 there were 
 15,349 beneficiary members and 4,679 
 honorary members — total, 20,028. The 
 expenditures for the year 1889 were 
 $272,672.49, divided as follows: general 
 fund, $13,874.18; beneficiary fund, $258,- 
 069.91 ; additional benefit, $120.92 ; prop- 
 agation fund, $607.48. The newspapers 
 of the Order are the Royal Templar, 
 published at Buffalo, N. Y., and the In- 
 ternational Royal Templar, published 
 at Hamilton, Ont. 
 
 Rum. — See Spirituous Liquors. 
 
 Rum Power. — A name for the or- 
 ganized liquor traffic, having much 
 the same significance that the term 
 "slave power" formerly had. The 
 "rum power" is that great political 
 factor, embracing all who are pecuniar- 
 ily interested in the traffic and their im- 
 mediate followers, which stands ready to 
 resist, by open or secret warfare, all 
 Prohibitory or restrictive legislation, to 
 prevent the enforcement of statutes, to 
 intimidate parties and to fill the public 
 offices with pro-liquor partisans. (See 
 pp. 384-5.) 
 
 Rush, Benjamin. — Born at Bristol, 
 Pa. (near Philadelphia), Dec. 24, 1745; 
 died in Philadelphia, April 19, 1813. He 
 was of Quaker extraction, his grand- 
 father having joined William Penn's set- 
 tlers in 1683. He was educated at 
 Princeton College, graduating in 1760; 
 studied medicine in Philadelphia and 
 Edinburgh, and had hospital experience 
 in London and Paris; was appointed 
 Professor of Chemistry in the Philadel- 
 phia Medical College in 1769, and be- 
 came a very successful practitioner and a 
 voluminous writer on medical subjects. 
 He is sometimes called " The Sydenham 
 of America." For years he was recog- 
 nized as the most eminent medical man 
 of Philadelphia, if not of America. A 
 very close friend of Benjamin Franklin's, 
 he was, like t^at philosopher, abstemious 
 and regular in his personal habits. 
 Though his scientific tastes were keen 
 he was above all a man of public spirit. 
 He retained his connection with the 
 Philadelphia Medical College until that 
 institution was consolidated with the 
 University of Pennsylvania (1791), and 
 then he became a professor in the Uni- 
 versity. He took especial interest in all 
 studies and work designed to alleviate 
 the worst plagues of the race. During 
 the yellow fever epidemic in Philadel- 
 phia in 1793 he was untiring; he is 
 credited with having saved several thou- 
 sand lives at that time, personally min- 
 istering to more than a hundred patients 
 each day. Chosen a member of the Con- 
 tinental Congress of 1776 he was one of 
 the signers of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence. He was also a member of the 
 Constitutional Convention of 1787. He 
 withdrew from politics in 1787, but 
 was recalled to the public service in 1799, 
 when he was appointed Treasurer of the 
 United States Mint, a position that he 
 held until his death. He took a promi- 
 nent part in organizing the first Anti- 
 Slavery society in this country (1774) 
 and was its Secretary for many years. 
 All movements for the advancement of 
 philanthropy, religion and humanity's 
 cause generally found a cordial friend in 
 him. When his professional success was 
 assured he devoted one-seventh of his 
 income to charitable purposes. 
 
 The publication in 1785 of Dr. Rush's 
 famous essay on " The Effects of Ardent 
 Spirits on the Human Body and Mind," 
 
Rush, Benjamin.] 
 
 602 
 
 [Rush, Benjamin. 
 
 marks the beginning, in English-speak- 
 ing countries, of formal discussion of 
 the drink evil. Despite the utterances 
 and efforts that had preceded it, no 
 deep or lasting impression had been 
 made by them. It can truly be said 
 that before this essay was printed there 
 was no such thing in existence as an 
 extended, weighty and well-sustained 
 argument of practical character against 
 the use of strong drink. The injunc- 
 tions and warnings of Scripture, the 
 declarations of prominent men of all pe- 
 riods of the world's history, the pro- 
 hibitions and restrictions of early Eng- 
 lish and American liquor legislation, 
 were merely detached pleas and sugges- 
 tions that commended themselves to the 
 judgment of reflecting and virtuous peo- 
 ple, but had never impelled a writer of 
 respectable parts to make a studied attack 
 upon the customs and prejudices of the 
 day or to lay foundations for a distinct 
 propaganda. True, Dr. Rush did not 
 create an organized following, and the 
 results of his work, if judged by re- 
 sponsive public manifestations, seem 
 to have been meagre in his day. Yet 
 his pamphlet, read by most of the 
 thoughtful Americans of the time, had a 
 convincing effect upon many minds, and 
 did much to raise up special advocates 
 of reform and to establish the general 
 sentiment that began to take shape soon 
 after the opening of the 19th Century. 
 In England the Gentleman's Magazi7ie 
 reprinted it in 1786, and Dr. Eush made 
 special efforts to extend its circulation, 
 presenting copies to religious and other 
 organizations. The value and influence 
 of this essay are considered so important 
 by the temperance people of the present 
 day that a Centennial Temperance Con- 
 ference was held in Philadelphia in 1885 
 to commemorate the one hundredth year 
 since its publication. 
 
 The essay assails distilled spirits only, 
 and even commends beer and wine. It 
 was natural for early writers to view the 
 weaker intoxicants with some favor, for 
 scientific testimony against them was 
 then scant and the evils of spirit-drink- 
 ing were overshadowing. In an age when 
 it was thought proper and indeed essen- 
 tial to take the most fiery liquors, and 
 scarcely discreditable to indulge in them 
 beyond ordinary bounds, an unusual 
 courage and clearness of perception was 
 
 necessary to speak uncompromisingly 
 against them. Dr. Eush not only spoke 
 uncompromisingly but laid out nearly all 
 the fundamental lines of argument along 
 which the present temperance move- 
 ment is pressed. He showed that dis- 
 tilled spirits should never be used except 
 in extreme cases. He described their 
 effects upon the victim in striking 
 words : 
 
 "In folly it causes him to resemble a calf; in 
 stupidity, an ass ; in roaring, a mad bull ; in 
 quarreling and fighting, a dog ; in cruelty, a 
 tiger ; in fetor, a skunk ; in filthiness, a hog, 
 and in obscenity, a he-goat." 
 
 He alluded to the hereditary and de- 
 ranging influences of spirituous drink, 
 and urged physicians to exercise great 
 caution in prescribing it. He declared 
 with the utmost positiveness that such 
 drink was of no value for sustaining the 
 body either in very cold or in very hot 
 weather, or in times of manual or mental 
 labor. He warned his readers against 
 tobacco. He laid stress on the reminder 
 that "no man ever became suddenly a 
 drunkard." He besought ministers of 
 the gospel and church organizations to 
 help in the reform, and pointed out the 
 political danger of being " governed by 
 men chosen by intemperate and cor- 
 rupted voters." He mentioned the de- 
 sirability of legislation. Finally he pro- 
 nounced against the " tapering-off " plan, 
 saying that drinkers should abstain 
 "suddenly and entirely." 
 
 It is most interesting to note that 
 among the substitutes for spirits recom- 
 mended by Dr. Eush (and recommended 
 not once but several times), prominence 
 is given to opium. In the very last 
 words he speaks of laudanum as one of 
 the temporary substitutes whose employ- 
 ment for effecting a transition to sober 
 habits he has " never known to be attend- 
 ed with any bad effects." In another 
 place he says that "wine and opium 
 should always be preferred to ardent 
 spirits ;" that " they are far less injurious 
 to the body and mind than spirits, and 
 the habits of attachment to them are 
 easily broken after time and repentance 
 have removed the evils they were taken 
 to relieve." When Dr. Eush published 
 his essay, the opium habit was not wide- 
 spread in America or England ; its ter- 
 rors were not generally known ; De 
 Quincy had not penned his "Conies- 
 
Russell, John J 
 
 603 
 
 [Russia. 
 
 isions" and Coleridge had not written 
 his despairing words : f Carmen reliquum 
 in futurum tempus relegatum— To-mor- 
 tow ! and To-morrow ! and To-morrow ! " 
 Neither had England fairly entered upon 
 the work of enslaving China. But the 
 formal endorsement of so fearful a drug 
 by a scientific writer in a work especially 
 designed to combat ignorance and temp- 
 tation and to serve a philanthropic pur- 
 pose, is exceedingly instructive. The 
 fact that a man like Dr. Bush, in the 
 light of the meagre scientific testimony 
 and the restricted observation of his 
 time, did not hesitate to approve opium, 
 is a sufficient answer to all who may 
 be disposed to cite his authority in be- 
 half of malt and vinous liquors. 
 
 Russell, John, first candidate of the 
 Prohibition party for Vice-President of 
 the United States; born in Livingston 
 County, N. Y., Sept. 20, 1822. His par- 
 ents came from New Jersey and were 
 of Puritan descent. In 1838 they re- 
 moved to Michigan. John acquired his 
 education in the district school, but im- 
 proved it by reading and study. At the 
 age of 21 he became a Methodist minister 
 in the Detroit Conference. He had 
 pastoral charges in Port Huron, Eomeo, 
 Ypsilanti, Flint, Pontiac, Marquette and 
 Detroit. For eight years he was a Presid- 
 ing Elder. He was a delegate to the 
 General Conference in 1860 and 1880. 
 In the last-mentioned year he was Chair- 
 man of the Special Committee on Tem- 
 perance and wrote the important report 
 submitted by it. The following words, 
 still included in the doctrine of his 
 •church, are from his pen: "Voluntary 
 total abstinence from all intoxicants as 
 the true ground of personal temperance, 
 and complete legal Prohibition of the 
 traffic in intoxicating drinks as the duty 
 of civil government." He has been 
 chosen as one of the four delegates from 
 the Detroit Conference to the second 
 Ecumenical Conference of the Methodist 
 Church, to be held in New York in 1891. 
 As a temperance advocate and Prohibi- 
 tionist he has become very prominent. 
 For eight years he was the Temperance 
 Agent of his Conference, for 12 years at 
 the head of the Good Templars in Michi- 
 gan, for two years the head of the world- 
 wide Order and for two years Right 
 "Worthy Grand Lodge Lecturer. In per- 
 
 forming the duties of these positions he 
 labored in 24 States and the Dominion 
 of Canada; he also spent some time in 
 Great Britain and France. He is known 
 as the " Father of the Prohibition party," 
 having published the first newspaper 
 that advocated the formation of a separ- 
 ate political party (see p. 573), and hav- 
 ing taken steps that led to a meeting of 
 Prohibitionists in Detroit in 1867, at 
 which the new party's organization in 
 Michigan had its birth. The reports on 
 "political action" for four successive 
 years beginning with 1867, adopted by 
 the Bight Worthy Grand Lodge of Good 
 Templars, were written by him. He was 
 Temporary Chairman of the Convention 
 that founded the National Prohibition 
 party, and for years he filled the most im- 
 portant places. At the Nominating Con- 
 vention of 1872 he was made the can- 
 didate for Vice-President. Many of the 
 most logical and striking articles appear- 
 ing in Prohibition newspapers have been 
 contributed by him. 
 
 Russia. 1 — In the 10th Century, when 
 Vladimir of Bussia, then a pagan, re- 
 solved to adopt a new religion, he curtly 
 rejected the claims of Mohammedanism 
 because of its founder's prohibition of 
 liquor, giving as his reason that drinking 
 was " a joy to the Russian heart." Thus 
 from that distant time the people of this 
 nation have been free to gratify their 
 taste for drink uninfluenced by religious 
 scruples. The original Russian bever- 
 ages were mead and beer, fermented 
 from honey and barley, respectively ; 
 and to this day no other ones are men- 
 tioned in the old songs. The distilled 
 vodka, which is now the national intoxi- 
 cant, came into use gradually, until un- 
 der Nicholas its supremacy was no longer 
 to be questioned and all the vodka- shops 
 were graced with the imperial shield of 
 the double-headed eagle and were com- 
 monly styled the Czar's, the liquor busi- 
 ness being then practically a Government 
 monopoly. In January, 1863, the pres- 
 ent system of indirect or Excise taxes on 
 the manufacture and sale was intro- 
 duced. The regulations for distilleries 
 are very strict. Besides levying Excise 
 duty on the manufacture of all liquors 
 
 1 For the Government statistics in this article the editor 
 is indebted to Peter Popoff of the Russian Consulate- 
 General, New York ; for other particulars to Axel Gus- 
 taf son and Joseph Malins. 
 
Russia.] 
 
 604 
 
 [Russia. 
 
 (excepting wines) the Government re- 
 quires every vendor to take out an 
 annual license. The official report 
 for 1888 shows the following items of 
 revenue : 
 
 Excise duty on alcohols, 237,138,344 roubles; 
 on vodka made out of grapes and fruits, 831,- 
 659 roubles ; on vodka made out of alco- 
 hol, 1,239,430 roubles; on beer and mead, 
 5,134,823 roubles; on malt, 1,469,434 roubles; 
 licenses to distillers, wholesale and retail deal- 
 ers, 18,293,719 roubles; duty on lands under 
 distilleries, 361,361 roubles; fines for violations 
 of the Excise rules, 443,439 roubles; different 
 items, 70,585 roubles — total liquor revenue, 
 264,982,794 roubles, or about $132,500,000, 
 reckoning a rouble at 50 cents. 
 
 This liquor revenue was more than 32 
 per cent, of the entire Government in- 
 come in 1888, and was more than twice 
 as large as any other item, the next high- 
 est items heing the land tax (115,000,000 
 roubles) and the customs duties (110,- 
 000,000 roubles). 
 
 In 1886 there were 2,331 distilleries 
 operating, and their product aggregated 
 31,420,408 vedro of pure alcohol, equiva- 
 lent to about 78,550,000 vedro of vodka 
 (vodka ■ being 40 per cent, strong), or 
 250,000,000 United States gallons of 
 distilled beverages. To produce this 
 the distillers destroyed 80,793,407 pood 
 about (1,300,000 tons) of potatoes, 30,- 
 523,340 pood (about 500,000 tons) of 
 rye, and smaller quantities of green 
 malt, dry malt, beets, corn, wheat, 
 millet, barley, oats, etc. The pota- 
 toes used in distillation came chiefly 
 from the Polish, Baltic and middle 
 provinces, the grain from Siberia, 
 Turkestan and the middle provinces, 
 and the beets from Little Russia. 
 
 There were 1,407 beer and 556 mead 
 breweries in 1886, and reckoning on the 
 basis of the Excise duty (16.7 kopecks, or 
 about 8.4 cents per vedro of beer) it ap- 
 pears that about 30,000,000 vedro (96,- 
 000,000 United States gallons) of beer 
 was manufactured in that year. The 
 production of mead was probably less 
 than 10,000,000 gallons. 
 
 The wine yield, according to official 
 data collected by the Minister of State 
 Domains in 1889, was about 20,000,000 
 vedro (64,000,000 United States gal- 
 lons). There were 170,000 desiatine 
 (459,000 acres) devoted to viticulture. 
 No Excise duty is levied on wines, and 
 this fact accounts for conflicting esti- 
 mates of the quantity of wine produced. 
 
 The imports and exports of liquors 
 nearly balance each other. In 1888 the 
 value of liquors exported was 8,234,874 
 roubles (the chief item being alcohol and 
 corn spirits, 7,841,349 roubles), and the 
 value of imported intoxicants was 7,697.- 
 931 roubles (the chief item being wines, 
 6,180,289 roubles). 
 
 The immense importance of the drink 
 traffic as a source of Government reve- 
 nue undoubtedly bars temperance prog- 
 ress. Mr. Thomas Stevens, one of the 
 most observant of recent American trav- 
 ellers in Russia, states the truth with 
 much force : 
 
 "I have said more about vodka-drinking," 
 he writes, " than I intended to in this paper. The 
 evil of it is so prominently to the fore, how- 
 ever, and the subject so prolific that when once 
 entered upon it is hard to get away from. That 
 vodka-drinking is at the root of three-fourths of 
 the misery one sees in Russia I am already fully 
 persuaded. The evil is enormous, but the 
 remedy is not so easily found. The revenues 
 are correspondingly enormous, and the univer- 
 sal adoption of temperance by the peasantry 
 would bankrupt the Government at once. The 
 revenues from vodka pay the expenses of both 
 , army and navy." 
 
 He reports an interview with a repre- 
 sentative citizen of the mir (or com- 
 munity) of Volosova, which, according 
 to Mr. Stevens, comes "near being an 
 ideal mir." 
 
 "The secret of the prosperity of Volosova," 
 said this citizen, "is that we voted to have no 
 vodka-shop in the mir — that, and nothing else. 
 Every mir has the privilege of Local Option. It 
 remains with the people themselves whether 
 they shall admit a vodka-seller to their midst or 
 not. Vodka-sellers get into the mirs by bribery 
 and by paying a good share of the taxes. A 
 vodka-seller will, perhaps, engage to pay 500 
 roubles of the mir's taxes, which, let us say, 
 amounts to one-tenth of the whole. This being 
 agreed to, the liquor-shop is opened, the 
 moujiks [peasants] spend everything in drink, 
 and the entire mir is demoralized. The vodka- 
 seller takes 20 roubles out of every moujik's 
 pocket, in return for which he pays 20 kopecks 
 back in the guise of taxes. Now in Volosova 
 we decided to keep our 20 roubles and pay 
 our 20 kopecks taxes ourselves, and so at the 
 end of the year we find ourselves 19 roubles 
 and 80 kopecks in pocket." » 
 
 In Russia there are nearly a hun- 
 dred holidays in the year (including 
 Sundays), and it is the practice of 
 the peasants to celebrate these days 
 by visiting the vodka-shops and get- 
 ting drunk. At times nearly all the 
 
 » New York World, July 37, 1890. 
 
St. John, John P.] 
 
 605 
 
 [Saloon. 
 
 inhabitants of a village, including the 
 priests, will be found intoxicated. An 
 interesting instance (the occasion being 
 the dedication of a new church) is given 
 by George Kennan in his graphic ac- 
 counts of his Siberian experiences. 1 
 
 The Jews have long been specially 
 identified with the retail liquor business, 
 in many places practically monopolizing 
 it. 
 
 Some years ago the Good Templar 
 Order was planted in Finland by Oscar 
 Eklund of Sweden, but the authorities 
 compelled its members to take the form 
 of a public organization. In Russia 
 proper some temperance sentiment has 
 recently been developed by the example 
 and counsels of Count Leo Tolstoi. Va- 
 rious total abstaining sects are found in 
 different parts of the Empire. 
 
 Kussian law prescribes severe punish- 
 ment for drunkenness — imprisonment 
 for not less than seven days or a fine of 
 not less than 25 roubles. Intoxication 
 cannot be pleaded in extenuation of 
 crime. In St. Petersburg there are an- 
 nually about 47,000 arrests for drunken- 
 ness. 2 
 
 St. John, John P., fourth Presiden- 
 tial candidate of the Prohibition party; 
 born at Brookville, Ind., Feb. 25, 1833. 
 He was educated in a log schoolhouse, 
 and after leaving school worked for 
 several years as clerk in a store at $6 a 
 month. When 19 he went to California, 
 and in the next few years he led an 
 adventurous life, making voyages to 
 Mexico, South America and the Sand- 
 wich Islands and taking part in Indian 
 wars in California and Oregon. Return- 
 ing from the Pacific Coast in 1859 he 
 lived for a while in Charleston, 111. It 
 was here that he was prosecuted, under 
 the old Black laws, for assisting a fugi- 
 tive colored boy. Mr. St. John had fed 
 the lad. He pleaded guilty but was 
 acquitted. He was admitted to the bar 
 in 1862, and about the same time entered 
 the Union army, in which he served as 
 Captain, Major and Lieutenant-Colonel. 
 Upon leaving the army in 1864 he went 
 to Independence, Mo., where he prac- 
 ticed law for the next four years. In 
 1869 he changed his residence to Olathe, 
 Kan., and he still lives there. His 
 
 i See the Century Magazine for November, 1889. 
 2 On the authority of Joseph Maline. 
 
 political career began in 1872, when he 
 was chosen a member of the Kansas State 
 Senate. He declined a re-election. The Re- 
 publican party made him Governor of the 
 State in 1878 and again (by an increased 
 majority) in 1880. His second election 
 is memorable because he was thoroughly 
 committed to Prohibition, and because 
 the Constitutional Amendment against 
 the manufacture and sale of liquors was 
 adopted at the same time. From his 
 youth he had been an ardent opponent 
 of the saloon; the home of his boyhood 
 had been darkened by intemperance. 
 
 In 1882 he was once more a candidate 
 for the Governorship,, but the feeling 
 against third terms and the antagonism 
 of the liquor element caused his defeat. 
 His administration of the office was 
 especially distinguished by the comple- 
 tion of important public works and suc- 
 cessful undertakings for advancing moral 
 and material interests. A noteworthy 
 incident was the cordial reception given 
 and pecuniary help extended to about 
 75,000 destitute colored people who 
 came into the State during that period. 
 Governor St. John did not, however, 
 apply any part of the State funds for 
 their relief, but he organized a committee 
 of citizens and made earnest and effective 
 appeals. When the National Republican 
 Convention of 1884 refused to express 
 sympathy for the Prohibition cause he 
 joined the Prohibition party. By it he was 
 nominated for the Presidency, July 23, 
 1884. (See pp. 570-4.) The abuse and 
 persecution to which he was subjected 
 during and after the campaign of 1884 
 strengthened his attachment to the 
 cause and increased the devotion of his 
 followers. The charges made against 
 him were shown to have had no founda- 
 tion save in malignity. He continued 
 his work, speaking in all parts of the 
 country. He presided over the National 
 Prohibition Convention of 1888. 
 
 Mr. St. John was for seven years 
 President of the State Temperance Union 
 of Kansas. He is regarded as one of the 
 ablest and most popular of Prohibition 
 advocates, particularly successful in plat- 
 form oratory. He is a warm sympathizer 
 with the Woman Suffrage, anti-monopoly 
 and other radical movements. 
 
 Saloon. — The common name for the 
 retail drink-shop, the equivalent of the 
 
Saloon.] 
 
 606 [Sandwich (Hawaiian) Islands. 
 
 English " public house." The characteris- 
 tics of the saloon as a place of resort and 
 as a public institution are so well known 
 and have been so frequently alluded to 
 in this work (see especially Liquoe 
 Teaffic) that it will be sufficient to 
 notice here a few of the facts most 
 prominently suggested by this sub- 
 ject. 
 
 The fundamental purposes of the typi- 
 cal saloon, indicated alike by its location, 
 its equipment, its management and its 
 associations, are to entice and ensnare, to 
 absorb the money and time of the people 
 without giving any useful, necessary or 
 even harmless article in exchange. It 
 thrives best where population is densest, 
 but, unlike other business establishments, 
 its prosperity does not depend upon the 
 existence or cultivation of a self-respect- 
 ing, thrifty and provident class of 
 patrons: the disproportionate number 
 of saloons, as compared with other places 
 of trade, in the poor quarters of every 
 city, illustrates this. Comparatively few 
 individuals who have a decent reputa- 
 tion to maintain or a sensitiveness to 
 protect are disposed or can afford to 
 openly frequent the saloon at this day. 
 Upon these general truths, and number- 
 less allied truths of equal significance, 
 rests the whole indictment against the 
 drink traffic. 
 
 No typical saloon is complete unless it 
 is peculiarly constructed and arranged 
 with a view to facilitating violation of law 
 and encouraging clandestine custom. 
 Back doors and side doors, apertures and 
 " family entrances," are designed solely 
 for admitting and serving patrons on 
 Sunday and during prohibited hours, or 
 for accommodating individuals (like 
 women and minors) who must be screen- 
 ed from the public gaze. It is a com- 
 mon thing also for the saloon to make 
 merchandise of prostitution, gambling 
 and all forms of vice, crime and wrong. 
 
 The saloon is singled out as a pecu- 
 liarly dangerous and objectionable insti- 
 tution by all men of affairs. The fire 
 insurance companies pronounce it a most 
 unsafe "risk." Intense opposition is 
 displayed by every person interested 
 when it is proposed to place a saloon in 
 the neighborhood of a church or school. 
 The staunchest anti-Prohibitionists are 
 quick to resent attempts to locate saloons 
 near their residences or places of busi- 
 
 ness. J Property-owners and real estate 
 agents refuse to lease premises to retail 
 liquor-sellers unless enormous rents are 
 paid. A New York newspaper, reporting 
 the efforts made by "persons represent- 
 ing some million dollars' worth of prop- 
 erty " to prevent the opening of a dram- 
 shop by one Gorger in their district of the 
 city, says : " Gorger obtained a lease for 
 the store at 81st street, agreeing to pay 
 $6,000 per annum, though the present 
 tenant, a real estate agent, is paying only 
 $1,500. A store across the street, occu- 
 pied by a druggist, rents for $3,800. An 
 offer of $16,000 per year from a saloon- 
 keeper for the premises was recently re- 
 fused."' 
 
 Sandwich (Hawaiian) Islands. — 
 Before the introduction of European 
 civilization the Hawaiians prepared in- 
 toxicants from the narcotic root awa and 
 the ti plant. After Capt. Cook's visit in 
 1778 these beverages gradually gave way 
 to the white man's whiskey and rum. 
 The consequences were terrible. When 
 the missionaries arrived at' the islands in 
 1820 the natives were addicted to the 
 grossest intemperance, and their king, 
 Kamehameha II., was a confirmed drunk- 
 ard, spending whole days in debauchery. 
 The example and influence of the mis- 
 sionaries were so potent that in October, 
 1829, the new king and his chiefs pro- 
 hibited the manufacture and retailing of 
 ardent spirits. This was resented by the 
 few foreigners in Honolulu, and the dis- 
 solute companions of the young king 
 encouraged him to grant licenses and so 
 increase his revenues. The Eegent and 
 chiefs refused to issue any, but the law 
 was relaxed. In 1831 a native temper- 
 ance society was formed at Honolulu, 
 pledging its members against drinking 
 for pleasure, against dealing in liquors 
 for gain and against treating friends or 
 employes. In 1833 (in consequence of a 
 petition signed by nearly 3,000 people) 
 another Prohibitory law was passed and 
 
 1 When the liquor men of Rhode Island were making 
 preparations to repeal the Prohibitory Amendment several 
 bankers of Providence signed their petitions. But after 
 repeal had been accomplished these same bankers strenu- 
 ously urged the Commissioners not to grant licenses for 
 liquor-saloons in the vicinity of their banks. (See the 
 Voice, Sept. 12, J889.) 
 
 For a great variety of opinions from private citizens 
 concerning the undesirability of having the saloon as a 
 neighbor, see the Voice for Sept. 25, 1890, and Jan. 29, 
 1891. 
 
 3 New York Evening Post, Jan. 81, 1891. 
 
Scientific Temperance Laws.] 607 
 
 [Scotland. 
 
 the traffic was suppressed everywhere 
 except in Honolulu. In 1835 drunken- 
 ness was prohibited under penalty of a 
 fine of $6, or one month at hard labor, 
 or 24 lashes. Both these measures were 
 poorly enforced. In 1838 the introduc- 
 tion of spirits into the kingdom was 
 prohibited and a heavy duty was laid on 
 wines. For a while drunkenness de- 
 creased and churches flourished. The 
 larger towns, however, were under a sort 
 of license system (allowing sales of wine, 
 beer and native drinks), but a fine of 
 $50 was imposed for every offense of 
 selling without license. Capt. Laplace, 
 commanding a French frigate, now 
 appeared on the scene and at the point 
 of the bayonet compelled the king to 
 sign a treaty admitting, among other 
 articles, French wines and brandy Ex- 
 cessive drinking was again the rule, and 
 the king himself became a victim of the 
 habit. About 1850 the selling and giv- 
 ing of intoxicants to natives were pro- 
 hibited under penalty of $200 fine or two 
 years' imprisonment at hard labor ; and 
 in 1851 the sale of spirits was forbidden 
 in all places except Honolulu. These 
 measures, when enforced, were of great 
 benefit to all, especially the natives. But 
 in August, 1882, the two acts last men- 
 tioned were repealed, a license fee of 
 $1,000 was established and saloons were 
 introduced generally. Since then the 
 consumption of liquor has been steadily 
 on the increase. Custom House reports 
 show that about 110,000 gallons are con- 
 sumed annually, valued at about $850,000, 
 representing an annual per capita expen- 
 diture of more than $10.50. Some tem- 
 perance work has recently been done, 
 under the direction of the missionaries 
 and others, with occasional assistance 
 from foreign visitors, like Mrs. Mary 
 Clement Leavitt and Eichard T. Booth. 
 There is now (1890) an influential and 
 active Woman's Christian Temperance 
 Union in Honolulu. 
 
 Thomas S. Southwick. 
 (Honolulu-) 
 
 Scientific Temperance Educa- 
 tional Laws. — These measures, pro- 
 viding for instruction in the public 
 schools concerning the nature and effects 
 of alcoholic liquors and narcotics, are of 
 recent origin. The demand for such 
 acts was first created by the Woman's 
 
 Christian Temperance Union, which es- 
 tablished a special department in the in- 
 terest of the movement, placing at its 
 head Mrs. Mary H. Hunt of Massachu- 
 setts. Her intelligent and indefatigable 
 labors have produced important results. 
 The following is a list of States having 
 such statutes : 
 
 Alabama (1885), California (1887), Colorado 
 (1887), Connecticut (1886), Delaware (1887), 
 Florida (1889), Illinois (1889), Iowa (1886), Kan- 
 sas (1885), Louisiana (1888), Maine (1885), Mary- 
 land (1886), Massachusetts (1885), Michigan 
 (1883 and 1886), Minnesota (1887), Missouri 
 (1885), Montana (1890), Nebraska (1885), Ne- 
 vada (1885), New Hampshire (1883), New York 
 (1884), North Dakota (1890), Ohio (1888), Ore- 
 gon (1885), Pennsylvania (1885), Rhode Island 
 (1884), South Dakota (1890), "Vermont (1882 and 
 1886), Virginia (by the State Board of Educa- 
 tion, 1890), Washington (1890), West Virginia 
 (1887), Wisconsin (1885). 
 In 1886 Congress, with the approval of 
 the President, passed an act applying to 
 the schools in the District of Columbia 
 and Territories and all other schools 
 controlled by the general Government. 
 This was the first purely temperance 
 measure enacted by Federal authority. 
 For some years difficulty was expe- 
 rienced in obtaining satisfactory text- 
 books. Certain publishers of popular 
 school works on physiology and hygiene 
 failed to include in these works adequate 
 information on the alcohol question, and 
 in some cases beer and wine were ap- 
 proved or not condemned. But the 
 efforts of Mrs. Hunt have been highly 
 successful with publishers as well as 
 with Legislatures. Her work has been 
 wholly disinterested and philanthropic. 
 
 Scotland. — The organized temper- 
 ance movement in Scotland dates from 
 1829. John Dunlop, J. P., of Greenock, 
 Oct. 5, 1829, founded a temperance 
 society at that place, four persons sign- 
 ing the following pledge : 
 
 "We, the undersigned, hereby agree to ab- 
 stain from all spirituous and fermented liquors 
 for two years from this date, 5th October, 
 1829." 
 
 This Greenock society changed to an 
 anti-spirits basis. Other societies were 
 formed in this year at Maryhill, near 
 Glasgow (Oct. 1), and at Glasgow (Nov. 
 12), through the efforts of Dunlop. The 
 most important of the early organizations 
 was the one begun at Dumf ermline, Sept- 
 21, 1830, more than 150 persons sub- 
 scribing to a thoroughly radical pledge 
 
Scotland.] 
 
 608 
 
 [Sewall, Thomas. 
 
 within a few days. On Sept. 4, 1838, a 
 general Convention was held in Glasgow, 
 41 delegate? being present from 30 socie- 
 ties, and the Scottish Temperance Union 
 was begun, with Dunlop as President. 
 The Scottish Temperance League was 
 started at Falkirk, Nov. 5, 1844. In 1845 
 there were 74 societies in Scotland with 
 a total membership of 40,000 in a popula- 
 tion of 600,000; in 1850 250 societies 
 with a membership of 90,000. The Scottish 
 Permissive Bill and Temperance Associa- 
 tion, with legislative and other objects 
 similar to those of the United Kingdom 
 Alliance, was founded Oct. 1, 1858. 
 
 Though the Scots have been regarded 
 as hard drinkers from early times the 
 cause has, on the whole, made more sub- 
 stantial and gratifying progress among 
 them than among the English or Irish. 
 The facts that follow are given on the 
 authority of Mr. Eobert Mackay, Secre- 
 tary of the Scottish Permissive Bill and 
 Temperance Association. 
 
 At the end of 1889 the Good Templar 
 Order had a membership of 60,000, and 
 there were numerous other temperance 
 organizations, strong in numbers and in- 
 fluence. The religious denominations, 
 with the Free Church in the van, were 
 generally aggressive. All the temperance 
 workers were united for the great object 
 of securing the enactment by the Impe- 
 rial Parliament of the Scotland Direct 
 Veto (Local Option) bill which has been 
 pressed for several years by Peter M'La- 
 gan, M.P. Plebiscites on the question of 
 the Direct Veto, which have been taken 
 in the leading towns, leave no doubt 
 that the country is overwhelmingly for 
 this policy and, presumably, for local 
 Prohibition ; by these plebiscites the peo- 
 ple have, by a vote of twelve to one, ex- 
 pressed a desire to be clothed with Pro- 
 hibitory powers. Of the 72 Scottish 
 Members of Parliament in 1889, 47 were 
 for Mr. M'Lagan's bill, 14 were for some 
 form of popular regulation, and only 11 
 were distinctly against suppressing the 
 drink traffic. The bill had reached 
 second reading in the House of Commons, 
 a stage farther than any general Local 
 Option measure had been advanced. In- 
 troduction of the system has been pre- 
 vented only by the obstructive tactics of 
 English members and the interference 
 of the Irish question. Scotland has had 
 full Sunday-closing (sales to bona fide 
 
 travellers being permitted, however) since 
 1853 — longer than any other country 
 within the United Kingdom. In 1889 
 there were 127 distilleries, producing 
 18,721,374 gallons of spirits (of which 
 5,769,101 gallons were retained in Scot- 
 land for beverage purposes), and the 
 quantity of malt liquors retained for 
 home consumption was 1,275,068 barrels 
 (each barrel containing 36 gallons). The 
 per capita consumption of foreign spirits 
 and wines was 1.286 gallon; of beer, 
 26.892 gallons; per capita consumption 
 of all liquors on the basis of proof spirits, 
 3.70 gallons. There were 16,592 ordinary 
 retail liquor licenses in force. The con- 
 sequences of the licensed liquor business 
 are no less appalling in Scotland than 
 elsewhere. 
 
 Seventh-Day Adventists. — Ees- 
 
 olutions of the General Conference, held 
 in Minneapolis, Minn., Oct. 23, 1888 : 
 
 " Whereas, We recognize temperance as one 
 of the Christian graces; therefore 
 
 "Resolved, That we heartily indorse the 
 principles of the American Health and Temper- 
 ance Association, in protesting against the manu- 
 facture and sale of all spirituous and malt 
 liquors, and in discarding the use of tea, coffee, 
 opium and tobacco, and that we urge upon all 
 people the importance of these principles. 
 
 "Resolved, That while we pledge ourselves 
 to labor earnestly and zealously for the Prohibi- 
 tion of the liquor traffic, we hereby utter an 
 earnest protest against connecting with the 
 temperance movement any legislation which 
 discriminates in favor of any religious class or 
 institution, or which tends to the infringement 
 of anybody's religious liberty; and that we 
 cannot sustain or encourage any temperance 
 party or any other organization which indorses 
 or favors such legislation." 
 
 Sewall, Thomas. — Born in Au- 
 gusta, Me., April 16, 1786; died in Wash- 
 ington, B.C., April 10, 1845. He took 
 his medical degree at Harvard in 1812. 
 In 1827 he was made professor in the 
 Medical Department of Columbian Uni- 
 versity, Washington, D. C. He wrote 
 and lectured extensively on the scientific 
 phases of temperance, and prepared a 
 series of charts, which have since been 
 widely used by lecturers and others, il- 
 lustrating the condition of the human 
 stomach under the influence of alcohol. 
 Dr. Sewall reached the conclusion that 
 " Alcohol is a poison, forever at war with 
 man's nature ; and in all its forms and 
 degrees of strength produces irritation 
 of the stomach which is liable to result 
 
Sherry.] 
 
 609 
 
 [Sin Per Se, 
 
 m inflammation, ulceration and mortifi- 
 cation ; a thickening and induration of 
 its- coats, and finally schirrhus, cancer 
 and other organic affections. It may be 
 asserted with confidence that no one who 
 indulges habitually in the use of alco- 
 holic drinks, whether in the form of 
 wine or more ardent spirits, possesses a 
 healthy stomach." 
 
 Sherry. — See Vinous Liquors. 
 
 Sin Per Se.— The phrase "sin per 
 se " (from the Latin per, in or by, and se, 
 itself) is one originating from the theo- 
 logical controversies of the early Chris- 
 tian church. It is used to designate 
 those actions which are, from their 
 inherent nature, regarded as sinful. It 
 is evident that there are many acts which 
 are not in themselves sinful, but which, 
 because of the consequences they in- 
 volve, under certain circumstances be- 
 come sinful. To defraud another, for 
 instance, is a sin not because of its harm- 
 fulness but because of the inherent 
 character of the act. Stealing a dime 
 from a rich employer might involve lit- 
 tle or nothing of injury to him, yet it 
 would be as certainly a" sin as the theft 
 of a thousand dollars. The moral char- 
 acter of the action would be the same in 
 each case, irrespective of its harmf ulness. 
 On the other hand, driving a horse rap- 
 idly is not a sin because of the moral 
 nature of the act itself, but driving a 
 horse rapidly under such circumstances 
 as to endanger life or limb is a sin be- 
 cause of the injury it causes or may 
 cause. To ask whether the drinking a 
 glass of liquor is a sin per se is simply 
 to ask whether the act is inherently im- 
 moral, or immoral because of the injury 
 it involves either to the one drinking or 
 to others. If the act were harmless, not 
 only in its direct effects but in its indi- 
 rect influence, would it be a sin ? Un- 
 questionably not. Moreover, it might 
 be harmful and yet, if the one drinking 
 were ignorant of that fact, the act still 
 would not be a sin unless the ignorance 
 were due to wilful blindness. A sin 
 per se presupposes an act of conscious 
 disloyalty to one's sense of right. Drink- 
 ing liquor may involve just that, but it 
 may not. 
 
 A similar distinction is made in law 
 between offenses malum in se (evil in 
 
 themselves) and offenses malum prohib- 
 itum (evil because prohibited). The 
 first class embraces acts " naturally evil " 
 (Bouvier), such as theft, arson, murder, 
 and the second class embraces acts not 
 inherently evil, but which are likely to 
 involve injury, such as fast driving, 
 building frame houses within the fire 
 limits, establishing a slaughter-house in 
 a residence district. The evil in the 
 former case inheres in the act itself, 
 apart from the consequences; in the lat- 
 ter case the evil lies in the possible or 
 probable consequences. 
 
 The question whether Prohibition is 
 based upon the doctrine that it is a sin 
 per se to drink liquor, is one of more 
 than mere metaphysical importance. 
 There are several denominations, notably 
 the Eoman Catholic Church, whose the- 
 ology is repugnant to such a doctrine, 
 which, it is felt, would involve the an- 
 cient Manichsean heresy, in which all 
 matter was considered as originating 
 with the powers of darkness, and all 
 attempt to derive pleasure from mate- 
 rial things was forbidden as sinful. That 
 Prohibition is not based upon any such 
 doctrine should appear from the fact 
 that no Prohibitory law ever framed or 
 seriously proposed provided for the pro- 
 hibition of liquor as a medicine, or in- 
 deed prohibited the use of liquor in any 
 form. The prohibition applies to the 
 barter and sale, as something involving 
 disastrous public consequences. If Pro- 
 hibition were based upon the Manichasan 
 heresy, it would apply to the use of 
 liquor in all forms and under all circum- 
 stances. The fact that the distinction 
 between the ordinary beverage use and 
 the use as a medicine is carefully made, 
 indicates that it is the harmfulness of 
 drinking that is guarded against. The 
 law that forbids the traffic in spoiled 
 meat or " bob-veal " does not imply that 
 it is a sin per se to eat tainted meat or 
 " bob-veal." So the law of Prohibition 
 does not imply the doctrine of sin per se. 
 While this distinction has not, perhaps, 
 always been kept clear in the minds of 
 some of the advocates of Prohibition, 
 yet on the whole the argument in its be- 
 half is that the sale of liquor is an injury 
 to the common weal, and therefore, be- 
 cause of its consequences, it ought to be 
 forbidden. 
 
 E. J. "Wheeler. 
 
•Smith, &errit.] 
 
 ■610 
 
 [Social Purity. 
 
 Smith, G-errit. — Born in Utica,N. 
 Y., March 6, 1797; died in New York 
 City, Dec. 28, 1874. He was a pioneer 
 Abolitionist, a philanthropist and a man 
 of wealth, owner of vast tracts of land 
 in northern and central New York, and 
 once a partner with John Jacob Astor in 
 the fur trade. In 1848 he refused to 
 support the Free Soil ticket and was 
 himself nominated by the extreme Abo- 
 litionists for President. He was elected 
 to Congress in 1852, but resigned at the 
 close of the first session. He was a most 
 radical opponent of the liquor traffic as 
 well as of slavery, and insisted that 
 neither of these evils could rightfully be 
 legalized, because both were inherently 
 and necessarily outlaws. He was also 
 greatly interested in the question of 
 Woman Suffrage, and in promoting the 
 property rights of married women. In 
 1869 he went to Chicago to help form the 
 Prohibition party, but not agreeing with 
 its plans and methods he did not give the 
 national organization a very hearty sup- 
 port, although in New York he took 
 considerable interest in the Anti-Dram- 
 shop party. 
 
 Smith, Green Clay, second Pro- 
 hibition Presidential candidate; born in 
 Eichmond, Ky., July 2, 1832. His father, 
 John Speed Smith, was an aide-de-camp 
 to Gen. William Henry Harrison in the 
 War of 1812, and was a Member of Con- 
 gress from Kentucky. His mother was 
 the daughter of Gen. Green Clay and the 
 sister of Cassius M. Clay. As a boy he 
 served with credit in the Mexican War. 
 After he was mustered out of the army 
 he graduated at Transylvania University, 
 studied law and commenced the practice 
 of his profession with his father. In 
 1856 he married and settled in Coving- 
 ton, Ky. Before the Civil War he was 
 a Democrat. He predicted that the 
 election of Lincoln would result in war. 
 Secession sentiment ran high in Coving- 
 ton when Fort Sumter was fired on. Mr. 
 Smith with six other Unionists called a 
 meeting which to their surprise was 
 largely attended. Without knowing the 
 sentiment of the audience he boldly de- 
 nounced secession. A few ran out in 
 disgust, but the speaker carried most of 
 the audience with him. He enlisted in 
 the Union Army as a private, and was 
 rapidly promoted to the ranks of Major, 
 
 Colonel 'and Brigadier-General. In 18 63 
 he was elected to Congress. He was a 
 warm friend of Lincoln's and heartily 
 supported the Administration. He was 
 ■ appointed by President Johnson Gover- 
 nor of Montana. Eeturning to Ken- 
 tucky, he entered the Baptist ministry. 
 He has been presiding officer of the 
 General Association of his church in 
 Kentucky for nine consecutive years. 
 He has represented the Sons of- Temper- 
 ance as Grand Worthy Patriarch, and 
 the Good Templars as Worthy Chief 
 Templar. In 1876 he was nominated 
 for President of the United States by 
 the Prohibition party, and received. 
 9,737 votes. 
 
 Social Purity. — The National Wom- 
 an's Christian Temperance Union was 
 not many years in perceiving that in- 
 temperance and impurity are iniquity's 
 Siamese Twins, that malt liquors and 
 wine have special power to tarnish the 
 sacred springs of being, that every house 
 of ill-repute is a secret saloon and nearly 
 every inmate an inebriate. White-Rib- 
 boners became painfully conscious that 
 unnatural and unspeakable crimes against 
 the physically weaker sex make our daily 
 papers read like a modern edition of 
 Fox's " Martyrs," and that a madness not 
 excelled if indeed equalled in the worst 
 days of Rome seems to possess the in- 
 flamed natures of men let loose from the 
 two hundred thousand saloons of the 
 nation upon the weak and unarmed 
 women whose bewildering danger it is 
 to have attracted the savage glances of 
 these men, or to be bound to them by 
 the sacred tie of wife or mother in bond- 
 age worse than that which lashes the liv- 
 ing to the dead. White-Ribboners also 
 began to study the laws and discovered 
 that to steal a cow was a crime punished 
 more severely than the stealing of a wom- 
 an's honor. In many of the States the 
 responsibility for a dual moral defalca- 
 tion was to be equally shared by a girl of 
 ten years old, no matter how much 
 greater might be the age of her assail- 
 ant, while penalties were found to be 
 light and conviction hard to secure. 
 
 Considerations like these had long 
 been stirring the conscience of the W. 
 C. T. U. and sporadic efforts had been 
 made to enter practically upon the work 
 of promoting social purity, but not untiL 
 
Social Purity.] 
 
 the Philadelphia W. C. T. U. Convention 
 in 1885 was the reform begun nationally. 
 Three months before, William T. Stead's 
 mighty disclosures had aroused the Eng- 
 lish-speaking race- to the unprotected 
 condition of women and girls; and as a 
 consequence the British Parliament had 
 raised the age of protection to 16 years, 
 and had otherwise greatly increased the 
 safeguards of the physically weaker sex. 
 Under the impetus of this new move- 
 ment the White Cross pledge for men 
 had been successfully introduced into 
 this country, and the writer, in her an- 
 nual address at Philadelphia, made a plea 
 for the organization of a national move- 
 ment for the protection of women. The 
 Department was organized, and the 
 writer was placed at its head. She at 
 once prepared a petition for the protec- 
 tion of women and went to Mr. Terence 
 V. Powderly, chief of the Knights of 
 Labor, and secured his agreement to 
 send out 92,000 copies to his Local As- 
 semblies ; and during that year, by every 
 practicable means, the same petition was 
 circulated throughout the United States. 
 In 1888 it was presented to Congress by 
 Senator Blair and the desired bill, rais- 
 ing the age of consent to 16 years, was 
 passed. 
 
 There is hardly a State or Territory in 
 which there has not been a notable im- 
 provement in the laws within five years, 
 and humanly speaking, the W. C. T. U. 
 was the instrument employed. A litera- 
 ture has been wrought out, for parents, 
 preachers, teachers, young people; 
 pledges have been prepared, and every- 
 thing needed to spread the propaganda 
 is furnished by the Woman's Temperance 
 Publication Association. (Chicago). 
 
 Industrial homes for women are being 
 founded by State appropriations; pro- 
 tective agencies in the large cities to co- 
 operate with friendless women in their 
 efforts to secure such rights as they have 
 under the law; missions of hope and help 
 for degraded women ; lodging houses and 
 reading rooms; police matrons in all po- 
 lice stations — all these, and many meth- 
 ods more, attest the intelligent zeal of 
 White-Ribboners for the betterment of 
 their own sex. Laws giving to the 
 mother the equal custody of her children, 
 making property and marriage laws 
 more just between husband and wife, 
 clothing women with the ballot's protec- 
 
 611 
 
 [Sous of Temperance, 
 
 tion and power, and outlawing the liquor 
 traffic are all a part of this great work, 
 for there is not one among the forty de- 
 partments provided for in the plan of 
 the National W. C. T. U. that does not 
 close like the fingers of the hand upon 
 that core and center of the world's mani- 
 fold curse — the social evil. 
 
 Feances E. Willabd. 
 
 Sons of Temperance. — The rise 
 and progress of the Washingtonian move- 
 ment were phenomenal. Its enthusiasm 
 was inspiring, and the principles and 
 blessings of total abstinence were spread 
 throughout the land. In connection 
 with it came the organization of the 
 Sons of Temperance in New York City> 
 Sept. 29, 1842. This association at once 
 assumed a prominent place among the 
 fraternal and benevolent organizations, 
 incorporating among its principles a life 
 of abstinence. Its founders had three 
 distinct objects in view : "To shield 
 themselves from the evils of intemper- 
 ance, to afford mutual assistance in case 
 of sickness and to elevate their character 
 as men." Their plan of organization 
 embraced three distinct branches — the 
 Subordinate (or local) Division, the Grand 
 Division (confining its work to the Prov- 
 ince or State) and the National Division 
 (whose jurisdiction is North America). 
 The Subordinate Division meets weekly 
 and is the life and strength of the Order. 
 The Grand Division holds quarterly or 
 semi-annual sessions, and supervises the 
 work in State or Province. The National 
 Division meets annually, and in it is 
 vested the supreme power. The grand 
 purpose is to reclaim the inebriate, rescue 
 the moderate drinker and save the youth 
 from the power of the drink habit. The 
 Order has no privileged classes ; it en^ 
 rolls all ranks in society. Women have 
 every right and privilege accorded to any 
 member, and are eligible to every office 
 in the gift of the Order. The body 
 recognizes no distinction on account of 
 sex, color, wealth or former condition. 
 
 The Order is made attractive by im- 
 pressive ceremonies, and a solemn obli- 
 gation is taken to live a life of sobriety, 
 .purity and benevolence. While classed 
 .among the "secret" temperance socie- 
 ties it is destitute, in its mystic features, 
 of sign, grip and degree. The ritual 
 .service is brief, including admonitions 
 
Sons of Temperance.] 
 
 612 
 
 [South America. 
 
 from the word of God, elevating moral 
 precepts and the melody of music. Its 
 membership is sincere and devoted to the 
 work of the Order, in pursuance of its 
 fundamental principles of " Love, Purity 
 and Fidelity." It is a voluntary associa- 
 tion, with just and explicit laws, and yet 
 without the power of enforcing an un- 
 willing obedience. It not only enjoins 
 total abstinence as a cardinal idea but 
 takes all legitimate and honorable means 
 to suppress and prohibit the manufacture 
 of and the traffic in intoxicating drinks, 
 and it will never rest satisfied until the 
 annihilation of the drink traffic is se- 
 cured. The Mutual Eelief Society, in 
 connection with the Order, is a public 
 charity conducted as a fraternal business 
 enterprise. It is a valuable auxiliary in 
 propagation work, and gives strength 
 and permanency to Subordinate Divi- 
 sions. It is well officered, prompt and 
 economical, meriting and receiving a 
 very generous support from the Order in 
 all its branches. In North America the 
 Sons of Temperance have 1,600 Subordi- 
 nate Divisions,with a membership exceed- 
 ing 85,000. The National Division is the 
 fountain-head and has granted charters 
 for the N. D. of Great Britain and Ireland, 
 the N. D. of Australasia and the N. D. 
 of Victoria and South Australia, in each 
 of which countries there is a large and 
 influential membership. The Sons of 
 Temperance cordially extend the hand 
 of fellowship to all temperance organi- 
 zations, and to all champions of the cause 
 in their mission to destroy the power of 
 the drink habit and traffic. 
 
 B. K. Jewell. 
 (Most Worthy Secretary.) 
 
 The following is a list of the men who 
 have held the position of Most Worthy 
 Patriarch since, the beginning of the 
 Order: 1844-6, Daniel H. Sands ; 1846-8, 
 Philip S. White; 1848-50, Samuel F. 
 Gary; 1850-2, John W. Oliver; 1852-4, 
 John B. O'Neal; 1854-6, Samuel L. Til- 
 ley; 1856-8, M. D. McHenry; 1858-60, 
 B. D. Townsend; 1860-2, S. L. Condict; 
 1862-4, S. L. Carleton; 1864-6, J. J. 
 Bradford; 1866-8, John N. Stearns; 
 1868-70, Robert M. Foust; 1870-2, S. B. 
 Ransom; 1872-4, 0. D. Wetmore; 1874-6, 
 F. M. Bradley; 1876-8, Louis Wagner; 
 1878-80, George W. Ross; 1880-2, Evan 
 J. Morris; 1882-4, Benjamin R. Jewell; 
 
 1884-6, B. F. Dennisson; 1886-8, R. 
 Alder Temple; 1888-90, Edward Crum- 
 mey. 
 
 South America. — The intelligent 
 people of those South American Repub- 
 lics that lie in the torrid regions are com- 
 pelled by natural conditions to recognize 
 the virtue of temperance. In their warm 
 climate excessive drinking is swiftly fa- 
 tal. But in the temperate parts of the 
 continent, especially the Argentine Re- 
 public and Chili, much greater careless- 
 ness is shown. On the other hand some 
 of the tropical countries are by no means 
 exempt from the drink curse, and the 
 detestable domestic intoxicants work 
 great havoc among the natives and in 
 the seaport towns. Throughout South 
 America radical anti-liquor legislation 
 seems to be practically unknown 
 
 The particulars for various nations 
 that follow are partly from such statisti- 
 cal authorities as the " Statesman's Year- 
 Book" and the United States Consular 
 reports, and partly from information 
 specially obtained for this work from 
 American Ministers in South America 
 and South American Ministers in the 
 United States. 
 
 The Argentine Republic (population in 1887, 
 about 3,900,000) has no special legislative pol- 
 icy against the liquor traffic, but the propri- 
 etors of liquor establishments, like all other 
 persons engaged in trade, must pay license fees. 
 These fees range frpm $125 to $1,250 a year. 
 The city of Buenos Ayres has a police ordi- 
 nance punishing the inebriate with a heavy fine, 
 which is doubled on second offense. In 1885 
 the Provinces of Mendoza, Cordoba and San 
 Juan yielded 3,890,000 gallons of wine, and the 
 production of rum reached 1,540,000 gallons. 
 In 1887 the total value of imported goods was 
 $117,352,125; value of imported liquors, $15,- 
 488,437. About 30,000,000 gallons of wine 
 were imported, valued at about $12,000,000. The 
 Argentines have a speeial fondness for the Bor- 
 deaux wines of Prance. The beer and other 
 light drinks imported in 1887 had a value of 
 about $1,100,000 ; distilled spirits of various 
 kinds, about $2,400,000. 
 
 Brazil (population in 1888, 14,000,000) levies 
 comparatively high duties on liquors, and the 
 license fees for vendors are also relatively high. ' 
 The wine-producing industry is in its infancy, 
 but is advancing; and artificial wines are fabri- 
 cated on a considerable scale. The brewing 
 business is rapidly developing; in Rio Janeiro 
 there were in 1889 42 breweries and agencies 
 for provincial breweries. In 1885-6 6,540,960 
 
 fallons of wine were imported through the Rio 
 aneiro custom-house, most of it coming from 
 Portugal. 
 British Guiana (population in 1887, 277,038) 
 
South America.] 
 
 613 
 
 [Spain, 
 
 supplies other countries with large quantities 
 of rum. Much of the so-called Jamaica rum 
 comes from British Guiana. Total exports of 
 rum in 1885, 28,353 puncheons, valued at 
 $1,004,562. 
 
 In Chili (population in 1885, 2,527,320) the 
 liquor traffic is perfectly free and the taxes on 
 sellers are low. . The annual production of 
 wine is about 24,000,000 gallons, most of which 
 is consumed at home. Hundreds of thousands 
 of dollars are invested in breweries (owned by 
 Germans), and the beer output is rapidly in- 
 creasing. Value of imports of wines, liquors 
 and beer in 1887, 1,079,905 pesos. (The Chi- 
 lian peso is nominally equal to a dollar, but its 
 commercial value is a little less. ) 
 
 The United States of Colombia (estimated 
 population in 1881, 3,878,600) permits the retail 
 liquor business to stand on the same footing with 
 other trades, no attempt being made to regulate 
 it. The manufacture is a Government monop- 
 oly, the right to produce liquors being sold to 
 the highest bidders. In 1890 there were two 
 breweries, one at Bogota and one at Medellin, 
 but their product was small and of poor quality. 
 Large quantities of vile liquors of the varieties 
 known as chica and aguardiente are made and 
 consumed, but the United States Minister in- 
 forms us that there are no official figures. The 
 tariff on imported liquors is high. 
 
 Paraguay (estimated population in 1888, 
 270,000) distills cafia, or rum, from the sugar- 
 ;ane. The mode of manufacture is rude and 
 ;he spirit is horribly impure, but is in consider • 
 able request among the common people. Value 
 of imported wines, liquors, etc., in 1886, $235,- 
 855.53. 
 
 In Peru (population in 1876, 2,621,844) the 
 Government regards the manufacture of liquor 
 as an important industry and does not tax it. 
 But the consumption is taxed and imported 
 liquors pay duty. The native distilled intoxi- 
 cants are chica (from the mixed juices of Indian 
 corn, apples and grapes) and rum (from the 
 sugar-cane). These articles are both nasty and 
 cheap: an ordinary wine-bottle of rum costs 
 only about 13 cents. Brandy is made from the 
 grape. Wine is abundant, the annual yield 
 averaging about 400,000 barrels, valued at 
 $2,640,000 United States money. The Peruvian 
 wines are strong in alcohol. The consumption 
 tax is 1 to 10 cents per liter (quart), and it is col- 
 lected from the publicans by private individuals, 
 to whom the privilege is auctioned. In the 
 district of Lima the general Government's rev- 
 enue in 1889 from this source was about 
 $75,000, and the municipal Government had 
 an additional revenue of about $94,000. Liquor 
 sellers also have to pay license fees. There are 
 no temperance societies. 
 
 Uraguay (population in 1886, 596,463) does 
 not in any way impose severer restrictions upon 
 the drink traffic than upon other branches of 
 trade. In the last few years extensive vine- 
 yards have been planted. The imports of 
 liquors of all kinds in 1886 were valued in the 
 neighborhood of $4,000,000. 
 
 Venezuela in 1884 had a population (esti- 
 mated) of 2,121,988. Most of the liquors 
 consumed in this country are French wines and 
 brandies of execrable quality. Concerning the 
 
 Venezuelans Mr. W. S. Bird, United States: 
 Consul at La Guayra, wrote in 1885: "They 
 are remarkably free from drunkenness and 
 singularly exempt from crime." 
 
 South Carolina. — See Index. 
 
 South Dakota. — The steps leading 
 to the enactment of Prohibition in South 
 Dakota are described on p. 126. The 
 statute (approved March 1, 1890) is very- 
 thorough m its provisions. The penalty 
 for manufacturing, selling or keeping for 
 sale any liquor for beverage purposes in vi- 
 olation of law is a fine of $100 to $500 and 
 imprisonment in the County Jail 60 days 
 to six months for the first offense, and one 
 year's confinement in the State Prison 
 for any subsequent offense. But any- 
 registered pharmacist may sell for medi- 
 cal, mechanical, sacramental and scien- 
 tific purposes, upon procuring a permit 
 (good for one year) from the County 
 Judge, the granting or refusing of such 
 a permit being subject to popular petition 
 and judicial discretion, and various con- 
 ditions similar to those laid down in the 
 Kansas law (pp. 299-300) ; and druggists' 
 sales are regujated by the strictest pro- 
 visions, violators to suffer the penalties 
 above stated. If any person signing a 
 druggist's petition for a permit knows 
 that the applicant is in the habit of be- 
 coming intoxicated, or is not in good 
 faith engaged in the pharmacy business, 
 he shall be punished by a fine of $50 to 
 $100. A County Judge knowingly grant- 
 ing a permit to such an applicant must 
 pay a fine of $500 to $1,000; any Sheriff, 
 Deputy Sheriff, State's Attorney, Mayor, 
 Constable, Marshal, police officer or 
 other officer wilfully failing to perform 
 duties imposed by the act shall be fined 
 $100 to $500, and be imprisoned in 
 the County Jail 60 days to six months, 
 and forfeit his office. The provisions of 
 the Kansas and North Dakota legislation 
 relating to injunction and nuisance, 
 search and seizure, civil damage and 
 other radical proceedings are carefully- 
 followed. The statute is published in 
 pamphlet form (25 pp.). 
 
 [For other South Dakota particulars, see the 
 Index.] 
 
 Spain. — The exceptional temperance 
 of the Spanish nation has been variously 
 attributed to the instinctive abstemious- 
 ness of the Latin races and the tendency 
 of a semi-tropieal climate, but is to a 
 large degree undoubtedly due to the in- 
 
Spain.] 
 
 G14 [Spirits and Spirituous Liquors.; 
 
 fluence of the seven centuries of Arabian 
 supremacy, when the manufacture and 
 sale of intoxicating beverages were re- 
 stricted by severe legal penalties and the 
 at least external observance of temperate 
 habits became a characteristic of a liberal 
 education.' The manifold vices of the 
 Castilian nobles in the time of Philip II. 
 did not include the vice of drunkenness, 
 and in the national character-sketches of 
 Cervantes and Lope de Vega the toper 
 is almost invariably depicted as a low-bred 
 Tuffian. Boracho (drunkard) became a 
 synonyme of everything vulgar and brut- 
 ish, while temperance, if not abstinence, 
 ■was too generally practiced by every 
 person of common sense to be regarded 
 as a special virtue. The expulsion of 
 the Moors marked the beginning of a 
 gradual change in the habits of the 
 nation, but Spain still ranks as one 
 of the most temperate countries of modern 
 Europe, and the product of the enor- 
 mous vineyard area is largely absorbed 
 by the export trade and the manufacture 
 of raisins. 
 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 The annual production of wine in 
 Spain (or what passes for wine) is in the 
 neighborhood of 500,000,000 United 
 , States gallons. A very large quantity 
 ■ of this so-called wine is made from cheap 
 German spirits, with the infusion of some 
 grape-must and certain flavoring and 
 other chemical substances. The returns 
 of spirits imported into Spain for the 
 years 1873-85 are impressive. In 1873 
 the total value of imported spirits was 
 .$1,945,247 ; in 1885, $10,666,531. The 
 exports of " wines " increased immensely 
 in the same period: — exports in 1873, 
 69,733,126 United States gallons, valued 
 at $34,856,349 ; in 1885, 189,767,837 
 United States gallons, valued at $60,084,- 
 714. 1 The most famous Spanish wine is 
 sherry, from the town of Jerez. J. A. 
 Hall, United States Consular Agent at 
 Jerez, made a report in 1887 on the un- 
 scrupulous adulterations of the sherry- 
 makers. He said that they not only 
 fortify extensively, but instead of fortify- 
 ing with a superior alcohol use " Berlin 
 spirits, produced principally from pota- 
 toes and laden with deadly amylic alco- 
 hol." " But even the official figures show 
 
 1 United States Consular reports, vol. 24, pp. 80-3. 
 a Ibid, vol. 28, pp. 40-1. 
 
 a great decline in the amount of Spanish 
 sherry produced. In 1873 there were 13,- 
 210,710 United States gallons exported; 
 in 1889, 2,631,899 United States gallons. 
 The phylloxera is responsible for this 
 decrease. The common and Catalonian 
 wines constitute about 95 per cent, of 
 the entire product, and there is a great 
 demand for them in France, where they 
 are converted into high-priced beverages. 
 
 Spirits and Spirituous Liquors 
 
 are all those alcoholic fluids that are pre- 
 pared by distillation, or by compounding 
 or treating distilled products for the 
 fabrication of beverages stronger than 
 wines; 3 including (1) the simple or 
 " commercial " alcohols that are used for 
 mechanical, scientific, medicinal and 
 similar purposes, or for the " doctoring " 
 of drinks ; (2) the common distilled bev- 
 erages, like whiskey, brandy, rum and 
 gin, which are distinguished from ordi- 
 nary spirits by a more acceptable taste ; 
 and (3) the complex articles, known as 
 liqueurs and cordials, which are obtained 
 by combinations of spirits with aromatic 
 and like substances. Dr. Benjamin W. 
 Eichardson declares that it is impossible 
 "by any process of fermentation to pro- 
 duce a liquor of above 17 per cent, alco- 
 holic strength; and most natural fer- 
 ments are much weaker, some containing 
 only 2 per cent. The method of 
 manufacturing original spirits is out- 
 lined under Distillation and Kectlfi- 
 
 €ATIOK. 
 
 To the three classes of spirits and 
 spirituous liquors indicated above a 
 fourth may be added, embracing the dis- 
 tilled drinks of different nations which 
 are characteristic of localities but are 
 little known to American commerce. 
 
 COMMERCIAL SPIRITS. 
 
 Under this name are classed non-beverage 
 spirits of all degrees of strength and all grades 
 of purity. When grain or fruit, etc., is dis- 
 tilled, the immediate product is a mixture of 
 water, ethylic alcohol (CJH B 0) and other and 
 more poisonous alcohols (propylic [C s H e O], 
 butylic [CH.oO], amylic [C 6 H 12 0], etc.). This 
 immediate product is subjected to different 
 methods of treatment, according to the purpose 
 in view. If the purpose is to make of it a 
 marketable beverage liquor of superior quality, 
 it is barreled and stored in the warehouse for 
 two or three years, when through the operation 
 of natural chemical changes the impurer ele- 
 ments disappear; and the work of nature is sup- 
 
 3 Spirits are also used on a great scale for "fortifying " 
 wines. 
 
Spirits and Spirituous Liquors.] 615 [Spirits and Spirituous Liquors, 
 
 plemented by arts that give the liquor a dis- 
 tinctive flavor and, color. If the purpose is 
 simply to obtain alcoholic spirits without re- 
 gard to beverage qualities, strength or purity, 
 the crude article is accepted and utilized in its 
 existing form; if a strong and pure spirit is 
 desired it is carefully redistilled at a tempera- 
 ture low enough to vaporize ethylic alcohol, 
 but not high enough to vaporize water or the 
 above-mentioned corruptions. Thus commer- 
 cial spirits are alcohols proper ; spirituous 
 liquors, on the other hand, are intoxicating dis- 
 tilled drinks proper. 
 
 The use of commercial spirits is by no means 
 confined to the arts, manufactures and similar 
 legimate fields. It is true that in their original 
 form they are not consumed as beverages to 
 any important extent ; the average toper would 
 prefer a dram of the meanest and deadliest 
 whiskey to a potion of the purest refined alcohol. 
 But alcohol being the basis of all inebriating 
 drinks, commercial spirits are available for 
 the fabrication of special liquors of all kinds. 
 In practice by far the largest part of distilled 
 beverages is produced by adding various color- 
 ing, flavoring and other substances to common 
 spirits ; all varieties and brands of wines may be 
 and are concocted from commercial spirits. 1 
 
 J As is stated on p. 19 the quantity of spirits used in 
 the United States in the arts and manufactures, and for all 
 other purposes than beverage consumption, has been esti- 
 mated by a large firm of alcohol-dealers as only 10 per 
 cent, of the entire distilled product. Since p. 19 was electro- 
 typed, an official estimate has been published by the 
 Census Bureau in a '"preliminary report" (Census Bulletin 
 No. 22, Jan. 20, 1891). Keturns were obtained by the Cen- 
 sus authorities from wholesale druggists and manufac- 
 turers, eleemosynary institutions (dispensatories, homes, 
 asylums and others of like nature) and retail apothecaries ; 
 and they show that the total consumption of distilled 
 spirits "in the arts, manufactures and medicine during the 
 year ending Dec. 31, 1889," was 10,976,842. This quantity 
 includes, besides various kinds of commercial spirits, 
 2.702,650 proof gallons of whiskey, brandy, rum and gin. 
 It is well known that much whiskey, brandy, rum and gin 
 is sold by apothecaries for other than medicinal purposes — 
 in fact for beverage purposes pure and simple; therefore 
 the 10,976,842 proof gallons reported by the Census Bu- 
 reau includes an element— possibly a considerable element 
 — of spirits consumed for beverage. But if it is assumed 
 that this element will be balanced by quantities consumed 
 for art, manufacturing and similar purposes not reported 
 to the Census Bureau, and consequently that the 10,976,- 
 843 gallons represents the exact consumption for other 
 than beverage purposes, we find that the aggregate quan- 
 tity so consumed was only 13 per cent, of the entire num- 
 ber of proof gallons (85,043,336) withdrawn for consump- 
 tion during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1890. (It should 
 be borne in mind that this 13 per cent, is the maximum 
 percentage, as determined by official investigation ; it is 
 probable that the actual percentage is noticeably smaller.) 
 
 The Census Bureau's figures are of further interest 
 from the fact that they show the volumes of business in 
 alcohol and distilled liquors done, respectively, by whole- 
 sale druggists and manufacturers, eleemosynary institu- 
 tions and retail apothecaries, as follows: 
 
 Spirits 
 
 Wholesale 
 
 
 
 and Dis- 
 
 Druggists 
 
 Eleemosy- 
 
 Ketail 
 
 tilled 
 
 and Manu- 
 
 nary Insti- 
 
 Apotheca- 
 
 Liquors. 
 
 facturers. 
 
 tutions. 
 
 ries. 
 
 
 Proof Galls. 
 
 Proof (falls. 
 
 Proof Galls. 
 
 Alcohol. . . . 
 
 5,425,791 
 
 30,092 
 
 1,289,269 
 
 Col. Spirits. 
 
 1,834.033 
 
 4,374 
 
 114,641 
 
 Hi^h Wines 
 
 54,737 
 
 883 
 
 20,372 
 
 Whiskey. . . 
 
 879,282 
 
 59,222 
 
 1,085,396 
 
 
 100.482 
 
 6,599 
 
 159,793 
 
 
 87,378 
 
 841 
 
 101,362 
 
 Totals 
 
 84,937 
 7,966,640 
 
 779 
 
 136,579 
 2,907.418 
 
 103,790 
 
 Official returns shows that, taking into ac- 
 count all kinds of spirits, both commercial and 
 beverage, 4.27 gallons are now produced in the 
 United States from one bushel of grain, and 
 that 0.754 gallon of rum is produced from one 
 gallon of molasses. 2 
 
 To distinguish with technical accuracy 
 between the different kinds of commercial 
 spirits would necessitate very elaborate expla- 
 nations. For Federal revenue purposes there is 
 one classification, the drug trade has another, 
 and the ordinary alcohol-dealers have their own 
 peculiar varieties. Terms and names are 
 frequently used interchangeably or with but 
 slight distinctions. The fundamental point is 
 this : all commercial spirits are classed accord- 
 ing to their alcoholic strength and purity, and 
 no other properties are recognized. "Proof 
 spirit " (having an alcoholic strength in the 
 "United States of 50 per cent.) is the basis 
 from which strength is determined for revenue 
 purposes. Avoiding technical classifications 
 which are made only for trade convenience, we 
 give below a table, prepared by Alonzo Robbins, 
 showing the actual alcoholic strength of cer- 
 tain strictly-classified commercial alcohols, the 
 percentages being obtained by averaging the 
 results of analyses of spirits sold in the market 
 under the specified names: s 
 
 Commercial Alco- 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Specific 
 
 hols. 
 
 by Volume. 
 
 by Weight. 
 
 Gravity. 
 
 1 Absolute Alcohol. 
 
 99.60 
 
 99.19 
 
 .7962 
 
 2 Extra Colo'ne Spt 
 
 94.75 
 
 92.03 
 
 .8170 
 
 3 Cologne Spirit .. . 
 
 93.75 
 
 91.02 
 
 .8199 
 
 1 95 per ct. Alcohol. 
 
 93.25 
 
 90.19 
 
 .8223 
 
 
 52.00 
 
 44.50 
 
 .9303 
 
 i Neutral Swt. Spt.. 
 
 41.50 
 
 44.80 
 
 .9494 
 
 '■This "proof spirit" embraces one part (by weight) of "95 
 per cent, alcohol" and one part of water; or by a more 
 common formula, 50 parts of alcohol and 50 parts of 
 water. 
 
 The individual commercial spirits as known 
 to trade are briefly noticed below. 
 
 Alcohol, generally speaking, is any commercial spirit ; 
 and this is the name by which all such spirits are known 
 and retailed to the public at large. But in the drug trade 
 it is .applied to only two officinal spirits, one called 
 u alcohol, 11 having a strength of 91 percent, by weight, 
 and the other, called u diluted alcohol, 11 a strength of 45 
 per cent, by weight. The u diluted alcohol " of the Phar- 
 macopoeia, it will be noticed, is nearly equivalent in 
 strength to ordinary spirits; but it is obtained by dilut- 
 ing strong and pure alcohol with water. 4 Ninety-five,, 
 yer cent, alcohol is a name not so much in use now" 
 as it was formerly; it is a general designation for the 
 regular high-grade alcohol of commerce. In the table above 
 its percentage of strength is given as 93.25 by volume and 
 90.19 by weight. The revisers (1880) of the United States 
 Pharmacopceia state that the present officinal 91 per 
 cent, alcohol corresponds to the so-called u 95 per cent. 
 alcohol. 11 
 
 Absolute alcohol^ theoretically, is perfectly pure alco- 
 hol. But practically the commercial article known as 
 "absolute" contains some water, the percentage varying 
 from 5 or 6 to less than 1, according to the carefu ness 
 exercised in preparing and preserving it. Extraordinary 
 caution is required to obtain absolute (or even nearly abso- 
 lute) alcohol and to keep it free from water. The strongest 
 and purest spirit that can be produced by repeated distil- 
 lations contains only about 91 percent, of alcohol, unless 
 the process is carried on very delicately in a perfect vacuum. 
 To further purify the spirit it must be treated with 
 
 2 Internal Revenue report for 1890, p. 58. 
 
 3 United States Dispensatory, 1887. 
 
 4 The United States Dispensatory (edition of 1887) 
 sounds this warning to druggists, and incidentally to the 
 drinking public: 
 
 "The apothecary should never substitute the commercial 
 proof spirit for diluted alcohol, even though it be of the 
 same strength, on account of the impurities in the former.'* 
 
Spirits and Spirituous Liquors.] 616 [Spirits and Spirituous Liquors. 
 
 canBtic lime or other substances that will absorb the 
 
 water, and be Altered through charcoal, etc. By great 
 
 painstaking an alcohol can be produced in which the 
 
 quantity of water will be almost infinitesimal — much less 
 
 than 1 per cent It must be carefully sealed, for its affin- 
 
 i ity for water is so strong that it will be quickly weakened 
 
 > from the absorption of moisture if the atmosphere has ac- 
 
 l cess to it. 
 
 I Cologne spirit has a strength of from 90 to 95 and is an 
 I article supposed to be especially free from all impurities. 
 
 Extra cologne spirit is of somewhat higher grade. 
 ! French spirits is one of the commercial names for 
 i high-grade alcohol of about the same quality as cologne 
 spirits; dealers in this country recognize practically no 
 difference between these articles. 
 
 High proof spirit is a term applicable to any spirit 
 with an alcoholic percentage greater than that of proof 
 spirit. (See proof spirit, below.) 
 
 High wines is the distiller's name for the product of 
 the second distillation in the manufacture of any spirit 
 from a fermented infusion, the spirit resulting from the 
 first distillation being called "low wines." 
 
 Low proof spirits are spirits of any sort which upon 
 test disclose an alcoholic strength below that of proof 
 spirit. (See proof spirit.) 
 
 Low wines is a name given to the product of the first 
 
 distillation of an alcoholic ferment. 
 
 Neutral spirits and neutral sweet spirits are names 
 
 , used without much discrimination; they may imply a 
 
 : commercial alcohol of about 45 per cent, strength, but alco- 
 
 ■' hols of higher percentages are also denoted and articles of 
 
 about the grade of cologne spirit are often indicated by 
 
 these names as used by American dealers. 
 
 Plain spirit is the ordinary product of simple distilla- 
 tion — the crudest product of the still. It is the article 
 used in enormous quantities as the principal basis of com- 
 mon gin, British Drandy, wines and other counterfeited 
 beverages of all kinds. It is too offensive to be tolerated 
 by the palate unless disguiBed, and, being frequently below 
 proof, it is even more corrupt than common proof spirit. 
 
 Proof spirit is an arbitrary name adopted by the Gov- 
 ernment to indicate the standard from which the strengths 
 of all distilled products are measured for revenue pur- 
 poses. In the United States spirits are said to be proof 
 when one-half the volume is alcohol at a temperature of 
 60° P. and of a specific gravity of 0.7939; the parts of 
 water are nominally 50, but actually 53.71, owing to the 
 contraction of the liquids when mixed. The proof spirit 
 of the British Excise system is 49.3 per cent, strong by 
 weight, or 57.09 per cent, by volume. But the name 
 "proof spirit" indicates a mere standard, and articles sold 
 under this name may vary several degrees above and be- 
 low actual proof. The word "proof" refers exclusively 
 to strength, implying nothing whatever as to purity. 
 The most infamous rum or whiskey may answer the 
 "proof" test as satisfactorily as an article reduced by 
 water-dilution from absolute alcohol. The percentage of 
 water to be added to or taken from a given spirit in order 
 to bring it to proof indicates the number of degrees that 
 that spirit is "above proof" or "below proof." In Great 
 Britain the special terms, second proof spirit, third 
 proof spirit and fourth proof spirit, are applied to 
 spirits 60, 70 and 80 per cent, strong, respectively. 
 
 Pure spirits is a name for the purest and strongest prod- 
 ucts of ordinary distillation. 
 
 Rectified spirit is & high-grade officinal alcohol of the 
 British Pharmacopoeia, about 6 per cent, weaker than the 
 United States 91 per cent, officinal. In a non-technical 
 sense "rectified spirit" is any alcohol that has been redis- 
 tilled. 
 
 Spirilus tenuior, one of the two officinals of the 
 British Pharmacopoeia, is identical in strength with the 
 British proof spirit. 
 
 Spirit of wine (spiritus vini) is a term formerly em- 
 ployed comprehensively to designate alcohol, because that 
 article was originally extracted from wine; now applied 
 in a general way to the higher-grade alcohols and espe- 
 cially to the common high-grade commercial spirits rang- 
 ing in alcoholic strength from 89 to 95 per cent. 
 
 Wood spirit or methyl alcohol is distilled from wood, 
 and is entirely distinct from all the spirits (ethylic) above 
 considered. Its chemical formula is C H 4 0, that of ethylic 
 alcohol being C 2 H, O. It is sometimes inaccurately 
 called naphtha (true naphtha being distilled from petro- 
 leum). Wood spirit is never used as a beverage. Methyl- 
 ated spirit is ethylic spirit mixed with about one-ninth 
 its volume of wood spirit, and this preparation is em- 
 ployed in various arts and manufactures. 
 
 THE COMMON DISTILLED BEVERAGES. 
 
 These are of four principal varieties : 
 whiskey, brandy, rum and gin. All are dis- 
 
 tinguished from commercial spirits by a dis- 
 tinctive taste, imparted in each case by a special 
 mode of preparation. When genuine they are 
 never placed on the market until two or three 
 years after distillation; but they can be readily 
 counterfeited from ordinary newly - distilled 
 spirits, and in practice the quantity so counter- 
 feited is much greater than the quantity that is 
 genuine. All these four liquors are bases of 
 numerous popular barroom drinks. Punches, 
 cocktails, fizzes, smashes, slings and the like 
 are seductive concoctions of spirituous liquors 
 (sometimes, however, of vinous liquors instead) 
 with sugar, spices, fruit juices and various 
 other articles; grog is plain distilled liquor and 
 cold water; toddy is a mixture of liquor, hot 
 water and sugar. 
 
 The percentages of alcohol in the leading 
 beverage spirits are differently stated by differ- 
 ent authorities. This will be seen by compar- 
 ing the following table (from the United States 
 Dispensatory, 1887) with Mulhall's list on p. 19: >- 
 
 Liquors. 
 
 Scotch Whiskey 
 
 Irish " 
 
 American " (old) 1 . . . 
 
 English " 
 
 French Cognac (brandy). 
 
 Rum 
 
 Gin 
 
 German " Schnapps " 
 
 Russian "Dobry Wntky ' 
 
 Per cent. I Per cent. 
 by Weight. I bt Volume. 
 
 43.8 
 42.3 
 52.2 
 41.9 
 47.3 
 42.2 
 40.3 
 37.9 
 54.2 
 
 50.3 
 49.9 
 60.0 
 49.4 
 55.0 
 49.7 
 47.8 
 45.0 
 62.0 
 
 *The actual alcoholic percentage of American whiskey 
 is less than these figures indicate. a Good vodka. 
 
 The liquors are separately considered below. 
 
 Whiskey (from usige-beatha, Celtic for "water of life"- 
 later form, usquebaugh, Irish or Gaelic for the early 
 whiskey of Ireland and Scotland).— Most of the whiskey 
 of the United States is distilled from corn; the remainder 
 from rye, malt,wheat,oats, barley and mill-feed. (See table, 
 p. 172.) Bourbon whiskey (named from Bourbon County 
 Ky.) and rye whiskey are the common commercial kinds' 
 As is explained on pp. 375-8, the honest whiskey of this 
 country is almost exclusively the product of Kentucky 
 Pennsylvania and Maryland ; and the annual production of 
 what passes as honest whiskey is about 15,000,000 gallons 
 constituting only 15 to 20 per cent, of the entire quantity 
 of grain spirits. But much of the so-called honest or 
 "straight" whiskey is hastily thrust upon the market and 
 poisonously adulterated with oil of creosote or pyroxylic 
 acid, etc. The characteristic color of whiskey can be 
 given to crude spirits in less than 12 hours' time by artifi- 
 cial processes. "There appears to be a class of distillers,'" 
 says the Internal Revenue report for 1889 (p. 60) "who- 
 desire to market their product as soon as possible, and 
 who, by heavily charring their barrels, adding a little car- 
 amel or prune juice, or by some of the so-called ageing- 
 processes, endeavor so to color their new and colorless 
 whiBkies as to deceive the consumer." The Scotch and 
 Irish whiskies are produced largely from malt and barley 
 and are highly esteemed; but, as analysis discloses, they 
 are frequently "made up," like the American, from alco- 
 hol, water sdgar, and tannic acid, acetic, pyroligenous and 
 SSP*?] 1 ? i a&s - At the Present day it is exceedingly 
 difficult to obtain a pure article of whiskey through the 
 ordinary channels of trade. In other countries, as Ger- 
 many and Russia, whiskey is manufactured from potatoes 
 and beets. 
 
 Brandy (older forms of the word, brandywine and 
 brandwme, meaning burnt— or distilled— wine; akin to the 
 present German branntwein [burnt wine] ).— As its name 
 indicates, brandy proper is distilled wine; and all brandy 
 as distinguished from whiskey and other spirits, is sup- 
 posed to be the distilled product of the grape or other 
 fruits. For many years past most of the superior grape 
 brandy has been supplied from the cognac districts of 
 France. By turning to pp. 480-1 the reader will see that 
 
 'The second column of percentages (by volume) is the 
 one with which comparisons should be made. 
 
 ' Ten drops of this acid (oil of creosote) will kill a man in 
 15 minutes, and no counteractive is known in medicine. 
 
Spirits and Spirituous Liquors.] 617 [Spirits and Spirituous Liquors. 
 
 this supply has been enormously decreased by the phyllox- 
 e +t s rava S e s. The production of genuine grape brandy in 
 other countries is comparatively small ; in the United States 
 it is really infinitesimal. Vintners cannot afford to distill 
 their all too precious grape juice into brandy when this 
 article can be so easily imitated from raw cern, potato and 
 other spirits. One of the commonest counterfeits is a 
 gram whiskey or beet-root spirit, colored and aromatized 
 with cognac-flavored tenanthic ether or Hungarian oil. 1 
 Besides the very scarce grape product the only articles 
 worthy of being regarded as brandies are the distillates of 
 various fruits like the apple (yielding the familiar apple- 
 jack), peach, blackberry and tig. But these fruit spirits are 
 adulterated and marketed before they have been properly 
 aged, the same as the grain alcohols. 
 
 Bum (contracted from rumbullion, provincial English 
 for a great tumult).— This liquor is distilled from the mice 
 of the sugar cane direct, or from molasses or other suoar 
 cane products or refuse. The best rums come from the 
 West Indies, especially Jamaica (see pp. 259-60) and St 
 Croix. In the United States there are several rum dis- 
 tilleries, using molasses as their material ; and in the 
 fiscal year ending June 30, 1890, they manufactured 1 657 - 
 808 proof gallons. Much of this is of the meanest quality 
 and is shipped to Africa (see pp. 240-1). New England 
 rum was formerly made in great quantities and was a 
 favorite drink, notably the Medford rum (from the town 
 of Medford, Mass.). But the cheapness of grain spirits 
 has operated to reduce both the supply and the demand. 
 All sugar- producing countries distill rum. There are 
 hardly any alcoholic articles so vile and poisonous as the 
 native rums of South Africa and adjacent, islands, the 
 negro rum of the West Indies and the ram or carta of the 
 South American nations. 
 
 Oin (contracted from geneva, another common name 
 for the same liquor, which is derived from the French 
 geniivre [juniper]).— A strong spirit, slowly and carefully 
 distilled from unmalted barley or rye (sometimes from 
 other grain), combined with the juniper berry and other 
 ingredients ; after distillation it is rectified, sweetened 
 and aromatized. The name Hollands is also frequently 
 applied to gin, Holland being the country where it was 
 originally produced and still the most important center 
 of its manufacture. The Dutch varieties, known com- 
 mercially as geneva, Hollands and Schiedam, are con- 
 sidered the best. The English gins, which are staple 
 drinks throughout Great Britain and the United States, 
 are made from raw grain spirit as a basis, the product 
 being highly and perniciously flavored ; frequently such 
 adulterants as oil of turpentine, essential oils, alum, 
 potassium carbonate, acetate of lead, sulphate of zinc, 
 grains of paradise and cayenne pepper are introduced. 3 
 The appalling effects of gin drinking and the multiplica- 
 tion of gin-shops caused the English Parliament to pass 
 stringent laws early in the 18th Century (see pp. 273-4) ; 
 and it was this legislation that gave rise to Lord Chester- 
 field's speech in the House of Lords in 1743. 3 The 
 
 'Very much of the brandy sold in Great Britain and 
 Ireland is prepared at home from ordinary grain alcohol by 
 adding thereto argol, bruised French plum's, some French 
 wine-sugar, a little good cognac, and redistilling, when the 
 spirit which passes over may be colored with burnt sugar or 
 by being kept in an empty sherry cask. Occasionally grains 
 of paradise and other acrid matters are added to give the 
 brandy a fictitious strength, and catechu or oak-bark to 
 give it an astringent taste. — Chambers's Encyclopaedia, 
 article "Brandy " 
 
 2 In 38 specimens of gin examined by Dr. Hassall, the al- 
 coholic strength ranged from 22.35 to 48.80 degrees, and the 
 sugar present varied between 2.43 and 9.38 per cent.; 7 
 were found to contain cayenne pepper, 2 had cinnamon or 
 cassia oil and nearly all contained sulphates. — Encyclo- 
 paedia Britannica, article " Gin." 
 
 3 The following is a part of that speech : 
 
 "Luxury, my Lords, is to be taxed, but vice prohibited, 
 let the difficulties in executing the law be what they will. 
 Would you lay a tax on the breach of the Ten Command- 
 ments ? Would not such a tax be wicked and scandalous, 
 because it would imply an indulgence to all those who 
 would pay the tax ? Is not this a reproach must juBtly 
 thrown by Protestants upon the Church of Rome ? Was 
 it not the chief cause of the Reformation ? And will you 
 follow a precedent which brought reproach and ruin upon 
 those who introduced it? This is the very case now be- 
 fore us. You are going to lay a tax, and consequently to 
 indulge a sort of drunkenness, which almost necessarily 
 produces a breach of every one of the CominandmentB. . . . 
 The bill [to license gin-shops for the sake of revenue] 
 contains only the conditions on which the people of this 
 kingdom are to be allowed henceforward to riot in de- 
 bauchery, licensed by law and countenanced by the magis- 
 trates. For there is no doubt that those on whom the in- 
 
 (Jnited States manufactures comparatively little gin ; in 
 the hecal year 1889-90 the entire product was 1 202 940 
 proof gallons. 
 
 LIQUEURS AND CORDIALS. 
 
 The numerous alcoholic beverages classed 
 under these names are mixtures (or the dis- 
 tillates of mixtures) of brandy, alcohol or 
 any spirit with other substances, generally sweet- 
 ened with the syrup of refined sugar, and 
 perfumed and highly seasoned with spices 
 and various vegetable extracts. Some liqueurs 
 are compounded from many substances by 
 intricate processes, others are produced by 
 comparatively simple methods ; some depend 
 upon the infusion of flowers, fruits, woods or 
 herbs in water or alcohol, others upon the dis- 
 tillation of aromatics or combinations of aro- 
 matics. The distinction between liqueurs and 
 cordials is not very clear, but there is a disposi- 
 tion to classify as cordials those liqueurs that re- 
 quire no very complex mode of manufacture and 
 are relatively simple in composition; thus a. 
 beverage which is merely a sweetened spirit, or 
 but slightly aromatized, is generally spoken of 
 as a cordial. Bitters form a distinct group of 
 liqueurs whose chief characteristic in common is 
 their claim to possess certain tonic properties 
 which give them a medicinal value. They are 
 generally prepared by steeping some herb, leaf, 
 blossom or root, dried or fresh, in spirits and 
 otherwise doctoring the liquid to tickle the 
 palate or excite the nerves and stomach and thus 
 create a commercial demand for them. 
 
 Absinthe is one of the most powerful liqnenrs, made 
 from alcohol and the leaves and tops of varieties of 
 artemisia (especially the common wormwood, artemisia 
 absinthium, from which the name "absinthe" is 
 derived), together with other aromatics, like sweet flag- 
 root, angelica root, the fruit of star anise and the leavp* 
 of dittany of Crete. It has an emerald hue. The pure 
 liqueur is a sufficiently violent poison, but drugs like 
 tumeric, indigo and blue vitro] are added to deepen the 
 color. It came into use as a beverage after the return of 
 the French soldiers from the Algerian wars of 1844-7 ; 
 these soldiers had made it a practice to mingle absinthe 
 with their wines. The absinthe habit is regarded by 
 many as the very worst one that drinkers can contract. 
 The results are so alarming that the use of absinthe has 
 been prohibited in the French army and navy. Epilepsy 
 is one of the diseases that Bpeedily overtake the absinthe 
 victim. This liqueur is being consumed in increasing 
 quantities in the United States, and several firms are 
 engaged in manufacturing it here. But nearly all the 
 absinthe is produced in Switzerland and France. 
 
 spectors of this tax shall confer authority, will be directed 
 to assist their masters in their design to encourage the 
 consumption of that liquor from which such large reve- 
 nues are expected, and to multiply without end those 
 licenses which are to pay a yearly tribute to the crown. . . . 
 
 " When I consider, my Lords, the tendency of this bill, 
 I find it only for the propagation of disease, the suppres- 
 sion of industry and the destruction of mankind. I find 
 it the most fatal engine that ever was pointed at a people; 
 an engine by which those who are not killed will De dis- 
 abled, and those who preserve their limbB will be deprived 
 of their senses. . . . 
 
 "As little, my Lords, am I affected with the merit of 
 the wonderful skill which the distillers are said to 
 have attained, that it is in my opinion no faculty of great 
 use to mankind to prepare palatable poison ; nor shall I 
 ever contribute my interest for the reprieve of a mur- 
 derer, because he has, by long practice, obtained great 
 dexterity in his trade. If their liquors are so delicious 
 that the people are tempted to their own destruction, let 
 us at length, my Lords, secure them from the fatal 
 draughts by bursting the vials that contain them ; let us 
 crush at once these artists in slaughter, who have recon- 
 ciled their countrymen to sickness and to ruin, and 
 spread over the pitfalls of debauchery such baits as 
 cannot be" resisted. 1 ' 
 
Spirits and Spirituous Liquors.] 618 
 
 [State. 
 
 Anisette or aniseed cordial is a 'French liqueur pre- 
 pared by flavoring weak Bpirit wkh coriander, seed of 
 anise and sweet fennel seed, and sweetening with finely- 
 clarified syrup of refined sugar. 
 
 Cassis (French) is made from black currants. 
 
 Chartreuse, one of the most celebrated of liqueurs, is 
 produced by the monks of La Grande Chartreuse, near 
 Grenoble, France. There are three different kinds, 
 green, yellow and white. The mode of manufacture is a 
 secret carefully guarded by the monks. The chief aro- 
 matics are believed to be wormwood, carnations and the 
 young buds of the pine tree. SpuriouB chartreuse is com- 
 mon. 
 
 Cherry brandy is a name sometimes erroneously given 
 to kirschwasser. Common cherry brandy is made by 
 mixing brandy or spirits with cherry-juice or steepiDg 
 ■cherries in Bpirits. 
 
 Kirsebaer, which comes from Copenhagen, is a cherry 
 brandy. 
 
 Clove cordial, much in vogue among the English lower 
 classes, is a spirit flavored with bruised cloves and 
 colored with burnt sugar. 
 
 The well-known curacoa takes • its name from the 
 Caribbean island Curacoa, where it was first manufac- 
 tured. Large quantities are now made in Holland by 
 digesting in sweetened spirits the small curacoa orange 
 or orange peel and adding cinnamon and often a little 
 mace or cloves. 
 
 Kirsch, kirschwasser or kirschenwasser (German, 
 meaning cherry water), is distilled in Switzerland and 
 the Black Forest region of Germany from the small black 
 •cherry. The ferment is made exclusively from the pulp 
 -of the cherry, but before distillation the stones are 
 broken and tbeir kernels are cast into the fertaent. 
 Various flavoring substances are frequently added. A 
 most dangerous imitation is produced m France by treat- 
 ing spirits with cherry-laurel water, a rank poison. 1 
 
 Kiimmel, doppel-kttmmel or allasch, a Eussian 
 liqueur, much used also (as well as imitated) in Germany 
 and other countries, consists of a sweetened spirit 
 flavored with cumin and caraway seeds, the extract of 
 the latter being so strong as to conceal all other flavors. 
 
 Maraschino is the distilled product of a very fine and 
 4elicately-flavored cherry called marasques, grown only 
 in Dalmatia, an Austrian dependency. The liqueur is 
 sweetened with sugar. 
 
 Noyau or crime de noyau (also written noyeau) is a 
 liqueur or cordial of two varieties (white and pink), pre- 
 pared by flavoring brandy with the bruised kernels of the 
 bitter almond. Peach and apricot kernels are sometimes 
 substituted for or combined with the almond. 
 
 Peppermint, liqueur has peppermint as its predomi- 
 nating flavoring extract. It is usually nothing more 
 than ordinary sweetened gin mixed with the essential 
 oil of peppermint. 
 
 Ratafia (written also ratijia and ratafee), a Prussian 
 liqueur, is aromatized with the kernels of cherries, 
 peaches, apricots and other fruits, spices and sugar being 
 added, liatafia is also the name of a flavoring essence 
 having for its basis the essential oil of bitter almonds. 
 In France the name ratafia is often applied to various 
 liqueurs flavored with the kernels of fruit stones or 
 Beasoned with spices. 
 
 Trappistine (French) derives its name from its manu- 
 facturers, the Trappist monks of the Abbey de la Griice 
 Dieu. It is marketed in two varieties, a yellow and a 
 green. 
 
 Vermuth or vermouth (French) is one of the lighter 
 liqueurs and has white wine rather than spirits for its 
 base. Absinthe and various aromatic drugs are ingre- 
 dients. 
 
 Tbe foregoing are the chief commercial liqueurs. 
 Among the remaining ones are benedictine, cacao, cafe, 
 ■cr^ me de rose, er me de vanille (called also vanille), 
 mandarine, menthe, parfait amour, pomeranza, and 
 the. 
 
 OTHER DISTILLED DRINKS. 
 
 The distinctive names for the common dis- 
 tilled drinks of various nations — drinks that are 
 ■counterparts of the different grades of commer- 
 cial spirits, whiskey, etc., as known to Ameri- 
 cans — are of very wide range. A few of the 
 leading ones are mentioned below. 
 
 Arak (or rakee) is the common distilled drink of Pales- 
 tine and Syria, made chiefly from damaged figs and the 
 refuse of wine-grapes. Arrack is a name of broad 
 signification, covering, in a general way, the spirituous 
 
 1 See the United States Dispensatory (1887), p. 240. 
 
 liquors of many Oriental countries; especially Arabia, 
 Egypt, India. Java, Ceylon, Siam and Cochin China ; it 
 is made from different materials in different countries — 
 from palm toddy, rice, molasses, cocoanut milk, dates, 
 grape refuse, etc. Other well-known Eastern articlesare 
 distilled koumiss (otherwise known us araca. arsa and 
 araca asa), from fermented mares 1 milk, long in use 
 among the Tartars ; sake, the Japanese whiskey (from 
 rice, molasses, etc.), and samshu, Chinese spirits (princi- 
 pally from rice). Bau de vie is French for brandy ; 
 schnapps is German for spirits of all kinds ; poteen or 
 potheen is Irish for whiskey (especially for whiskey 
 illicitly distilled by the Irish peasantry) ; vodka is Rus- 
 sian for spirits or whiskey. 
 
 State. — Just where the functions of 
 civil Government begin and end, has, 
 from the dawn of history, been a theme 
 for discussion. Two diverging schools 
 may be traced more or less distinctly 
 throughout the discussion. With one 
 the constant aim has been to curtail the 
 powers of Government and to enlarge 
 those of the individual ; and as all 
 philosophy will run at times to the ex- ' 
 treme, this philosophy that the best Gov- 
 ernment is the one which governs least, 
 has run to its extreme in Anarchism. The 
 other school has contended that, with the 
 increasing perplexities of social and in- 
 dustrial life, and the growing density of 
 population, the necessity arises for more 
 and more interference, on the part of 
 Government, with the activities of the 
 individual. At the extreme of this school 
 is Communism, with its ownership of all 
 things in common. 
 
 It is of interest to note the bearing of 
 these two schools under different forms 
 of Government. Under monarchical 
 forms the school that sought to enlarge 
 civil functions became associated in his- 
 tory with resistance to liberty and pro- 
 motion of despotism. The "Liberal" 
 was he who sought to lessen the rights of 
 the King and to increase those of the. 
 individual. But under republican gov- 
 ernment this attitude becomes almost 
 exactly reversed. In England to-day 
 the Tories or Conservatives, who are the 
 most strenuous opponents of any enlarge- 
 ment of governmental functions, now 
 that Government has come into the hands 
 of the people, are the political and as a 
 rule the lineal descendants of those who 
 contended for the enlargement of those 
 functions when Government was in the 
 hands of a King. In the meantime the 
 Liberalism which a few centuries ago 
 meant opposition to all extension of 
 governmental powers, has' come to mean 
 rather the opposite. 
 
 It is easy to conceive from which school 
 come the philosophical objections to the 
 
State.] 
 
 619 
 
 [State. 
 
 principle of Prohibition. By those who 
 hold with Mill and Spencer that the line 
 of progress for society is in the direction 
 of less law rather than more, Prohibition 
 is, at first glance, viewed as a retrograde 
 ■step, as an unwarrantable invasion upon 
 the domain of personal habits, as an 
 attempt of the majority to dictate what 
 a man shall drink. 
 
 The objection on this score will be 
 found, however, to arise from a miscon- 
 ception, in most cases, of the scope and 
 purpose of the Prohibitory law, as re- 
 garded at least by its leading advocates. 
 For no Prohibitory statute has been 
 framed that proposed to treat with a 
 man's personal habits or private appetite. 
 Such law deals entirely with the traffic — 
 with the barter and sale of liquor, or with 
 the manufacture for purposes of barter 
 and sale. In preventing the traffic, the 
 law may indeed remove many of the 
 facilities for gratifying the appetite, and 
 it is hoped that with the removal of these 
 facilities the gratification will cease. But 
 the law does not, even indirectly, compel 
 it to cease. One may still, under Prohib- 
 itory law, brew his own beer or distill his 
 own whiskey, for private use. It is only 
 when he places it in the market that the 
 State claims the right to interfere. 
 
 The right of the State to regulate, re- 
 strain or forbid any form of traffic which 
 is considered inimical to the common 
 weal, is one which it is useless to cite 
 authorities to establish. As a matter of 
 fact, every Government retains the right 
 of control over all forms of public traffic, 
 and a large proportion of the statutes of 
 any State are those dealing with traffic. 
 There is, indeed, no form of traffic to 
 which the State does not, to some extent, 
 dictate the conditions under which it can 
 be prosecuted. Por instance, the State 
 determines a certain standard of weights 
 and measures. A circulating medium is 
 established as legal tender for all mercan- 
 tile transactions. The number of hours 
 of labor is frequently determined. Bank- 
 rupt laws are made. Forms of contract 
 are settled by law. At almost every 
 point trade and traffic encounter the 
 provisions of law determining the con- 
 ditions for their existence. Prohibition 
 is (despite the word itself) but the defin- 
 ing by law of the conditions under which 
 the traffic in liquor shall be prosecuted. 
 The conditions are more stringent than 
 
 with most forms of traffic, solely because 
 the public dangers are greater and much 
 more difficult to guard against. > Whether 
 or not these conditions are ones it is wise 
 to impose, there can be little doubt of 
 the State's legal and constitutional right 
 to impose them if it thinks them wise. 
 This right has been affirmed by the high- 
 est Court in the land. 
 
 Another phase of the question is 
 awakened by the thought that the State 
 cannot, in the case of a traffic, refuse to 
 do one of two things, namely, either to 
 protect or to prohibit. It must do one 
 or the other. If it refuses to prohibit, it 
 must in the nature of the case protect. 
 There are many forms of personal con- 
 duct, not in themselves wise or prudent, 
 with which the State refuses to interfere. 
 Its refusal cannot be construed by any 
 into a sanction of the conduct. A man 
 may over-eat, or abuse his eyes by over- 
 reading, or expose himself foolhardily — 
 Government simply refuses to interfere. 
 So with drinking : a man may over-drink, 
 and Government pays no attention to the 
 fact till the results begin to affect others 
 than the drinker. The Government, in 
 these cases, neither sanctions nor con- 
 demns ; it simply refuses to interfere. 
 But in the case of a traffic the State must 
 necessarily take either the attitude of 
 protection or of prohibition. At every 
 step the traffic calls upon the State for 
 protection, and if there is not prohibition 
 the protection is forthcoming. The 
 property rights of liquor are established. 
 Contracts are enforced. Debts are sued 
 for and their payment compelled. In 
 fact, if it were not for the protection 
 which the Courts give, it would be next 
 to impossible for the business to be car- 
 ried on except in the most meager di- 
 mensions. 
 
 If, then, the State must either protect 
 or prohibit, shall it not have the right to 
 say which it shall do ? and shall it not 
 decide the question with a view to con- 
 serving public order, public health and 
 public morality, rather than with a view 
 to furnishing facilities for the gratifica- 
 tion of personal appetites ? 
 
 The advocates of Prohibition base their 
 appeal to the State upon the recognized 
 public evils which flow from the saloon. 
 They ask, not that the State shall inter- 
 fere to prevent the drinker from injuring 
 himself, but to prevent the saloon, by 
 
Stewart, Gideon T.] 
 
 620 
 
 [Stimulants. 
 
 the allurements it necessarily presents, 
 from injuring the public interests, en- 
 dangering public order and increasing 
 the burdens of taxation. "Trade is a 
 social act," says John Stuart Mill in his 
 " Essay on Liberty." It is this " social 
 act " of barter and sale, not the individual 
 act of drinking, with which the State is 
 asked to deal. 
 
 There is no theory of government (ex- 
 cept the theory of no-government) which 
 denies the duty of the State to prevent 
 one member of society from violating the 
 rights of another. The advocates of 
 Prohibition rest their entire case on the 
 assertion that the saloon is an infringe- 
 ment not so much on the rights of the 
 drinker as of the non-drinker ; that it en- 
 dangers public order and public health, 
 foments crimes of violence, increases 
 taxation and counteracts to a great extent 
 all the remedial forces which society has 
 set in action and is supporting. If this 
 assertion cannot be established the case 
 for Prohibition falls to the ground con- 
 fessedly. If it is established, then there 
 is no theory of civil government with 
 which Prohibition, rightly understood, 
 is not in harmony. 
 
 E. J. Wheeler. 
 
 Stewart, Gideon T., second candi- 
 date of the Prohibition party for Vice- 
 President; born at Johnstown, N. Y., 
 Aug. 7, 1824. His parents removed to 
 Oberlin, 0., when he was 13 years old. 
 Here he obtained his education and be- 
 gan the study of law, which he completed 
 at Columbus, 0. He commenced the 
 practice of his profession at Norwalk, 
 0., in 1846. For the next 20 years he 
 was engaged chiefly in newspaper work, 
 as editor of the Norwalk Reflector and 
 Dubuque (la.) Daily Times, and as one 
 of the proprietors and publishers of the 
 Toledo Blade and Commercial. He op- 
 posed slavery and supported the Union, 
 and was active in the Whig and Republi- 
 can parties. He has been identified with 
 the temperance reform since his early 
 youth. In 1847 he helped organize the 
 Norwalk Division of Sons of Temper- 
 ance, and he is still a member of that 
 body. Uniting with the Good Templars, 
 he was three times chosen the chief of 
 that Order in Ohio. In 1853, during 
 the Maine law campaign, he made an 
 attempt to form a permanent Prohibi- 
 
 tion party, and in 1857 he was Chair- 
 man of a State Convention held at Co- 
 lumbus with a view to establishing such 
 a party. He took a prominent part in 
 the work which resulted in the creation 
 of the new party in 1869 ; has been its 
 candidate three times for Governor of 
 Ohio, eight times for Supreme Judge 
 and twice for Circuit Judge; was for 
 four years Chairman and for 15 years a 
 member of the National Committee, and 
 was the nominee for Vice-President in 
 1876. The Ohio Prohibition Conventions 
 of 1876, 1880 and 1884 indorsed him for 
 the Presidency, but he refused to permit 
 his name to be presented in the National 
 Conventions. He is now (1891) engaged 
 in the practice of law in Norwalk, where 
 he has lived since 1866. 
 
 Stimulants. — The normal invigor- 
 ation of the human organism can be 
 effected only by wholesome food, sleep, 
 fresh air, exercise and judicious changes 
 of temperature. The belief in the possi- 
 bility of accomplishing the same result 
 by means of drastic drugs is one of the 
 most mischievous popular fallacies, and 
 owes its origin probably to the circum- 
 stance that exceptional and altogether 
 abnormal conditions of the system may 
 now and then justify the employment of 
 such drugs for the purpose of (tempo- 
 rarily) arousing special organs from a 
 state of morbid lethargy. The frequent 
 or habitual resort to such expedients 
 has become a principal cause of disease, 
 and is based on a delusion which may be 
 defined as the tendency to mistake a pro- 
 cess of irritation for a process of invigor- 
 ation. 
 
 Every poison (see Poisons) can in that 
 sense be abused for the purposes of stim- 
 ulation, and may reduce the organism to 
 a state of abject dependence on its bane- 
 ful influence. Under the spur of a vir- 
 ulent drug the prostrate vitality rises as 
 a weary sleeper would start at the touch 
 of a venomous serpent, and, as danger 
 will momentarily overcome the feeling of 
 fatigue, the organism labors with restless 
 energy till the poison is expelled. This 
 feverish reaction dram-drinkers and the 
 dupes of the " bitters " quack mistake for 
 a sign of returning vigor, persistently 
 ignoring the circumstance that the 
 excitement is every. time followed by a 
 prostration worse than that preceding it. 
 
Strong Drink.] 
 
 621 [Sumptuary Laws. 
 
 Feeling the approach of a relapse the 
 stimulator then resorts to his old remedy, 
 thus inducing another sham-revival, 
 followed by an increased prostration, and 
 so on ; but before long the dose of the 
 stimulant, too, has to be increased, the 
 stimulant-dupe becomes a slave to his 
 " tonic," and passes his life in a round of 
 morbid excitements and morbid exhaus- 
 tions — the former at last nothing but a 
 feeble flickering-up of the vital flame, 
 the latter soon aggravated by sick head- 
 aches, " vapors " and hypochondria. 
 
 The stimulant habit in its most prev- 
 alent forms — "exhilarating beverages," 
 "tonic medicines" and "prophylactic 
 bitters " — is a delusion that has wrought 
 more mischief than any other single 
 cause of disease. A healthy man needs 
 no artificial excitants ; the vital principle 
 in its normal vigor is an all-sufficient 
 stimulus. The scant vital resources of 
 an invalid should not be wasted in the 
 paroxysm of a poison-fever. Inspiration 
 bought at the rumshop is but a poor sub- 
 stitute for the spontaneous exaltations of 
 a healthy mind in a healthy body. Play- 
 ing with poisons is a losing game; the 
 sweetness of the excitement is not worth 
 the bitterness of the inevitable reaction. 
 In sickness stimulants of that sort can- 
 not further the actual recovery by a 
 single hour. There is a strong restora- 
 tive tendency in our physical constitu- 
 tion ; nature needs no prompter ; as soon 
 as the remedial process is finished the 
 normal functions of the organism will 
 resume their work as spontaneously as 
 the current of a stream resumes its course 
 after the removal of an obstruction. All 
 the objections against the use of such 
 drugs as hasheesh and opium can with 
 equal force be urged against all forms of 
 alcoholic "tonics." Alcohol has, with 
 absolute conclusiveness, been proved to 
 have no nutritive value and to be devoid 
 of any elements available for the pro- 
 duction of organic warmth and vigor; 
 its stimulating effect is invariably fol- 
 lowed by a depressing reaction, and its 
 influence on the system is in all respects 
 that of a virulent poison. 
 
 Felix L. Oswald. 
 
 Strong Drink is one of the general 
 terms for alcoholic beverages of all kinds, 
 including beer and wine, and other so- 
 called light liquors. It has a special 
 
 application to the distilled articles, but 
 the fermented ones also are suggested by 
 the term. 
 
 Stuart, Moses.— Born in Wilton, 
 Conn., March 26, 1780; died in Andover, 
 Mass., Jan. 4, 1852. He graduated from 
 Yale College in 1799; studied law and 
 was admitted to the bar in 1802 ; was a 
 Yale tutor for the next two years ; stu- 
 died theology and was ordained pastor of 
 a Congregational church in New Haven in 
 1806; was elected Professor of Sacred 
 Literature in Andover Theological Sem- 
 inary in 1810, and occupied this chair 
 for 38 years. He wrote several 
 Greek and Hebrew grammars and vari- 
 ous works on biblical literature. In 1830 
 he prepared a competitive temperance 
 essay which was awarded a prize of $250. 
 It dealt with the duties of Christians and 
 churches. In it Dr. Stuart earnestly 
 championed the opinion that " Wherever 
 the Scriptures speak of wine as a com- 
 fort, a blessing or a libation to God, and 
 rank it with such articles as corn and oil, 
 they mean — they can mean only — such 
 wine as contained no alcohol that could 
 have a mischievous tendency ; that wher- 
 ever they denounce it, prohibit it and 
 connect it with drunkenness and revel- 
 ling, they can mean only alcoholic or 
 intoxicating wines." He was one of the 
 earliest, ablest and most scholarly writers 
 on the Bible Wines question. 
 
 Sumptuary Laws are measures 
 whose peculiar and direct object is to 
 control, modify or regulate certain prac- 
 tices or affairs of individuals that are 
 usually governed by private right, pref- 
 erence, interest or enterprise, by circum- 
 stances of association, etc. These meas- 
 ures give extreme application to the 
 theory of paternal government for the 
 individual ; prescribing style and cost of 
 dress for different classes of citizens (or 
 forbidding the wearing of particular 
 articles or limiting the expenditure), in- 
 dicating kinds of food that maybe or 
 must not be consumed, fixing prices at 
 which commodities are to be sold, regu- 
 lating the stipends to be paid employes, 
 and in other respects providing rules of 
 more or less strictness for the direction 
 of daily life and personal conduct. Such 
 laws were numerous in ancient Greece, 
 especially among the Lacedaemonians; 
 
Sumptuary Laws.] 
 
 622 
 
 [Sunday-Closings 
 
 the requirements that no Spartan should 
 possess gold or silver money, and that 
 Spartan women (prostitutes excepted) 
 should dress with the utmost simplicity, 
 are specimens of these enactments. The 
 Eomans had elaborate sumptuary regu- 
 lations both in the early days of the Re- 
 public and in the reigns of the most dis- 
 solute and wasteful of the Emperors. In 
 mediaeval times the enactments of France 
 and England and other countries rivaled 
 the most oppressive ones of Sparta. An 
 English law of 1363 provided that serv- 
 ants should not eat more than one meal 
 of meat or fish in a day. Rigid sumptu- 
 ary legislation came practically to an 
 end in England during the 17th Century. 
 The American colonists, notably the 
 New Englanders, instituted many curi- 
 ous and arbitrary restraints. The sumptu- 
 ary spirit was still active during the 
 Revolution : in 1777 a committee of Con- 
 gress submitted a report recommending 
 that the States fix by law the prices of 
 labor, manufactures and internal produce, 
 as well as the charges of inn-holders; 
 and in consequence of this recommenda- 
 tion the States of New York and Con- 
 necticut passed the suggested legisla- 
 tion. 1 
 
 Laws prohibiting or otherwise inter- 
 fering with the liquor traffic are not 
 properly sumptuary. They are not rec- 
 ognized as such by standard legal 
 writers. They deal essentially with the 
 public traffic as a public evil, and never 
 question the right of the individual to 
 drink unless by the act of drinking he 
 publicly violates the policy which the 
 State has inaugurated solely for the pro- 
 motion of the general welfare. They 
 abridge incidentally the liberty to drink, 
 but this abridgment is for the sake of 
 lessening the fearful burdens and ills 
 that rest upon the State, and not for the 
 sake of dictating to the individual. 
 Blackstone carefully distinguishes be- 
 tween different forms of liberty — natural, 
 civil and political, — and shows the justice 
 and necessity of laws for the correction 
 of the public effects of drunkenness, re- 
 gardless of the effects upon apparent 
 natural liberty. (See Personal Lib- 
 erty.) It is significant also that Black- 
 stone (Commentaries, 19th Eng. ed., vol. 
 4, p. 170) formally alludes to different 
 
 1 Kent's Commentaries, 13th ed., pp. 331-2. 
 
 sumptuary acts of England but does not, 
 in this connection, make any mention of 
 Excise or other liquor measures, although 
 the enacting clauses of such measures 
 frequently announced that their purpose 
 was to attack the vice of intemperance. 
 The derivation of the word " sumptu- 
 ary " (from the Latin sumptuarius, from 
 sumptus, meaning expense, cost) indicates 
 that sumptuary legislation relates pecul- 
 iarly to expense or expenditure. 
 
 Sunday-Closing of saloons is re- 
 quired by law in all but four States of this 
 country — California, Montana, Nevada 
 and Texas; in California and Texas it 
 may be compelled by ordinance. It 
 is required throughout Canada, in Scot- 
 land (since 1853), in Ireland, excepting 
 in certain cities' (since 1888), in Wales 
 (since 1886), in New Zealand and in 
 most of the Australian colonies. It is 
 desired by a large majority of the citi- 
 zens of England, as attested by petitions 
 from more than 5,000,000 people in six 
 recent years, by the favorable answers of 
 four-fifths out of a million householders 
 whose opinions were recently taken and 
 by a two-thirds vote of the House of 
 Commons (March 24, 1886). (N. B.-- -By 
 Sunday-closing, as the term is here used, 
 is meant complete closing, not a 
 closing for certain hours. England 
 already has partial Sunday-closing, 
 the traffic being prohibited during the 
 ordinary hours of church services.) 
 _ Few question the propriety and prac- 
 tical benefits of Sunday-closing. It is 
 notorious that there are violations; side- 
 doors and back-doors are utilized for the 
 Sunday business and the dealers are 
 often so bold that they admit customers 
 with little or no discrimination, not fear- 
 ing the interference of the police. But 
 even where secret violations are general 
 and systematic, it is manifest to every- 
 body that conditions are markedly better 
 than where "wide-open" saloons are tol- 
 erated on Sunday. An unwonted out- 
 ward respect is shown for the better sen- 
 timent of the community, the quiet of 
 the day is less seriously disturbed and 
 loafers and blackguards do not congre- 
 gate around the saloon entrances. Sun- 
 day-closing is an object-lesson of the 
 good tendencies of Prohibition. If en- 
 forcement is satisfactory there is an 
 
 ' See p, 368. ' 
 
Sweden.] 
 
 623 
 
 [Sweden. 
 
 instant and great decrease in the num- 
 ber of arrests for drunkenness, disorder 
 and crime. The improvement in Phila- 
 delphia during the first year of the 
 Brooks law was due chiefly to the largely 
 reduced number of Sunday commit- 
 ments: these commitments aggregated 
 679 from June 1 to Nov. 1, 1887 (when 
 Sunday-closing was not enforced), but 
 there were only 194 such commitments 
 from June 1 to Nov. 1, 1888 (when the 
 saloons were closed on Sundays). In 
 Scotland the number of Sunday arrests 
 was reduced seven-eights by the enforce- 
 ment of Sunday Prohibition. 
 
 Sweden. — The manufacture and 
 even the use of spirits were prohibited 
 by various early Kings of Sweden: 
 Gustavus Vasa (16th Century) repeatedly 
 forbade the use ; Gustavus Adolphus pro- 
 hibited whiskey in 1622, and the prohi- 
 bition was well enforced until his death 
 (1632) ; Charles XII. prohibited the man- 
 ufacture of this liquor in 1698, and in 
 1718 (his Cabinet meantime, in his 
 absence, having revoked the prohibition) 
 he limited the number of distilleries to 
 four; in 1756 the party called the "Hats" 
 succeeded in enacting Prohibition again, 
 the eminent naturalist, Carl von Linne 
 (Linnaeus), giving his approval to the 
 movement ; and finally in 1771 Gustavus 
 III., in deference to public sentiment, be- 
 gan his reign with Prohibition of the 
 whiskey traffic. But Gustavus, following 
 the example of Russia, decided to procure 
 revenue from spirits, and notwithstanding 
 the blessings resulting from the law he 
 repealed it in 1774 and established crown 
 stills on the Eussian plan. In 1787 
 " leasehold " stills were introduced, and 
 in 1809 "domestic" stills. Distilleries 
 multiplied until in 1834 their number 
 was estimated at 170,000 in a population 
 of three millions, and it was reckoned 
 that 45,000,000 gallons of spirits were 
 consumed annually. ' Efforts to check the 
 evil were now begun. The King (Charles 
 XIV.) encouraged the formation of tem- 
 perance societies. (See p. 40.) In 1835 
 the renowned Archdeacon Wieselgren 
 commenced his active work for temper- 
 ance, speaking and writing indefatigably. 
 The cause advanced with considerable 
 rapidity, and in 1854 the labors of Wie- 
 selgren (who was assisted by Magnus 
 
 i Dawson Bnrns's " Temperance History," part 1, p. 86. 
 
 Huss and other able men) 'were rewarded 
 by very encouraging words from a Spe- 
 cial Committee of the Diet. "The 
 researches of the philosopher and the 
 honest feelings of the ordinary man,'' 
 said this Committee in its report, " have 
 led us to the conclusion . . . that the 
 comfort of the Swedish people — even 
 their existence as an enlightened, indus- 
 trious and loyal people — is at stake un- 
 less means can be found to check the 
 evil." In 1855 was passed a licensing act 
 which abolished domestic stills, gave to 
 parochial authorities (subject to the ap- 
 proval of the Provincial Governor) the 
 right to fix annually the number of 
 spirit-shops and public houses, instituted 
 a system of so-called " factory distilla- 
 tion " and classified the different kinds 
 of drinking establishments. The num- 
 ber of distilleries was immediately 
 reduced from 44,000 in 1850 to 4,500; 
 and in 1869 the number had decreased 
 to 457. The annual product of spirits 
 fell from 26,000,000 gallons to 6,900,000 
 gallons. 
 
 In 1864 the Council of the city of 
 Gothenburg took steps that led to the 
 inauguration, the next year, of the famous 
 Gothenburg system. Gothenburg is a 
 thriving seaport, the second city of 
 Sweden, with fine educational and 
 religious institutions. Yet great poverty 
 and wretchedness prevailed among its 
 common people, and in 1855 the police 
 figures showed that the annual arrests 
 for drunkenness were in the ratio of 11.14 
 for every 100 of the population. The 
 Council, not wishing to go to the extreme 
 of Prohibition, decided to remove from 
 the whiskey traffic all incentives to gain 
 and to restrict it with the utmost rigor. 
 Accordingly a company (or Bolag) was 
 formed, which was to operate a limited 
 number of public houses, to make of 
 them eating-houses where spirits could 
 be obtained only in connection with 
 food, to make no sales of spirits on 
 credit, to employ as managers only 
 respectable persons (who should derive 
 no profits whatever from the sale of dis- 
 tilled drinks, but only from food and 
 malt liquors), to pay into the city treas- 
 ury all the net profits and to secure strict 
 supervision of all the public houses by 
 co-operating with the police and appoint- 
 ing private inspectors. The Bolag began 
 its career in 1865, when all public house 
 
Sweden.] 
 
 624 
 
 [Tax. 
 
 licenses excepting seven (which were held 
 by private persons under certain vested 
 rights) were transferred to it. In 1875 
 all the grocers' licenses were given to the 
 company. The original licenses granted 
 to the Bolag were 61 in number ; and 
 all but 41 of these were gradually ex- 
 tinguished. Of the 41 remaining, 25 
 were used for ordinary public houses, 
 nine were transferred to restaurants and 
 seven were reserved for retail shops sell- 
 ing exclusively for consumption off the 
 premises. Of the 20 grocers' licenses 
 acquired by the company in 1875, seven 
 were suppressed and the remaining 13 
 were turned over to private wine-mer- 
 chants, "exclusively for the sale of the 
 higher class of spirits and liquors not in 
 ordinary use by the working-classes." 
 This Gothenburg system is probably the 
 most honest restrictive license method 
 ever devised. It has been highly praised 
 by many writers, but the results have 
 been far from satisfactory. Intemper- 
 ance is still an evil in Gothenburg, and 
 the drink business is given high respec- 
 tability and great fiscal importance. The 
 temperance radicals of Sweden complain 
 quite as bitterly against this method as 
 the Prohibitionists of America do against 
 High License. It is noticeable that so 
 prominent a newspaper as the Gothen- 
 burg Handelstiduing (Oommercial Jour- 
 nal), formerly a supporter of the policy, 
 now approves the idea of whiskey pro- 
 hibition. 
 
 Many parishes or communes are under 
 absolute Prohibition. In the cities the 
 Gothenburg system is generally in force. 
 
 The production of spirits in 1886 was 
 10,611,412 United States gallons ; impor- 
 tation, 7,821,440; exportation, 6,786,127; 
 consumption, 11,646,725, or 2.47 per 
 capita. The revenue of the National 
 Government from spirits is about one- 
 sixth of the total revenue, and ranges 
 from $3,000,000 to above $4,000,000 
 annually. 
 
 Total abstinence societies are strong, 
 the Good Templars and Blue Ribbon 
 Union being especially conspicuous. The 
 clergymen (notably those of dissenting 
 denominations) show much interest. 
 There is a growing political demand for 
 Prohibition. The Swedes in America 
 give generous support to the aggressive 
 Prohibition work. 
 
 O. A. Wenngeen. 
 
 Switzerland. 1 — The drink customs 
 of Switzerland closely resemble those of 
 France and Germany. The population 
 in 1888 was ' 2,933,612. The quantities 
 consumed in 1884 were, in round num- 
 bers : spirits, 7,000,000 gallons ; wine, 50,- 
 000,000 gallons; beer, 25,000,000 gallons, 
 mead, cider, etc., 25,000,000 gallons. In 
 the same year the number of places of all 
 kinds where drinks were sold was 21,633. 
 According to the records of the insane 
 asylums 3,874 patients were cared for in 
 these institutions during the years 
 1877-81, and 825 of these (or 21.3 per 
 cent.) were victims of alcoholism. May 
 16, 1887, by a two-thirds vote of the 
 people, the manufacture, importation and 
 sale of spirits became Government 
 monopolies. This change was made after 
 long discussion in the Federal Council 
 and among the people. It was opposed 
 by some (especially church newspapers) 
 on moral grounds, the argument being 
 raised that the Government should not 
 become a party to a traffic so injurious to 
 the people. 3 The advocates of the new 
 system maintained that a purer article 
 of spirits would be produced if the Gov- 
 ernment conducted the stills, and that a 
 larger revenue would be secured. These 
 claims seem to be sustained by experience. 
 It is also asserted that there has been a 
 reduction in the per capita consumption 
 of distilled liquors since the present law 
 took effect, and these definite figures are 
 given : consumption of spirits per head in 
 1885 (before Government control), 7.25 
 liters; in 1888 (under Government con- 
 trol), 5.50 liters. Indemnity was paid the 
 distillers and liquor-dealers. The wine 
 and beer traffic is undisturbed by the new 
 regulations. The total abstinence move- 
 ment in Switzerland has not made much 
 headway. In 1877 the total abstinence 
 Societe de la Croix Bleue (Blue Cross) 
 was started at Geneva by Rev. L. L. 
 Rochat, and in 1887 it had about 4,000 
 adult members. Prohibition has not yet 
 been seriously proposed. Swiss scientific 
 writers (notably Dr. Farel of Zurich and 
 Prof. Bunge of Basle) are giving much 
 attention to alcoholism. 
 
 Tax. — Some anti-Prohibitionists, to 
 meet the moral objections to the license 
 
 1 Prof. R.W. Moore of Strassburg, Germany, furnishes 
 the Government statistics in this article ; Mr. Joseph 
 Malins of England contributes other particulars.. 
 
 3 United States Consular reports, vol, 23, pp. 45-8. 
 
Taxes.] 
 
 system that are so strenuously urged, 
 advocate the taxing of the liquor traffic 
 „ without formerly licensing it. The tax, 
 as distinguished from the license method, 
 is the policy of the United States Govern- 
 ment, which simply takes cognizance of 
 the existence of liquor manufacturers and 
 sellers and requires them to contribute 
 to the Federal revenues, but does not in 
 so many words decree that those so con- 
 tributing shall have the sanction of 
 license. The practical distinction be- 
 tween tax and license, even on moral 
 grounds, is, however, of little importance. 
 A tax may not formally, but it does im- 
 pliedly, recognize the taxed business as 
 a proper one; for nothing can more 
 distinctly indicate public sanction of a 
 traffic than the Government's willingness 
 to accept a part of its profits. The States 
 of Michigan and Ohio have prohibited 
 the issuance of liquor licenses; but the 
 intent of the prohibition has been cir- 
 cumvented by the enactment of tax laws. 
 In both these States the actual effects of 
 the tax method have been quite as un- 
 satisfactory as the effects of undisguised 
 license statutes. 
 
 Taxes as Affected by Prohi- 
 bition. — See pp. 545-51. 
 
 Temperance. — This word, as applied 
 to the use of intoxicating liquors, is vari- 
 ously defined. The liquor-dealers and 
 drinkers insist that " true temperance " 
 is moderation. But moderation itself is 
 a very indefinite term; that which is (or 
 is supposed to be) moderation for one 
 drinker may be excess for another. 
 Besides, one of the peculiar and best- 
 understood developments of so-called 
 temperate or moderate drinking is the 
 gradual creation of an intemperate and 
 immoderate tendency and habit. Un- 
 deniably, the best temperance is purity, 
 the purity that comes from the proper 
 use of right things and entire abstinence 
 from evil things. "By abstaining from 
 sensual indulgences," says Aristotle, " we 
 become temperate." Xenophon declares 
 that the term "temperance" means, first, 
 moderation in healthful indulgence, and 
 second, abstinence from things danger- 
 ous, as the use of intoxicating wines. 
 (See p. 221.) St. Thomas Aquinas says : 
 " There are things contrary to soundness 
 or a good condition of life, and the tem- 
 perate man does not use these in any 
 
 G25 
 
 [Temptation. 
 
 measure, for this would be a sin against 
 temperance." (See p. 599.) It is by 
 virtue of good authority, therefore, that 
 the word "temperance," as specifically 
 used at this day, is generally recognized as 
 an equivalent for " total abstinence." By 
 the temperance creed, the temperance so- 
 cieties and the temperance movement, as 
 spoken of in the press and in ordinary 
 conversation, are meant the creed, soci- 
 eties and movement of the abstainers and 
 the radicals. 
 
 Temperance Hotels.— See Coffee 
 Houses. 
 
 Templars of Honor and Tem- 
 perance. — A secret fraternal Order, 
 organized Dec. 5, 1845, by members of 
 the Sons of Temperance. In 1849 it 
 separated from the latter Order. It was 
 the first secret total abstinence organi- 
 zation to admit women, which it began 
 to do on separating from the parent 
 society. It was also the first to form a 
 junior department, for boys. Such a 
 department was organized in 1880. Its 
 object is wholly educational. There are 
 now (1891) 15 Grand Temples, with sub- 
 ordinate Temples in most of the States. 
 
 Temptation. — Eaces, like individ- 
 uals, have special proclivities. There 
 are certain vices to which they are prone. 
 Climate, heredity and environment 
 are the three strands in this cable of pre- 
 disposition. The tropics, for instance, 
 breed languor. Tropical races find their 
 bane in idleness and licentiousness. The 
 frigid and temperate zones, on the other 
 hand, provoke gluttony and drunken- 
 ness. " If you would know what are the 
 fundamental traits of a race," remarks 
 Carlyle, "catch it and study it before 
 Christianity and civilization have 
 tamed it." 
 
 Look at our race in the light of this 
 maxim. Tacitus describes the ancient 
 Britons as having ravenous stomachs, 
 filled with meat and cheese, heated with 
 strong drink. Taine paints them as 
 gluttons and drunkards (History of 
 English Literature, vol. 1., p. 26, seq.). 
 To the same effect is the testimony of 
 Bede (lib. 1.). And the greatest of 
 American orators, summarizing the 
 classic authorities, shows that our Ger- 
 man ancestors, before they streamed out 
 into Christian civilization, conceived of 
 heaven as a drunken revel, and regarded 
 
Temptation.] 
 
 626 
 
 [Tobacco. 
 
 the drinking of blood from the skulls of 
 their enemies as a foretaste of Paradise. 
 (Speeches, Lectures and Letters, by 
 Wendell Phillips, p. 498.) What is bred 
 in the bone will come out in the flesh. 
 Witness England, Scotland, Ireland, Hol- 
 land, Germany and North America to- 
 day ; all of them the victims of what an 
 old poet calls "liquid damnation." 
 Drunkenness is in the Anglo-Saxon 
 blood. 
 
 As though this racial inheritance and 
 tendency were not enough, chemistry 
 invents a new devil, alcohol, and makes 
 it so cheap that everybody may have a 
 familiar spirit. The Roman legions that 
 trod the world into servitude had no 
 stimulant stronger than vinegar and 
 water. To-day there is not a hod-carrier 
 who cannot earn in a forenoon the means 
 of getting and keeping drunk. 
 
 Nor is this all. With such blood in 
 our veins, and with this cheap stimulus 
 in the market, we have multiplied dram- 
 shops until the great centers of popu- 
 lation are honey-combed with them. 
 Like the ship-wrecked sailor, who, when 
 he saw a gallows, thanked God that he 
 had been cast ashore in a Christian 
 country, so we recognize in the groggery 
 a distinctive symbol of modern civili- 
 zation. Long after all honest places are 
 shut and barred the groggery flames out 
 to entice and engulf — the " blazing light- 
 house of hell." It is the most prominent 
 and obtrusive feature of city life, and it 
 is only less frequent and frequented in 
 our .villages and hamlets. 
 
 By common acknowledgment the 
 saloons are the manufactories of crime 
 and criminals, the trysting-places of vice, 
 the allies of the brothel, the breeders of 
 poverty, dealing at wholesale and re- 
 tail in misery; the saloon system is the 
 despair of law and order, the raison 
 d'etre of police and prison, a chronic 
 assault upon property and life, organized 
 anarchy. Yet the State licenses the 
 saloons — it legalizes temptation ! The 
 thief — it sends him to jail. The mur- 
 derer — him it hangs. But the thief- 
 maker, the manufacturer of murderers, 
 it commissions. For so many dollars 
 dropped into its palm, the State per- 
 mits this temptation to ensnare and 
 damn. Thus with one hand it strangles 
 the victim and with the other it protects 
 the victimizer. Will not the future 
 
 Tacitus, when he looks back to study our 
 times, count this as the most curious of 
 historic monstrosities ? 
 
 With drunkenness in our blood, with 
 alcohol cheap and with temptation made 
 legal, we have adopted democratic insti- 
 tutions where the law has no sanction 
 but the purpose and virtue of the masses. 
 " Here," exclaims an eminent authority, 
 "the statute-book rests not oh bayonets, 
 as in Europe, but on the hearts of the 
 people. A drunken people can never be 
 the basis of a free government. It is the 
 corner-stone neither of virtue, prosperity 
 nor progress. To us, therefore, the title- 
 deeds of whose estates and the safety of 
 whose lives depend upon the tranquillity 
 of the streets, upon the virtue of the 
 masses, the presence of any vice which 
 brutalizes the average mass of mankind 
 and tends to make it more readily the 
 tool of intriguing and corrupt leaders, 
 is necessarily a stab at the very life of 
 the nation." Shall we legalize that stab ? 
 Caklos Maktyn. 
 
 Tennessee. — See Index. 
 
 Texas. — See Index. 
 
 Thompson, H. A., third Vice-Presi- 
 dential candidate of the Prohibition party ; 
 born in Center County, Pa., March 23, 
 1837. Graduated at Jefferson "College in 
 1858 ; was elected President of Otterbein 
 University, Westerville, 0., in 1872, having 
 been for several years before Professor 
 of Mathematics in that institution. He 
 has been identified with the Prohibition 
 party from its foundation, and was a. 
 candidate for Congress from the 8th 
 District of Ohio in 1874, candidate for 
 Lieutenant-Governor of Ohio in 1875 
 and for Governor in 1877. In 1876 he 
 was Chairman of the National Prohibi- 
 tion Convention, and he has been Chair- 
 man of the Ohio State Committee for 
 many years and was President of the 
 National Prohibition Alliance since its. 
 organization in 1877. 
 
 Tobacco. — The name of the plant is 
 said to be derived from the island Tabaco, 
 or from Tabasco, a Mexican province 
 where Spaniards first saw this narcotic 
 used as a luxury. Others derive the word 
 from tabacos, a Caribbean pipe in which 
 the drug was smoked. In 1560 Nicot gave 
 the weed to Catherine de Medici ; hence 
 the familiar name, " Nicotian weed." 
 The virulent alkaloid nicotine, found in 
 
Tobacco.] 
 
 627 
 
 [Tobacco. 
 
 the dry leaf, takes its name from /Jean 
 Nicot. Monumental sculptures in China 
 suggest great antiquity in the use of 
 tobacco. Humboldt says that it has been 
 cultivated from time immemorial. For 
 many centuries, some writers contend, its 
 use was confined to South America, but 
 since the days of Columbus it has ex- 
 tended through the world, notwithstand- 
 ing the opposition of Governments and 
 the efforts of reformers. In 1590, Shah 
 Abbas affixed penalties to the indulgence, 
 but many fled to the mountains rather 
 than forego it. In 1624, the Pope anathe- 
 matized all who defiled the house of God 
 by carrying even snuff. The next year 
 the Grand Sultan Amurath IV. pro- 
 hibited smoking as unnatural and irreli- 
 fious. The penalty was death. The 
 [uscovite who was found snuffing had 
 his nostrils split. The Grand Duke of 
 Moscow made chastisement the penalty 
 for the first offense of bringing tobacco 
 within his realm, and fleath that for 
 the second. Queen Elizabeth declared 
 that its use reduced one to the condition 
 of the savages whose habits were thus im- 
 itated. King James I. wrote in his 
 " Counterblaste to Tobacco," that smok- 
 ing was " loathsome to the eye, hateful 
 to the nose, harmful to the brain and 
 dangerous to the lungs," and that the 
 stench nearest resembled "the horrible 
 Stygian smoke of the pit which is bot- 
 tomless." In his "Anatomy of Melan- 
 choly " Burton admits the medicinal vir- 
 tues of the weed, but says : "As it is 
 used by most men it is a plague, a mis- 
 chief, a violent purger of goods, lands and 
 health; hellish, devilish; the ruin and 
 overthrow of body and soul." 
 
 In 1616 its cultivation began in Vir- 
 ginia. In 1620, 90 respectable English 
 women were imported by Jamestown 
 planters for wives at the price of 120 lbs. 
 of tobacco, then worth 50 cents a pound. 
 The next year they were worth $75 in 
 tobacco. Cigars were not generally 
 known in Europe till about 1814, when 
 Austria began State factories for their 
 manufacture. During the next 42 years, 
 6,000,000,000 were made in those factories. 
 About two thousand million cigars have 
 been exported from Cuba in a single 
 year. In 1850, four hundred thousand 
 acres of our soil were devoted to this 
 plant. Gen. John H. Cooke of Virginia 
 wrote: "Tobacco exhausts the land be- 
 
 yond all other crops. As a proof of this, 
 every homestead from the Atlantic bor- 
 der to the head of tide-water is a mourn- 
 ful monument. It has been the besom 
 of destruction which has swept over this 
 once fertile region." Thomas Jefferson 
 said: "We find it easier to make one 
 hundred bushels of wheat than one 
 thousand pounds of tobacco, and they are 
 worth more when made. The culture of 
 tobacco is productive of infinite wretched- 
 ness." The United States leads with an 
 average yearly crop of more than 280,000 
 tons. In 1888 the total product was 565,- 
 795,000 lbs., of which Kentucky con- 
 tributed 283,306,000, Virginia 64,034,000, 
 Tennessee 45,641,000, Ohio 35,195,000, 
 North Carolina 25,755,000 and Pennsyl- 
 vania 24,180,000.' The value of the (un- 
 manufactured) crop in 1888 was $43,666,- 
 665. Leroy Beaulieu gives the consump- 
 tion per 100 of inhabitants in European 
 countries thus: Spain, 110 lbs.; Italy, 
 128; Great Britain, 138; Russia, 182; 
 Denmark, 224; Norway, 229; Austria, 
 273. 
 
 Tobacco belongs to the genus Nicotiana, 
 and natural order solanacece. It is a 
 near kin to stramonium or thorn-apple, 
 to hyoscyamus or henbane, to belladonna 
 or deadly night-shade. It may be 
 administered as an infusion, an oil, an 
 ointment, or as the wine of tobacco. The 
 acrid, volatile principle is nicotine. It 
 contains malic acid, albumen, super- 
 malate of lime, a soluble red matter, 
 chlorophyl, nitrate of potash, chloride of 
 potassium, sal ammonia and water. There 
 is about 7 per cent, of nicotine in the 
 strongest tobacco. The dark, acrid, em- 
 pyreumatic oil in tobacco-smoke is an 
 active poison. The ashes of the weed 
 contain carbonates of lime and magnesia, 
 sulphate of potash and chloride of potas- 
 sium. Free carbon settles on the back 
 of the throat of confirmed smokers, says 
 Dr. B. W. Richardson, and on the bron- 
 chial membrane, creating often a copious 
 secretion, and when coughed up a coal- 
 colored sputum. The biting sensation 
 on the tongue is caused by ammonia, 
 which dries the throat and leads to 
 
 1 Our imports of tobacco (leaf and manufactured) for 
 the fiscal year ending June 30. 1890, aggregated in value 
 $21,710,451; the imports from Cuha alone were valued at 
 $11,088,240. The exports of all kinds of tobacco in the 
 same year had a value of $25,355,(101. More than two-fifths- 
 of our unmanufactured tobacco product is exported, the 
 exports of leaf tobacco in 1890 having aggregated 244,- 
 343,740 lbs. 
 
Tobacco.] 
 
 628 
 
 [Tobacco. 
 
 drinking. The dioxide present is the 
 cause of the lassitude and headache which 
 the fumes occasion. He admits that the 
 use of tobacco was harder for him to aban- 
 don than that of wine. Tobacco is a power- 
 ful physiological antagonist of strychnia, 
 being an immediate depressant. When 
 introduced into the stomach and lungs 
 or by rectal and hypodermic injection in 
 lethal doses, the \ motor nerves are par- 
 alyzed and the pupils contracted. De- 
 lirium follows, with cold, clammy per- 
 spiration. Nothing but prussic acid 
 equals tobacco in this rapidity of action. 
 Count Bocarme killed Fougnies in five 
 minutes by a toxic dose. Another case 
 is quoted in Bartholow's " Materia Med- 
 ica," when death followed in three minutes. 
 Necropsy reveals either an empty heart 
 or black fluid. Clonic spasms may pre- 
 cede the paralysis. Death comes from 
 the paralyzing action of the drug on the 
 muscles of respiration. 
 
 Itch and other skin diseases have been 
 treated by the local application, but the 
 use is perilous. Before ether was intro- 
 duced this poison, in the form of an 
 enema, was employed to relax the muscles 
 in reducing hernia and dislocations, but 
 soon fell into disrepute. Asthma and 
 chronic bronchitis have been relieved by 
 inhalation of tobacco-smoke, and the 
 wine of tobacco is used as a laxative. 
 The cigar, like the wine-cup, is claimed 
 by its victims to aid digestion. > The 
 drunkard makes the same assertion as to 
 his bottle. Dr. McAllister of Utica says 
 that the habitual smoker " weakens the 
 organs of digestion and assimilation and 
 at length plunges into all the horrors of 
 dyspepsia." It is, unquestionably, use- 
 ful as an antaphrodisiac ; but there is the 
 opposite peril of impotence. It is anti- 
 parasitic ; but the poison harms the tis- 
 sues more than the invader, oftentimes. 
 Lockjaw is greatly relieved by this poi- 
 son ; , but there is danger of asphyxia if 
 unskilfully administered. It is service- 
 able, says Bartholow, in cardiac dropsy. 
 " It is, however, so disagreeable in action 
 that few practitioners have the temerity 
 to prescribe it, and few patients are 
 willing to swallow it. So many unfor- 
 tunate accidents have resulted from the 
 external application of tobacco that its 
 use in this way is rarely justifiable." 
 
 The burden of testimony from indi- 
 vidual users and scientific writers is de- 
 
 cidedly against tobacco. It is true that 
 in the case of tobacco as in the case of 
 alcoholic liquors many claim that 
 "moderation" does little or no harm. 
 But the difficulty or uncertainty of moder- 
 ation and the possibility or probability 
 of alarming excess are candidly recog- 
 nized. Intelligent men, who are con- 
 firmed slaves of the habit, almost invari- 
 ably declare that they advise others not 
 to contract it ; and it is with the greatest 
 disapprobation and sorrow that smokers 
 and chewers find that their examples are 
 copied by their sons. Such dissuasives 
 as these are re-enforced by many familiar 
 facts : the tobacco habit in all its forms 
 is extremely offensive to multitudes of 
 people, especially to women; it induces 
 the use of intoxicating drink ; it is very 
 expensive; it is accompanied by the dis- 
 gusting vice of spitting; the conviction 
 is widespread among medical authorities 
 that it is at least an occasion of cancer ; 1 
 in general and in particular it impairs the 
 value of life ; the carelessness of smokers 
 is responsible for innumerable disastrous 
 fires, etc., etc. Though it is willingly 
 conceded that the public ills occasioned, 
 by tobacco are not so conspicuous as 
 those resulting from the liquor traffic — 
 that it does not bear comparison with 
 that traffic as a contributor to the volume 
 of crime, violence, disorder, pauperism 
 and political corruption, — the general 
 consequences are similar in tendency to 
 the results of the alcohol vice. Yet if 
 the public evils are left entirely out of 
 consideration, the injurious effects upon 
 individuals are so manifest and so general 
 as to excite the gravest concern. 
 
 The student of the subject is referred 
 to the following authorities : Dr. J. Bige- 
 low, in " Nature and Disease," pp. 323-36 ; 
 Sir Benjamin C. Brodie, " Use and Abuse 
 of Tobacco," vol. 1; Sir Andrew Clarke, 
 vol. 2, " Detached Pieces ;" J. H. Gris- 
 com, "Evils of Tobacco;" T. W. Higgin- 
 son, " A New Counterblast," in his " Out- 
 door Papers," pp. 177-99; J. Lizars, 
 " Use and Abuse of Tobacco ;" James 
 Parton, "Smoking and Drinking;" Dr. 
 B. W. Richardson, " Diseases of Modern 
 Life," pp. 272-323; J. Shew, "Effects of 
 
 1 The Medical Times and Gazette, Oct. 6. 1860, records 
 the excision of 127 cancere from the lips, and nearly every 
 one of the patients a smoker. Dr. J. C. Warren of Boston 
 «ave his experience as surgeon for 30 years, just before 
 his death, on the same point." " Smoking is the most com- 
 mon cause of cancer in the month," says Prof. Bouieson. 
 
Tobacco.] 629 
 
 Tobacco ;" Dr. E. P. Thwing, "Facts about 
 Tobacco," 1879; F. W. Fairchild, "His- 
 tory of Tobacco;" J. Jennings, "History 
 of Tobacco;" H. P. Prescott, "Tobacco 
 and Strong Drink;" H. L. Hastings, 
 Boston, " Trask Tracts."— Magazine 
 articles : Harper's, vol. 5, " History and 
 Mystery of Tobacco," by T. B. Thorpe; 
 vol. 20, "A Pipe of Tobacco," by 0. 
 Nordhoff; Bentley's Miscellany, vol. 15; 
 Atlantic Monthly, 1860, "Effects of 
 Tobacco;" Xorth American Review, 1869, 
 Dr. W. A. Hammond on Tobacco; Black- 
 wood, 1856, "Drinking and Smoking." 
 
 E. P. Thwing. 
 _ The tobacco taxes are, next to the 
 liquor taxes, the most important ones 
 levied by the United States Government 
 on domestic articles. In the fiscal year 
 ending June 30, 1890, the revenues from 
 tobacco were: 
 
 Cigars and cheroots, $12,263,669.95; cigar- 
 ettes, $1,116,627.34; snuff, $737,731.27; chew- 
 ing and smoking tobacco, $18,325,481.36; 
 special taxes on dealers in leaf tobacco, 
 $44,492.40 ; special taxes on dealers in manu- 
 factured tobacco, $1,331,118.24; special taxes 
 on manufacturers of tobacco, $5,197.50; special 
 taxes on manufacturers of cigars, $122,896.49 ; 
 special taxes on peddlers of tobacco, $11, 776. 51 
 —total, 33,958,991,06. 
 
 The numbers of persons engaged in 
 the different branches of the tobacco 
 trade in 1890 are shown by the follow- 
 ing figures : 
 
 Manufacturers of cigars, 21,197; dealers in 
 leaf tobacco (in quantities not exceeding 25,000 
 lbs.), 4,090; the same (exceeding 25,000 lbs.), 
 1,364; retail dealers in leaf tobacco, 3; dealers 
 in manufactured tobacco, 603,068; manufac- 
 turers of tobacco, 907; peddlers of tobacco, 
 1,600— total, 632,229. 
 
 The tax provisions (both internal and 
 customs) of the different Federal laws 
 enacted since the foundation of the Gov- 
 ernment are summarized below : 
 
 Act of 1794, c. 51. — Snuff manufactured in 
 United States taxed 8 cents per pound ; snuff 
 imported, 12 cents per pound ; imported tobac- 
 co, 4 cents per pound. 
 
 Act of 1795, c. 43. — Each mortar in a snuff 
 mill worked by water, $560 ; each pair of mill- 
 stones and each pestle in mills not worked by 
 hand, $140 ; worked by hand, $112 ; each mill 
 manufacturing snuff by stampers and grinders, 
 $2,240 per annum. Penalties. — Failure to make 
 entry of particulars in regard to mills, forfeit- 
 ure of mill and $500 fine ; manufacturing with- 
 out license, a fine treble the duties charged. 
 Six cents per pound drawback on snuff exported. 
 These duties were repealed in 1800, c. 36. 
 
 Tariff Act of 1842. — Imported leaf tobacco, 
 20 per cent, ad valorem ; cigars, 40 cents per 
 
 [Tobacco. 
 
 pound ; snuff, 12 cents per pound ; other manu- 
 factured tobacco, 10 cents per pound. 
 
 Tariff Act of 1861, c. 68.— Cigars valued at- 
 $5 or less per 1,000, 20 cents per pound; valued 
 at $5 to $10, 40 cents; valued over $10, 60 cents, 
 and 10 per cent ad valorem. Snuff, 10 cents per 
 pound; leaf tobacco, 25 per cent.; manufac- 
 tured, 30 per cent. 
 
 Tariff Act of 1862, c. 163.— Duties on cigars 
 increased to 60 cents to $1 per pound, ac- 
 cording to grades as above, and 10 per cent, ad 
 valorem added on highest grade. Snuff, 35 
 cents per pound; leaf tobacco, 25 cents; manu- 
 factured, 35 cents. 
 
 Internal Revenue Act o/1862, c. 119. — Retail 
 tobacco-dealers taxed $10 per annum. Chew- 
 ing tobacco, valued at more than 30 cents per 
 pound, 15 cents; less, 10 cents; smoking tobac- 
 co made partly with stems, 5 cents ; made ex- 
 clusively of stems, 2 cents; snuff, 20 cents; 
 cigars, valued at $5 per 1,000 or less, $1.50; $5 
 to $10 per 1,000, $2; $10 to $20 per 1,000, $2.50; 
 over $20 per 1,000, $3.50. 
 
 Act o/1864 (Internal), o. 173.— Tax on chew- 
 ing tobacco raised to 35 cents; smoking, to 25 
 cents; smoking (all stems), to 15 cents; snuff, 
 to 35 cents. Cigarettes in paper, not worth 
 over $5 per 100 packages, $1 per 100 packages; 
 all tobacco, or cheroots, valued at not over $5 
 per 1,000, $3 per 1,000. Cigars, $5 to $15 per 
 1,000, $8; $15 to $30, $15; $30 to $45, $25; 
 over $45, $40. 
 
 Tariff Act of 1864, c. 171.— Duties on cigars 
 valued at less than $15 per 1,000, 75 cents per 
 pound and 20 per cent, ad valorem; $15 to $30, 
 $1.25 and 30 per cent.; $30 to $45, $2 and 50 
 per cent. ; over $45, $3 and 60 per cent. Snuff 
 and manufactured tobacco, 50 cents per pound; 
 unmanufactured tobacco, 35 cents. 
 
 Act of 1865 (Internal), c. 78. — Cigars, cheroots 
 and cigarettes all of tobacco, $5 per 1,000 irre- 
 spective of value; cigarettes in paper, 5 cents 
 per package of not more than 25. Tax on to- 
 bacco raised about 5 cents per pound. 
 
 Act of 1866 (Internal), c. 184.— Chewing 
 tobacco, 40 cents per pound. Cigars valued at 
 less than $8 per 1,000, $2 per 1,000; $8 to $12, 
 $4; over $12, $4 and 20 percent, ad valorem. 
 
 Act of 1868 (Internal), c. 186. — Dealers in leaf 
 tobacco whose annual sales did not amount to 
 over $10,000, $25; above that, $2 per $1,000 of 
 annua] sales. Manufacturers of tobacco, $10, 
 with $2 per $1,000 if the bond exceeded $5,000. 
 Manufacturers of cigars, $10, with $2 per $1,000 
 additional if sales exceeded $5,000. Tax on 
 manufactured tobacco slightly reduced. Cigars 
 reduced to $5 per 1,000, cigarettes to $1.50 per 
 1,000, when weighing not exceeding three 
 pounds per 1,000. 
 
 Tariff duly (1868) on imported cigars, $2 per 
 pound and 20 per cent, ad valorem, and the 
 Internal Revenue tax in addition. 
 
 Act of 1872 (Internal), c. 315. — Retail dealers 
 in leaf tobacco, $500 if their sales did not ex- 
 ceed $1,000, and 50 cents for each additional 
 dollar of sales. All dealers in tobacco, $5 ; 
 manufacturers, $10; peddlers afoot or in public 
 conveyances, $10 ; with one horse, $15 ; two 
 horses, $25 ; more than two horses, $50. 
 
 Act of 1875 (Internal), c. 127.— Tobacco, 24 
 cents per pound; cigars, $6 per 1,000. 
 
Tobacco.] 
 
 630 
 
 [Total Abstinence. 
 
 Act of 1879 (Internal), e. 125— Tobacco, 16 
 cents per pound. 
 
 Tariff Act 0/1883, c. 121.— Cigars, $2.50 per 
 1,000 and 25 per cent, ad valorem ; leaf tobacco 
 for wrappers, 75 cents per pound ; if stemmed, 
 $1 ; other unmanufactured tobacco, unstemmed, 
 30 cents ; manufactured tobacco, 40 cents; snuff, 
 50 cents. 
 
 Act of 1883 (Internal)-, c. 121. — Manufactured 
 tobacco, 8 cents per pound; taxes on dealers re- 
 duced about one-half; cigars, $3 per 1,000 ; 
 cigarettes weighing under three pounds per 
 1,000, 50 cents. 
 
 Tariff (McKinley) Act of 1890, c. 1244.— Leaf 
 tobacco suitable for cigar wrappers, unstemmed, 
 $2 per pound; stemmed, $2.75; unmanufactured 
 tobacco, unstemmed, 35 cents ; stemmed, 50 
 cents ; manufactured tobacco, 40 cents ; snuff, 
 50 cents; cigars, $4.50 per pound and 25 per 
 cent. 
 
 Act of 1890 (Internal). — Manufactured to- 
 bacco, 6 cents per pound ; all special taxes on 
 dealers removed. 
 
 Among the most interesting State acts 
 of recent years are those prohibiting the 
 sales (sometimes also the giving) of cigar- 
 ettes and- other kinds of tobacco to 
 minors, except (as provided in most in- 
 stances) on the written consent of parent 
 or guardian. These are analyzed in the 
 following table : 
 
 
 When Maxi- 
 
 
 
 States. 
 
 Pass- 
 
 BD. 
 
 MUM 
 
 Age. 
 
 Penalty. 
 
 
 
 1889 
 
 15 
 
 $10 to $50. 
 
 
 Connecticut 1 . 
 
 1889 
 
 16 
 
 $50. 
 
 
 
 1889 
 
 
 Misdemeanor. 
 
 
 Idaho 
 
 1889 
 1887 
 
 21 
 16 
 
 $100. 
 $30. 
 
 
 
 Indiana 
 
 1889 
 
 16 
 
 $1 to $10. 
 
 
 
 1889 
 
 16 
 
 $5 to $35. 
 $5 to $25, or 
 
 
 
 1890 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 imp. 30 days max., or 
 
 both. 
 
 
 1889 
 
 16 
 
 $50 max. 
 
 
 Maryland 3 
 
 1886 
 
 14 
 
 f 10 to $100, or 
 imp. 5 to 30 days. 
 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 1886 
 
 16 
 
 $50 max. 
 
 
 Michigan 
 
 1889 
 
 17 
 
 $5 to $50, 
 
 or imp. 10 to 30 days. 
 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 1889 
 
 
 $50 max., or 
 
 imp. 30 days max., or 
 
 both. 
 
 
 1885 
 
 15 
 
 $25. 
 
 
 
 1887 
 
 18 
 
 $200 max., or imp. 
 60 days max., or both 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NewHa'pshire 
 
 1889 
 
 
 $20 to $50. 
 
 
 New Jersey 4 .. 
 
 1883- 
 
 16 
 
 $20. 
 
 
 New York 5 .. . 
 
 1889 
 
 16 
 
 Misdemeanor. 
 
 
 North Dakota. 
 
 1890 
 
 16 
 
 $50 max., or 
 
 imp. 30 days max., or 
 
 both. 
 
 Ohio 
 
 1888 
 
 15 
 
 $5 to $20. or 
 imp. 30 days max. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 1889 
 
 16 
 
 $300 max. 
 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 1889 
 
 18 
 
 $35 to $100, or imp. two 
 
 
 
 
 months to one year or 
 
 both. 
 
 South Dakota 
 
 1890 
 
 16 
 
 $50 max., or 
 
 imp. 10 days max., or 
 
 both. 
 
 Utah 1 
 
 1890 
 
 18 
 
 $10 to $100. 
 
 
 
 1888 
 
 16 
 
 $20 max. 
 
 
 Washington. . . 
 
 1883 
 
 16 
 
 $10 to $50. 
 
 
 1 A minor using tobacco in any form to be fined $7. 
 2 Prohibits furnishing tobacco in any form to minors, ex- 
 cept upon prescription of a physician. 3 An amendment 
 added in 1890 prescribes the same penalty for furnishing 
 tobacco to any minor. 4 Suit to be prosecuted by parent or 
 
 fuardian ; line to go to the county. 5 Another law (1890) 
 orbids minors under 16 to use tobacco ill any public 
 place under penalty of %% to $10 flue. 
 
 An act of Congress for the District of 
 Columbia, approved Feb. 7, 1891, forbids 
 the selling, giving and furnishing of 
 tobacco in any form to a minor under 
 16; the penalty being a fine of $2 to $10, 
 or imprisonment 5 to 20 days. 
 
 Total Abstinence from all in- 
 toxicating beverages, though incul- 
 cated and practiced from the earliest 
 times by Jewish, pagan and Christian 
 sects, and enjoined by the founders of 
 great religions, as the Mohammedan 
 and Buddhist, did not become a dis- 
 tinct popular creed in modern Chris- 
 tian nations until after the first quarter 
 of the present century had expired. The 
 foundations for the movement were laid 
 in the United States; throughout the 
 world it is recognized that this country was 
 the first one to practically inaugurate and 
 nourish the reform. The period of 
 preparation may be said to date from 
 1785, the year in which Dr. Benjamin 
 Rush published his essay against ardent 
 (distilled) spirits. Various temperance 
 societies were instituted in the next 40 
 years, notably the society at Moreau, 
 Saratoga County, N. Y., in 1808 (see 
 p. 82), and the Massachusetts Society in 
 1813. This Massachusetts Society did 
 not go so far as Dr. Rush had gone, for 
 its object, as stated in its constitution, 
 was to " discountenance and suppress the 
 too free use of ardent spirits." A prime 
 cause of the conservatism of the 
 early reformers was the general 
 belief that the intoxicating ingredient 
 in wine and beer was one of the 
 natural elements of fruit and grain. 
 In 1826 Justin Edwards, D.D. (see p. 161), 
 with Leonard Woods, D.D., issued a call 
 for a meeting in Boston, which was held 
 on Jan. 10 of the same year ; and on Feb. 
 13 the organization of the "American 
 Society for the Promotion of Temper- 
 ance" was effected. Its basis was absti- 
 nence, but for several years there was no 
 general application of the principle to 
 fermented drinks, although some 
 eschewed all intoxicants. By 1834, as 
 shown by Dr. Edwards's seventh annual 
 report, the movement had spread to 21 
 States and more than 5,000 county and 
 local societies had been organized, with 
 a membership exceeding a million; the 
 liquor business had been made odious 
 and many good men had withdrawn from 
 
Total Abstinence.] 
 
 631 
 
 [Total Abstinence. 
 
 it ; the importations of distilled liquors had 
 decreased from 5,774,774 gallons in 1824 
 to 2,810,140 in 1832, and there had also 
 heen a very striking reduction in the 
 domestic output. Yet the use of wine 
 and cider had increased, 5,421,631 gal- 
 lons of wine having been imported in 
 1832 as against 1,310,731 gallons in 1824. 
 The first National Temperance Con- 
 vention met in Philadelphia, May, 1833, 
 with more than 400 delegates in attend- 
 ance from 21 States. It expressed the 
 conviction that "the traffic in ardent 
 spirit as a drink, and the use of it as 
 such, are morally wrong, and ought to be 
 abandoned throughout the world." But 
 there was no declaration against fer- 
 mented liquors. The second Convention, 
 at Saratoga, in August, 1836, took the 
 final step, extending the principle of 
 abstinence so as to cover " all intoxicat- 
 ing liquors," and the American Temper- 
 ance Union was organized. From this radi- 
 cal action all the aggressive work of 
 later years has been developed. The 
 American Temperance Union, under the 
 direction of devoted men like Dr. John 
 Marsh (see p. 416) faithfully represented 
 the uncompromising opinion until, in 
 1866, it was replaced by the equally 
 zealous National Temperance Society. 
 At the succeeding National Temperance 
 Conventions (Saratoga, July, 1841 ; Sara- 
 toga, August, 1851; Saratoga, August, 
 1865; Cleveland, July, 1868; Saratoga, 
 August, 1873; Chicago, June, 1875, and 
 Saratoga, June, 1881), the total absti- 
 nence doctrine was enthusiastically 
 favored and the growing demand for 
 Prohibitory legislation, enforcement of 
 laws, political action, etc., was reflected. 1 
 The latest of the general Conventions of 
 the temperance people was held in the 
 Broadway Tabernacle, New York, June 
 11 and 12, 1890, and about 800 delegates 
 were chosen by various organizations, 
 churches, etc.; all who disagreed with 
 the total abstinence and other radical 
 ideas had full liberty to send representa- 
 tives, and some of their recognized 
 •champions were present; but the senti- 
 ment in favor of the most advanced 
 opinions was overwhelming — indeed, 
 practically unanimous. 
 
 1 An extended account of tbe total abstinence movement 
 from 1785 to 1885 .(including the texts of pledges adopted 
 by numerous organizations, and other valuable verbatim 
 matter) is given by H. K. Carroll, LL.D., in '■ One Hun- 
 dred Years of Temperance," pp. 121-11. 
 
 The total abstinence cause is now 
 represented in the United States by sev- 
 eral powerful national organizations, the 
 most important being the National Tem- 
 perance Society, Woman's Christian 
 Temperance Union, Independent Order 
 of Good Templars, Sons of Temperance, 
 Catholic Total Abstinence Union, Loyal 
 Temperance Legion, Eoyal Templars of 
 Temperance and Templars of Honor and 
 Temperance. These are noticed under 
 the appropriate titles in this work. Other 
 societies, like the Eechabites (p. 582), 
 United Order of the Golden Cross (mem- 
 bership, about 17,500) and Sons of Jona- 
 dab are more or less active. Nearly every 
 State has a State Temperance Society. 
 Besides, there are countless local and un- 
 affliliated bodies; and hundreds of thou- 
 sands of citizens not identified with 
 organizations are in full sympathy with 
 the movement. At this day there is but 
 one national association of temperance 
 people that does not insist on total absti- 
 nence (p. 81). 
 
 The propaganda has the fervid sup- 
 port of the clergy as a class, of number- 
 less professional, business and public men, 
 the representative leaders of the working 
 people and a very great majority of the 
 women. The zeal of its adherents is re- 
 markable, and the greatest generosity is 
 exhibited by interested individuals. Very 
 large sums of money are contributed for 
 advancing special phases of the agitation. 
 Through the liberality of Mr. W. Jen- 
 nings Demorest of New York, elocution- 
 ary contests for silver, gold and diamond 
 medals are held in all parts of this 
 country and in nearly all foreign coun- 
 tries. The youthful participants in these 
 contests vie with each other in delivering 
 carefully selected and striking pleas 
 against the drink curse and the license 
 system. The chief object of Mr. Demo- 
 rest and those associated with him is to 
 cultivate the most radical sentiment, 
 especially in behalf of uncompromising 
 Prohibition, and to encourage the young 
 people to enlist earnestly in the work 
 against the traffic. Mr. Demorest's 
 generosity has been unbounded, and he 
 welcomes every new occasion for prac' 
 tical expenditure." 
 
 2 The Demorest medal contests were inaugurated in 
 1986. During the first two years about 1,000 medals were 
 awarded. In 1888 and 1889 the work was extended to 
 Europe, especially England and Scotland. In 1889 the 
 number of contests was three times as many as in all the 
 
Total Abstinence.] 
 
 632 
 
 [Treating. 
 
 The principles on which total absti- 
 nence, in opposition to so-called " mod- 
 erate " drinking, are based, are summar- 
 ized in the article on Moderation. The 
 proofs of the benefits of the entire dis- 
 use of alcoholic drinks are so explicit 
 and authoritative (see especially Longev- 
 ity and Medicine 1 ) that no argument 
 against the expediency of total abstinence 
 can now be maintained. The head of 
 the most widespread and conservative 
 religious denomination of Christendom 
 declares that " it cannot at all be doubt- 
 ed " that " the noble resolve to abstain 
 totally from every kind of intoxicating 
 drink '*' is " the proper and the truly effi- 
 cacious remedy." (See p. 598.) In all 
 departments of life (except, perhaps, 
 among the most ignorant and prejudiced 
 people) the individual who uses no in- 
 toxicating drink is regarded as more re- 
 liable and estimable (qualifications, etc., 
 being of an acceptable nature) than the 
 drinker. There is a constantly-increas- 
 ing tendency among large employers of 
 
 preceding years. In 1890 about 10,000 medals were dis- 
 tributed, the expenses being in the neighborhood of 
 $2U,000. Mr. Demoresfs totaioutlay since the beginning 
 has been fully $30,000. Number of medals awarded up 
 the 1st of January, 1891 : 14,934 silver, 1.021 small gold, 
 63 grand gold, and 3 diamond. The State of Nebraska 
 leads, having won 2,500 of the medals, including all the 
 three diamond ones. Contests have been held in every 
 State and Territory. Tn New York City alone 120 churches 
 are represented. Bulgaria has secured 16 of the medals, 
 and among the other remote foreign countries in which 
 the work has been introduced are India, the Sandwich 
 Islands, China, Japan, Australia and Tasmania. The 
 motto adopted is, '■ From Contest to Conquest." Mrs. 
 Charlotte F. Woodbury of New York is the Super- 
 intendent. 
 
 1 Besides the different " medical declarations " quoted 
 on pp. 423^4. the following resolutions, adopted by the 
 Section on Medicine of the In ternational Medical Con- 
 gress held in Philadelphia in 1876. are of special interest : 
 
 " 1, Alcohol is not shown to have a definite food value 
 by any of the UBual methods of chemical analysis or 
 physiological investigation. 
 
 "2. Its use as a medicine is chiefly that of a cardiac 
 stimulant, and often admits of substi ution. 
 
 ** 3. As a medicine it. is not well fitted for self- prescrip- 
 tion by the laity, and the medical profession is not 
 accountable for such administration or for the enormous 
 evils arising therefrom. 
 
 "■4. The purity of alcoholic liquors is in general not 
 as well assured as that of articles used for medicine 
 slould be. The various mixtures when used as medicine 
 should have definite and known composition and should 
 not be interchanged promiscuously." 
 
 It should be especially borne in mind that there is the 
 very highest scientific authorily for the assertion that 
 total abstinence may be resorted to at once and suddenly 
 without any injurious results. " Persons accustomed to 
 such drinks may with perfect safety discontinue them 
 entirely, either at once, or gradually after a short time," 
 said the eminent signers of the second English medical 
 declaration (p. 423). The Voice, Sept. 4, 1890, printed 
 letters from the officials of 43 prisons in the most popu- 
 lous counties of several States. The officials were 
 asked to state whether it was their practice to deprive 
 prisoners of liquor instantly and entirely, or to pursue 
 the " tapering-off " plan, and whether the effects of cut- 
 ting off at once were beneficial or hurtful. A great 
 majority testified that each inmate was refused liquor 
 absolutely from the first day of confinement, and that 
 the results were uniformly good. 
 
 labor to discriminate against persons 
 using liquors, and the regulations of the 
 railway corporations in particular are 
 remarkable for their stringency. 2 
 
 Treating. — Perhaps in no other 
 country in the world is the fashion of 
 treating more in vogue than in the 
 United States. This custom is the cause 
 of much drinking and drunkenness that 
 would otherwise be avoided. Men who 
 are habitual partakers of beer, whiskey, 
 brandy, etc., are not satisfied to indulge 
 their personal appetites, but must needs, 
 for politenesses sake, as they imagine, or 
 in order not to appear mean, or to return 
 favors received, invite their companions 
 to drink with them. Treating begins 
 often in childhood in things innocent, 
 and has its origin in unselfish motives 
 and noble impulses: but when trans- 
 ferred from the sphere of the harmless 
 to the deadly, the peril is great and the 
 disaster national. It may safely be said 
 
 2 The New York Independent., Aug. 28, 1890, printed 
 letters from the officials of 66 railway companies stating 
 the policy pursued in relation to drinking habits. The 
 Independent's object in securing this correspondence was 
 to show "what is expected of railway employes, who form 
 the best-drilled army of workmen in the country." The 
 following are specimen rules: 
 
 Philadelphia & Beading.— "As the habitual use of in- 
 toxicating liquors is incompatible with the duties of 
 railway employes, those who abstain from their use will 
 be more favorably considered for promotion. The use 
 of such liquors by employes on duty is positively forbid- 
 den, and tbe penalty for disregard of this order is dis- 
 missal from the service." 
 
 Lake Erte & Western.— ■"• Intoxication or tbe use of in- 
 toxicating liquors will be sufficient cause for dismissal. 
 Persons employed in any capacity who frequent saloons 
 where liquor is sold, or gambling houses, will not be re- 
 tained in the service." 
 
 Northern Pacific— "The continued or excessive peri- 
 odical use of malt or alcoholic liquor* should be ab- 
 stained from by every one engaged in operating the road, 
 not only on account of the great risks of life and prop- 
 erty incurred by intrusting to them the oversight of 
 those whose intellects may be dulled at times when most 
 care is needed, but also, and especially, because hanitual 
 drinking has a very bad effect upon the constitution, 
 which is a serious matter for men so liable to injury as 
 railway employes always are. It so lessens the recupe- 
 rative powers of the body that simple wounds are fol- 
 lowed by the most serious and dangerous complica- 
 tions. Fractures unite slowly, if at all. and wounds of a 
 grave nature, sucli as those requiring the loss of a limb, 
 are almost sure to end fatally. No employe can 
 afford to take such risks, and the railway com- 
 pany cannot assume such responsibilities." 
 
 Missouri Pacific. — '" The use of beer or other intoxicat- 
 ing liquors by any employe of this company while on 
 duty is strictly prohibited, and no employe will be 
 allowed to have any such liquors in or about any station, 
 shop or yard or other premises of this company at any 
 time or under any circumstances. Any conductor, train- 
 man, engineer, fireman, switchman or other employe 
 who is known to habitually use intoxicating liquors, 
 either while on or off duty, will be promptly and perma- 
 nently dismissed from the service of the company." 
 
 Similar rules, written or unwritten (in some instance? 
 stronger and in others somewhat milder, but all agreeing 
 in requiring employes to be strictly temperate at all 
 times, on pam of discharge), were reported by the officials 
 of every other company represented in the replies. The 
 words, " preference will always he given to those who do 
 not indulge at all in intoxicating drink," recur fre- 
 quently. 
 
Treating.] 
 
 633 
 
 [Turkey. 
 
 that if the American habit of " treating " 
 could be allowed to fall into " innocuous 
 desuetude," or reformed away, a large 
 decrease of drunkenness would at once 
 be noticed. Many young men fall and 
 fill the drunkard's grave because their in- 
 stincts are social and their temperament 
 exposes them to conviviality, even though 
 their natural aversion to liquor is great 
 and they may at first loathe that which at 
 last bites like a serpent. Not only tem- 
 perance, but manly independence also, 
 would be promoted by the abolition of 
 treating and the return to the ancient 
 disner a escot, where each man pays for 
 himself, and puts himself under no obli- 
 gation, owing no man anything. In the 
 common colloquial phrase, "Jersey 
 treat," where each settles his own bill, 
 and neither tempts another nor binds 
 himself, ther3 is a reference to the early 
 days in New Jersey when, under salutary 
 customs, morality, temperance and good 
 order prevailed ; so that the term con- 
 veys a compliment where a sneer is pos- 
 sibly meant. It is possible that to the 
 majority of men who live and die drunk- 
 ards, the first glass came in the form of 
 social temptation. In such a time the 
 young man invited to a "treat" may 
 well repeat the prayer which the Eev. 
 T. De Witt Talmage, when a theological 
 student, prayed in reference to the snares 
 of a great city : " Lord, may we hear 
 the serpent's rattle in our ears, before 
 we feel his fang m our flesh." " The old 
 dram-drinker," says the proverb, " is the 
 devil's decoy." With fiendish pleasure, 
 the man able to drink without being 
 made drunken too often puts the bottle 
 to his neighbor's mouth, the strong man 
 tempts the weak to gloat over it, 
 and to chuckle to himself in Pharisaic 
 glee because his stomach and nerves (and 
 conscience) are not as weak as other 
 men's. Such kindness is brutal cruelty ; 
 or, as the proverb has it, " Drinking 
 kindness is drunken friendship." The 
 history of words mirrors the steady deg- 
 radation of the man who accepts the 
 first invitation to partake of liquor. The 
 Italian word tope, at first meaning "I 
 accept your offer," " done," or " agreed," 
 soon began to mean " to drink heavily," or 
 " lustily," and in due time developed into 
 "toper," which is now synonymous with 
 
 " sot." 
 
 William Elliot Gkifms. 
 
 Turkey. 1 — Throughout the domin- 
 ions of the Sultan there has been a grow- 
 ing tendency to modify in practice the 
 prohibition of wine contained in the 
 Koran. While the use of wine is for- 
 bidden by that book, the manufacture is 
 not ; and grapes are grown and converted 
 into intoxicants by many Mohammedans. 
 Again, those who seek excuses for drink- 
 ing argue that while wine must not be 
 touched by good Mohammedans there is 
 nothing said against spirits ; and although 
 spirits are much stronger than wine the 
 products of the still are quite freely used. 
 There is not much visible intemperance, 
 and comparatively little wine-drinking, 
 outside the Europeanized sections; but 
 there can be no doubt that the vice of 
 drinking has made serious inroads. Any 
 observer in Constantinople will" find that 
 distilled liquor (or rakee, as it is called) 
 is used openly by many Turks. In the 
 capital there are no Prohibitory laws 
 against strong drink, and no punishment 
 is enforced by the authorities against the 
 violator of religious doctrines. The 
 Turkish Government actually collects a 
 large revenue from taxes on spirits and 
 wines, both domestic and imported, and 
 it strives through its agents to augment 
 this revenue by extending the sales to 
 new places. Statistics of the liquor 
 revenue are not published. In 1883-4 
 the imports of alcohol into Turkey were 
 valued at 15,400,471 piastres (about 
 $675,000) ; in 1886-7 the exports of wine 
 had a value of 31,150,916 piastres (about 
 $1,370,600), and the exports of opium 
 79,818,194 piastres (about $3,500,000). 
 Bulgaria and Eoumelia, formerly integral 
 parts of European Turkey but now semi- 
 independent States, produce much wine 
 and support a considerable retail liquor 
 traffic. In Eoumelia the wine-yield in 
 1883 was in excess of 9,000,000 gallons. 
 The Prefect for Philippopolis and 222 
 surrounding villages in Bulgaria (total 
 population, 226,013, about one-tenth of 
 the entire population of that country) 
 published statistics in 1889 showing that 
 2,603,888 gallons of wine, valued at 
 $284,698, were made in 1888 in the terri- 
 tory covered by the report, and that in 
 Philippopolis (population, 33,032) there 
 were 400 licensed drinking-saloons. 
 
 i The editor is indebted to Zoe M. Locke, Philippopolis, 
 Bulgaria. 
 
Unfermented Wines.] 
 
 634 [United States Government. 
 
 Unfermented Wine. — See Bible 
 
 "Wines, Communion Wines, and Pass- 
 over Wines. 
 
 Unitarians. — In their formal rela- 
 tions to the temperance movement the 
 Unitarians are represented by the " Uni- 
 tarian Church Temperance Society," or- 
 ganized at the National Conference held 
 at Saratoga, N. Y., Sept. 23, 1886. 
 
 ' ' Its purpose is ' to work for the cause of tem- 
 perance in whatever ways may seem to it wise 
 and right; to study the social problems of pov- 
 erty, crime and disease in their relation to the 
 use of intoxicating drinks, and to diffuse what- 
 ever knowledge may be gained; to discuss meth- 
 ods of temperance reform; to devise and so far 
 as possible to execute plans for practical reform; 
 to exert, by its meetings and by its membership, 
 such influence for good as by the grace of God 
 it may possess.' It is composed of branch soci- 
 eties in sympathy with the above-named pur- 
 pose, either in churches or Sunday-schools, and 
 the regular meetings will be held once in two 
 years in connection with the National Confer- 
 ence, each branch society being represented by 
 two delegates." 1 
 
 United Brethren Church. — The 
 
 following is a part of the temperance 
 utterances of the General Conference of 
 the church, held at York, Pa., in May, 
 1889: 
 
 " We believe total abstinence from all intoxi- 
 cating drinks to be the law of duty for the in- 
 dividual. We believe total Prohibition to be 
 the divine law of duty for the State. We are 
 unalterably and forever opposed to any and all 
 forms of license and taxation, by whatever name 
 called, which provide for the continuance of 
 the traffic and not its destruction. . . . The 
 Government which authorizes such a business 
 and the voter who directly or indirectly con- 
 sents to it are alike guilty of a great wrong." 
 
 United Kingdom. — See Great 
 Britain, Ireland and Scotland. 
 United Kingdom Alliance. — See 
 
 pp. 196, 197. 
 
 United Presbyterian Church. — 
 
 The General Assembly of the United 
 Presbyterian Church of North America, 
 in Springfield, 0., May, 1889, made the 
 following declarations : 
 
 " That any form of license or taxation of the 
 liquor traffic is unscriptural in principle and con- 
 trary to good government, and ought to be dis- 
 couraged by every Christian, philanthropist and 
 patriot. 
 
 ' ' That we continue to indorse the proposition 
 of former Assemblies, that total abstinence is 
 the only safe rule for the individual, and Pro- 
 hibition by law of the manufacture and sale of in- 
 toxicating liquors as a beverage the true method 
 of dealing with this terrible evil by the State." 
 
 1 Tear-Book of the American Unitarian Association, 
 1891. 
 
 United States Government and 
 the Liquor Traffic. 2 — Under the Con- 
 stitution Congress, with the consent of 
 the President (or by setting aside his veto 
 by a two-thirds vote), has exclusive 
 power to legislate upon questions of 
 national revenue and expenditure, to 
 "provide for the common defense and 
 the general welfare of the United States," 
 to enact laws for the District of Columbia 
 and the Territories 3 as well as for the 
 sites of forts, dockyards and all other 
 national property, and to regulate inter- 
 course with other nations and commerce 
 between the States. Thus the National 
 Government is able, at its own instance, 
 without the co-operation of the separate 
 States or despite their opposition, to 
 foster or discountenance, tax or prohibit 
 the liquor traffic on an extensive scale; 
 it may levy taxes on the entire internal 
 traffic for Federal revenue purposes and 
 thereby give a certain recognition and 
 sanction to it, or it may refuse, for vari- 
 ous reasons, to take money from this 
 business; it may lay duties on imported 
 liquors, or admit them free, or prohibit 
 them absolutely; it may interfere or de- 
 cline to interfere with the exportation 
 of liquors in general or to particular 
 countries (as Africa); it may by treaty 
 stipulations join in international agree- 
 ments respecting the liquor trade; it may 
 arbitrarily license, ignore or prohibit the 
 traffic in all the Territories and the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, in all Federal build- 
 ings and on all Federal grounds, among 
 the Indians (who are the wards of the 
 nation), in the army and navy, etc. ; in 
 short it may inaugurate a general policy 
 of Prohibition or anti-Prohibition, of 
 significant friendship for the temperance 
 idea or of equally significant hostility or 
 unconcern. On the other hand the 
 National Government cannot enact liquor 
 laws of any description for individual 
 States; and it cannot disturb the meas- 
 ures that the States adopt for themselves, 
 unless certain provisions of these meas- 
 ures are in conflict with the Federal 
 
 2 The editor is indebted to Eli P. Hitter, A. M. Powell, 
 Wilbur Aldrich, Henry B. Fernald, Mrs. Sarah A. McClees 
 and Rev. Henry Ward, D.D. 
 
 3 Congress may, however, waive the right, to perform the 
 ordinary legislative work for the District of Columbia and 
 the Territories, and delegate this right to them. Accord- 
 ingly the Territories (excepting Alaska and the Indian) 
 have local legislative bodies; but the District of Columbia 
 is under the immediate control of Congress. Yet no dele- 
 gation of ordinary legislative powers deprives Congress of 
 authority to pass special acts for any or all the Territories 
 and the District of Columoia. 
 
United States Government. 1 635 [United States Government. 
 
 Constitution as interpreted by the Su- 
 preme Court. Thus the States are at 
 liberty to license or prohibit the whole 
 liquor business within their borders, sub- 
 ject only to the approval of the Supreme 
 Court; and all the essential details of 
 State Prohibitory acts are held to be 
 valid by that highest tribunal excepting 
 the ones which forbid the importation, 
 .and the sale in original packages, of alco- 
 holic drink from other States or from 
 foreign countries, and which (in the 
 •opinion of a majority of the Supreme 
 Court) interfere with the exclusive right 
 of Congress to regulate foreign and inter- 
 State commerce. But Congress, recog- 
 nizing the necessity of giving the States 
 complete authority to control or suppress 
 the traffic in all its forms, has explicitly 
 authorized them to deal with transported 
 or imported liquors in the same way that 
 they deal with the liquors manufactured 
 within their territorial limits ; so that the 
 National Government's powers embrace 
 only the right of taxation, the right of 
 legislation and administration in spheres 
 beyond the jurisdiction of the States, 
 and the right to submit to the States and 
 with their consent ultimately to adopt a 
 Constitutional Amendment. 
 
 Notwithstanding the freedom that the 
 States enjoy, the liquor policy of the 
 Federal Government cannot fail inciden- 
 tally to materially influence their tend- 
 encies and to affect the conditions pre- 
 vailing in them. If this Federal policy 
 -were distinctly hostile to the drink trade, 
 -undoubtedly the strength of local Pro- 
 hibition movements would be vastly in- 
 creased everywhere; with the prestige of 
 active sympathy from Congress and the 
 Administration, the anti-saloon agita- 
 tion would probably sweep the country 
 in a very brief time. But if the Govern- 
 ment's attitude is clearly antagonistic 
 to the temperance cause its example 
 must shape the inclinations of the States ; 
 moreover, the encouragement that the 
 liquor-traders derive from so powerful a 
 patron must advance their interests in all 
 parts of the country, advance them by 
 the negative force of disfavor for Pro- 
 hibition and by the positive results of 
 legislative provisions and official com- 
 plaisance. 
 
 INTERNAL REVENUE. 
 
 The history of Internal Eevenue legis- 
 lation is outlined on pp. 251-4. It shows 
 
 that the purpose of the Government, in 
 all the acts passed by it touching the 
 general liquor traffic of the country, has 
 been purely mercenary. The first act 
 (1791, which, with the act of 1792, gave 
 rise to the Whiskey Rebellion) contained 
 a clause providing that the liquor taxes 
 levied by it were to cease when the public 
 debt should be paid. Much reluctance 
 and caution were manifested in these 
 and all the other early liquor measures. 
 The Government, while desiring to pro- 
 cure revenue from the spirit-manufac- 
 turers, established no restrictions except 
 such as were necessary for collection. 
 Even petty private stills, which could 
 not be properly inspected, were at first 
 (acts of 1791 and 1792) permitted to op- 
 erate without hindrance upon payment 
 of the ordinary gallon tax, the quantities 
 of liquor produced to be certified by the 
 owners; but this system gave rise to 
 frauds, and in 1797 the private stills 
 were taxed according to capacity, though 
 the details were so adjusted that no tax 
 was to be paid when the distilleries were 
 not running. Spirits distilled from for- 
 eign materials were to pay higher rates 
 of taxes than those made from domestic 
 materials ; and thus distillation from the 
 products of the United States was en- 
 couraged. The industry was further 
 fostered by providing that taxes paid on 
 spirits were to be refunded in case the 
 spirits were exported. 
 
 The first era of whiskey taxation was 
 brought to an end in 1802, when all the 
 former laws were repealed. The emer- 
 gencies of the War of 1812 caused a re- 
 newal of the system in 1813, * but in 
 1817 the Internal taxes were again abol- 
 ished and no new ones were levied on 
 domestic liquors until 1862. The act of 
 July 1 of that year became the basis for 
 all the elaborate regulations of the pres- 
 ent day. 
 
 Taxes and Regulations Since 1862. — 
 The main provisions, concerning liquors, 
 of the Internal Eevenue statutes enacted 
 
 i The act of 1813 prescribed these rates : Stills using do- 
 mestic materials were to pay nine cents per gallon of ca- 
 pacity if operated for only two weeks, 18 cents if oper- 
 ated for a month, 32 cents if operated for two months, 
 42 cents if operated for three months, 52 cents if oper- 
 ated for four months, 70 cents if operated for six months, 
 and £1.08 if operated for a year ; those using foreign ma- 
 terials were taxed from 25 cents per gallon of capacity 
 per month to $1.35 per year. The act of 1814 retained 
 these rates and levied additional taxeB of five cents per 
 gallon of capacity and 20 cents for each gallon distilled. 
 These additional taxes were removed by the act of 1816, 
 but the original taxes on capacity were retained until 1817. 
 
United States Government.] 
 
 636 
 
 [United States Government. 
 
 from 1862 to 1890, inclusive, are shown in 
 the following summary: 
 
 Distilled spirits and malt liquors are the only 
 alcoholic articles taxed, domestic wine 1 and 
 cider being exempt. 
 
 Section 3243 of the Revised Statutes makes 
 the important provision that 
 
 u The payment of any tax imposed by the Internal 
 Revenue laws for carrying on any trade or business shall 
 not be held to exempt any person from any penalty or 
 punishment provided by the laws of any State for 
 carrying on the same within such State, or in any manner 
 to authorize the commencement or continuance of such 
 trade or business contrary to the laws of such State or in 
 places prohibited by municipal law." 
 
 The chief Internal Revenue acts are those of 
 1862, 1864, 1865, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1875 and 
 1879. 
 
 Taxes on Spirits.— Act of July 1, 1862, 20 
 cents per gallon. 2 Act of March 7, 1864, 60 
 cents. Act of June 30, 1864, spirits from what- 
 ever materials except grapes, $1.50 ; from 
 grapes, 25 cents. Act of Dec. 22, 1864, spirits 
 from whatever materials except grapes, to April 
 1, 1865, $2; from whatever materials except 
 apples, grapes and peaches, after April 1, 1865, 
 $2. Act of March 3, 1865, spirits from grapes, 
 50 cents; from apples and peaches, $1.50. Act 
 of July 13, 1866, spirits from apples, peaches 
 and grapes, $2. Act of July 20, 1868, spirits 
 from apples and peaches, $2; from grapes, $1. 
 Act of July 20, 1868, spirits from whatever 
 materials, 50 cents. Act of June 6, 1872, spirits 
 from whatever materials, 70 cents. Act of 
 March 3, 1875 (still in force), spirits from what- 
 ever materials, 90 cents. 3 
 
 Taxes on Malt Liquors. — Act of July 1, 1862, 
 $1 per barrel. 4 Act of March 3, 1863, 60 cents 
 per barrel until April 1, 1864, and $1 per barrel 
 after that date. (The tax has remained $1 ever 
 since. ) 
 
 Special Taxes. — The present annual rates are: 
 Brewers making more than 500 barrels per year, 
 $100; less, $50. Manufacturers of stills, $50, 
 and $20 for each still made. Rectifiers pro- 
 ducing more than 500 barrels 6 per year, $200; 
 less, $100. Retail dealers in distilled liquors, 6 
 $25; wholesale dealers in distilled liquors, 6 $100. 
 Retail dealers in malt liquors (selling not more 
 than five gallons at a time, and not dealing in 
 spirituous liquors), $20 ; wholesale dealers in 
 malt liquors, $50. 
 
 Administrative Provisions, Penalties, etc., of 
 the Present Law. 1 — The office of Commissioner 
 
 1 For a short time, however (act of 1861), domestic wine 
 made of grapes was taxed 5 cents per gallon. Imitation 
 wines, prepared by mixing foreign wines with, spirits, are 
 now taxed 10 cents per pint (It. S., § 3328). 
 
 2 The word gallon, when used in connection with United 
 States taxes on spirits, means uniformly proof gallon— 
 i. e., a gallon one-half of whose volume is alcohol. 
 
 8 For certain restricted purposes spirits are excepted 
 from tax. (See p 637.) 
 
 4 The malt liquor barrel in the United States contains 31 
 gallons (E. S., §3339). 
 
 6 In the United States a barrel of whiskey or spirits 
 contains 40 proof gallons (E. S., § 3244). 
 
 8 Designated in Internal Eevenue parlance as " retail 
 liquor-dealere " and " wholesale liquor-dealers, 1 ' respect- 
 ively. The retailer, in the meaning of the Internal 
 Eevenue law, is one who sells in quantities of not more 
 than five wine-galions at a time (R. S., § 3244). 
 
 7 TheBe provisions have been developed gradually. In 
 the Internal Eevenue Btatutes of war times and for some 
 
 of Internal Revenue, as a branch of the Treas- 
 ury Department, was created by the act of July 
 1, 1862. The act took effect Sept. 1, 1862. The 
 Commissioner receives a yearly salary of $6,000 
 and has a Chief Clerk, Deputy Commissioner 
 and Solicitor. The country is divided into col- 
 lection districts, embracing separate States, 
 parts of States or combinations of States and 
 Territories, and the affairs of each district are 
 administered by a Collector. Under each Col- 
 lector are storekeepers and gaugers, assigned to 
 the different distilleries and charged with the 
 duty of closely watching all the details of 
 manufacture and having custody of the liquors 
 until the tax is paid. No revenue officer shall 
 be interested in the manufacture (R. S., § 3168). 
 
 Every one liable to the tax must make de- 
 tailed annual returns, according to the forms of 
 the Department; and any one neglecting to do 
 this, or making false returns, may be summoned 
 to testify (§ 3173); and the Collector or his Dep- 
 uty may enter the premises and make up the 
 returns from his own observations and such 
 evidence as he can get, adding 100 per cent, in 
 case of a fraudulent return or 50 per cent, in 
 case of no return (§ 3176); and officers may at 
 any time enter the premises, resistance or res- 
 cue of property to be punished by fine of $500, 
 or double the value of the property, or impris- 
 onment not exceeding two years (§ 3177). 
 Monthly returns also are required, with monthly 
 payment of taxes, a penalty of 5 per cent., with 
 an additional 1 per cent, per month, being as- 
 sessed in case of delay (§ 8185). The tax is a 
 lien upon all the property, and may be collected 
 by distraint, and real estate may be seized for 
 taxes (§ 3186-97). 
 
 If substances are added to create a fictitious 
 proof the penalty is imprisonment three months 
 to six years, and $100 to $1,000 fine, and for- 
 feiture of the liquor (§3252). Penalty for 
 evading the tax, double the amount of the tax 
 (§ 3256); for defrauding the United States, for- 
 feiture of the distillery and apparatus and spir- 
 its on hand, and fine of $500 to $5,000, and im- 
 prisonment six months to three years (§ 3257). 
 
 Any person having a still must register exact 
 particulars with the Collector, on pain of $100 
 to $1,000 fine and imprisonment one month to 
 two years (§3258). Every manufacturer of 
 stills must give notice of each still made and 
 the name of the person who is to use it (§ 3265). 
 Stills cannot be used in or about any dwelling- 
 house or boat, or any premises where malt 
 liquor or vinegar or ether is produced or sugar 
 is refined, or where any other business is carried 
 on (§ 3266). 
 
 Each distiller must give bond not less in 
 amount than the tax on his capacity for 15 days 
 (§ 3260). A minute plan of each distillery must 
 be filed with the Commissioner and Collector 
 and posted on the premises (§ 3263). No dis- 
 tilling shall be done between 11 p.m. Saturday 
 
 years subsequently the penalties were comparatively 
 weak and the regulations were in no respects so exacting 
 as the present ones. The first act prescribed a fine or 
 $600 for fraudulent marking of goods, and a fine of $500 
 with forfeiture of the goods in question for defrauding 
 the revenue. Frauds were so numerous that in 1864 the 
 penalty for making false returns or no returns was a 50 
 percent, increase of the tax and a fine of $1,000. Impris- 
 onment was not then required. 
 
United States Government.] 
 
 637 
 
 [United States Government. 
 
 and 1 a.m. Monday (§ 3283). In each distillery 
 shall be a receiving-cistern capable of holding 
 24 hours' product and so constructed as to be 
 elevated from the floor and not to reach the ceil- 
 ing, and to enable the officer to pass all around 
 it; and this cistern and the room in which it 
 is placed shall be under the lock and seal of the 
 gauger, and spirits can be removed from it only 
 under his supervision (§3267); and anyone tam- 
 pering with the cistern is liable to fine of $500 
 to $5,000 and imprisonment one to three years 
 (§ 3268); and all furnaces, tubs, doublers, worm 
 tanks and pipes are to be built with clear space 
 about them so that officers can have easy access 
 to them (§3269); and the Commissioner may 
 order any changes made about the distillery 
 premises that he may deem necessary (§ 3270); 
 and keys to distilleries must be furnished to 
 officers, who may enter at any time of the day 
 or night (§3278); and officers may break up 
 ground or walls in order to search for pipes, 
 cocks or other means of conveying or conceal- 
 ing spirits, mash or wort (§ 3278); and no recti- 
 fying establishment or vinegar ' factory can be 
 nearer than 600 feet to a distillery (§§ 3280, 
 3282a). 
 
 Every distillery must have a warehouse on its 
 premises for the storage of spirits in bond until 
 the tax is paid, to be in charge of the store- 
 keeper and under the joint management of 
 storekeeper and proprietor (§ 3274). Spirits may 
 remain in the warehouse for three years from 
 the day of manufacture, but no longer ; and the 
 tax must be paid not later than three years after 
 spirits are deposited in the warehouse (§ 3293); 
 but' the distiller may remove the goods at any 
 time upon payment of the tax (§ 3294). If 
 spirits are removed to any place but a bonded 
 warehouse the tax must be paid immediately 
 (§ 3253); but spirits for export are not taxed 
 (§ 3330 ). s 
 
 The taxes on spirits accidentally destroyed 
 are to be remitted (§ 3221), unless insured 
 (§ 3223). Allowance is made for leakage in ac- 
 cordance with a fixed scale of maximums 
 (§ 3294 a). The tax is remitted on alcohol 
 withdrawn for chartered scientific institutions 
 and colleges, provided this alcohol is to be used 
 solely for preserving specimens or for experi- 
 ments, etc., in chemical laboratories (§ 3297). 
 An act of 1890 provides that any wine-maker 
 may withdraw from a bonded warehouse spirits 
 distilled from grapes to be used in fortifying 
 sweet wines, and that grape spirits thus with- 
 drawn shall be free from tax. a The United 
 States Government may purchase spirits or 
 liquors of any kind without paying the tax 
 (§ 3464). 
 
 The Commissioner, with the approval of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury, may exempt dis- 
 tillers of brandy made exclusively from apples, 
 grapes or peaches from various provisions of 
 the Internal Kevenue laws, * but not from the 
 
 1 Vinegar must not contain over 2 per cent, of alcohol 
 
 <& 
 
 ? Fermented Jiquors exported are also exempt from 
 tax (§ 3441). 
 
 3 Enacted at the demand of the California wine manu- 
 facturers. 
 
 * This section operates as a practical suspension of the 
 ordinary Internal Revenue regulations so far as fruit dis- 
 
 tax (§ 3255); and grain distillers whose daily 
 capacity is only 30 gallons may be exempted 
 from certain provisions (§3255 a). 
 
 Sections 3287-3334, covering 30 pages, em- 
 body the most minute directions for gauging, 
 warehousing, stamping and moving spirits, all 
 devised for the purpose of keeping the product 
 constantly under the eye of the Government 
 officers until the tax is paid. 
 
 Brewers do not pay taxes on the malt or other 
 materials that they use, but solely on the beer, 
 at the rate of $1 per barrel of 31 gallons 
 (§ 3337 a). They must make monthly returns 
 to the Collector (§§ 3337-8). Any brewer 
 evading the tax or making false entries is sub- 
 ject to fine of $500 to $1,000, and imprisonment 
 for not more than a year, and forfeiture of his 
 brewery, all its apparatus and all the beer on 
 hand (§ 3340). Any brewer failing to keep 
 books, or to furnish accounts to the Collector, 
 or refusing to permit the proper officer to ex- 
 amine his books, shall pay $300 (§ 3340). 
 
 A special tax payment covers only one place 
 of business and one business (§§ 3234-6). 
 Everyone must keep his special tax stamp con- 
 spicuously posted in his place of business on 
 penalty of double the amount of the special tax 
 (§ 3239). A list of special taxpayers must be 
 kept conspicuously in each Collector's office 
 (§ 3240). A manufacturer of or dealer in distilled 
 spirits who fails to pay the special tax is liable 
 to a fine of $100 to $5,000, and imprisonment 30 
 days to two years, and forfeiture of the liquor 
 and apparatus. A malt liquor manufacturer or 
 dealer not paying the special tax must pay a fine 
 not exceeding $500. 
 
 IMPORTED LIQUOBS. 
 
 The rates of duty levied on imported 
 liquors by different United States tariff 
 laws are indicated below : 
 
 Act of 1789. — Spirits of Jamaica proof, 10 
 cents per gallon; all others, 8 cents. Madeira 
 wine, 18 cents; all other wines, 10 cents. Beer, 
 ale or porter in casks, 5 cents per gallon; cider, 
 beer, ale or porter in bottles, 20 cents per dozen; 
 malt, 10 cents per bushel. 
 
 Act of 1790. — Spirits, 12 to 25 cents, according 
 to proof. Madeira wine, 30 and 35 cents; sherry, 
 25 cents; other wines, 20 cents. Malt liquors 
 and malt, no change. Cider, free. 
 
 Act of 1791.— Spirits, 20 to 40 cents. 
 
 Act of 1792.— Spirits (grain), 28 to 50 cents; 
 others, 25 to 46 cents. Madeira wine, 40 to 56 
 cents; sherry, 33 cents; St. Lucas, 30 cents ; 
 Lisbon, 25 cents ; Oporto, 25 cents ; Teneriffe 
 and Fayall, 20 cents ; all other wines, 40 per 
 cent, ad valorem, not to exceed 30 cents per 
 gallon. Malt liquors, 8 cents. 
 
 Act of 1795. — "Wines, in no case less than 10 
 cents. 
 
 Act of 1800. — Wines, from 23 cents to 58 cents. 
 
 Act of 1816.— Spirits (grain), 42 to 70 cents. 
 Wines, 25 cents to $1. Malt liquors in bottles, 
 15 cents; others, 10 cents. 
 
 Act of 1819. — Duties on non-enumerated wines 
 reduced from 70 and 25 cents to 30 and 15 cents. 
 
 tillers are concerned. These distillnrB are not subject to 
 the constant espionage that grain distillers must endure. 
 (See footnote, p. 375.) 
 
United States Government.] 
 
 638 
 
 [United States Government. 
 
 Act of 1828. — Spirits, 15 cents in addition to 
 the existing rate. 
 
 Act of 1832.— French wines, until 1834, 6 
 cents for red and 10 cents for white when in 
 casks, and 22 cents per gallon when in bottles; 
 after 1834, half these rates; other than French 
 wines, half the existing rates. 
 
 Act of 1836. — Wines, duties reduced one-half. 
 
 Act of 1842.— Brandy, $1; other spirits, 60 to 
 90 cents. Wines, 6 to 60 cents. Malt liquors 
 in bottles, 20 cents; others, 15 cents. 
 
 Act 0/1861.— Brandy of first prooi, $1; other 
 spirits, 40 cents for first proof and proportion- 
 ately larger rates for higher proofs. Wines, 40 
 per cent. Malt liquors in bottles, 25 cents; 
 others, 15 cents. 
 
 Act of 1862. — Brandy of first proof, 25 cents; 
 other spirits, 50 cents; cordials and liqueurs, 25 
 cents. Malt liquors, 5 cents. 
 
 Act of 1863. — Spirits, 40 cents in addition to 
 existing duties. 
 
 Act of 1864.— Brandy, $2.50; other spirits, 
 $2. Champagne, $6 per dozen quart bottles ; 
 other wines, 20 cents to $1, according to value, 
 and 25 per cent, ad valorem. Malt liquors in 
 bottles, 35 cents; others, 20 cents. 
 
 Act of 1865. — Spirits, 50 cents in addition to 
 existing rates. 
 
 Act of 1870.— Spirits, $2. Wines (not to con- 
 tain over 25 per cent, of alcohol), champagne, 
 same as before ; others, 25 cents to $1 + 25 
 per cent, according to value ; bottled wines to 
 pay 3 cents per bottle additional. 
 
 Act of 1875. — Still wines in casks, 40 cents; in 
 bottles, $1.60 per dozen quarts. 
 
 Act of 1883.— Spirits, $2. Still wines, 50 
 cents; champagne, $7 per dozen quart bottles. 
 Malt liquors in bottles, 35 cents; others, 20 
 
 Act of 1890 (McKinky).—See p. 239. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT AND THE " TRADE." 
 
 The various revenue laws whose vital 
 provisions we have analyzed have estab- 
 lished the closest relations between the 
 representatives of the Government and 
 the representatives of the liquor busi- 
 ness. The extent to which the Govern- 
 ment depends on the traffic for its in- 
 come is shown by the following state- 
 ment of receipts during the year ended 
 June 30, 1890 l : 
 
 Internal Revenue from liquors $107,695,909.83 
 
 " " all other sources 34,910,795.98 
 
 Customs receipts from liquors 8,526,496.16 
 
 all other sources 221,142,088.41 
 
 Receipts from public lands 6,358,272.51 
 
 Miscellaneous receipts 24,447,419.74 
 
 Total receipts $403,080,982.63 
 
 from liquors 116,222,405.99 
 
 Thus 29 per cent, of the entire revenue 
 in 1890 was from the men manufactur- 
 ing, importing and selling liquors. It 
 has never been the policy of the Govern- 
 
 1 Figures of total receipts are from the report of the 
 Secretary of the Treasury; figures of receipts from 
 liquors are, respectively, from the report of the Com- 
 missioner of Internal Revenue and the report on Com- 
 merce and Navigation. 
 
 ment, and is not now, to betray moral 
 compunctions in taking its share of th& 
 profits of the drink trade. In the very 
 latest report of the Commissioner of In- 
 ternal Revenue that official declares that, 
 he is " gratified to state " that the Inter- 
 nal Revenue receipts have exceeded his. 
 estimates. 2 The entire traffic, from the 
 national point of view, has enjoyed 
 steady growth and a constantly increas- 
 ing power since the Government came 
 into formal association with it. (For de- 
 tails, see pp. 128-31, 372-8.) Indeed, 
 the connection may be truthfully de- 
 scribed as a partnership. The Govern- 
 ment, through eminent officials, has been, 
 at pains to express warm friendship for 
 the interests of the liquor men, and by 
 practical acts has manifested great favor 
 for them. 
 
 Fostering the Brewing Trade. — The 
 annual reports of the United States 
 Brewers' Association constitute an instruc- 
 tive record. At the first meetings of the 
 Association, held soon after the Internal 
 Revenue act of July 1, 1862, took effect, 
 steps were taken to secure a reduction of 
 the tax on beer, and this was accom- 
 plished ; moreover the reports state that 
 special efforts for favorable legislation at 
 Washington were highly successful. In 
 1865 a representative of the Internal 
 Revenue office (Mr. Wells) attended the 
 Brewers' Convention (Baltimore, Oct. 18), 
 and said: 
 
 "It is the desire of the Government to be 
 thoroughly informed of the requirements of the 
 trade, and I will give information on all ques- 
 tions, in order to bring about a cordial under- 
 standing between the Government and the trade. " 
 
 At the Convention of 1871 (Pittsburgh, 
 June 7), another representative of the 
 Department, Mr. Louis Schade, was pres- 
 ent. " I have the more readily accepted," 
 said he, " to comply with the request of 
 the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 
 inasmuch as I hope that by means of this 
 mission I may be of advantage to 
 you. . . . My convictions and feelings 
 are with you, and all I can do for you 
 will be done." The next year Mr. C. A. 
 Bates was sent to the Brewers' Conven- 
 tion (New York, June 5 and 6) to offi- 
 cially speak for the Government. He 
 said: 
 
 "Let us take no backward step. I say us, 
 for I am with you. ' The Commissioner of In- 
 
 2 Report for 1890, p. 3. 
 
United States Government.] 
 
 639 
 
 [United States Government. 
 
 ternal Revenue is with you. The President is 
 with you." 
 
 In 1873 (Cleveland, June 4) the repre- 
 sentatives of the Government in attend- 
 ance were H. 0. Eogers and Louis Schadel 
 In 1877 (Milwaukee, June 6) the Con- 
 vention received a letter from the Com- 
 missioner of Internal Revenue, Green B. 
 Eaum, who wrote: 
 
 " I am glad to learn that the conduct of this 
 Bureau has been satisfactory to such an im- 
 portant body of taxpayers as the brewers of the 
 United States, and I trust that nothing will 
 occur to disturb the friendly relations now ex- 
 isting between this office and your Association." 
 
 Commissioner Eaum appeared person- 
 ally at the Convention of 1878 (Balti- 
 more, June 5), and said : 
 
 " In regard to the system of Internal Revenue, 
 I recognize it simply as a code of laws for the 
 collection of revenues, not for the regulation of 
 men's business, because I think the less the Gov- 
 ernment has to do in putting its nose in men's 
 business the better. ... I take pleasure in bear- 
 ing witness that you have an officer at Washing- 
 ton who has at all times aided me in the enforce- 
 ment of the law, and has given advice in bring- 
 ing about such rulings that seem proper for the 
 enforcement of the law." 
 
 In 1884 the Commissioner of Internal 
 Eevenue, Walter Evans, responding to 
 the invitation to be present at the Con- 
 vention (Eochester, May 21 and 22), 
 wrote : " I assure you of my best wishes 
 for the success of your Association." 
 The Convention of 1890 (Washington, 
 May 21 and 22) was graced with the 
 
 Sresence of the Commissioner, John W. 
 [ason, who made a very fulsome speech, 
 saying, in part : 
 
 "Our business relations for the last year have 
 been quite extensive, and I may say — speaking 
 for the officers of the Commission of Internal 
 Revenue — that they have been of a pleasant 
 character. In order that they may continue so, 
 and that the pleasant features of the connection 
 may as far as possible be increased, it is very 
 desirable that the Commissioner should know 
 you all personally and that, personally, he 
 should know your wishes. . . . Having paid 
 that amount of money [revenue] you are entitled 
 to expect that such restrictions only shall be im- 
 posed upon you as are necessary to enable the 
 Government to secure the regular revenue. . . . 
 You are all business men, engaged in a lawful 
 business and entitled to pursue that business un- 
 trammeled by any regulation of the office of the 
 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, except in 
 so far as may be necessary for the purpose of 
 collecting the revenue. ... If there be any 
 regulations or anything whatever pertaining to 
 the office which you may deem unreasonable or 
 unnecessary, I beg that you will not hesitate to 
 express your views." 
 
 Such expressions as these make it clear 
 that the United States Government has 
 been uniformly engaged, since the earli- 
 est days of the present Internal Eevenue 
 system, in fostering the brewing "in- 
 dustry." At many of the National 
 Brewers' Conventions the most violent 
 and scurrilous attacks were made upon 
 the temperance advocates, the clergy and 
 the women of the land. Moreover, these 
 Conventions frequently adopted formal 
 resolutions assailing the advocates of 
 temperance reform, deliberately avowing 
 selfish political designs and inciting the 
 liquor element to defeat all candidates 
 for office suspected of temperance sym- 
 pathies. 1 Yet the highest officials of the 
 Internal Eevenue Department have re- 
 peatedly shown their approval of the 
 Brewers' Association, its purposes and its 
 creed. And in 1889 (Dec. 15) the De- 
 partment of State addressed to all our 
 Consular officers in Mexico, Central and 
 South America and the West Indies 
 a circular letter, at the instance of " the 
 leading maltsters and brewers of the 
 United States," requesting such infor- 
 mation as would enable them to " fully 
 understand the requirements necessary 
 to successful trade in each district." 3 
 
 The Government and the Whiskey 
 Men. — In its relations with the whiskey 
 men the Government has been no less 
 friendly and considerate. The great 
 whiskey frauds of 1873-5, by which (ac- 
 cording to Daniel D. Pratt, Commis- 
 sioner of Internal Eevenue 3 ) the Treas- 
 ury was robbed of at least $4,000,000,were 
 made possible by the complicity of high 
 officials. 4 These frauds led to a more 
 
 1 See " Non-Partisanship, or, Do Not Take Temperance 
 into Politics," by G. H. Carrow (Philadelphia), pp. 7, 9, 
 16, 20, 41, 65, 61, 67, 94, 113 and 146. 
 
 " See the Voice, Dec. 25, 1890, and Jan. 8, 1891. 
 
 3 See the " Annual Cyclopaedia" for 1875, pp. 665-7. 
 
 4 The frauds of 1873-5 were not exceptional. From the 
 beginning of the Internal Revenue system it has been 
 recognized that the distillers are thoroughly unscrupu- 
 lous, eager to rob the Government whenever opportunity 
 offers. " If all the various means resorted to by many 
 modern distillers for the accomplishment of their de- 
 signs upon the revenue and its officers could be truth- 
 fully written," says the Internal Revenue report for 
 1867, p. 20, "the very safety of our institutions might 
 well be questioned." In two fiscal years (1876 and 1877) 
 the Government seized 837,950 callons of distilled spirits 
 because of violations of the law. After the exposure of 
 the whiskey frauds, and notwithstanding the severe 
 punishment administered to individuals concerned, tue 
 lawless spirit of the distillers still gave the Government 
 infinite trouble. The Internal Revenue report for 1883 
 (p. 17) shows that in the five years 1878-82 4.53-2 illicit 
 stills were seized and that in making the seizures 23 offi- 
 cers and employes were killed and 53 were wounded. 
 
 And the brewers have had their share is the conspira- 
 cies. According to the report of the Convention of the 
 United States Brewers' Association for 1866, Mr. Wells, 
 
United States Government.] 
 
 640 
 
 [United States Government. 
 
 stringent enforcement of the regulations, 
 but the Federal executives have been 
 tenderly regardful of the desires of the 
 whiskey trade in shaping public policy. 
 The reckless overproduction of whiskey 
 in certain years caused a stringency in 
 the market and financially embarrassed 
 the distillers. Other manufacturers 
 would have been expected to adjust their 
 own trade affairs and to suffer the con- 
 sequences of imprudence. Not so with 
 the whiskey-producers. They demanded 
 that the Government should practically 
 remit taxes, and present them with hun- 
 dreds of thousands of dollars, by extend- 
 ing that very generous provision of the 
 law which permitted them to keep their 
 whiskey in bonded warehouses for three 
 years without paying taxes. 1 Failing to 
 obtain legislation from Congress, they 
 asked the Secretary of the Treasury to 
 arbitrarily grant the desired relief. Sec- 
 retary Windom (1881) refused, and for 
 this resolute act he was most bitterly op- 
 posed by the whiskey power. But on 
 Jan. 6, 1885, Secretary Hugh McCulloch 
 made a ruling practically extending the 
 period for seven months; and he also 
 sent to Congress a bill providing sub- 
 stantially for an indefinite extension. 
 In doing this he took occasion to say : 
 
 " The manufacture of whiskey is one of the 
 largest and most important branches of domes- 
 tic industry in the United States, and is at the 
 present time, like other manufacturing interests, 
 greatly suffering from over-production. A le- 
 gitimate business, from which large revenues 
 are derived, it is not only depressed by over- 
 production, but by being burdened by heavy 
 taxes, the payment of which, as is the case with 
 no other article, is required within a fixed 
 period whatever may be the condition of the 
 market. . . . Under existing laws the manu- 
 facturers or holders of whiskey are compelled 
 to pay a tax amounting to nearly five times its 
 cost on the article before it is withdrawn from 
 the warehouse for consumption, or to export at 
 great expense, to be held in foreign countries 
 until there is a home demand for it, or to be 
 sold in such countries to the prejudice of our 
 public revenues." 
 
 The conscienceless and dictatorial 
 lobby by which the distillers, wholesale 
 liquor-dealers and importers are repre- 
 sented at Washington is the power that 
 
 officially representing the Internal Revenue office, was 
 present ou that occasion and said: " By statistical re- 
 ports it has been proven that 6,000,000 barrels of beer 
 are brewed annually, while only 2,500,000 paid tax." 
 
 1 The bonded period, up to March 28, 1879, was only 
 one year. But on that date Congress extended it to 
 three years, at the urgent solicitation of the distillers. 
 
 determines the action " of Congress on 
 measures affecting the "trade." Bon- 
 fort's Wine and Spirit Circular (Oct. 
 10, 1890) relates that during the debate 
 on the McKinley Tariff bill Senator 
 Plumb proposed amendments largely in- 
 creasing the duties on wines and spirits, 
 and that the effect of their adoption 
 would have been to decrease the con- 
 sumption of these articles, increase the 
 amount of capital necessary to carry on 
 the business, and cause a loss to the 
 trade "lightly estimated at $3,000,000 
 per annum." The Wine and Spirit 
 Traders' Society rallied its forces and 
 brought " pressure " upon the Senators 
 and Eepresentatives in the familiar and 
 brutal fashion; and Congress obediently 
 rejected the amendments. 
 
 The Inquiry Bill. — Very instructive is 
 the continued refusal of Congress to per- 
 mit any national investigation of the 
 results of Prohibitory and license sys- 
 tems and the general aspects and conse- 
 quences of the drink traffic. Congress 
 ordinarily responds promptly and gra- 
 ciously to appeals for its co-operation 
 from citizens who desire official informa- 
 tion touching matters of interest ; it has 
 appointed Commissions to inquire into 
 the grasshopper plague, the diseases of 
 cattle, etc. For nearly 20 years it has 
 been petitioned at each session to name 
 a strictly impartial " Commission of In- 
 quiry Concerning the Liquor Traffic." 
 The petitioners have been very moderate 
 in suggesting the powers of the proposed 
 Commission and other details, and have 
 proposed the modest sum of $10,000 as a 
 suitable appropriation. 2 But though 
 the bill has repeatedly passed the Senate 
 it has invariably met defeat in the House 
 of Eepresentatives. 3 For its rejection in 
 the last-mentioned body the Democratic 
 party has been responsible in most in- 
 stances; and the behavior of Speaker 
 Carlisle, who organized the Alcoholic 
 Liquor Traffic Committee of the House 
 with a view to the suppression of this 
 and other temperance measures, has been 
 especially criticised. 
 
 ' See the Voice, Jan. 9, 1890. 
 
 * The Inquiry bill was first introduced in the Senate 
 at the request of Mr. A. M. Powell by Senator Pom- 
 eroy of Kansas, Feb. 7. 1872 The next year it was in- 
 troduced in behalf of the National Temperance Society, 
 and that organization has had it in charge ever since. It 
 was passed by the Senate of the 43d Congress and of 
 each succeeding Congress except the 46th. 
 
United States Government.] 641 [United States Government. 
 
 OTHEE LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRA- 
 TIVE DEVELOPMENTS. 
 
 The other important practical requests 
 of the Prohibitionists for national action 
 against the liquor traffic have, almost 
 without exception, been denied both by 
 the legislative and the administrative 
 departments of the Government. Na- 
 tional legislation for the District of 
 Columbia and for those Territories which 
 have a predominating white population 
 (except Oklahoma ') has never taken a 
 Prohibitory tendency. In all the Terri- 
 tories in question the business of manu- 
 facturing and selling liquors would be 
 absolutely unrestricted but for the pro- 
 visions independently adopted by their 
 local legislative bodies. The licensing 
 of saloons in them has been regarded 
 with complete indifference by the Fed- 
 eral authorities. The first law enacted 
 (in 1787) by the Governor and Judges of 
 the great Northwest Territory (from 
 which five powerful States have grown) 
 was a liquor license law. In 1889, when 
 North and South Dakota were admitted 
 as States, the most remarkable features 
 of their Constitutions were articles 
 (adopted by majority votes of the people) 
 prohibiting the manufacture and sale of 
 liquor for beverage purposes; but the 
 President, in his formal message to Con- 
 gress alluding to the entrance of the 
 new States, made no mention of the Pro- 
 hibitory articles. Bills providing for 
 Local Option in the Territories have been 
 introduced in Congress but defeated in 
 all cases. 
 
 In the District of Columbia, the seat 
 of the Government,' which is under the 
 exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, the 
 liquor laws are feebler than in most 
 American cities. They are administered 
 by a Board of District Commissioners, 
 appointed by the President and confirmed 
 by the Senate. The maximum annual 
 license fee is only about $100. The con- 
 sent of a majority of the property-owners 
 and householders of both sides of the 
 block in which the saloon is to be located 
 must be obtained before license can 
 
 1 Oklahoma lies entirely within the Indian Territory. 
 The Government prohibited liquor within the " Indian 
 country," and when Oklahoma was erected that prohibi- 
 tion naturally applied to it, since the new region could 
 not be reached without crossing the " Indian country." 
 But the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1889) made 
 an effort to suspend the law. for the especial benefit of 
 the men who desirod to sell liquor in Oklahoma. His 
 course was overruled by the Attorney-General. (See the 
 Voice, Apia 25, 1889.) 
 
 issue. No license can be granted for a 
 place within 400 feet of a public school; 
 or to any person convicted of selling 
 liquor to an intoxicated person, confirmed 
 drunkard, soldier or volunteer, 2 or minor, 
 or on Sunday, or between midnight and 
 4 A.M.; or to anyone whose premises 
 have been used for gambling or prosti- 
 tution ; or to any woman ; or to a keeper 
 of a grocery or provision store; or for any 
 neighborhood occupied largely by priv- 
 ate residences ; or " where there are, in 
 the opinion of the Commissioners, more 
 such places than the accommodation of 
 the public warrants." These and some 
 other restrictions are worth little. The 
 annual cost of the police force in Wash- 
 ington is about $600,000. In 1889 there 
 were 21,150 arrests for all offenses, of 
 which 7,642 were for intoxication, disor- 
 derly conduct and habitual drunkenness. 3 
 In the last 10 years the number of liquor 
 licenses (retail and wholesale) granted in 
 Washington has ranged from 900 to 1,400. 
 Attempts have been made in Congress to 
 pass stricter liquor laws for the District 
 of Columbia, and to permit the people of 
 the District to vote on the question of 
 Prohibition, but all have been unsuc- 
 cessful. 
 
 In dealing, however, with certain 
 phases of the drink problem, the Gov- 
 ernment has not infrequently exhibited 
 progressiveness and has given the strong- 
 est indorsement to underlying principles 
 of the temperance reformation. We briefly 
 notice below the more important of these 
 encouraging performances. 
 
 Indians (see also pp. 245-6, 277 and 
 295). — An act of 1802 authorized the 
 President to take such steps as might to 
 him seem expedient to restrain or pre- 
 vent the distribution or vending of spirits 
 among the Indian tribes. In 1815 it was 
 enacted that anyone establishing a still 
 in the Indian country should be fined 
 $500 and forfeit the still (half to the in- 
 former). In 1822 the President was em- 
 powered to direct Indian Agents, Govern- 
 ors of Territories and military officers, 
 to search the stores of Indian traders for 
 spirits, and, if any were found, to con- 
 fiscate them and revoke the trader's 
 
 2 The sale to soldiers and volunteers in the District of 
 Columbia was prohibited by act of CongresB, July 14, 
 1862. 
 
 8 For a diagram showing the saloons of Washington 
 City, see the Voice, July 34, 1890. 
 
•United States Government.] 
 
 642 
 
 [United States Government. 
 
 license. In 1834 the selling or disposing 
 of spirituous liquor or wine to Indians 
 in the Indian country was punished by 
 fine of $500 ; introducing spirits or wine 
 into the Indian country, by fine of $300; 
 setting up a still, $1,000; and any person 
 in the employ of the United States, or 
 any Indian, was authorized to destroy 
 liquors found, except military supplies. 
 In 1862 the penalty for selling, bartering, 
 giving or introducing was decreed to be 
 a fine of not more than $300 and im- 
 prisonment not longer than two years. 
 
 Scientific Temperance Instruction. — 
 An act providing for instruction in the 
 schools of the District of Columbia and 
 Territories, the Military and Naval 
 Academies, and all other schools under 
 Government control, concerning the 
 nature and effects of alcoholic liquors, 
 was passed by Congress in 1886 and 
 signed by the President. 
 
 Army and N&vy. — The regulations 
 concerning the sale and use of intoxi- 
 cants in the army and navy have under- 
 gone a marked change. 
 
 An act of the Continental Congress, 
 Nov. 4, 1775, directed that there should 
 be issued daily to each soldier a pint of 
 milk and a quart of spruce beer or cider, 
 but no spirit ration was prescribed. 
 April 30, 1790, it was enacted that every 
 man should have half a gill of rum, 
 brandy or whiskey daily. In 1794 the 
 President was authorized to increase the 
 quantity to a gill for troops on the fron- 
 tiers. In 1795 a uniform ration of half 
 a gill was ordered. In 1799 command- 
 ing officers were given discretionary 
 powers, the ration to be, as before, half a 
 gill. In 1802 this was increased to a gill. 
 In 1804 it was provided that an equiva- 
 lent of malt liquors or wine might be 
 substituted for spirits at such seasons of 
 the year as, in the opinion of the Presi- 
 dent, it might be desirable to make the 
 change, in order to promote the health 
 of the soldiers. In 1812 a gill of rum, 
 whiskey or brandy was made a part of 
 the regular daily ration. In 1818 power 
 was given the President to make such 
 changes in the component parts of the 
 ration J as he should think for the best, 
 
 1 In this year John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, in a 
 report to Congress (Dec. 15, 1818), recommended that the 
 spirit ration in the army, as a regular issue, be dispensed 
 ■with, declaring that it was " destructive alike to the 
 health and moral and physical energy of the soldier. " 
 
 with due regard for health, comfort and 
 economy. In 1832 soldiers were given 
 the right to draw, instead of the spirit ra- 
 tion, coffee and sugar; and in 1838, coffee 
 and sugar, or the money equivalent. An. 
 act of 1861 allowed a gill of whiskey 
 daily to each man in cases of excessive 
 fatigue and exposure, but in 1865 the ra- 
 tion was discontinued and it was ordered 
 that the supply on hand should be sold. 
 In 1881 (Feb. 22) President Hayes issued 
 an order prohibiting "the sale of intoxi- 
 cating liquors at military posts and 
 stations." * This order was for the gov- 
 ernment of post-traders, or private ven- 
 dors; and it is still in^force, strengthened 
 by the added provision (Sept. 27, 1889) 
 that post-traders may sell beer and wine 
 only " in unbroken packages to officers 
 and to canteens." In 1889 (Feb. 1), by 
 direction of the Secretary of War, the 
 sale and use of ardent spirits in canteens, 
 at military posts where there were no 
 post-traders were strictly prohibited ; but 
 authority was given to permit the sale of 
 wines and light beer by the drink, on 
 week days only, in a room used for no 
 other purpose, provided the commanding 
 officer were satisfied that this permission 
 would tend to prevent the men from re- 
 sorting to strong intoxicants in places 
 outside army lineSj and would promote 
 temperance and discipline among them ; 
 but it was ordered that "treating should 
 be discouraged under all circumstances;" 
 and in States or communities where local 
 laws prohibited the liquor traffic, civil- 
 ians living under such laws were not to 
 be allowed to visit the canteens for the pur- 
 pose of obtaining beer or wine. By an 
 order issued May 1, 1890, the Secretary 
 of War directed that the foregoing provi- 
 sions as to canteens should be retained, 
 except that no ardent spirits or wine 
 should be sold in canteens, sales o'f 
 " light beer " only being tolerated. 
 
 In the navy s the act of 1794 provided 
 that a half -pint of spirits or a quart of 
 beer should be a constituent of a daily ra- 
 tion. The act of 1801 did not authorize 
 the alternative beer ration. In 1842 the 
 ration was to be a gill of spirits, but per- 
 
 3 Construed to apply only to spirituous liquors. 
 
 3 " Grog ration 11 was the name by which the spirit ra- 
 tion in the navy was called. The word u grog" (mean- 
 ing spirits mixed with water) was coined by the sailors 
 under the British Admiral Vernon in the 18th Century. 
 The Admiral wore a grogram cloak. He required the 
 sailors to dilute their rum, and the nickname, " Ola. 
 Grog" was transferred to the weakened beverage. 
 
United States Government.] 
 
 643 
 
 [United States Government. 
 
 sons under 21 were not permitted to 
 draw the spirit ration ; and half a pint of 
 wine might be given instead by way of 
 variety ; and butter, cheese, raisins, dried 
 fruit, pickles or molasses might be sub- 
 stituted; and sailors might take the 
 value in money. In 1861 the ration .vas 
 made a gill of spirits, with the right to 
 draw half a pint of wine, or provisions, 
 or money instead. In 1862 (Sept. 1) an 
 act was passed declaring that the spirit 
 ration in the navy should cease forever, 
 and that no spirits should be admitted 
 on board vessels of war except as medi- 
 cal stores; and in lieu of the ration rive 
 cents per day was added to the pay of 
 each sailor. This is still the law. Post- 
 traders at navy-yards are not permitted 
 to sell or keep spirits. 
 
 Thus the Government, after many ex- 
 periments and solely to improve the 
 physical welfare of the nation's defend- 
 ers, has prohibited spirituous liquors 
 both in the army and the navy. Even 
 wine is now forbidden in the canteens, 
 and post-traders are ordered not to sell 
 either beer or wine to private soldiers. 
 There is a manifest tendency towards the 
 prohibition of beer in the canteens; any 
 commanding officer may prohibit it if 
 he desires ; it is under no circumstances 
 to be sold on Sundays; it is not, as in 
 the old days, given to the soldier as a 
 part of his daily allowance, but must be 
 bought by him if he insists on indulg- 
 ing in it; and the restricted sale is tol- 
 erated only on the supposition that if 
 the soldiers cannot get beer within the 
 lines they will drink spirits outside. 
 
 The African Rum Trade, etc. — While 
 the Government prohibits, under severe 
 penalties, the sale of liquor to the abori- 
 gines of this country and Alaska, it has 
 not made a consistent record in its nego- 
 tiations with other powers touching the 
 international liquor traffic with native 
 races. Its general disposition at present 
 is undeniably in favor of joining with 
 other nations to prohibit that traffic 
 when occasion is presented. But its 
 past action has been marred by the de- 
 liberate refusal of Secretary of State 
 Bayard, in the Cleveland Administration, 
 to co-operate with England and other 
 countries in a Prohibitory arrangement 
 respecting alcoholic liquors, arms, am- 
 munition and dynamite for the Pacific 
 Islands. Replying to proposals from 
 
 the British Government, April 11, 1885, 
 Secretary Bayard wrote : 
 
 ' ' "While recognizing and highly approving 
 the moral. force and general propriety of the 
 proposed regulations and the responsibility of 
 conducting such traffic under proper and care- 
 ful restrictions, the Government of the United 
 States does not feel entirely prepared to join in 
 the international understanding proposed, and 
 will, therefore, for the present, restrain its ac- 
 tion to the employment, in the direction out- 
 lined by the suggested arrangement, of a sound 
 discretion in permitting traffic between its own 
 citizens in the articles referred to and the na- 
 tives of the Western Pacific islands." .' 
 
 The formal effort of the State Depart- 
 ment in the present (Harrison) Adminis- 
 tration to extend the American market 
 for beer in Mexico, Central and South 
 America — in countries having a very 
 large uncivilized population — is another 
 instance of hostility to philanthropic 
 and Christian sentiment. (See p. 639.) 
 
 Individual citizens of the United 
 States — heartless men who care not what 
 consequences may come from their acts 
 if the results are pecuniarily profitable — 
 have shipped and are shipping much of 
 the atrocious liquor that is so destruc- 
 tive to the savages of Africa. But the 
 representatives of the Government, both 
 in the Berlin Conference of 1884 and the 
 Brussels Conference of 1890, warmly 
 supported the Prohibitory measures that 
 were proposed. Alluding to the legisla- 
 tion of the Brussels Conference, William 
 F. Wharton, Assistant Secretary of State, 
 in a letter to the editor of this work, 
 Dec. 15, 1890, says: "The attitude of 
 the American Government has been one 
 of pronounced hostility to the liquor 
 traffic, which is believed to be the most 
 powerful factor in making African slav- 
 ery possible because furnishing the 
 means of barter and of brutalizing the 
 natives so that their enslavement becomes 
 the easier. The repressive provisions 
 adopted fall far short of those proposed 
 by the delegates of the United States." 
 And a stringent Prohibitory act for the 
 Samoan Islands has been adopted by the 
 joint consent of the United States, Great 
 Britain and Germany. (See footnote, 
 pp. 497-8.) 
 
 > The London Times, commenting on the failure of 
 the undertaking, said : 
 
 " France gave her adherence almost immediately, on 
 condition of the consent of the other Powers. At Berlin 
 the proposal seems to have been pigeon-holed: at all 
 events no answer was received. . . . I be united 
 States mast, jointly with Germany, hear the responsibil- 
 ity of allowing this disgraceful traffic to continue, 
 
United States Government.] 
 
 644 
 
 [United States Government. 
 
 Miscellaneous. — The ultimate national 
 aim of the temperance people is to secure 
 a Prohibitory Amendment to the Federal 
 Constitution. The first preparatory step 
 was taken in 1876, when a joint resolu- 
 tion providing for the submission of such 
 an Amendment to the States was intro- 
 duced in Congress. The demand for 
 submission has been urged in recent 
 years with considerable earnestness in 
 both Houses. The Senate Committee, 
 in highly impressive language, has re- 
 ported it favorably, and even the House 
 Committee rendered a favorable report 
 early in 1891. These concessions, though 
 of little or no practical value, indicate a 
 growing recognition of the issue in both 
 branches of Congress. (See pp. 439-42.) 
 
 The Government's tacit admission of 
 the soundness of fundamental anti- 
 liquor principles is further indicated by 
 the rules of Congress prohibiting the sale 
 of intoxicants in the restaurants of the 
 Senate and House, and throughout the 
 Capitol building. Similar rules are in 
 force for the various Department edifices 
 and for the Government buildings in all 
 parts of the country. 
 
 The highest officers of the United 
 States have frequently borne witness to 
 the evils of the drink habit and traffic. 
 The declaration signed by 12 Presidents 
 (see p. 147) is but a slight indication of 
 the views which the most eminent of men 
 unequivocally express when the occasion 
 is one of moral reflection and not of 
 political expediency. Numbered among 
 the Presidents who (either in private or 
 in public life) have emphatically given 
 encouragement to the radical creed, or 
 denounced the saloon in memorable 
 words, are Lincoln (pp. 367-71), 
 Hayes and Benjamin Harrison ; ' and 
 among the Vice-Presidents, Hamlin, 
 Colfax and Wilson (p. 650). The most 
 intense of Prohibitionists would find 
 it difficult to arraign the liquor 
 traffic in more solemn or bitter terms 
 than those employed by the late Secre- 
 tary of the Treasury, Hon. William 
 Windom. 2 Not all of these men have 
 
 'In his speech at Danville, Ind.. in 1896. noticed on 
 p. 593. President (then Senator) Harrison, while opposing 
 State Prohibition declared with considerable vigor against 
 the interference of the liquor-sellers in politics. 
 
 2 For speeches delivered by Mr. Windom while in 
 private life, see the Voice, Sept. 30, 1886, and the New 
 York Independent, July 7, 1887. See also the Voice, 
 March 14, 1889. 
 
 been entirely committed to the Prohi- 
 bition policy, and their official acts, 
 guided ty untoward conditions, have not 
 been for aggression against the traffic as a 
 whole; but the sentiments that they and 
 scores of other leading statesmen have so 
 weightily expressed show that the tem- 
 perance agitation, judged strictly by the 
 merits of its underlying principles and 
 essential purposes, is cordially approved 
 by the most responsible and most con- 
 servative men of affairs. When a Presi- 
 dent of the United States not only ban- 
 ishes intoxicants from his private table 
 but refrains from serving them at State 
 dinners and receptions (see pp. 203-4); 
 when the wife 3 of another President, 
 noted for his antagonism to Prohibition, 
 resolutely rejects all alcoholic beverages 
 on public occasions ; when the families 
 of the most prominent officials at Wash- 
 ington set the fashion of refusing wine 
 to guests on New Year day, it cannot be 
 doubted that the reform is steadily 
 winning its way in the highest places. 
 On the other hand there are many evi- 
 dences that pro-liquor opinion and easy 
 social practices still have a powerful hold 
 upon numerous persons influential in 
 public life. The procurement of a bar- 
 room license for a hotel owned by the 
 present Vice-President, Levi P. Morton, 
 was a painful surprise to the country. 1 
 The disgraceful orgies at many balls and 
 banquets given under public auspices or 
 to commemorate important events, 6 and 
 the expenditure of large sums of money 
 for liquors at celebrations and even at 
 public funerals, 6 are examples of the con- 
 tinued and widespread prevalence of a 
 callous disposition. 
 
 THE SUPREME COURT— THE GOVERNMENT 
 AND THE STATES. 
 
 Legislative and administrative action, 
 and individual performances and opin- 
 ion, both friendly and hostile, are deter- 
 mined to a great extent by political cir- 
 cumstances, by prejudice and by influ- 
 ence. However disinterested these are 
 in motive or positive in results, their 
 tendency, at any given time, cannot be 
 
 a Mrs. Cleveland. 
 
 * See the Voice, Nov. 14 and Dec. 12, 1889, and Jan. 22, 
 1891. 
 
 6 Notably the ball in New York City at the Centennial 
 of Washington's inauguration. (See the Voice, May 9, 
 1889.) 
 
 6 Particularly the Yorktown celebration and the Gar- 
 field funeral. 
 
United States Government.] 
 
 645 
 
 [United States Government. 
 
 regarded by impartial students as deci- 
 sive or even as necessarily just. The 
 question whether Prohibition is right- 
 eous and sound, and may properly be in- 
 augurated by a great Government, will 
 be most satisfactorially answered if con- 
 sidered by a tribunal removed from all 
 the _ associations that sway parties, 
 Legislatures and individuals, and invest- 
 ed with the solemn obligation to discrim- 
 inate between conflicting views. Such a 
 tribunal is the Supreme Court of the 
 United States, recognized throughout 
 the world as one of the noblest judi- 
 cial bodies ever created. Though 
 many have suspected that the Supreme 
 Court's decision in one memorable 
 case was the culmination of a process 
 of selection carefully exercised by the 
 pro-slavery Presidents in appointing 
 the Judges, no taint of corruption 
 has ever been imputed to this bench. At 
 the present day its opinion on any vexed 
 question is accepted as the calmest opin- 
 ion that can be commanded; and while 
 some may believe that the conditions of 
 law or custom which shape the opinion 
 ought to be changed, few venture to se- 
 riously criticise the interpretation unless 
 there is serious difference of opinion in 
 the Court itself. Chosen from among 
 the most mature and conservative men 
 ef the country, it cannot be supposed 
 that the Judges have any partisan pre- 
 disposition to enthusiastic ideas or to re- 
 form movements as such. 
 
 The decisions of the Supreme Court 
 on the validity of Prohibitory laws, cov- 
 ering a period of nearly 45 years, uni- 
 formly affirm not only the soundness but 
 also the righteousness of all the elementary 
 principles and provisions involved. In 
 1847, under Chief-Justice Taney, it was 
 unanimously held, in the " License Ca- 
 ses," that certain New England statutes 
 were not in conflict with the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States. The follow- 
 ing are extracts from the written opin- 
 ions of individual Justices in these cases : 
 
 Chief -Justice Taney: — " If any State deems the 
 retail and internal traffic in ardent spirits inju- 
 rious to its citizens and calculated to produce 
 idleness, vice or c'-'bauchery, I see nothing in 
 the Constitution of the United States to prevent 
 it from regulating and restraining the traffic, or 
 from prohibiting it altogether, if it thinks pro- 
 per." 
 
 Justice McLean :—" The acknowledged po- 
 lice power of a State extends often to the de- 
 struction of property. A nuisance may be 
 
 abated. Everything prejudicial to the health 
 or morals of a city may be removed." 
 
 ■ Justice Orier : — "It is not necessary, for the 
 sake of justifying the State legislation now un- 
 der consideration, to array the appalling statis- 
 tics of misery, pauperism and crime which have 
 their origin in the use or abuse of ardent spirits. 
 The police power, which is exclusively in the 
 States, is alone competent to the correction of 
 these great evils, and all measures of restraint 
 or prohibition necessary to effect the purpose 
 are within the scope of that authority. . . . 
 If a loss of revenue should accrue to the United 
 States from a diminished consumption of ardent 
 spirits, she will be the gainer a thousand-fold 
 in the health, wealth and happiness of the peo- 
 ple." 
 
 As the provisions for the enforcement 
 of State Prohibition became more radi- 
 cal, the Court was asked to determine 
 the limitations of the powers that the 
 States possessed. The broad ground was 
 taken by the liquor men that, they, as 
 tradespeople, were unwarrantably inter- 
 fered with by enactments directing the 
 confiscation of their property without 
 compensation, and making them liable to 
 criminal penalties ; for they argued that 
 they were entitled to the protection of 
 the Federal authorities under the terms 
 of the 14th Amendment, which declares 
 that no State shall "deprive any 
 person of life, liberty or property with- 
 out due process of law." Indications of 
 the final attitude of the Court were 
 afforded when, in the case of Bartemeyer 
 v. Iowa, it said that " so far as such a 
 right [to sell intoxicating liquor] ex- 
 ists, it is not one of the rights growing 
 out of citizenship of the United States ; " 
 and when it made the no less significant 
 assertion, in the case of Stone v. Missis- 
 sippi, that " No Legislature can bargain 
 away the public health or the public 
 morals. The people themselves cannot 
 do it, much less their servants. Govern- 
 ment is organized with a view to their 
 preservation and cannot divest itself of 
 the power to provide for them." 
 
 The unqualified right of a State to 
 prohibit the liquor business without com- 
 pensation, to summarily punish violators 
 without jury trials, and even to prevent 
 the manufacture of liquor for one's own 
 use, was sustained (only one of the eight 
 Justices dissenting) in the famous "Kan- 
 sas Cases " of 1887. (See pp. 92-4, 249-51.) 
 The privileges of the States were enlarged 
 by the decision, in Kidd v. Pearson, that 
 the manufacture of liquor, though in- 
 tended exclusively for sale in another 
 
United States Government.] 
 
 646 
 
 [Vinous Liquors'. 
 
 State, might be suppressed. Finally, in 
 the Christiansen case (1890), the general 
 principle that liquor-dealers could have 
 no redress, on grounds of right, in conse- 
 quence of the prohibition of their busi- 
 ness or refusal of licenses, was elaborately 
 restated in exceedingly strong language, 
 all the nine Justices assenting. (See 
 pp. 472-3.) 
 
 But the authority assumed by the Pro- 
 hibition States to forbid the importation 
 into their territory of liquor from other 
 States and from foreign countries, and 
 the sale of such liquor in the original 
 packages, has not been sustained by the 
 Supreme Court. It was held in Bowman 
 v. Railway Company (1888) that Iowa 
 could not exclude liquor shipped from 
 Illinois, and in Leisy v. Hardin (1890) 
 that even after the delivery of Illinois 
 liquor at its Iowa destination the local 
 authorities could not disturb persons dis- 
 posing of it in the unbroken original 
 parcels. These decisions were based on 
 the constitutional ground that Congress 
 alone has power to regulate commerce 
 between the States and with other coun- 
 tries, although it was intimated that 
 Congress might by statute permit sepa- 
 rate States to keep out such articles of 
 commerce as are declared contraband by 
 their laws. Yet there was a wide 
 divergence of view in the Supreme Court. 
 In the Bowman case three of the nine 
 Justices dissented (Chief -Justice Waite 
 and Justices Harlan and Gray), and one 
 (Lamar) took no part. In the Leisy 
 case Justice Gray delivered an extended 
 dissenting opinion (joined in by Justices 
 Harlan and Brewer), in which he main- 
 tained that the law as already laid down 
 by the Court (notably in the " License 
 Cases") gave the States undoubted 
 power to suppress the "original pack- 
 age " traffic. The action of the majority 
 excited warm discussion throughout the 
 country, and many eminent lawyers ex- 
 pressed the belief not only that the Court 
 had erred but that it would reverse its de- 
 cision when future opportunity should 
 enable it to review its conclusions. The 
 immediate effect was great confusion in 
 the Prohibition States; numerous original 
 package houses (or "Supreme Court 
 saloons," as they were known in some 
 places) were opened, and the laws were 
 set at naught. In August, 1890, Con- 
 gress, unable to resist the demand for 
 
 justice to the States, passed the Wilson 
 bill, removing from the States the dis- 
 abilities imposed by the Leisy decision. 
 
 [The reader who desires to know the records 
 made by the Republican and Democratic par- 
 ties, respectively, in legislating or failing to_ leg- 
 islate upon the national aspects of the liquor 
 issue, and in administering the executive 
 departments of the Government, will be able, 
 knowing the years in which each party has been 
 in power, to ascertain the chief facts from the 
 dates and other particulars given in this article 
 wherever important acts are noticed.] 
 
 Universalists. — The General Con- 
 vention of the Universalists, held in 
 Lynn, Mass., October, 1889, and repre- 
 senting nearly 1,000 parishes, adopted 
 the following: 
 
 "Resolved, That the Universalists of 
 America, in Convention assembled, reaffirm 
 their conviction that total abstinence, for the in- 
 dividual and Prohibition of the traffic in in- 
 toxicants by the States, are the only wise 
 methods of dealing with the drink problem. 
 We call upon all men to beware of the delusion 
 of fancied safety in moderate drinking ; we call 
 upon the Christian Church in all its branches 
 to be faithful in dealing with this unmitigated 
 evil ; we call upon all American citizens to de- 
 mand of the political party with which they may 
 be in sympathy, fidelity to the highest interests 
 of the State and Nation through sincere and 
 untiring efforts for outlawing the traffic in in- 
 toxicating beverages. " 
 
 Utah. — See Index. 
 
 Vermont. — See Index. 
 
 Vinous Fermentation. — See Fer- 
 mentation. 
 
 Vinous Liquors are those alcoholic 
 drinks resulting from the vinous fer- 
 mentation (see pp. 174-5) of vegetable sac- 
 chariferous juices other than grain, grain 
 ferments being known by the distinctive 
 name of malt liquors (see pp. 412-14). 
 Specifically, vinous liquors are wines 
 from grapes ; but kindred articles, pre- 
 pared from apples, currants, gooseber- 
 ries, the saps of trees, etc.,, may conveni- 
 ently be classified with them. The art 
 of obtaining such beverages has been 
 practiced from the dawn of history. 
 
 WINES FROM GBAPES. 
 
 Although the grape-vine (genus name, vitis) 
 has more than 200 known species, only five or 
 six species are of much commercial import- 
 ance. These, however, are subdivided into nu- 
 merous varieties. In the natural process of 
 manufacture the grapes are crushed and pressed, 
 and the juice (called must) is kept in tubs or 
 vats until fermentation is completed, when the 
 product is drawn off into barrels. Fermenta- 
 tion is commonly hastened by the addition of 
 
Vinous Liquors.] 
 
 647 
 
 [Vinous Liquors. 
 
 beer-yeast. The quality of the wine is affected 
 hy the temperature at which fermentation takes 
 place ; when at a high temperature the product 
 will be richer in alcohol but poorer in bouquet, 
 and vice verm. After the storage of the wine 
 in barrels a second and slow fermentation be- 
 gins, continuing sometimes for several months, 
 and when this is finished it is racked off into 
 fresh casks. Isinglass and other gelatinous sub- 
 stances are introduced to act on the tannin 
 and clarify the liquor ; this process is called 
 fining. Various methods of improving (to in- 
 crease the quantity or alter the quality) are in 
 vogue — especially chaptalization (much em- 
 ployed in the manufacture of Burgundy), by 
 which an excess of acidity is neutralized by ad- 
 ding marble dust, and the quantity and alco- 
 holic strength are increased by means of cane 
 •or starch sugar ; gallization, a method of in- 
 creasing the quantity by the infusion of sugar, 
 .acid and water, and petiolization or referment- 
 ing of the marc or refuse of grape- skins, seeds, 
 •etc., with a solution of sugar and water. The 
 chemical constituents of 36 specimens of domestic 
 wines analyzed by the United States Agricul- 
 tural Department, are averaged in the follow- 
 ing table : 
 
 Constituents. 
 
 Specific gravity 
 
 Alcohol (by weight), f, 
 " ( " volume) " 
 
 Extract 
 
 Tot. acids, as tartaric. . . 
 Fixed acids, as tartaric 
 Volatile " " acetic. 
 
 Bitartrate of potash 
 
 Reducing sugars as dex- 
 trose 
 
 Glycerine 
 
 Ash 
 
 Average Per Cent, of 
 Constituents. 
 
 16 Sam- 
 ples Red 
 Wines. 
 
 .9946 
 
 9.66 
 
 1.95 
 
 1.94 
 .611 
 .397 
 .168 
 .068 
 
 .164 
 
 .490 
 .290 
 
 Samples 
 
 White 
 
 Wines. 
 
 .9912 
 
 10.44 
 
 12.94 
 1.36 
 .665 
 .49 
 .131 
 .152 
 
 .250 
 
 .528 
 320 
 
 11 Sam- 
 
 plesSweet 
 
 Wines, 
 
 1.0261 
 
 14.50 
 
 17.85 
 
 11.21 
 .511 
 .37 
 .104 
 .007 
 
 8.48 
 .260 
 .351 
 
 The alcoholic strength of wines is seldom the 
 result of natural fermentation. It is imparted 
 by fortification, or the addition of distilled spir- 
 its. Fortifying is now carried on in all coun- 
 tries without disguise. It is done on so exten- 
 sive a scale by the California wine-makers that 
 for their benefit a special act has been passed by 
 •Congress permitting them to use grape-spirits in 
 their business without paying the Internal Rev- 
 enue tax on the quantities so used. (See p. 637.) 
 The universal practice of adulterating wines 
 with cheap and dangerous substances is discuss-, 
 •ed on pp. 7-9. " Wine, so-called," says George 
 "Walker, former Consul-General of the United 
 States to France, "is also entirely made of other 
 substances than the grape, and therefore an 
 article is often sold in the markets which does 
 not contain any true wine. ... In order to 
 correct the acidity of wine some unscrupulous 
 dealers make use of litharge. The result is, the 
 persons who use their wines are often subject to 
 gripes or colic, such as afflict painters." 1 State- 
 ments like these, sustained by abundant shock- 
 ing details, are made by candid and competent 
 observers without number. The stupendous 
 frauds perpetrated by the French vintners ar e 
 
 i Consular reports, vol. 6, p. 562. 
 
 indicated by the fact that in 1887, as compared 
 with 1875, the quantity of cheap Spanish and 
 other wines imported into France and used for 
 " doctoring " purposes had increased 64 times. 
 (See p. 479. ) Plastering is one of the peculiar 
 and most reprehensible of French methods of 
 adulteration ; it is done by adding considerable 
 quantities of lime, gypsum or alum, to height- 
 en the color of the wine and to clarify it by re- 
 ducing the lees or dregs. " The ability to 'doc- 
 tor' and falsify wines," says the United States 
 Agricultural report for 1880 (pp. 170-3), " is not 
 lacking in this country, . . and these prac- 
 tices are in reality abetted by the lack of knowl- 
 edge and the depraved taste of the public which 
 demands strongly alcoholic or very sweet wines. 
 
 . . The so-called American ports and sher- 
 ries are not to be commended, for many of them 
 seem to have been made by bunglers whose sole 
 object seems to have been to use the cheapest 
 sugar or molasses and the poorest and cheapest 
 form of alcohol, brandy or whiskey. ... So 
 soon as the professional improver is allowed to 
 use his peculiar methods and formulas there is 
 no longer any safety." 
 
 The percentages of alcohol in wines vary 
 widely. The following table, including some 
 of the best-known European wines, compiled in 
 part from Girardin's " Chimie appliquee aux 
 Arts industriels" (5th ed.), and in part from 
 Konig's " Nahrungs- und Genussmittel" (1880), 
 is taken from the United States Dispensatory 
 for 1887 : 
 
 
 Percentages 
 
 Per 
 
 cent- 
 ages OF 
 
 Wines. 
 
 of Al( 
 By Vol- 
 
 30HOL. 
 
 By 
 
 
 ume. 
 
 Weight. 
 
 
 
 23.47 
 39.11 
 
 15'54 
 
 
 
 
 
 " 1868 (K.) 
 
 18.81 
 22.90 
 
 15.34 
 18.66 
 
 
 
 
 " 'Amontillado, 1870 (K.) 
 
 20.06 
 
 16.34 
 
 
 
 
 20.03 
 
 16.28 
 
 
 
 " ' red 1863 (K.) 
 
 19.46 
 
 15.82 
 
 
 
 
 21.91 
 
 17.93 
 
 
 
 Marsala (Ingham) (KJ 
 
 20.44 
 
 16.73 
 
 
 
 19.09 
 
 15.52 
 
 
 
 
 16.14 
 
 13.23 
 
 li 57 
 
 Muscat' wine, 1872 (K.) 
 
 12.35 
 
 10.02 
 
 15.52 
 
 
 12.13 
 12.74 
 
 9.80 
 10.29 
 
 22.11 
 14.99 
 
 " (Aushruch). 1866 (K.).... 
 
 'Ruster (Ausbruch), 1872 (K.).. 
 
 11.08 
 
 8.96 
 
 21.74 
 
 
 13.55 
 
 10.97 
 
 11.82 
 
 Champagne (Carte 
 
 
 
 
 
 11.75 
 
 9.51 
 
 11.53 
 
 Champagne (not efferves- 
 
 
 
 
 
 12.69 
 12.14 
 
 9'.80 
 
 §'.49 
 
 Hock (effervescing) (K.) 
 
 Sherrv (Lachrymal Christi)(Q.) 
 
 17.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 12.06 
 
 
 
 
 Rhine wine (Hesse), red (E.). 
 
 9.55 
 
 
 
 
 " '• " white (K.) 
 
 11.07 
 
 
 
 
 German wine (Riesling) (K.). 
 
 11.30 
 
 
 
 
 " (Traminer) iK.) 
 
 11.80 
 
 
 
 
 " (Gutedel) (K.). . 
 
 10.30 
 
 
 
 
 Claret (Saint-Estephe) (G.)... 
 
 9.70 
 
 
 
 
 " (ChSteau-Latour) (G.). 
 
 9.30 
 
 
 
 
 " (Ch;iteau-Lafite) (G.).. 
 
 8.77 
 
 
 
 
 " (Ch:'iteau-Margaux)(G.) 
 
 8.07 
 
 
 
 
 
 7.33 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 The kinds of wine are innumerable, special 
 characteristics of composition, color, flavor, 
 quality, etc., depending on differences in the 
 varieties of the grape and differences of soil, 
 climate, modes of cultivation, methods of prep- 
 aration, etc. Among the leading classes are red, 
 
Vinous Liquors.] 
 
 648 
 
 [Vinous Liquors. 
 
 white, spirituous, light, sparkling, still, dry, 
 sweet, rough and acidulous wines. 
 
 Red wines are derived from dark-colored grapes fer- 
 mented with the "marc," i.e., skins and seeds. 
 
 White wines are made either from white grapes 
 with or without the skins, or from the juice of dark 
 
 f rapes. The dark akins contain coloring matter, which, 
 owever, is not soluble in water, and hence the unfer- 
 mented juice is not charged with it; but when fermenta- 
 tion occurs, the coloring particles are broken up by the 
 alcohol and distributed throughout the liquid, giving the 
 dark hue. 
 
 A spirituous or generous wine is the product of a 
 grape-juice containing a large proportion of sugar-princi- 
 ple, subjected to sufficient fermentation to convert it into 
 an alcohol, producing a wine with a considerable percent- 
 age of spirit. To secure a spirituous wine by natural 
 processes a very sweet grape is required, but it is often 
 artificially obtained by adding to the sugar the fer- 
 ment of an ordinary must. 
 
 A light wine is one relatively weak in alcohol, produced 
 from a must having little sugar. 
 
 Sparkling or effervescing wines are those impregnated 
 with carbonic acid gas. Champagnes are the principal 
 beverages of this class. They are made by bottling the 
 liquor Defore the second fermentation has been com- 
 pleted. The bottles, being carefully sealed, retain the 
 gas that is generated. 
 
 Still wines include all the wines that do not effervesce, — 
 i.e., all wines in which the fermentation has been finished 
 before they are sealed or consumed. 
 
 Dry wines are Bound and strong-bodied, without 
 marked sweetness or excessive acidity. 
 
 Sweet wines are such as are produced from juice con- 
 taining a great deal of sugar with too little ferment 
 present to convert all the sugar into alcohol. Wines of 
 this kind must be fortified with spirits, for there is 
 danger that the sugar, especially upon exposure, will 
 undergo acetous fermentation. 
 
 Hough or astringent wines are those having a strong 
 flavor of tannic acid derived from the " marc " (skins, 
 stems and seeds) of the grape. 
 
 Acidulous wines are characterized by the presence of 
 carbonic acid or an unusual quantity of tartar. 
 
 The United States Pharmacopoeia (1880) rec- 
 ognizes three varieties of medicinal wines — red 
 wine, white wine and stronger white wine. Be- 
 sides these, it names certain medicated wines 
 prepared by mixing medicinal agents with white 
 wine. These are : wine of aloes, wine of anti- 
 mony, aromatic wine, wine of colchicum root, 
 wine of colchicum seed, wine of ergot, bitter wine 
 of iron, wine of ipecac, wine of opium and wine 
 of rhubarb. As indicated by the names (except 
 in the case of aromatic wine), these medicated 
 articles have for their chief ingredients white 
 wine and the drugs mentioned. The so-called 
 aromatic wine of the Pharmacopoeia contains 
 equal parts of lavender, origanum, peppermint, 
 rosemary and sage, dissolved in a sufficient 
 quantity of white wine to make 100 parts. The 
 United States Dispensatory (1887, p. 1,530), 
 voicing the best conclusions of science in regard 
 to the habitual beverage use of wine, says: 
 
 41 It [wine], in a state of health, is at least useless, if not 
 absolutely pernicious. The degree of mischief which it 
 produces depends on the character of the wine. Thus, 
 the lighter wines of France are comparatively harmless, 
 while the habitual use of the stronger wines, such as 
 Bherry, port, madeira, etc., even though taken in modera- 
 tion, is always injurious, as having a tendency to induce 
 gout, apoplexy and other diseases dependent on pleth- 
 ora and over-stimulation. All wines, however, when 
 used habitually in excess, are productive of bad conse- 
 quences. They weaken the stomach, produce disease of 
 the liver and give rise to gout, dropsy, apoplexy, tremors 
 and not unfrequently mania." 
 
 Without undertaking to present a complete 
 list — which would be well-nigh an impossible 
 task, so many are the names and so difficult is 
 it to get complete information for all countries, 
 — we notice below some of the most important 
 wines of this day ; 
 
 Algerian wines have acquired prominence since the- 
 phylloxera began its devastations in Europe. They ar& 
 full-bodied and tolerably strong in alcohol. 
 
 Bordeaux wines, taking their name from the French, 
 city of Bordeaux, are produced in the Medoc district and 
 are otherwise called me'doc and clarets. 
 
 Burgundy wines, the richly-flavored products of the- 
 Province of Burgundy, are, after the m^doc, the best- 
 known red wines of France; they include several vari- 
 eties of white wines. 
 
 California wines embrace many kinds, resembling the 
 European products but coarser in quality. Some go by 
 the old names— hock, muscatel, claret, sherry, port, bur- 
 
 gundy, moselle, sauterne, tokay, malaga. frontignan. etc. 
 'thers are mission, wines, rie#lh/g, nesting hock, zin~ 
 fandel, angelica, beaune, bei ger, charbona, lenoire, gutcdet, 
 St. Macaire and sonoma. The vine was first cultivated m 
 California in 1769 by Catholic priests from Mexico. 
 
 0/ her American Wines.— Among the most important 
 are the catawbas (still, sparkling and sweel). delaware, 
 concord, ives seedling, Virginia --eedlmg and &cup\wrnong. 
 Some s^-called champagnes are made. A great many 
 more might be named, but they are mostly unknown be- 
 yond tlie localities where they are produced. There are 
 wine growing districts along Ihe shores of Lake Erie in 
 Ohio, around Lake Kruka and in otber parts of New 
 York, in Missouri, in Texas, in Virginia and in several, 
 other States. But their interests are insignificant com- 
 pared with those of California. 
 
 Cape wine is a general name for the wineB of South 
 Africa. 
 
 Carlowitz (Hungarian) resembles port, but is more as- 
 tringent and is without the fruity flavor. 
 
 C'etfe wines are inferior grades of sherries, or are simi- 
 lar wines made in parts of Spain outside the sherry dis- 
 trict. 
 
 ChaHU is a white French wine of fair quality, named, 
 for the Commune of Cliablis, where it is grown. 
 
 Champagne, the chief of the effervescing wines, was- 
 originally made in the Province of Champagne, France. 
 Several varieties, both still and sparkling, are properly 
 classed under this name but in the United States the 
 word chain pugne is applied exclusively to the effervescent 
 article. Sparkling champagnes are produced frorh both 
 white and red grapes, carefully pressed, and are of an. 
 amber color which becomes darker when a large propor- 
 tion of red grapes is used. The Departments of Marne 
 and Haute-Marne, in France, are the principal sources. 
 
 Claret (old English, from the Latin clarvs, clear) is 
 the name first given in England to the red wines of the 
 Mddoc district of France, and later applied to all the red 
 Bordeaux wines and to Bimilar ones produced in the 
 United States. Claret is of a deep purple color. Good, 
 claret has a delicate flavor, somewhat acid and astringent. 
 
 Constanlia is a superior Cape wine. 
 
 Dalmatian wines, products of Dalmatia. a Province of 
 Austria -Hungary, are red for the moat part, having a 
 full color and mucli alcohol, and resembling the wines of 
 Burgundy. The leading varieties are moscato roso, vino 
 taitaro, prosecco vvgora, maraschino and malvasia. 
 
 Frontignan or frontignac is a sweet muscadine wine, 
 made from frontignan grapes in the vU iaity of the small 
 town of Frontignan in southern France. 
 
 Hermitage (French, vin d? I'hermitage) is a celebrated 
 French wine, both white and red, of the Department of 
 the Dr6me. 
 
 Hock or hochheimer (from Hochheim. Germany) is a 
 Rhenish wine, light and yellowish. Some kinds are 
 eparkliPL'. others are still. 
 
 Lachrymal Christi (Latin, tearB of Christ) when genu- 
 ine, is regarded as one of the most superior wines of 
 Italy. It is made in comparatively small quantities in 
 the vicinity of Naples. 
 
 Lisbon, one of the chief Portuguese wines, is sweet 
 and of a light color. 
 
 Mficon (French), made near the town of that name, re- 
 sembles burgundy, though lighter in color and body and. 
 of inferior quality. 
 
 Madeira, the strongest of the white wines, is a famous* 
 product of the Madeira Islands. It has had a high repu- 
 tation since the middle of the 18th Century, but very 
 little now sold as madeira is genuine. The choicest kinds. 
 are malmsey, formerly made by the Jesuits in the vine- 
 yards at Cama de Lobos from grapes that ripen a month 
 later than most others, sercial, a full-bodied and very 
 fine wine, from the riesling grape, and bual, another rich 
 variety. Tinta is a red madeira. 
 
 Malaga, a sweet wine obtained principally from the- 
 Muscat grapes in the Province of Malaga, Spain. 
 
 Malmsey, from Crete, Spain, the Madeira and Canary 
 Islands, is a sweet wine of high grade. Like most of the 
 other famous beverages it is now made on a very limited, 
 scale. 
 
Vinous Liquors.] 
 
 649 
 
 [Wayland, Francis. 
 
 Marsala, the principal wine of Sicily, from the town of 
 Marsala. It 18 like maderia in bouquet and greatly im- 
 proves with a;;e. 
 
 Medoc iB a name of extensive application, covering the 
 numerous wines of the Medoc district, the chief center 
 of the French wine industry; most frequently given to 
 the red clarets. There are, bowever. various white 
 medocs, including the semillon, sauvignon and mus- 
 cat die. 
 
 _ Moselle, from the banks of the river Moselle (Germany), 
 is one of the most prominent of the lighter wines. Most 
 moselles are white. 
 
 Muscatels include several lucious sweet wines of Italy, 
 Spain and France. 
 
 Port or oporto, for a century and a half the most valued 
 of Portuguese wines, has a deep purple color, is moder- 
 ately sweet and somewhat astringent, and is one of the 
 strongest of vinous liquors. The only genuine port 
 comes from a small district (the Alto Douro) in Portugal, 
 which the phylloxera has ravaged in recent years. (See 
 pp 493-4.) Yet enormous quantities of so-called port 
 are consumed. English port is a spurious article. 
 
 Mhenish or Rhine wines, strictly speaking, are those 
 made along the Rhine river, but the name is a compre- 
 hensive one tor most German wines, including hock and 
 moselle. The finest come from the right banks of the 
 river. Among favorite kinds from the left bank are 
 liebfraumilch, nierslein. scharlachberg nadforst. 
 
 Roussillon, a dark, full-bodied wine, from the old 
 Province of Roussillon in southern France, is of high 
 quality and is much used for blending with light thin 
 wines. 
 
 Hack (from the French sec, meaning dry) was an old 
 name for dry wines of Spain. It is now given to a 
 Bpecies of sweet wine. 
 
 Saumur, a white sparkling wine produced near the 
 town of Saumur, France. It is considered a good sub- 
 stitute for champagne. 
 
 Sa -i terms, from white grapes grown in the district of 
 Sauterne, France, embrace some of the most popular 
 white wines. 
 
 Sec (French for dry) is an affix to names of wines, indi- 
 cating that they are "'dry," as " champagne sec." 
 
 Sherry (from Xeres— or Jerez— de la Frontera, a town 
 of Spain) ranks among the favorites of connoiseurs. It 
 is of deep amber color and very strong in alcohol. There 
 are two general classes of sherries — amontillado and 
 manzanilla. Nearly all so-called Bherries are base coun- 
 terfeits. 
 
 Spanish red or terragona, comes from Catalonia in 
 Spain, the finest kinds being rich and full-bodied. The 
 supply is very small 
 
 Teneriffe, from the Canary island of Teneriffe, re- 
 sembles madeira, is white in color and is about as strong 
 in alcohol as sherry. 
 
 Tent or tinta, a deep red wine, is a prominent Spanish 
 variety. 
 
 Tokay, from the district surrounding -the town of Tokay 
 in -Hungary, is one of the best-known of Hungarian 
 wines, sweetand rich. 
 
 FERMENTS FKOM OTHER FRUITS, ETC. 
 
 Of the fermented liquors derived from other 
 fruits than grapes, the most important is cider, 
 manufactured from apples in enormous quanti- 
 ties in the United States and other countries. 
 Little attention is given to the development of 
 scientific processes, although several large firms 
 produce the beverage on a great scale and by 
 systematic methods. Sweet cider is the newly- 
 expressed and unfermented juice; luird cider is 
 the intoxicating product which results from ex- 
 posure to the air. If the exposure is continued 
 the cider turns to vinegar. There is no means 
 of ascertaining the aggregate quantity made in 
 the United States. Thoroughly fermented cider 
 has about 8 per cent, of alcohol. Perry is the 
 fermented juice of the pear, popular in England 
 and some other countries, but not so much so in 
 the United States; its alcoholic percentage rang- 
 es from 7 to 9. Other ferments, called wines, 
 are made from various small fruits and berries, 
 such as currants, gooseberries, blackberries, rasp- 
 berries, whortleberries, elderberries, mulberries, 
 cherries, strawberries, plums, red bilberries, and 
 
 the like. Oranges are sometimes used for the 
 production of orange wine. The saps of trees 
 are converted into fermented drinks, especially 
 noteworthy being the pulque of Mexico (see pp. 
 428-9) and the palm wine (called in India tod- 
 dee or toddy) of Africa, India and other warm 
 regions. There is scarcely a fruit of the forest, 
 field, orchard or garden that cannot readily be 
 made to provide a fermented drink. The utili- 
 zation of many of them, however, is impracti- 
 cable or not regarded as worth the pains, be- 
 cause the ordinary beverages are abundant and 
 cheap, and satisfy all the tastes of the drinker. 
 
 Virginia. — See Index. 
 
 Washington (State of). — See In- 
 dex. 
 
 Washingtonian Movement. — 
 
 This celebrated moral suasion crusade 
 had its origin in the reformation of a 
 Baltimore drinking club of six men— 
 W. K. Mitchell, a tailor; J. F. Hoss, a 
 carpenter; David Anderson and George 
 Steers, blacksmiths ; James McCurley, a 
 coachmaker, and Archibald Campbell, a 
 silversmith. They were induced to 
 change their habits by the address of a 
 temperance lecturer, and signed the fol- 
 lowing pledge (April 6, 1840) : 
 
 "We, whose names are annexed, desirous of 
 forming a Society for our mutual benefit, and 
 to guard against a practice — a pernicious prac- 
 tice — which is injurious to our health, standing 
 and families, do pledge ourselves, as gentlemen, 
 that we will not drink any spirits or malt 
 liquors, wine or cider." 
 
 They took the name of " The Washing- 
 ton Temperance Society," and were fam- 
 iliarly known as "Washingtonians." By 
 the end of 1840 this Baltimore organiza- 
 tion had 700 members, and under the 
 leadership of John H. W. Hawkins, the 
 most prominent Washingtonian agitator, 
 the crusade spread to other cities and 
 States. (For particulars, see p. 203.) 
 Its force was spent by 1843, but the en- 
 ergy developed by it was of great and 
 lasting benefit to the general temperance 
 cause. Like all similar undertakings 
 the Washingtonian movement demon- 
 strated that mere moral suasion methods 
 cannot overcome the organized liquor 
 traffic. 
 
 Wayland, Francis. — Born in New 
 York City, March 11, 1796; died in Prov- 
 idence, R. L, Sept. 26, 1865. He gradu- 
 ated at Union College in 1813, and began 
 the practice of medicine in Troy, N. Y. 
 But he soon left this profession for the 
 Baptist ministry. He served as tutor 
 in Union College from 1817 to 1821, and 
 
Wesleyan Methodist Church.] 650 
 
 [W. C. T. Unionl 
 
 as pastor of a Baptist church in Boston 
 for the next five years. In 1827 he was 
 elected President of Brown University, 
 and he filled that position for 28 years. 
 He was a clear and an able writer on 
 philosophic and kindred questions. As 
 early as 1833, before the Father Mathew 
 and Washingtonian movements, and 
 nearly 20 years before the Maine law 
 was enacted, he wrote : "I think the 
 prohibition of the traffic in ardent spir- 
 its a fit subject for legislative enactment, 
 and I believe the most happy results 
 would flow from such prohibition." 
 The other references to the temperance 
 question in his writings are strong and 
 radical. 
 
 Wesleyan Methodist Church. — 
 
 The utterances of this church on the 
 drink issue are in all respects extremely 
 radical. The following is from the de- 
 clarations of the General Conference 
 (representing 22 Annual Conferences), 
 held at La Otto, Ind., in October, 1887: 
 
 "That we hold that law must be an adjunct 
 of moral means in order to suppress the traffic 
 side of this evil. The appetite may be reached 
 through the church and home, but the public 
 traffic must be struck through the law, and back 
 of the law should be a political organization in 
 sympathy with it, and pledged to its 'enforce- 
 ment, in order to its efficiency." 
 
 Wesley, John. — Born in Epworth, 
 Eng., June 28, 1703; died in London, 
 March 2, 1791. He was the founder of 
 the Methodist societies, a voluminous 
 writer, an extensive traveller, an eloquent 
 preacher and a remarkable organizer 
 and disciplinarian. He, was a total 
 abstainer from the beverage use of all 
 intoxicants. Like other early temperance 
 reformers, he was especially severe in 
 condemning distilled spirits. In 1743 
 he prepared the famous rule of the so- 
 cieties against "drunkenness, buying 
 or selling distilled liquors, or drinking 
 them, except in cases of extreme neces- 
 sity." (See p. 425.) In 1744, speaking of 
 wine-drinking, he said : 
 
 "You see the wine when it sparkles in the 
 cup, and are going to drink it. I say, there is 
 poison in it, and therefore beg you to throw it 
 away. If you add, 'It is not poison to me, 
 though it may be to others; ' then I say, ' throw 
 it away for thy brother's sake, lest thou embold- 
 en him to drink also. Why should thy strength 
 occasion thy weak brother to perish, for whom 
 Christ died?'" 
 
 In 1760 he arraigned liquor-sellers in 
 these words : 
 
 " All who sell liquors in the common way, 
 to any that will buy, are poisoners-general. 
 They murder His Majesty's subjects by whole- 
 sale; neither does their eye pity or spare. They 
 drive them to hell like sheep. And what is 
 their gain ? Is it not the blood of these men? 
 Who, then, would envy their large estates and 
 sumptuous palaces ? A curse is in the midst of 
 them. The curse of God is in their gardens, 
 their groves — a fire that burns to the nether- 
 most hell. Blood, blood is there! The foun- 
 dation, the floors, walls, the roof, are stained 
 with blood ! " 
 
 West Virginia.— See Index. 
 
 Whiskey. — See Spirituous Liquors. 
 
 Wilson, Henry. — Born in Farming- 
 ton, N. H., Feb. 16, 1812; died in Wash- 
 ington, D. C, Nov. 22, 1875. In his 
 eleventh year he was apprenticed to a 
 farmer. He learned the shoemaker's 
 trade, and it was his means of livelihood 
 for a number of years. He became ac- 
 tive in politics about 1840, served in 
 both branches of the Massachusetts 
 Legislature, was President of the State 
 Senate in 1851 and 1852, was a member 
 of the United States Senate from 1855 
 to 1873, and was elected Vice-President 
 in 1872. He was one of the leaders of 
 Anti-Slavery sentiment, united with the 
 Free-Soilers in 1848 because the Whigs 
 refused to take a friendly attitude, de- 
 nounced the Fugitive Slave law, and 
 rendered exceedingly valuable services 
 as Chairman of the Committee on Mili- 
 tary Affairs in the Senate during the 
 Civil War. He was a total abstainer and 
 a pronounced opponent of the drink 
 traffic. In 1867 he was instrumental in 
 reviving the Congressional Temperance 
 Society. His social and public influence, 
 throughout his career at Washington, 
 was uniformly given for the discourage- 
 ment of drinking customs. "All other 
 issues before the American people," said 
 he, "dwindle into insignificance com- 
 pared to the issue involved in the tern- 
 perance question." 
 
 Wine. — See Vinous Liquors. 
 
 Wisconsin. — See Index. 
 
 Woman's Christian Temperance 
 Union. 1 — The largest and most active 
 of the non-secret temperance organiza- 
 
 1 The editor ia indebted to Miss Frances E. Willard, 
 Mrs. Mary T. Lathrap, Mrs. Mary Clement Leavitt, Mrs. 
 Frances J. Barnes, Alice M. Guernsey, Mrs. Caroline A. 
 Leech and Miss Lucia F. E. Kimball. 
 
W. C. T. Union.] 
 
 651 
 
 [W. O. T. Union. 
 
 tions of the United States. It sprang 
 from the Ohio Woman's Crusade of 1873. 
 At Chautauqua, in August, 1874, Mrs. 
 Mattie McClellan Brown, Mrs. Jennie F. 
 Willing, Mrs. Emily H. Miller and a few 
 other women held a meeting and decided 
 to call a National Convention. This 
 body met at Cleveland, Nov. 17, 1874, 
 and the W. C. T. U. was there organized. 
 It now has branches in every State and 
 Territory, including Alaska, and the total 
 number of paying members (not count- 
 ing juveniles) is about 150,000. (For 
 facts about the juvenile department, see 
 Loyal Temperance Legion.) The to- 
 tal receipts of the National Union for 
 the year 1890 were about $30,000. The 
 object, as expressed in the original pre- 
 amble to the plan of work (which, so far 
 as the expression of purpose is concerned, 
 remains unchanged), is to unite the 
 efforts of Christian women for the ex- 
 tinction of intemperance; and this object 
 was more explicitly defined by the second 
 National Convention (Cincinnati, 1875), 
 as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That whereas, the object of just 
 government is to conserve the best interests of 
 the governed; and whereas, the liquor traffic is 
 not only a crime against God but subversive of 
 ■every interest of society; therefore, in behalf of 
 humanity, we call for such legislation as shall 
 secure this end; and while we will continue to 
 employ all moral agencies as indispensable, we 
 iold Prohibition to be essential to the full tri- 
 umph of this reform." 
 
 The following is the pledge of the 
 Union, adopted by the Convention held 
 at Chicago in 1877: 
 
 "I hereby solemnly promise, God helping 
 me, to abstain from all distilled, fermented and 
 malt liquors, including wine, beer and cider, 
 and to employ all proper means to discourage 
 the use of and traffic in the same." 
 
 Bach member wears as a badge a bit 
 of white ribbon. The niotto is, "For 
 God, and Home, and Native Land." 
 
 In 1880 the old plan of Committees 
 "was replaced by a plan of Departments, 
 and the remarkable success of the Union 
 in so many phases of effort is due in no 
 small measure to the work of the Depart- 
 ments, each of which is in charge of a 
 responsible and energetic woman, with 
 an assistant or assistants. In the report 
 for 1889 this classification of Depart- 
 ments is found: 
 
 ',tion. — National Organizers, Y Or- 
 ganizers, American Organizers for World's 
 W. C. T. U., Work among Foreign-speaking 
 
 People, Work among Colored People, Young 
 Women's Work, and Juvenile Work. 
 
 Preventive. — Health and Heredity. 
 
 Educational. — Scientific Temperance Instruc- 
 tion, Sunday-school Work, Temperance Litera- 
 ature, The Press, Relation of Temperance to 
 Labor and Capital, School of Methods, Present- 
 ing Our Cause to Influential Bodies, and Nar- 
 cotics. 
 
 Evangelistic . — Bible Study (including Un- 
 fermented Sacramental Wine and Securing a 
 Day of Prayer in the Week of Prayer), Work 
 in Prisons, Jails, Police Stations, Almshouses 
 and Asylums, Work among Railroad Employes, 
 Work among Soldiers and Sailors, Work among 
 Lumbermen, Promotion of Social Purity, and 
 Sabbath Observance. 
 
 Social. — Parlor Meetings, Flower Mission, and 
 State and County Fairs. 
 
 Legal. — Legislation and Petitions, Franchise, 
 and Peace and International Arbitration. 
 
 These Departments do not include 
 various standing committees. The Union 
 also conducts in Chicago a National 
 Temperance Hospital and Training 
 School for Nurses, a Woman's Lecture 
 Bureau, a Woman's Temperance Publi- 
 cation Association, and other enterprises. 
 The headquarters of the organization are 
 in Chicago, where the Union Signal 
 (weekly), one of the most prominent and 
 widely-circulated of temperance news- 
 papers, is published. Other periodicals, 
 and many tracts and works, are issued. 
 The chief officers are (1891) : President, 
 Miss Frances E. Willard ; Corresponding 
 Secretary, Mrs. Caroline B. Buell; Be- 
 cording Secretary, Mrs. Mary A. Wood- 
 bridge; Treasurer, Miss Esther Pugh. 
 
 The example of the women of the 
 United States gave rise to the National W. 
 C. T. U. of Canada, also an influential 
 organization. The World's W. C. T. U. 
 was conceived in 1883, and now has 
 branches and societies in numerous 
 countries. It owes its development espec- 
 ially to the labors of Mrs. Mary Clement 
 Leavitt, who began a tour of the world 
 in 1883, starting from San Francisco and 
 visiting, successively, the Hawaiian 
 Islands, Australasia, and many nations of 
 Asia, Africa and Europe. Mrs. Leavitt 
 has not yet completed her mission. 1 The 
 first President of the World's Union was 
 the late Margaret Bright Lucas, of Eng- 
 land. Miss Willard is now (1891) at 
 the head. 
 
 The National Union of the United 
 States has taken a decided stand in favor 
 of the ballot for women, believing that 
 
 1 For an extended account of her work (written by 
 herself), see the Voice, Dec. 18, 1890. 
 
W. 0. T. Union.] 
 
 652 
 
 [Wyoming. 
 
 the reform can never be entirely success- 
 ful until the women, who suffer most 
 from the drink traffic, have power to de- 
 clare at the ballot-box for its destruction. 
 Founded essentially on the broad prin- 
 ciple that Prohibition is indispensable, 
 the Union has naturally shown an active 
 interest in politics, striving for the adop- 
 tion of Constitutional Amendments and 
 other advanced measures, petitioning 
 Legislatures, Congress and the executives, 
 and seeking to command the friendly 
 action of parties. The principal leaders, 
 with very few exceptions, and an over- 
 whelming majority of the individual 
 members, became convinced that the 
 Prohibition movement required faithful 
 and general partisan championship, and 
 accordingly the following declaration was 
 made at the St. Louis Convention of 1884 : 
 
 " We refer to the history of ten years of persis- 
 tent moral suasion work as fully establishing 
 our claim to be called a non -political society, but 
 one which steadily follows the white banner of 
 Prohibition wherever it may be displayed. We 
 have, however, as individuals, always allied 
 ourselves in local and State political contests 
 with those voters whose efforts and ballots have 
 been given to the removal of the dramshop and 
 its attendant evils; and at this time, while rec- 
 ognizing that our action as a national soci- 
 ety is not binding upon States or individuals, 
 we reaffirm the positions taken by the society 
 both at Louisville in 1882, and at Detroit in 
 1883, pledging our influence to 'that party, by 
 whatever name called, which shall furnish us 
 the best embodiment of Prohibition principles 
 and will most surely protect our homes.' And 
 as we now know which national party gives us 
 the desired embodiment of the principles for 
 which our ten years' labor has been expended, 
 
 we will continue to lend our influence to ihe na- 
 tional political organization which declares in 
 its platform for National Prohibition and Home 
 Protection. In this, as in all our progressive 
 effort, we will endeavor to meet argument with 
 argument, misjudgment with patience, denun- 
 ciation with kindness, and all our difficulties and 
 dangers with prayer." 
 
 The attitude thus taken has been ad- 
 hered to despite the vigorous opposition 
 of an element of dissenters; and its 
 practical effect has been to give the in- 
 fluence of the Union to the Prohibition 
 party. Notwithstanding this, the nation- 
 al organization holds itself in readiness to 
 indorse any other political party so soon 
 as creed and performances may justify 
 indorsement. 
 
 The element that objects to the polit- 
 ical attitute of the W. C. T. U. has cut 
 adrift from the parent body and set up a, 
 distinct society, called the " Non-Par- 
 tisan Woman's Christian Temperance Un- 
 ion." It was founded in 1890, chiefly 
 through the efforts of Mrs. J. Ellen Pos- 
 ter, with the support of the Iowa State 
 Union. The President (1891) is Mrs. 
 Ellen J. Phinney of Cleveland ; Secreta- 
 ry, Miss Jennie P. Duty, Cleveland. 
 According to the " National Temperance 
 Almanac for 1891," there are general or- 
 ganizations in Maine, Vermont, Ohio, 
 Pennsylvania, Illinois, Iowa and Minne- 
 sota, and the District of Columbia, and 
 local Unions in a number of States not 
 here named. 
 
 Woman Suffrage. — See Index. 
 
 Wyoming. — See Index. 
 
INDEX 
 
 KOTE. — The cross references in the Index are to Index titles, not necessarily to titles of 
 
 articles in the body of the book. 
 
 Aarrestad, Sven, 456. 
 
 Abkari act (India), 843-3. 
 
 Abolition and Prohibition movements compared, 30-8. 
 
 Absinthe, 617. 
 
 — Epilepsy from, 161. 
 Absolute alcohol, 615-16. 
 Abstinence (see "Total Abstinence"). 
 Abyssinia, 13. 
 
 Acchioc, a Yucatan intoxicant, 430. 
 
 Acetic acid, 18. 
 
 Acid matters used in adulterating, 8-10. 
 
 Acidulous wines, 648. 
 
 Acute diseases from drink, 25. 
 
 Adair law, The, 334-5. 
 
 Adams, John Quincy (President), 147. 
 
 Adams, Nehemiah (Rev.), Opposition of to Abolition, 32. 
 
 Addison, Joseph, on wine adulterations, 7. 
 
 Adulteration, 7-11, 133, 234, 616-17, 647. 
 
 — Legislation concerning, 9. (See also digests of State 
 
 laws. 375-360.) 
 
 — Phylloxera's ravages, Effects of upon, 479-82. 
 Advent Christian Church, 11. 
 
 Africa, 11-17. 
 
 — Liquor traffic with, 15-17, 240-1, 498 (note), 643. 
 African Methodist Episcopal Church, 17. 
 African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, 17. 
 Agricultural sentiment (see " Farmers "). 
 Aguardiente, a spirituous liquor, 16, 82. 
 Alaoama: 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 382, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 275-7. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 573, 577. 
 Alaska, Prohibitory law for, 377. 
 Albucasis, 155. 
 
 Alcohol, Amylic, 18, 20, 155. 
 
 Alcohol, Butylic, 18, 155. 
 
 Alcohol, Bthylic or Common, 17-19, 615. 
 
 — Affinity of for water, 20, 154. 
 
 — Arts, manufactures, sciences, etc., Quantities of used 
 
 in the, 18-19, 130-1, 255, 615. 
 Physicians favor restriction of use to, 424. 
 
 — Beverage use much in excess of legitimate use, 19, 615 
 
 (note). 
 
 — Chemical constituents of, 18, 20. 
 
 — Decomposition a necessary antecedent to the produc- 
 
 tion of, 18. 
 
 — Derivation of the word, 18. 
 
 — Distillation of, Process of, 154-5. 
 
 — Early distillation of, 18, 155. 
 
 — Effects of, 20-6. (See also " Medical Testimony.") 
 
 — Fortifying of wines with, 7-9, 12, 14, 481, 614, 647. 
 
 — Legitimate uses of, 18, 130, 255. 
 
 — Medicinal use of, 420-5, 632 (note). 
 
 — " Neither food nor physic," 424. 
 
 — Percentages of in liquors, 19, 414, 616, 647. 
 
 — Pure, not used as beverage, 19. 
 
 should be preferred to alcoholic liquors for medic- 
 inal purposes, 19 (note), 424. 
 
 — Valueless for the purpose of counteracting cold, 82-3 ; 
 
 or heat, 83 ; as a food, 179-80, 632 (note). 
 
 Alcohol, Melytic, 20. 
 
 Alcohol, Methyl, 18, 20, 616. 
 
 Alcohol, Propylic, 18, 155. 
 
 Alcoholic diseases, 25. 
 
 Aldrich, Wilbur, Article by, 272-360 ; see also 634 (note). 
 
 Ale, 19, 414. 
 
 Alexander, J-mes W., on the physiological effects of 
 drink, 408. 
 
 Algeria, 12. 
 
 Allen, Nathan (Dr.), on the hereditary effects of drink, 
 236. 
 
 Allentown (N. J.), The Sober Society of, 30. 
 
 Alliance News, The, 197. 
 
 Almshouse-keepers on pauperism and drink 1 , 466-7. 
 
 Amendments, Constitutional (see " Constitutional Pro- 
 hibition"). 
 
 American Temperance Society, 161, 207, 630. 
 
 American wines, 648. 
 
 Amoy, 76. 
 
 Amylic alcohol, 18, 20, 155. 
 
 Anaesthetics used as inebriantB, 79-80. 
 
 Anarchists, 270-1. 
 
 Ancients, Drink among the, 230-32. 
 
 — Distillation not known to, 364 ; except (probably) the 
 
 Chinese, 72. 
 Anderson, William G. (Prof.), Article by, 482-3. 
 Angola, 17. 
 
 Anisette, a liqueur, 618. 
 
 Anti-License provisions of Constitutions, 98, 106. 
 Anti-Prohibition, 26-7. 
 Anti-Saloon Republicans, 27-30. 
 Antiseptic properties of alcohol, 19. 
 Anti-Slavery agitation, The: 
 
 — and the Prohibition agitation, compared, 30-3. 
 
 — the Republican party and, 585-7. 
 Apothecaries, 159. 
 
 — Quantity of spirits sold by, 615 (note). 
 Appetite, Hereditary transmission of, 204-7, 235-6. 
 Apple-jack, 617. 
 
 Appleton, James, Biographical sketch of, 33-4. 
 Applications for license, Provisions governing (see the 
 
 digests of State laws, 275-360). 
 Aqua vitse, 18. 
 Aquinas, St. Thomas, 599. 
 Arabia, Early distillation of alcohol in, 155. 
 Arak, a distilled drink of the East, 11, 462. 
 Arctic voyagers, Experience of, 24, 83, 180, 483. 
 Ardent spirits, 34. (See " Spirituous Liquors.") 
 Argentine Republic, 612. 
 Arguments, Liquor, 401-3. 
 Aristotle, 221, 230-1. 
 Arizona : 
 
 — Brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 277-8. 
 Arkansas : 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 382, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 278-9. 
 
 — Local Option votes in, 400 (note). 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 
Index.] 
 
 654 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Armstrong, Libbens (Rev.), 82. 
 Armstrong, William H., 99. 
 Army and Navy (United States), 642-3. 
 Arnold, Arthur, on drink in Persia, 470. 
 Arrack, a distilled drink of the East, 74, 618. 
 ArreBts and commitments: 
 
 — under High License and low license, 210-11. 
 
 Prohibition, 505-6, 508-9, 610-12, 517-18, 525-7, 
 
 528-37. 
 the Gothenburg system (Christiania), 455. 
 
 — (See also the different foreign countries.) 
 Arthur, Timothy Shay, Biographical sketch of, 34. 
 Arts, manufactures, sciences, etc., Alcohol used in the, 
 
 18-19, 130-1, 255, 615. (For discriminations of the 
 
 statutes, see " Legislation.") 
 Ashenhurst, J. O. (Rev.), 12 (note). 
 Asthenia from alcohol, 25. 
 Astringency of wines, 648 ; how imitated, 8. 
 Asylums, Inebriate, 247-8. 
 Atchison (Kan.), Prohibition in, 511-12. 
 Atherton, J. M. : 
 
 — on High License and Local Option, 218. 
 
 " Fine " whiskey, The comparative insignificance 
 
 of the production of, 376-7. 
 
 the Internal Revenue, 256. 
 
 Atkinson, Edward, Estimate by, of the expenditure for 
 
 drink, 138. 
 Atlanta, Ga. : 
 
 — Local Option contests in, 236, 368, 400. 
 
 — Prohibition, Results of in, 534-5, 544-5, 554-6. 
 Augur, E. P., Statistics prepared by, 526-7. 
 Austin, Henry W., Biographical sketch of, 34-5. 
 Australasia, 35-8. 
 
 AuBtria, 38-9. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 134. 
 
 — Hop-yield of, 834. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 498 
 
 (note). 
 Ayer, John, on Prohibition in Maine, 538. 
 Azore Islands, 12-13. 
 
 Babcock, D. C. (Rev.), Article by, 43; see also vi. 
 
 Bacchus, 39. 
 
 Bacon, Leonard Woolsey (Rev. Dr.), on Prohibition in 
 
 New Haven, 526. 
 Bacone, A. C. (Prof.), vi. 
 Baily, Joshua L., 214 (note). 
 Bain, George W., Article by, 162-4. 
 Baird, Robert (Rev.),Biographical sketch of, 40= 
 Baker, Mary A., vi. , 
 
 Baldwin, S. C. (Rev.), 72 (note). 
 Baltimore (Md.), Arrests in, 211. 
 Bands of Hope, 37, 40-1, 58, 60. 
 Bangor (Me.), Prohibition in, 505, 506. 
 Bankers, Testimony from, 538-9, 540, 541, 542. 
 Baptist Church, 41-2. 
 
 — Deliverance in Nebraska concerning High License,215. 
 Barbour, John Nathaniel, Biographical sketch of, 42. 
 Barley, 42. 
 
 — Quantities of used in making malt and distilled 
 
 liquors, 172. 
 Barnes, Albert, Biographical sketch of, 42-3. 
 Barnes, Frances J., 650 (note). 
 Barrett, F. N., Estimate by, of the expenditure for drink, 
 
 137-8. 
 Barrows, Lorenzo Dow (Rev. Dr.), Biographical sketch 
 
 of, 43. 
 Bartemeyer v. Iowa, CaBe of, 91, 645. 
 Bartenders, 386. 
 Bartram, W. H. H, 89 (note). 
 Bascom, John (LL.D.), Articles by, 401-3, 496-9. 
 Basutoland. 14. 
 
 Bates, C. A., 638-9. 
 
 Bayard, Thomas F. (Secretary), and the liquor traffic in. 
 
 the Pacific Islands, 643. 
 Beaconsfield (Earl), on the results of local Prohibition, 536, 
 Beauchamp, L. J., vi. 
 Beaumont, Ralph J., 264 (note). 
 Beaver, James A. (Governor), 123. 
 Bechuanaland, 14-15. 
 Bee, The Omaha, 217, 445, 447. 
 Beecher, Lyman (Rev. Dr.), Biographical Sketch of, 
 
 43-5. 
 Beer, 413-14. (See " Malt Liquors.") 
 Beer act (England), 366. 
 Beer Company case, 91, 92, 93. 
 Belgium, 45-6. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 134. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 49T 
 
 (note), 498 (note). 
 " Bell-Punch " laws, 304-5, 348, 354. 
 Benefits of Prohibition (see " Prohibition, Results of "). 
 Benguela, 17. 
 
 Berlin Conference (1884), 15-16. 
 Beverage consumption of spirits much in excess of 
 
 legitimate consumption, 19, 130-1, 136-7, 615 (note). 
 Bhang, 202. 
 Bible and Drink, 46-8. 
 Bible Wines, 48-56. 
 Biblical Arguments : 
 
 — against Prohibition, 26. 
 
 Abolition, 32. 
 
 Birney, James G., 33. 
 Bitters, 617. 
 
 Black, James, Biographical sketch of, 56-7. (See also 
 vi, 559 [note], and " Prohibition Party.") 
 
 Blackmer, John (Dr.), Article by, 421-2. 
 
 Blackstone, William (Sir), on natural, civil and politi- 
 cal liberty, 471, 473. 
 
 Blade, The Toledo, 27, 401. 
 
 Blaine, James G,: 
 
 — Defeat of, 27, 32, 574. 
 
 — on Prohibition in Maine, 502, 538. 
 
 Prohibition as a State issne, 109. 
 
 the liquor revenue, 593. 
 
 the origin of the Republican party, 586. 
 
 Blair, Henry W., Article by, 439-42. 
 " Blind Pig " and " Blind Tiger " laws, 279, 317, 349. 
 Blood, Diffusion of alcohol throngh the, 20-2. 
 Blue Cross, 45, 624. 
 Blue Ribbon, 57, 61, 110, 197, 456, 624. 
 Blyth, Governor (Australia), 35. 
 Bodwell (Governor), on Prohibition in Maine, 504. 
 Body, Effects of alcohol on the, 20-6. (See also " Med- 
 ical Testimony.") 
 Bohemians (in America), 181. 
 Bolag system, 455, 623-4. 
 Bolton, R., Temperance pledge of, 484-5. 
 Bonded period, Extension of the, 640. 
 Bonf art's R ine and Spirit Circular: 
 
 — on changes in the McKinley bill, 640. 
 
 the character and policy of the liquor- traders, 387. 
 
 the High License issue, 120. 
 
 the National Protective Association's work, 116. 
 
 the Boutelle resolution, 595. 
 
 Boniface, St., 599. 
 
 Booth, William, on poverty in London, 467. 
 
 "Bootleggers," 508 (note). 
 
 Booza, a malt liquor, 11. 
 
 Bordeaux wines, 648. 
 
 Boston (Mass.) : 
 
 — High License, Results of in, 213. 
 
 — Prohibition, Results of in, 528-9, 537. 
 Boutelle resolution, The, 594-5. 
 
Index.] 
 
 655 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Bouvier, on license and tax, 360 (note). 
 
 Bowman case, 646. 
 
 Boyce, P. B. (Rev.), 37 (note). 
 
 Bradford, S. B. (Attorney-General), on Prohibition in 
 
 Kansas, 510. 
 Bradley, D. O., on Prohibition In Kansas, 540. 
 Brady, E. W., 105 (note). 
 
 Brain, The, Peculiarly affected by alcohol, 21, 34, 35. 
 Brandy, 10, 19, 480-1, 616-17. 
 Brayton, Charles R., 124, 126. 
 Brazil, 612. 
 
 Brewer, David J. (Judge), 90-1, 93 (note). 
 Brewers : 
 
 — Adulterations by, 9-10. 
 
 — Frauds on the revenue by, 639-40 (note). 
 
 — Mortality of, 404, 408. 
 
 — Number of, 382-3 
 
 Brewers' Congresses (see " United States Brewers' Asso- 
 ciation "). 
 
 Brewers' Journal, Quotations from or references to, 
 10, 218, 374, 414, 446, 507. 
 
 Brewing, 57-8. (See also "Malt Liquors.") 
 
 Bribery, Instances of, 104, 120-3, 200, 445, 446-7, 572. 
 
 Bridge, J. K., 370 (note). 
 
 Briggs, George N., 58. 
 
 Bright's disease, Caused by drink, 25. 
 
 British Columbia, 65, 66. 
 
 British Guiana, 612-13. 
 
 British Medical Association, Longevity statistics of the, 
 406-8. 
 
 British Women's Temperance Association, 58. 
 
 Brooklyn (N. Y.), Arrests in, 211. 
 
 Brooks, John Anderson, Biographical sketch of, 58-9. 
 (See also vi, 148 [note], and " Prohibition Party.") 
 
 Brooks law, 120, 213-14, 339-41. 
 
 Brougham (Lord), on the results of legislative discrim- 
 inations in favor of beer, 866. 
 
 Brown, Ryland T., vi. 
 
 Brunton, T. Lauder (Dr.) on the effects of beer-drink- 
 ing, 179. 
 
 ^Brussels Conference (1890), 498 (note). 
 
 Bryan, Rollo Kirk, vi. ' 
 
 Buchanan. James (President), 147. 
 
 Buckham, M. H., on Prohibition in Vermont, 523. 
 
 Buddhists and drink, 59-60, 222-3, 262. (See also "In- 
 dia.") 
 
 Buell, Caroline B., vi. 
 
 Buffalo (N. Y.), Arrests in, 211. 
 
 Bulgaria, 633. 
 
 Burgundy wines, 19, 648. 
 
 Bnrmah, 59-60. 
 
 Burns, Dawson (Rev. Dr.), Contribution from, 195 ; see 
 also iv. 
 
 Burns, John, 266. 
 
 Business, Effects of Prohibition upon, 537-45. 
 
 Business men and Prohibition, 447, 538-45. 
 
 Butler, Benjamin I\, on Prohibition in Massachusetts, 
 527-8. 
 
 Butylic alcohol, 18, 155. 
 
 Cadets of Temperance, 60. 
 Caine, W. S. (M. P.) : 
 
 — on Compensation, 95. 
 
 the drink traffic in India, 242-3. 
 
 Calhoun. John C. (Secretary), on the spirit ration in the 
 
 army, 642 (note). 
 California : 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 382, 383, 384. 
 
 — Hop culture in, 234. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 279-80. 
 
 — Opium Prohibition in, 460. 
 
 _ Prohibition party, Vote of in 564, 568, 573, 577. 
 
 California wines, 373-4, 648. 
 Cambridge (Mass.) : 
 
 — Local Option victories in, 400. 
 
 — Prohibition and High License in, 532-3. 
 C'aria, a South American intoxicant, 613, 617. 
 Canada, 60-7. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 134, 364. 
 
 — License and Prohibition, Results of in, 142, 533. 
 Canadian Commission, 62, 503-4, 505. 
 
 Canary wines, 12, 19, 648, 649. 
 
 Candidates, Presidential and Vice-Presidential, of the 
 
 Prohibition party, 56-7, 58-9, 146, 158-9, 176-7, 603, 
 
 605, 610, 620, 626. 
 Canterbury, Province of (Eng), Prohibition in, 536. 
 Cape Colony 14. 
 Cape wines, 14, 19, 648. 
 Capital Invested 
 
 — in the liquor business, United States, 374, 378, 379-81 ; 
 
 Great Britain, 95 (note). 
 
 the malting business, 412. 
 
 Capitol Building, Prohibition in the, 644. 
 
 Caraca, a Mexican intoxicant, 430. 
 
 Carlisle, John G. (Speaker), 149-50. 
 
 Carlowitz wines, 648. 
 
 Carlyle, Thomas, 90. 
 
 Carpenter, W. B. (Dr.), on the hereditary transmission 
 
 of alcoholic diseases, 235. 
 Carroll, H. K. (LL.D.), Plea of before the Republican 
 
 Convention, 594. 
 Carson League, The, 67. 
 Carson, Thomas L., Biographical sketch of, 67. 
 Cass, Lewis, 96. 
 Cassis, a liqueur, 618. 
 Catholic Temperance Societies, 68. (See also " Roman 
 
 Catholic Church.") 
 Cause and Consequence, 68-70. 
 Central America, 70. 
 Cette wines, 648. 
 Ceylon, 242. 
 Chablis wine, 647, 648. 
 
 Chamberlain (Governor), on Prohibition in Maine, 504. 
 Chambers, John (Rev. Dr.), Biographical sketch of, 
 
 70-1. 
 Champagne, 647, 648. 
 
 — Imitation of, 8. 
 
 — Imports of, 238-9. 
 
 — Vineyards attacked by the phylloxera, 479. 
 Channing. William Ellery (Rev. Dr.), Biographical 
 
 sketch of, 71-2. 
 Character of liquor-traders, 387, 489. 
 Charles XII. (Sweden), Prohibitory laws of, 623. 
 Charles XIV. (Sweden), 40. 
 Charleston (W. Va.), Prohibition and High License in, 
 
 535. 
 Chartreuse, a liqueur, 19, 618. 
 Cheever, George B. (Rev. Dr.), v. 
 Cherokee Nation, Prohibition in, 295. 
 Chesterfield (Lord), Prohibition speech of, 617 (note). 
 Cheves, R. S., Interview of with H. P. Crowell, 120-2. 
 Chica, a South American intoxicant, 613. 
 Chicago (111.) : 
 
 — Citizens' League of, 267. 
 
 — High License in, 210, 212, 216-17. 
 
 — Saloons of owned by the brewers, 379. 
 Chickasaw Nation, Prohibition in, 295. 
 Chickering, J. W., vi. 
 
 Chickering, John White (Rev. Dr.), Biographical sketch 
 
 of, 72. 
 Chili, 613. 
 China, 72-9. 
 
 Cbisholm, John B., 265. 
 Chloral, 79-80. 
 
Index.] 
 
 656 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Chlorodyne, 79-80. 
 
 Chloroform, 79-80. 
 
 Cboate, Joseph H., and the brewers, 92. 
 
 Choctaw Nation, Prohibition in, 395. 
 
 Christian Church, 80. 
 
 Christian, George C, Article by, 474-6. 
 
 Christians as corrupters of the heathen, 11, 59, 75, 136, 
 
 242-5, 246-7, 470, 607. 
 Christiansen case, 472-3, 646. 
 Christ's teachings, Different views of, 26, 47-8, 55-6' 
 
 86-8. 
 Chronic diseases from alcohol, 25. 
 Church, Duty of the, 43, 44, 178, 457. 
 Church of England, 197, 198. 
 Church of God, 80-1. 
 Church Temperance Society, 81. 
 Church, The, Charges of lukewarmness against, 31-2. 
 Church Utterances (see " Religious Denominations"). 
 Cider, 649. 
 
 Cigarettes, Legislation regarding, 630. 
 Cincinnati (O.), Lawlessness of the saloons in, 268-70. 
 Cirrhosis from alcohol, 25. 
 Cities : 
 
 — Cost of supporting the police in, 546-7. 
 
 — High License and low license, Results of in, 210-14, 
 
 270, 526. 
 
 — Local Option contests in, 396, 398, 399, 400. 
 
 — Prohibition, Results of in, 505-6, 510-12, 517-18, 525-7, 
 
 528-9, 530-7, 544-5. 
 Civil Damage acts (see the digests of State laws, 275- 
 
 360). 
 Claflin (Governor), on Prohibition in Massachusetts, 528. 
 Claret, 19, 647, 648. 
 
 Clark, Andrew (Dr.), on the effects of alcohol, 421. 
 Clark, Billy James, 82. 
 Clark, Myron H. (Governor) : 
 
 — Election of, 562. 
 
 — on Prohibition in New York, 530. 
 Clarke, Adam, 88. 
 
 Clarkson, J. S., Attempt of to bribe St. John, 673. 
 Clay, Henry : 
 
 — on Father Mathews work, 419. 
 
 Slavery and the Abolitionists, 32-3. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria, 49, 87. 
 
 Clergy, The 
 
 — and the liquor issue (Instances), 104, 112, 116, 117, 119, 
 
 122, 128, 189, 197-8, 237, 369, 432, 471, 478, 608. (See 
 
 also "Religious Denominations. 1 ') 
 
 the slavery issue, 31, 32, 272. 
 
 Cleveland, Frances F„ 644. 
 
 Climatic influences, 82-3. 
 
 Cocaine, 79-80. 
 
 Cocculus Indicus, used in adulterating, 8, 9, 10. 
 
 Cockburn (Lord Chief-Justice), on Compensation, 94. 
 
 Coffee-Houses, 81, 83-4, 153. 
 
 Cognac brandy, Supply of practically exhausted by the 
 
 phylloxera's ravages, 480-1. 
 Cold, Fatal effects of expedited by alcohol, 24, 82-3. 
 Coleman, Julia, vi. 
 
 Coleridge (Lord Chief-Justice), on drink and crime, 365. 
 Colfax, Schuyler, 96, 644. 
 Collier, William, Biographical sketch of, 84. 
 Cologne spirit, 615-16. 
 Colombia, United States of, 613. 
 Colonial legislation (see " Legislation "). 
 Colorado : 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 382, 383, 384. 
 
 — Farmers of, Resolutions by, 171. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 280-1. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 573, 577. 
 Coloring matters used in adulterating, 8, 616, 618. 
 Colquitt, A. H. (Senator), 110, 114, 153. 
 
 Columella, 49. 
 
 Commercial Gazette, The Cincinnati, 107, 574, 593-4, 595. 
 
 Commercial prosperity, Influence of Prohibition on, 447, 
 
 537-45. 
 Commercial spirits, 614-16. 
 Commercial Temperance League, 84-5. 
 Commission of Inquiry, 640. 
 Common Law, 85-6. 
 Communion Wine, 86-8. 
 Compensation, 88-96. 
 
 — Provided for in Australia, 36 ; in Switzerland, 624. 
 Compensation for slaves, Proposed by President Lin- 
 coln, 587 (note). 
 
 Compromise, Efforts in behalf of, 27-30, 33, 207-20, 362-7, 
 
 390-400. 
 Conger, E. H. (Congressman), on Prohibition in Iowa, 
 
 542. 
 Congo, Rum on the, 15-16, 498 (note). 
 Congregational Church, 96. 
 Congress, Temperance measures in, 640-4. 
 Congressional Temperance Society, 96-7. 
 Connecticut : 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 102, 103, 127-8. 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 382, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 281-5. 
 
 — Local Option votes in, 398. 
 
 — Prohibition and license in, 526-7. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 564, 566, 568, 573, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Connor (Governor), on Prohibition in Maine, 504. 
 Consolidation of the liquor interests, 374-9. 
 Constantia wine, 648. 
 
 Constitution, The Atlanta, 534, 544, 557-8 (note). 
 Constitutional Prohibition: 
 
 — National, 439-42. 
 
 — State, 97-128, 443-50. 
 
 — (See u Religious Denominations.") 
 Constitutionality of Prohibition (see "Judicial Decis- 
 ions "). 
 
 Constitutions, Provisions of • 
 
 — Anti-License articles, 98. 
 
 — License Amendments, proposed but not adopted, 101, 
 
 108, 445. 
 
 — Local Option articles, 288, 348. 
 
 — Miscellaneous, 276, 290, 291, 305. 
 
 — Prohibitory Amendments or articles, adopted, 100-2 ; 
 
 proposed but not adopted, 99, 100-2, 445 ; adopted, 
 but annulled by Supreme Court, 106 ; repealed, 102. 
 
 Consular reports, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 39, 479-82, 494, 613, 614, 
 , 624, 647. 
 
 Consumption of liquors, 128-35. 
 
 — How affected by High License and Prohibition, 122, 
 
 210-20, 502-37. 
 
 — (See also the various foreign countries.) 
 Conventions: 
 
 — National Temperance, 631. 
 
 — Prohibition party, 561-2, 563-1, 565-6, 567-8, 569, 570-2, 
 
 575-6. 
 Convicts, Appeal of to the voters of Tennessee, 114-15. 
 Cook, Joseph, Article by, 360-2. 
 Copiah County, Prohibition in, 557-8. 
 Cordials, 617-18. 
 Corea, 135-6. 
 Corn, Quantity of used in the manufacture of spirituous 
 
 liquors, 172, 
 Cornell, John Black, Biographical sketch of, 136. 
 Coroners, Testimony from, 26, 436. 
 Corruption (see " Poltical Corruption "). 
 Cost of the drink traffic (United States), 136-40, 546-7. 
 
 (See also the various foreign countries.) 
 Cotten, C. B., on adulterations, 7-8. 
 Crafts, Wilbur F, (Rev.), Article by, 495-6. 
 
Sndeac.] 
 
 Crafts, w. P. (Mrs.), vi. 
 
 * rai K, W. H., Biographical sketch of, 140-1. 
 
 Cramer, M. J., 153 (note). 
 
 Crampton, C_ A., Report by on adulterations, 234. 
 
 Cranflll, J. B ., 41, 112 (note). 
 
 Cranmer, S. H., 126 (note). 
 
 «reosote. Used in adulterating, 8, 10. 
 
 Ulme . Relations of drink to, 141-3. 
 
 Beer-drinkers and whiskey-drinkers, Offenses of com- 
 pared. 365. 
 
 — Estimates of the percentage of crime due to drink, 45, 
 
 139, 141-2, 153-4, 365, 529 (note), 546-7. 
 
 — Expenditure on account of 139, 546 7. 
 Physicians, English, on, 423. 
 
 — Supreme Court of the United States on, 93, 473. 
 under High License and low license systems, 210-14, 
 
 Prohibitory systems, 502-37. 
 
 Crognian, W. H., 451. 
 Crosby, Howard (Rev. Dr.) : 
 
 — Articles by, 26-7, 48-50. 
 
 — Important references to, 216, 385, 446, 494. 
 Crothers, T. D. (Dr.), Articles by, 204-7, 247^8. 
 Crouch, G. J., 36. 
 
 Crowell, Harry P., Revelations by, 120-2. 
 
 Crozier, O. R. L., vi. 
 
 Crusade, The Woman's, 143-5. 
 
 Cumberland Presbyterian Church, 145. 
 
 Curacoa, a liqueur, 19, 618. 
 
 Cures of inebriates, Percentage of in inebriate asylums, 
 
 248. 
 dishing, Henry Dearborn, Biographical sketch of, 145-6. 
 Cushing, Volney B., Article by, 471-4. 
 Cuyler, Theodore L. (Rev. Dr.), Article by, 263-4. 
 
 Dakota Territory, Liquor legislation in, 285-6. 
 
 Dalmatian wines, 648. 
 
 Danforth, Charles (Justice), on Prohibition in Maine, 
 
 548. 
 Daniel, William, Biographical sketch of, 146. 
 Davenport (la.), Prohibition in, 517. 
 Davis, Jefferson, 112-13. 
 Davis, Noah. Estimate by of the percentage of crime 
 
 due to drink. 
 Davis, N. S. (Dr.), on the medicinal use of alcohol, 421. 
 Davitt, Michael, on the consequences of drink in Ire- 
 land, 266. 
 Death penalty inflicted on liquor-sellers and users in 
 
 China 73, 74 ; on opium-vendors, 76. 
 Death-rates of total abstainers and drinkers compared, 
 
 404-9. 
 Deaths from drink, 435-7. 
 Decisions, Judicial (see "Judicial Decisions "). 
 Decomposition essential to the production of alcohol, 18. 
 Deems, Charles P. (Rev.), 560. 
 Deering, E. J., on diseases due to drink. 437. 
 Defeats of Prohibition, 101-4, 111-126, 127-8, 443-50. 
 Defective persons, 139. 
 Defiance of law, 268-72. 
 Delagoa Bay, 15. 
 Delano, H. A. (Rev.), vi. 
 Delano, William H. (Rev. Dr.), Biographical sketch of, 
 
 146-7. 
 Delavan, Edward Cornelius, Biographical sketch of, 
 
 147. 
 Delaware : 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 382, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 286-7. 
 
 Prohibition party. Vote of in, 573, 577. 
 
 Delirium tremens, 147-8. 
 
 Democratic party, 148-53. (See also 31, 32, 449, 585-6.) 
 
 Demorest medal contests, 631-2. 
 
 657 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Denmark, 153-4. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 133-4. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 497 
 
 (note) ; 498 (note). 
 Des Moines (la.), Prohibition in, 517. 
 Dewey, A. M., 264 (note). 
 Dickie, Samuel (Prof.), Ill (note), 574. 
 Dike, S. W. (LL.D.), Article by, 155-6. 
 Dingley (Governor), on Prohibition in Maine, 504. 
 Dionysus, 39. 
 Dioscorides, 229. 
 Dipsomania, 154. 
 Direct Veto, 36, 196 259, 608. 
 Disciple Church, 154. 
 Discriminations in favor of light liquors (see " Light 
 
 Liquors ; " also the digests of State laws, 275-360). 
 Disease, The treatment of with alcohol, 420-5. 
 Diseases from drink, 25, 147-8, 154, 161. (See also 
 
 14 Medical Testimony.") 
 
 — Hereditary transmission of, 204-7. 
 
 Disorder (Social), Supreme Court of the United States 
 
 on the relations of drink to, 93, 473. 
 Disorderly conduct (see " Arrests and Commitments"). 
 Dispensatory (United States), 17-18, 615 (note). 
 Disraeli, Benjamin, on the results of local Prohibition, 
 
 636. 
 Distillation, 154-5. 
 
 — in ancient China, 72. 
 
 Distilled liquors (see ' ' Spirituous Liquors "). 
 Distilleries, Regulations for (Pederal), 636-7. 
 Distillers 
 
 — and the Internal Revenue, 256. 
 
 — Frauds Committed by, 639. 
 
 — Number of, 38-2-3. 
 
 Distress warrants in Atlanta, 555-6. 
 District of Columbia : 
 
 — Brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 641-42. 
 
 — Prohibition of sales of liquor to soldiers, 370-1. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Divorce, 155-6. 
 
 Doctoring of drinks (see ' ' Adulteration "). 
 
 Dodge, Albert, vi. 
 
 Dodge City (Kan.), Prohibition in, 512. 
 
 Dodge, William Earl , Biographical sketch of, 156-7. 
 
 Dorchester, Daniel (Rev. Dr.), 454. 
 
 Dougall, John, Biographical sketch of, 157-8. 
 
 Dow, Neal: 
 
 — Articles by, 109, 411-12. 
 
 — Biographical sketch of, 502. 
 
 — (See also " Prohibition Party.") 
 Dow law (Ohio), 335. 
 
 Dow riots, The, 271-2. 
 Downing High License law, 59, 209, 320-1. 
 Dracut (Mass.), Novel license experiment in, 550. 
 Drink Bill 
 
 — of the United States, 136-40. 
 Great Britain, 195. 
 
 Drink Traffic (see " Liquor Traffic"). 
 Dropsy from alcohol, 25. 
 Druggists, 159. 
 
 — Legislation governing sales of liquor by (Bee the 
 
 digests of State laws , 275-360). 
 
 — Quantities of spirits sold by, 615 (note). 
 Drugs used in adulterating (see " Adulteration "). 
 Drunkenness, Arrests for (see "Arrests and Commit- 
 ments ")• 
 
 Dry wines, 648. 
 "Dual Basis," 81, 197. 
 Duffleld. D. Bethune, 111, 176. 
 Dumfermline Association, 83, 607. 
 Duniway, Abigail Scott, 115. 
 
Index.] 
 
 658 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Drunkards, 187. 
 
 Duulop, John, 423, 607. 
 
 Dupetiaux, M. , on drink in Belgium, 45. 
 
 Dutch Reformed Church, 160. 
 
 Dutton (Governor), on Prohibition in Connecticut, 526. 
 
 East India Company, 76, 77. 
 
 Baudevie, 618. , 
 
 Economic Aspects 
 
 — of Prohibition. 537-57. 
 
 the drink traffic, 885-7. 
 
 Eddy, Richard (Rev. Dr.), vi. 
 
 Edgar, John, Biographical sketch of, 160. 
 
 Edgeworth, Maria, on Father Mathew's work, 418. 
 
 Edkins (Dr.), 72, 75. 
 
 Edwards, Justin, Biographical sketch of, 161. 
 
 Effects of alcohol, 20-6. (See also " Medical Testimony.") 
 
 Effervescing wines, 648. 
 
 Egypt, 11-12. (See also " Historical and Philosophical." ) 
 
 Elder, 19. 
 
 Election day, Prohibition of sales on (see digests of 
 
 State laws, 275-360). 
 Elgin (Lord), 76. 
 
 Emmons, Francis W. (Rev.), 527 (note). 
 Employes of the liquor traffic, 384-6. 
 " Encyclopaedia Britannica" 
 
 — on adulterations, 7, 9, 617 (note). 
 hops used in beer, 172. 
 
 Wine production in Portugal, 493 (note). 
 
 Enforcement of law, 266 8. 
 England : 
 
 — Coffee-house movement in, 84. 
 
 — Compensation struggle in, 94-6. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 131-2, 365. 
 
 — Drink Bill of, 195. 
 
 — India, Excise policy of in, 242-4. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 497, 
 
 498 (note). 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 9, 170, 195-6, 231-2, 272-4, 366. 
 Longevity, Comparative, of abstainers and drinkers 
 
 in, 404-9. 
 
 — Mortality from drink in, 25-6, 435-6. 
 
 — Opium traffic, Responsibility of for the, 76-8, 244-5. ' 
 
 — Prohibition (Local), Results of in, 536, 
 
 — Right of petition in, 475. 
 -- Sumptuary laws of, 622. 
 
 — Temperance organizations and movement in, 40-1, 57, 
 
 58, 196-7, 389-90. 
 
 English, J. B. (Rev.), vi. 
 
 English brewery syndicates, 374-5. 
 
 Epilepsy from drink, 25, 161. 
 
 Episcopalians (see " Protestant Episcopal Church ". 
 
 Equal Suffrage, 162-7. 
 
 Essenes, The, 47. 
 
 Ether, 79-80. 
 
 Ethics of license, 167-9. 
 
 Eusehius, 47. 
 
 Evangelical Adventist Church, 169. 
 
 Evangelical Church, 169 70. 
 
 Evans, Thomas, Jr., 573. 
 
 Evans, Walter (Commissioner), and the brewers, 639. 
 
 Evening Pod, The New York, 489 (note), 587. 
 
 "Evil, and only evil, and that continually," 385. 
 
 Ewing, Emma P., vi. 
 
 Excise, 170. 
 
 Expenditure for drink (see " CoBt of the Drink Traf- 
 fic"). 
 
 Exports (see " Imports and Exports "). 
 
 Fall River (Mass.), Prohibition and High License in, 533. 
 Falsehoods (instances), 119, 123, 511, 553-4. 
 Falsification of wines, 7-9, 133, 647. 
 
 Farm Herald, The, 388, 446. 
 
 Farmers and the drink issue, 35, 111, 132, 126, 170-4, 448. 
 
 Faroe Islands, 154. 
 
 Favrar (Archdeacon), iv, 13-14 (note), 198. 
 
 Faxon, Henry H, on the employment of detectives, 268. 
 
 Federal Government, The, 634-46. 
 
 " Federal permits " in Prohibition States, 257, 504-5, 507,. 
 
 513, 520, 522, 524. 
 Federation and concentration of the liquor interests,372-9- 
 Fermentation, 174-5. 
 Fermented Liquors : 
 
 — Nearly the entire product of used as beverage, 19. 
 
 — Not produced among the Chinese, 72. 
 
 — (See "Malt Liquors" and "Vinous Liquors.") 
 Fernald, Henry B., 634 (note). 
 
 Fernald, J. C. (Rev.), Articles by, 237- 41, 268-72. 
 
 Fernald, Nettie B., vi. 
 
 Fictitious wines', 7-9. 
 
 Field, Kate, 122, 363. 
 
 Field, Stephen J. (Justice), 93 (note), 472-3. 
 
 Field, W. W., on Prohibition in Iowa, 516-17. 
 
 Fillmore, Millard (President), 147. 
 
 Finch, John B. : 
 
 — Biographical sketch of, 175-6. 
 
 — on High License in Nebraska, 215. 
 
 " Fine " whiskey, Comparative insignificance of the pro- 
 duction of, 376-7. 
 
 "Fire and brimstone, clubs, pitchforks and butcher- 
 knives," 574. 
 
 Fisk campaign, 575-8. 
 
 Fisk, Clinton B., Biographical sketch of, 176-7. (See also 
 "Prohibition Party.") 
 
 Fisk, Wilbur, 32, 177-8. 
 
 Flick, James F. (Congressman), on Prohibition in Iowa,, 
 517. 
 
 Florida : 
 
 — Brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 287-8. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 573, 577. 
 Flournoy, Josiah, Biographical sketch of, 178-9. 
 Food, Alcohol not a, 179-80. 
 
 Foote (Rear-Admiral), 371. 
 
 Foraker, Joseph B., 29, 107. 
 
 Foreigners, 180-2. 
 
 Foresters, Order of, Longevity statistics of, 404. 
 
 Fortifying of wines, 7-9, 12, 14, 481. 614, 647. 
 
 " Forty cents a line," 446 (note). 
 
 Foster, Charles (Governor), 106. 
 
 Foster, J. Ellen (Mrs.), 454, 652. 
 
 Four-Mile law (Tennessee), 347. 
 
 Fraizer, Samuel, Biographical sketch of, 182. 
 
 France, 183-6. 
 
 — Adulterations in, 132-3, 647. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 132, 184, 364. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 49/T 
 
 (note), 498 (note). 
 
 — Phylloxera, Ravages of in, 478-81. 
 
 — Tyrannical action of in the Sandwich Islands, 607. 
 Franklin, Benjamin, 30, 264. 
 
 Frauds in the interest of the liquor-traders (instances), 
 
 108, 111-12, 115 16, 375 (note). 
 Frauds on the revenues, 639. 
 Frederick William III. (Prussia), 40. 
 Free Baptists, 186. 
 Free Methodists, 186. 
 Free-Soil party, 33. 
 Frelinghuysen, Theodore, 96. 
 French, The (in America), 181. 
 French spirits, 616. 
 Friends, 186, 246. 
 Frontignan wines, 648. 
 FroBt, William Goodell (Prof.), Article by, 166-7 
 
Index.] 
 
 659 
 
 [Index. 
 
 FroBt, Walter B., Statistics prepared by, 526, 543-4. 
 
 Fruit distilleries, 375. 
 
 " Fruit of the vine," 46, 48, 49, 55, 86, 8T, 88. 
 
 Frye, William P. (Senator), on Prohibition in Maine, 
 
 502-3, 638. 
 Fugitive Slave law, 32. 
 Funk, I. K. (Eev. Dr.), 573, 597. 
 Fusel oil, 8, 10, 18, 20, 155. 
 
 Galen, 229. 
 
 Gambling, Naturally allied to liquor-selling, 361, 372. 
 
 Gambrell, Roderick Dhu, Biographical sketch of, 186-7. 
 
 Gambrinus, 187. 
 
 Ganja, 202. 
 
 Gardner, Mills, on the failure of the non-partisan plan, 
 
 453. 
 Generous wines, 648. 
 Geneva, 617. 
 Georgia : 
 
 Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 382, 383, 384. 
 
 — Flournoy movement in, 178. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 288-91. 
 
 — Oglethorpe's Prohibitory law, 247, 288-9. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 573, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 German Baptists, 187. 
 
 German Reformed Church, 187. 
 
 Germans (in America), 100, 105, 106-7, 182, 365, 590-1. 
 
 Germany, 187-91. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 133. 
 
 — Hop-yield of. 234. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 497, 
 
 498 (note), 643 (note). 
 Gibbud, n. B., vi. 
 Giddings, Joshua R., 32. 
 Gifford, George (Consul), on adulterations, 10. 
 Gillette, Walter R. (Dr.), on the physiological effects of 
 
 drink, 408-9. 
 Gin, 19, 617. 
 Gin acts, 273-4. 
 
 Gipps, Governor (Australia), 35. 
 Gladstone, W. E., 95-6, 196. 
 Gladwin, Wallace J., 242 (note). 
 Golden Cross, United Ord'er of the, 631. 
 Goodell, D. H. (Governor), 117. 
 Goodell, William, Biographical sketch of, 191-2. 
 Good Templars (see tl Independent Order of Good Tem- 
 plars "). 
 Gooseberry wine, 19. 
 Gospel Temperence, 192. 
 Gothenburg system, 455, 623-4. 
 Gottheil (Rabbi), on Passover wines, 465. 
 Gougar, Helen M., Article by, 164-6. 
 Gough, John B.. Biographical sketch of, 192-4. 
 Governors, Testimony from, 504, 510, 516, 526, 528, 530, 
 
 538, 539, 540, 541-2, 551. 
 Grady, Henry W., on Prohibition in Atlanta, 534, 545, 
 
 554-6. 
 Graham, Robert, Article by, 81. 
 Grain distilleries, 375-8. 
 Grain, Quantities of used in the manufacture of spirituous 
 
 and malt liquors, 172. 
 Grange, The, and Prohibition, 170-1. 
 Gray, Charlotte A., Article by, 45-6. 
 Gray, C. M., 37 (note). 
 Greacen, Robert A., 137 (note). 
 Great Britain, 194-7. (See "England.") 
 Greece, 220-1. (See also "Historical and Philosophi- 
 cal.") 
 Greeley (Col.), Prohibition in, 535-6. 
 Greeley, Horace, 198 200, 466, 591. 
 Greene, H. E. (Dr.), on the medicinal use of alcohol, 412. 
 
 Greene, Jacob L., on the effects of beer-drinking, 408. ■ 
 Greenhut, J. B., Statements from, concerning the 
 
 Whiskey Trust, 377, 378, 449 (note). 
 Greenland, 154. 
 Greenock Society, 607. 
 Gregson, James G. (Rev.), 83, 244. 
 Grier (Justice), on Prohibition, 645. 
 Griffin, Albert: 
 
 — Anti-Saloon Republican movement of, 27-30. 
 
 — Statistics prepared by, 363. 
 
 Griffls, William Elliott (Rev. Dr.), Articles by, 135-6, 
 
 260-2, 433-4, 632-3. 
 Grog, 616. 
 
 Grog ration in the navy, 642-3. 
 Guernsey, Alice M., 650 (note). 
 Gustafson, Axel : 
 
 — Article by, 35-7. 
 
 — on the London Temperance Hospital, 425. 
 
 — (See also iv, vi.) 
 
 Guthrie.Thomas (Rev. Dr.), Biographical sketch of, 200-1. 
 
 Habitual drunkards, intoxicated persons, etc., Legisla- 
 tion concerning sales of liquor to (see the digests 
 of State laws, 275-360). 
 
 Haddock, George C. (Rev. Dr.), Biographical sketch of, 
 201-2. 
 
 Haight, J. Mason, Letter of Abraham Lincoln to, 370. 
 
 Haines, S. A., Article by, 84-5. 
 
 Hale, Eugene (Senator), on Prohibition in Maine, 503. 
 
 Hale, John P., 33. 
 
 Hale, Matthew (Chief-Justice), on the relations of drink 
 to crime, 141. 
 
 "Half-a-Loaf," 168, 169, 360. 
 
 Hale, J. A. (Consul), on adulterations of sherry, 614. 
 
 Hall, John (Rev. Dr.), vi. 
 
 Halstead, Mnrat, 574. < 
 
 Hamilton. Alexander, on Excise laws, 251-2. 
 
 Hamlin, Hannibal, on Prohibition in Maine, 503. 
 
 Hamilton, J. W., on Prohibition J n Kansas, 510. 
 
 Hammond. C. A., vi. 
 
 Hammond, William A. (Dr.), 10, 83, 1T9. 
 
 Hanbal, Ibn, 69. 
 
 Hardy, H. W., on High License in Nebraska, 215. 
 
 Hargreaves, William (Dr.), vi, 139. 
 
 Harlan (Justice), 93. 
 
 Harper, Frances E. W., 451. 
 
 Harper law, 209. 
 
 Harris, Elisha (Dr.), on the relations of drink to crime 
 141-2. 
 
 Harris, P. McC. (Mrs.), vi. 
 
 Harrison, Benjamin (President), on Prohibition, 593, 
 644. 
 
 Hart, Coleridge A., Article by, 272. 
 
 Hartwell, C. (Rev.), 72 (note). 
 
 Hasheesh, 202-3. 
 
 — in Egypt, 11. 
 
 India, 244-5. 
 
 Hawaiian Islands, 606-7. 
 
 Hawkins, John Henry Willis, Biographical sketch of, 
 
 203. 
 Hawley, Joseph R. (Senator), 128. 
 Hayes, Lucy Webb. Biographical sketch of, 203-4. 
 Hebrews (see " Jews "). 
 Heckewclder, John (Rev.), 246. 
 Helwig, J. B. (Rev. Dr.), vi. 
 Hemp, Indian, 11, 79, 202. 
 Henry, S. M. I. (Mrs.), vi. 
 Heredity of the alcohol habit and its effects, 24-5,204-5. 
 
 (See also " Idiocy.") 
 Hermitage wines, 648. 
 
 Herndon, W. H., on Lincoln's temperance record. 368-9. 
 HeroJotue, 49, 227. 
 
Index.] 
 
 660 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Hflwit, Nathaniel (Rev. Dr.), Biographical sketch of, 207. 
 High License, 207-20. 
 
 — States charging comparatively high fees (1880) ; Ar- 
 
 kansas, 378 ; Colorado, 280 ; Florida, 288 ; Georgia 
 Illinois, 292; Massachusetts, 313; Michigan, 315 
 Minnesota, 317; Mississippi, 319; Missouri, 320 
 Montana (Territory), 321;Nebraska, 322, 323: Orc-gon 
 337; Pennsylvania, 340, 341: Hhode Island, 342-3 
 Texas, 349; Utah (Territory), 350; Washington (Ter- 
 ritory), 356 ; West Virginia, 367 ; Wyoming (Terri 
 tory), 360. 
 
 — Antagonism of Prohibitionists to, 209-10. 
 
 — Claims for, 208. 
 
 — Consolidation of the liquor traffic promoted by, 379. 
 
 — Democratic party, The, and, 151-2. 
 
 — Enforcement of law under, Unsatisfactory results 
 
 of, 269. 
 
 — English precedents, 274. 
 
 — France, Instructive experience of, 183-4. 
 
 — " High or low, vicious in principle, and powerless 
 
 as a remedy, 11 42*. 
 
 — India, Experience of, 2424. 
 
 — Liquor traders, Cheerful acceptance of by, 120, 122, 
 
 126, 218-20. 
 
 — Obstructive effects of, 104, 111, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 
 
 215-16, 362. 
 
 — Political influence of the rum power not diminished 
 
 by, 490. 
 
 — Press, The daily and, 216-18. 
 
 — Republican party and, 592-4. 
 
 — Results of, 216-18, 518-21, 526, 531-5, 548-50. 
 
 — Sandwich Islands, 607. 
 
 — (See also the various religious denominations.) 
 High proof spirits, 19, 616. 
 
 High wines, 616. 
 
 Hill, David B. (Governor), 152. 
 
 Hill, Eliza Trask, Article by. 434-5. 
 
 Hill. Gershom F., on Prohibition in Iowa, 516. 
 
 Hippocrates. 228-9. 
 
 Historical and Philosophical Notes on Intemperance, 
 
 220-32. 
 Hoar. George F. (Senator), on Prohibition and High 
 
 License in Worcester, 532. 
 Hock. 19, 647, 648. 
 
 Hoffman, Clara C, Article by, 143-5. 
 Hogarth's " Gin Lane, 11 273. 
 Holbrook, M. E. (Dr.), vi. 
 Holiday Prohibition in Boston, 537. 
 Holland, 232-3. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 134. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 497 
 
 (note), 498 (note). 
 Holland, J. G. (Dr.), on Lincoln's temperance record, 369. 
 Hollanders (in America), 181-2. 
 Home Protection party, 232, 569. 
 
 — in Victoria, 37. 
 Homer, 226-7. 
 
 Honest whiskey, Comparative insignificance of the 
 
 quantity produced, 370-1. 
 Hooker, George W., on Prohibition in Vermont, 523. 
 Hopkins, A. A., 573. 
 Hops, 233-4. 
 
 — Quantities of used in the manufacture of malt liquors, 
 
 172. 
 
 — Substitutes for, 9, 10, 234. 
 Hornady, W. T. : 
 
 — Article by, 182-3. 
 
 — on free rum on the Congo, 15-16. 
 
 Horton, Albert H. (Chief-Justice), on Prohibition in Kan- 
 sas, 548, 554. 
 HoBpital, The London Temperance, 424-5. 
 Hovas, Prohibition among the, 13. 
 
 Howe, J. G. (Dr.), Report by on idiocy 235. 
 
 Hoxie, C. De F. Article by, 128-35. 
 
 Hoyle, William, 195. 
 
 Hudson, George G. (Rev.), 262 (note). 
 
 Hudson, Henry B. (Rev.), vi. 
 
 Hudson, R. E., vi. 
 
 Hughes, Charles H. (Dr.), on diseases due to drink, 437. 
 
 Humphrey, Heman (Rev. Dr.), Biographical sketch of, 
 
 234. 
 Hungarians (in America), 181. 
 Hungary (see Austria). 
 
 — Phylloxera, ravages of the in, 481. 
 Hunt, Mary H. (Mrs.), vi, 607. 
 
 Hunt, Thomas Poage (Rev.), Biographical sketch of, 
 
 234-5. 
 Hunter, Governor (Australia), 35. 
 Huntington, D. W. C. (Rev. Dr.), vi. 
 Huss, Magnus, 623. 
 
 Hutcbins, E. R., on Prohibition in Iowa, 515-16. 
 Hyde, William De W., on Prohibition in Maine, 503. 
 Hypertrophy from alcohol, 25. 
 
 Iceland, 154. 
 Idaho : 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 201. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Idiocy, 235-6. (See also " Heredity. 11 ) 
 Ignorance : 
 
 — Not a sufficient explanation for the prevalence of the 
 
 drink habit, 69-70. 
 
 — (See •' Illiteracy. 11 ) 
 
 Her, Peter E., on High License in Nebraska, 219. (See 
 
 also 445, 449.) 
 Illinois: 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — High License, Results of in, 210, 212, 219. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 291-3. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 564, 566, 568, 573, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Illiteracy, 236-7. 
 
 — in Portugal, 493. 
 Imports and Exports, 237-41. 
 — Brandy from France, 480-1. 
 
 — Duty, Rates of, 637-8. 
 
 Independent Order of Good Templars, 241-2. 
 
 — Prohibition party. Part played by the Good Templars 
 
 in the organization of the, 560, 561. 
 
 — (See Constitutional Amendment campaigns, 104-28, 
 
 445.) 
 
 — Foreign countries: Australasia, 37; Belgium, 45; Can- 
 
 ada, 61; Denmark, 153; England, 197; Ireland, 259 ; 
 
 Norway, 456 ; Russia, 605 ; Scotland, 608 ; Sweden, 
 
 624. 
 Independent Order of Rechabites, 37, 582. 
 India, 222-3, 242-5. 
 Indiana: 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 293-5. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 566, 573, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Indian Territory, Prohibition in, 295. 
 
 Indians (North American), 245-7, 295, 641-2. (See also 
 
 the digests of State laws, 275-360.) 
 Inebriate asylums, 247-8. 
 Ingalls, John J. (Senator), on Prohibition in Kansas, 
 
 509-10, 539. 
 Injunction law, 248-51. 
 
 — States having Injunction provisions (1889): Iowa, 298; 
 
 Kansas, 300, 301 ; New Hampshire, 325-6 ; North 
 Dakota (1890), 333 : South Dakota (1890), 613 ; Ver- 
 mont, 353. 
 Inquiry bill, The, 640. 
 
Index.] 
 
 661 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Insanity from driuk, IB, 45, 189, 153, 184, 189. 
 
 — Prohibition State*, Testimony from insane asylums in, 
 
 503, 516. 
 
 — (See also "Idiocy.") 
 Insurance statistics, 404-9. 
 "Intemperate temperance " men, 95, 574. 
 Inter-Collegiate Prohibition Association, 574. 
 Internal Revenue system, 251-7, 372-2, 583, 635-7. 
 
 — Tobacco regulations, 629-30. 
 International aspects, 15-16, 496-9, 643. 
 Iowa: 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition in, 99-100, 102, 105-6. 
 
 — Farmers of, Resolutions by, 171'. 
 
 — "Federal permits " in, 383, 384, 513. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 295-9. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 566, 568. 573. 577. 
 
 — Prohibition, Results of in, 513-22, 541-3, 548-50. 
 Ireland, 25; -9, 417-20. 
 
 — Davitt, Michael, on the consequences of drink in, 266. 
 Ireland, John (Archbishop), 68, 181, 216, 598-9, 600. 
 Irish, The (in America), 181, 365. 
 
 Irish Whiskey, 19. 42, 616. 
 Israelites (see " Jews "). 
 Italy: 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 134. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 498 
 
 (note). 
 Iti, 72. 
 
 Jackson, Andrew (President), 147. 
 
 Jamaica, 259-60. 
 
 Jamaica Rum, 10, 35, 260. 
 
 Japan, 260-2. 
 
 Jeffries, Julius, Medical declaration drawn up by, 422-3. 
 
 Jewell, Benjamin R., Article by, 611-12. 
 
 Jewett, Charles (Dr.), Biographical sketch of, 262-3. 
 
 Jews, 12, 263, 470, 605. (See also " Bible and Drink," 
 
 "Bible Wines," "Historical and Philosophical," 
 
 "Palestine " and "Passover Wines") 
 Joachimsen, P. J., on Passover wines, 464-5. 
 Johnson, Andrew (President), 147. 
 Johnson, Herrick (Prof.), on High License, 361. 
 Johnson, William E., Letters of liquor men to, 220 (note). 
 Johnston, W. A. (Justice), on Prohibition in Kansas, 540. 
 Joliet (111.), High License in, 210, 212. 
 Journal. The Indianapolis, 594. 
 Journal, The Providence, 110. 
 Joy, Benjamin, Biographical sketch of, 263-4. 
 Judges, Testimony from: 
 
 — on the results of High License, 519-20. 
 
 the results of Prohibition, 507-9, 514-15, 539-40, 548, 
 
 551 554. 
 Judicial decisions, 90, 91, 92 4, 106, 250-1, 472-3, 644-6. 
 Jukes family,The, 142, 205 (note). 
 Junior Prohibition Clubs, 574. 
 Jury trialB, Refusal of under certain Prohibitory laws, 
 
 248-51. 
 Juvenile Temperance Societies, 40-1, 60, 68, 71, 409. 
 
 Kama (Chief,, 15. 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition in, 100 102, 104-5. 
 — " Federal permits " in 383, 384, 507. 
 
 — Injunction law of, 249-51. 
 
 _ Legislation (Liquor) in, 299. 302. 
 
 _ Prohibition party, Vote of in, 566, 573, 577. 
 
 — Prohibition, Results of in, 560, 519-20, 539-41, 548-50. J 
 
 — Tobacco to minorn. Legislation against, 630. 
 " Kansas cases," 92-4, 249-51. 
 
 Kansas City (Mo.), High License in, 210. 
 Kansas-Nebrask„ bill, The, 586. 
 
 Kell y, Harrison (Congressman), on Prohibition in Kan- 
 sas, 510. 
 
 Kennedy, J. F. (Dr.), on Prohibition in Iowa, 516. 
 Kent, Prof., 111. 
 Kentucky : 
 
 — Crime and illiteracy in the mountain counties of, 237, 
 
 558. 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 302-4. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 
 — Whiskey production in, 376-7. 
 Keokuk (la.), Prohibition in, 517. 
 
 Kephart, B. F. (Rev.), on the liquor traffic with Africa, 
 
 16-17. 
 Kerr, J. G. (Dr.), on drink in China, 74, 75. 
 Kerr, Norman (Dr.), vi. 
 
 — on chloral, etc., 80. 
 
 Mortality from drink, 436-6. 
 
 • — Narcomania, 438-9. 
 
 Kidd v. Pearson, 645-6. 
 
 Kimball, Lucia F. B., 650 (note). 
 
 Kincaid, William (Rev. Dr.), Article by, 430-2. 
 
 King's Daughters, 84. 
 
 Kirk, L. K., on Prohibition in Kansas, 539. 
 
 Kirschwasser, a liqueur, 618. 
 
 Kirsebaer, a liqueur, 018. 
 
 Kloster, Apbjorn, 456. 
 
 Knights of Labor. 123, 265-6. 
 
 Knights of Temperance, 264. 
 
 Koran, The, and drink. (See " Mohammedans.") 
 
 Koumiss, an intoxicant from mares 1 milk, 618. 
 
 Kiimmel, a liqueur, 618. 
 
 Labor and Liquor, 264-6, 384-6, 447-8, 536, 544, 554-7. 
 
 Labouchere, Henry, 197. 
 
 Lachrymse Chri9ti. 647, 648. 
 
 Lalor, J. J., Article by, 251-5. 
 
 Lambert, T. S. (Dr.), 200. 
 
 Lamon, WardH., on Lincoln's temperance record, 369. 
 
 La Monte, George, vi. 
 
 Lancet, The London, on beer adulterations, 9-10. 
 
 Landlords : 
 
 — Jointly respon-ible with saloon-keepers for damage 
 
 done (see "Civil Damage Acts"). 
 
 — Prohibition by, 195, 536. 
 
 Lankester, Edwin (Dr.), on mortality from drink, 25-6. 
 
 Larrabee (Governor), on Prohibition in Iowa, 516, 541-2, 
 551. 
 
 Lathrap, Mary T., vi, 650 (note). 
 
 Laurie, T. (Rev.), 72 (note). 
 
 Law and Order Leagues, 67, 266-8. 
 
 Law, Due process of, 90-4. 
 
 Lawlessness of the liquor-sellers, 268-72, 378-9. 
 
 Lawrence (Mass.), Prohibition and High License in, 532. 
 
 Lawson, Albert G. (Rev. Dr.), vi. 
 
 Lawson, Wilfrid (Sir), 190. 
 
 Leavenworth (Kan.), Prohibition in 511, 512, 553-4. 
 
 Leavitt, Mary Clement, Articl" by, 59-60. (See also vi, 
 13 [note], 37. 75, S4i [note], 262 [note], 607, 650 
 [note 1 , 651.) 
 
 Lecky, W. E. H , on the effect of gin-drinking in Eng- 
 land, 273. 
 
 Leech, Caroline A., 650 (note). 
 
 Lee , F. R. (Dr.): 
 
 _ Article by, 46-8 ; see also iv. 
 
 — on the pledge, 484. 
 Legal Suasion, 272. 
 Legge (Dr.), 72, 73. 
 Legislation (Liquor): 
 
 — United States : 
 
 Colonial, 274, 281, 286, 288-9, 305-6, 309-10, 310-11, 
 
 324, 326, 328-9, 331, 338, 341, 344-5, 353. 
 
 Federal, 635-46. 
 
 Stale, 275-S60. 
 
Index.] 
 
 663 
 
 [Index. 
 
 — Materials used in the manufacture of, 172-3. 
 
 — Nutritive purposes, Valueless for, 179-80. 
 
 — Railroad employes requlred.to abstain from, 632 (note). 
 
 — Revenue from (Federal), 254. 
 
 — Supreme Court of the United States on the relations 
 
 of to crime, pauperism, etc., 93. 
 
 — Taxes on (Federal), 636. 
 Magna Charta, 272. 
 Mandamus act (New York), 330. 
 Manitoba, 65, 66. 
 
 Mann, Horace, Biographical sketch of, 415-16. 
 Manning, Cardinal, 94 (note), 198, 599. 
 Manufacturers of liquors : 
 
 — Regulations for (Federal), 636-7. 
 
 Manufactures, arts, sciences, etc., Quantities of Bpirits 
 
 used in the, 18, 19, 130-1, 615. 
 Maraschino, a liqueur, 618. 
 
 Marble (Governor), on Prohibition in Maine, 504. 
 Marc of grapes, 647, 648. 
 Marsala wine, 19, 647, 649. 
 
 Marsh, Joh.. (Rev. Dr.), Biographical sketch of, 416. 
 Marshall, Thomas, 96. 
 Martin, John A. (Governor), on Prohibition in Kansas, 
 
 510. 539. 
 Martindale, William, 79 (note). 
 Martyn, Carlos, Article by, 625-6. 
 Martyrs of the Prohibition cause, 186-7, 201-2. . 
 Maryland: 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 309-10. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 566, 573, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Masai, Prohibition among the, 13. 
 Massachusetts: 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 102, 103,117-19. 
 
 — Distillers, brewerB and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — High License and Prohibition in, Results of, 212-13, 
 
 527-33. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 310-14. 
 
 — Local Option votes in, 396-8, 400. 
 
 — Pauperism in, due to drink, 465-6. 
 
 — Prohibition party,Vote of in, 562, 563, 564, 566, 568, 573, 
 
 577. 
 
 Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 
 Materials used in the manufacture of distilled and malt 
 
 liquors, 172-3. 
 Mathew, Theobald, Biographical sketch of, 417-20. 
 Mauritius, 13. 
 
 Maynard, L. A., on Prohibition in Kansas, 540. 
 Meaden, J. W., Contribution from, 37-8. 
 Medford rum, 617. 
 Medical Testimony, 20-6, 83, 148, 179-80, 235-6, 367, 407-9, 
 
 420-5, 435-7, 482-3, 486, 583^, 608-9, 632 (note), 648. 
 Medicinal purposes : 
 
 — Ancient medical writers, View ( s of, 229. 
 
 Legislation concerning (see the digests of State laws, 
 
 275-360). 
 
 — Pure 'lcohol should be used in preference to alcoholic 
 
 liquors, 19 (note). 
 
 — Quantity of spirits used for, 615 (note). 
 Medicine, Use of liquor as a, 420-5. 
 McMoc wines, 647, 649. 
 
 Melytic alcohol, 20. 
 Meunonites, 425. 
 
 Merrill, Selah (Rev. Dr.), Article by, 461-2. 
 Merson, J. D., 37 (note). 
 Mescal, a Mexican intoxicant, 429. 
 JMetcalf, Henry B., vi. 
 .Methodist Episcopal Church, 61, 215, 425-8. 
 JMethodiBt Protestant Church, 428. 
 
 Methods of the anti-Prohibitionists, 104-28, 121-3, 186-7, 
 200-1, 268-72, 368, 371-89, 443-50, 488-90. 
 
 Methyl alcohol, 18, 20,616. 
 
 Metropolitan Police laws: Kansas, 301; Massachusetts, 
 
 314. 
 Mexico, 428-30. 
 Michigan : 
 
 — Anti-LicenBe article of the Constitution, 98-9. 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 101, 102, 103, 
 
 111-12. 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 884. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 314-16. 
 
 — Local Option victories in, 399. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 562, 564, 566, 568, 573, 
 
 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against. 630. 
 
 Miller, George L., Letter of on the anti-Prohibition 
 campaign in Nebraska, 449. 
 
 Miller, Waiter (Prof.), Article by, 187-91. 
 
 Mill-feed, Quantity of used in the manufacture of spirit- 
 uous liquors, 172. 
 
 Mills, Roger Q. (Congressman), 113. 
 
 Milwaukee (Wis.), Arrests in, 211. 
 
 Mind, Effects of alcohol on the, 22-3, 25. 
 
 Minneapolis (Minn.), High License in, 210, 521. 
 
 Minnesota: 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — High License, Results of in, 519, 521. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 316-18. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 564, 566, 568, 573, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Minor (Governor), on Prohibition in Connecticut, 526. 
 Minors: 
 
 — Sale of liquor to, Provisions against (see the digests of 
 
 State laws, 275-360). 
 
 Tobacco to, 630. 
 
 Mishla, a Yucatan intoxicant, 430. 
 Missionaries, 12, 13, 17, 75, 78-9, 244. 
 Mississippi: 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 318-20. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 577. 
 Missouri : 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — High License, Results of in, 212, 518-19. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 320-1. 
 
 — Local Option votes in, 399. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 566, 573, 577. 
 Mitchell, E. R. (Dr.), on the hereditary effects of drink, 
 
 236. 
 Moderation, 430-3. 
 
 — Longevity, comparative, of moderate drinkers and 
 
 abstainers, 404-9. 
 
 Mohammedans, 11, 12, 70, 242, 433^, 461-2, 469-71, 633. 
 
 Mohler, M., on Prohibition in Kansas, 539. 
 
 Molasses, Quantities of used in the manufacture of spirit- 
 uous liquors, 172. 
 
 Molasses distilleries, 375. 
 
 Monopolization of the liquor interests, 374-9. 
 
 Montana: 
 
 — Brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 321-2. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 577. 
 Moonshine distilleries, 376, 377. 
 Moore, R. W. (Prof.), 624 (note). 
 
 Moraka (Chief), Prohibitory decree of, 14-15. 
 Moral suasion, 434-5. 
 
 — Gongh, John B., on, 193-4. 
 
 — Greeley, Horace, on, 199. 
 
 Morals, Everything prejudicial to may be removed, 90. 
 Moravian Church, 435. 
 
 Moreau (N. Y.), Temperance Society at, 31, 82. 
 Morel, H. (Dr.), on the effects of alcohol, 235-6. 
 Morgan, Tallie, Article by, 119-24. 
 
Index.] 
 
 664 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Morgan, Thomas J., Article by, 245-6. 
 
 Morocco, 12. 
 
 Morrill, Lot M. (Senator), on Prohibition in Maine, 503. 
 
 Morse, S. A. (Rev.), vi. 
 
 Mortality from drink, 435-7. 
 
 Morton, Levi P. (Vice-President), 644. 
 
 Moselle wines, 19, 647, 649. 
 
 Moshesh (Chief), Prohibitory decree of, 14. 
 
 Mott, Lucretia, Biographical sketch of, 437-8. 
 
 Mugler case, 91 (note), 92-4. 
 
 Mulhall, Statistics from, 12, 19, 39, 42, 134, 184. 
 
 Murray, William, on pauperism and drink, 466-7. 
 
 Muscatel wines, 647, 649. 
 
 Must of grapes, 646. 
 
 Narcomania, 438-9. 
 Narcotics, 438-9. 
 Natal, 14. 
 National Conventions: 
 
 — Democratic, 149, 585. 
 
 — Prohibition party, 561-2, 563-4, 565-6, 567-8, 569, 570-2, 
 
 575-6. 
 
 — Republican, 586, 590, 594. 
 
 — Temperance, 631. 
 National Government, 635-46. 
 National Prohibition, 439-42. 
 National Prohibition Bureau, 574. 
 
 National Protective Association, 103, 114, 116, 119, 121, 
 
 381-2, 387-8, 446. 
 National Reformer, The, 573. 
 National Temperance Advocate, The, 442. 
 National Temperance League (England), 197, 442. 
 National Temperance Society, 442-3. 
 Native races, The liquor traffic with, 13-17, 38, 497, 498 
 
 (note), 643. 
 Natural liberty, 471-2. 
 Navy, Regulations for the, 642-3. 
 Nazarites, 443. 
 Nebraska : 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 89, 443-50. 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in. 383, 384. 
 
 — Hi^'h License, Results of in, 212, 219, 518-21, 548-50. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 322-3. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 564, 566. 573, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Negroes, 450-1. 
 
 — Legislation concerning sales of liquor to (before 
 
 emancipation), 275, 276, 278, 287, 289, 290, 302, 304, 
 318, 320, 326. 331, 345, 346, 347, 354. 
 
 — Prohibition, Happy resultB of among, 557-8. 
 Neisori, Francis G. P., Statistical tables prepared by, 
 
 404-5. 
 Netherlands (see "Holland"). 
 Neutral spirits, 615, 616. 
 Nevada : 
 
 — Brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, S23 4. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 
 New Bedford (Mass.), Prohibition and High License in, 
 
 532. 
 New Brunswick. 64, t-6. 
 Newburyport (Mass.), High License in, 531. 
 New England rum, 617. 
 
 — for the heathen, If, 17, 240-1. 
 New Era, The, 573. 
 
 New Hampshire : 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 102, 103, 117. 
 
 — " Federal permits " in, 383, 384, 524. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 324-6. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 562, 563, 564, 566, 568, 
 
 573, 577. 
 
 — Prohibition, Results of in, 524. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 New Jersey : 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 326-7. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 566, 568, 573, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 New Mexico: 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 327-8. 
 New South Wales, 38. 
 
 New York : 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition idea originated in, 99. 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Hop-yield of, 234. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 328-31. 
 
 — Local Option votes in, 399. 
 
 — Opium prohibition in, 460. 
 
 — Prohibition in, 530, 562-3 (note). 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 562, 563, 564, 566, 568, 
 
 573, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 New York City : 
 
 — Arrests in, 211. 
 
 — Pauperism in, due to drink, 468. 
 
 — Rum power, The, in, 488-9. 
 
 — Saloons of, owned by the brewers, 379. 
 
 — Sunday law, Enforcement of the, in, 537. 
 New Zealand, 38. 
 
 A ens, The Chicago, 216. 
 
 Nicholas, Emperor (Russia), 40, 603. 
 
 Noble, William, 57. 
 
 Nolan, Philip A., Article by, 68. 
 
 No-License (see Ll Local Option "). 
 
 Non-Partisan campaigns, 104-28, 443-50. 
 
 Non-Partisan Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 
 
 652. 
 Non-Partisanship, 451-4. 
 Northampton (Mass.), High License in, 531. 
 North Carolina: 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 331-2. 
 
 — Prohibition party. Vote of in, 573, 577. 
 North Dakota: 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition mbvement in, 102, 126-7. 
 
 — Prohibition in, 332-3. 523. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 North Sea, Prohibition of spirits in, 497. 
 ^Norway, 454-6. 
 
 — li.„ernational regulations, Action of regarding, 49ft 
 
 (note). 
 Norwegians (in America), 181. 
 Nott, Eliphalet (Rev. Dr.), 456-8. 
 Nova Scotia, 64, 66. 
 Noyau, a liqueur, 618. 
 Nuisance acts, 248-51 ; Iowa, 298 ; Kansas, 300, 301 ; New 
 
 Hampshire, 325-6 ; North Dakota, 333 ; South 
 
 Dakota, 613 ; Vermont, 353. 
 Numerical Btrength of the rum power, 382-5. 
 Nutrition : 
 
 — Alcohol possesses no elements of, 25, 179-80. 
 
 — Effects of alcohol on, 22. 
 
 Oats, Quantity of used in the manufacture of spirituous- 
 
 liquors, 172. 
 Octroi duties (France), 185. 
 O'Donnell, John, Article by, 467-9 ; see also vi. 
 Oglethorpe, Prohibitory law of, against spirits, 247, 288-9. 
 Ohio: 
 
 — Anti-License article of the Constitution, 98-9. 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 100-1, 102 e 
 
 106-8. 
 
Index.] 
 
 665 
 
 [Index 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Farmers of, Resolutions by, 171. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 333-7. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 562, 563, 664, 566, 568, 
 
 573, 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 
 — Woman's Crusade in, 143-5. 
 Oklahoma : 
 
 — Attempted suspension of Prohibition in, 641 (note). 
 
 — Prohibition, Results of in, 524-5. 
 
 Olin, John M., Suffrage plank offered by, 576 (note). 
 
 Omaha (Neb.), High License in, 210,812, 217. 
 
 O'Malley case, 92. 
 
 Ontario, 65, 66. 
 
 Opium, 458-61 ; in China, 75-9 ; India, 244-5 ; PerBia, 471. 
 
 — Recommended by Dr. Rush, 602-3. 
 Oregon : 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 101-2, 103, 
 
 115-16. 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Hop culture in, 234. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 337-8. 
 
 — Opium prohibition in, 460. 
 
 " Original Package " decision, 647. 
 
 — Effects of, 512, 517-18. 
 
 Oswald, Felix L. (Dr.), Articles by, 38, 68-70, 82-3, 141-3, 
 147-8. 183-4. 235-6, 420-1, 485-7, 490-3, 580-1, 583-4, 
 613-14, 620-1. 
 
 Out-Still system (India), 242. 
 
 Owen, Isambard (Dr.), on the comparative longevity of 
 abstainers and drinkers, 407. 
 
 Owen Sunday law (Ohio), 268-9. 
 
 Pacific Islands, The liquor traffic with the, 643. 
 Packard, Samuel W., Article by, 85-6. 
 Palestine, 461-2. 
 
 Palmer, Henry W., on the defeat of Prohibition in Penn- 
 sylvania, 122-3. 
 Paraguay, 613. 
 
 Paralyzing effects of alcohol, 23, 24, 25. 
 Paresis, caused by alcohol, 21. 
 Parker, B. F., Article by, 241-2. 
 Parkes, E. A. (Dr.) : 
 
 — Medical declaration drawn up hy, 423-4. 
 
 — on the chemical constituents of beer, 414. 
 
 the effects of alcohol, 482, 486. 
 
 Parties : 
 
 — Democratic, 148-53. 
 
 — Prohibition,_559-80. 
 
 — Republican, 585-95. 
 Passover wine, 462-5. 
 
 Pauperism and drink, 465-7; see also 139, 153, 189-90,259. 
 
 — - Physicians, English, on, 423. 
 
 — Prohibitory laws, Effects of, 504. 508-9, 514-15, 531, 535. 
 
 — Supreme Court of the United States on, 93, 473. 
 Paxton, Andrew, 26". 
 
 Pearson, John (Rev.), on law defiance in Cincinnati, 
 
 268-9. 
 Penalties, 467-9. 
 Peninsular Herald, The, 573. 
 Penitentiary statistics, 505, 509, 516, 520-1, 528. 
 Penn, William, 246. 
 Pennsylvania : 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 89, 102, 103, 
 
 119-24. 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — High License, Results of in, 213-14, 269. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 338-41. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 563, 564, 566, 568, 573, 
 
 577. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Pepper, George W.(Rev.), Father Mathew's letter to, 420. 
 
 Peppermint liqueur, 618. 
 
 Per capita consumption (see "Consumption of 
 
 Liquors "). 
 Percentages of alcohol in liquors, 19, 616, 647. 
 Perham (Governor), on Prohibition in Maine, 504, 538. 
 Perry, 19, 649. 
 Persia, 469-71. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 49S 
 
 (note). 
 
 — (See also " Historical and Philosophical.") 
 Personal Liberty, 471-4. 
 
 Peru, 613. 
 
 Peters, John A. (Congressman), on Prohibition in Maine, 
 
 503. 
 Petitions, 474-7. 
 Pharmacopoeia, The United States, on the dangers of 
 
 wines, 648. 
 Philadelphia (Pa.), High License in, 211, 213-14, 218. 
 Phillips, Wendell : 
 
 — Biographical sketch of, 477-8. 
 
 on the political power of the liquor traffic, 488-9. 
 
 Phtisis from alcohol. 25. 
 
 Phylloxera, 478-82, 493 (note). 
 
 Physical training, 482-3. 
 
 Physicians (see " Medical Testimony "). 
 
 — Atlanta, Testimony concerning Prohibition and 
 
 license in, 556. 
 
 — Prescriptions of alcohol by, 159, 420-5. (See also the 
 
 digests of State laws, 275 360.) 
 
 Physiological effects of drink, 20-6. (See also " Medical 
 Testimony.' 1 ) 
 
 Pickler, J. A. (Congressman), on Prohibition in Okla- 
 homa, 525. 
 
 Pierce, Edwin C, 469. 
 
 Pierce, Franklin (President), 147. 
 
 Pierpont, John (Rev. Dr.), Biographical sketch of. 
 483-4. 
 
 Pioneer, The, 573. 
 
 Pioneer Press, The St. Paul, 594. 
 
 Pike, Frederic A., vi. 
 
 Piper Hridsick, how imitated, 8, 
 
 Pitman, Robert C. (Judge), iv, v. 
 
 — Candidacy of, 563, 566. 
 
 — on idiocy, 235. 
 pauperism, 465-6. 
 
 the results of Prohibition in Massachusetts, 
 
 528 9. 
 Pittsburgh (Pa.), High License in, 217-18, 270. 
 Plain spirit, 616. 
 Plastering of wines, 133, 647. 
 Platforms : 
 
 — Democratic, 149, 152, 585-6. 
 
 — Prohibition party, 562, 5634, 565-6, 567-8, 569, 570-2, 
 
 575-6. 
 
 — Republican, 586, 590, 594. 
 Plato, 220-1, 229-30. 
 Plebiscites in Scotland, 608. 
 Pledge. 43-1-5. 
 
 — of the Bands of Hope, 40; R. Bolton, 484-5; Cadets- 
 
 of Temperance, 60 ; Catholic Total Abstinence- 
 Union, PS ; Commercial Temperance League, 85 ; 
 Good Templars, 241 ; Greenock Society, 607 ; Knights 
 of Temperance, 264 ; Joseph Livesey, 389 ; Father 
 Mathew, 417; Moreau Society, 82; Washingtonians, 
 649; Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 651. 
 
 Plenary Council decrees, 597-8. 
 
 Pliny, 49, 54, 413. 
 
 Plumb, P. B. (Senator), on Prohibition in Kansas, 510 
 
 Plumley, Frank, on Prohibition in Vermont, 523. 
 
 ''Poisoners-general, 1 ' 650. 
 
 Poisons, 485-7. 
 
 — Used in adulterating (see " Adulteration "). 
 
Index.] 
 
 666 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Poles (in America), 181. 
 
 Police, Cost of supporting the, 546-7. 
 
 Police Power of the States, 93-4. 
 
 Police returns (see " Arrests and Commitments"). 
 
 Policy of the liquor traffic, 387-9. (See also " Methods 
 
 of the anti-Prohibitionists.' 1 ) 
 Political corruption, 487-90. See also 107-8, 110, 111-12, 
 
 115, 116, 120-3, 126, 217, 381-2, 445-7, 448-9, 501, 572. 
 Polk, James K. (President), 147. 
 Pond law (Ohio), 107, 335. 
 Pope, The, 46, 68, 598-9. 
 Popoff, Peter, 603 (note). 
 ■Popular fallacies, 490-3. 
 Population, Increase of, how affected by Prohibition, 
 
 551-4. 
 Port, 19, 494, 647, 649. 
 
 — How imitated, 8. 
 Porter, 19, 414. 
 
 Portland (Me.), Prohibition in, 505-6. 
 Portugal, 493-4. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 134. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 498 
 
 (note). 
 
 — Phylloxera, ravages of the in, 481. 
 Potato spirits, 20, 614. 
 
 Potheen, 618. 
 
 Pottinger, Sir Henry, 76. 
 
 Poverty, Eolations of drink to (see " Pauperism "). 
 
 Powderly, Terence V., on the relations of labor and 
 
 drink, 265-6 (note). 
 Powell, A. M., 634 (note). 
 Prentice, G. H. (Rev.), 214. 
 Presbyterian Church, 61, 494-5. 
 
 — Deliverance in Nebraska on High License, 215. 
 Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates of the 
 
 Prohibition party, Biographical sketches of, 56-7, 
 58-9, 146, 158-9, 176-7, 603, 605, 610, 620, 626. 
 
 Presidential declaration, 147. 
 
 Press, The hostility of the, 28, 104, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 
 117, 118-19, 121-3, 128, 446-7. 
 
 Preston, The seven men of, 389. 
 
 Price, J. C. (Rev. Dr.), Article by, 450-1. 
 
 Prince Edward Island, 64, 66. 
 
 Prison officials, Testimonies from, 142, 632 (note). 
 
 Probate Judges of Kansas, Testimony from, 507-9. 
 
 Production of liquors, 128-35. 
 
 Profits of the brewers, 374. 
 
 Prohibition, International aspects of, 496-9. 
 
 Prohibition, National, 439-42. 
 
 Prohibition party, 550-80. 
 
 — and the Anti-Saloon Republicans, 29. 
 the Abolition party, compared, 30-3. 
 
 Woman Suffrage, 163-4, 166, 167, 564, 565, 568. 
 
 669, 571, 576. 
 Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 652. 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition contests, Influence of in, 
 
 115, 116, 118, 120, 127, 441, 445. 
 
 — Phillips, Wendell, on the necessity of, 477. 
 
 — Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates of, 
 
 Biographical sketches of, 56-7, 58-9, 146, 158-9, 176-7, 
 603, 605, 610, 620, 626. 
 
 — Ross, William, Resolution of, 600-1. 
 Prohibition party (Australia), 37. 
 Prohibition party (Canada), 66. 
 Prohibition party (England), 196. 
 Prohibition, Principle of, 495-9, 618-20. 
 
 — Advocacy of, by Gen. James Appleton, 34 ; Dr. Albert 
 
 Barnes, 43 ; Lyman Beecher, 44-5 ; business men, 
 447; W. E. Channing, D.D., 72; Lord Chesterfleld, 
 617 (note) ; J. W. Chickering, D.D., 72 ; W. E. 
 Dodge, 157 ; educators, 104, 448 ; farmers, 104, 170-1, 
 448 ; John B. Gough, 193-4 ; Horace Greeley, 198- 
 
 200 ; Thomas Guthrie, D.D., 201 ; Heman Hum- 
 phrey, D.D., 234; Labor leaders, 123, 265-6,447-8; 
 Abraham Lincoln, 368, 369 ; Horace Mann, 415-16 ; 
 Father Mathew, 420; Dr. Eliphaiet Nott, 458 ; Sen- 
 ator Reagan, 1 12-13 ; Dr. Francis Wayland, 650. 
 
 — Democratic party, The, and, 148-53. 
 
 — Republican party. The, and, 587-95. 
 
 — Upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 
 90-4, 473. 
 
 — Votes on, 99, 100-28, 396-400. 
 
 — (See also the various religions denominations.) 
 Prohibition, Reasons against, 26-7 
 Prohibition, Resulte of, 499-559. 
 
 — Opium consumption not increased under Prohibitory 
 
 laws, 461. 
 Prohibitory laws, general (including measures against 
 spirits only, and other rude acts, but not Local- 
 Option statutes): 
 
 — United States: 
 
 Federal: Alaska, 277 ; Indians, 295, 641-2; Okla- 
 homa, 337 ; Army and Navy, 642-3. 
 
 State and Territorial : Connecticut, 282 ; Delaware, 
 
 286 ; Georgia (Oglethorpe's), 288-9 ; Illinois, 292 ; 
 Indiana, 294 ; Iowa, 296-9 ; Kansas, 299-302 ; Maine, 
 306-9 ; Massachusetts, 311, 312 ; Michigan, 315 ; 
 Mississippi (sales in quantities less than a gallon, 
 1839), 318 ; Nebraska, 322 ; New Hampshire, 324-6 ; 
 New York, 329 ; North Dakota, 332-3 ; Ohio (against 
 consumption on the premises), 334-5 ; Oregon, 337 ; 
 Rhode Island, 341-2 ; Sioux Lands (Minnesota), 316 ; 
 South Dakota, 613; Tennessee (persons whose 
 principal object waB the selling of liquor were not 
 to be licensed, 1823), 347 ; Vermont, 351-3. 
 
 Against distillation only, 276, 288, 290, 318, 329, 
 
 331, 338, 345, 348, 354. 
 
 Constitutional, 100-2. 
 
 Federal regulations, Interference of with the 
 
 success of, 257. 
 
 Soundness of, upheld by the higest Courts, 90-4. 
 
 — Other countries : Ancient, 73-4 (see also "Historical 
 
 and Philosophical"); Africa, 13-15, 16,498 (note) 
 Mohammedan countries (Bee "Mohammedans") 
 North Sea, 497 ; Norway, 454 ; Samoan Islands, 497 
 Sandwich Islands, 606-7 ; Sweden, 623. 
 
 Proof spirit, 616. 
 
 Property rights, The claim of, 89-96. 
 
 Propylic alcohol, 18, 155. v 
 
 Prostitution, naturally allied to liquor-selling, 361, 372. 
 
 — Practically licensed in Omaha, 362. 
 Protestant Episcopal Church, 81, 580. 
 
 ovideuce (R. I.), Prohibition and license in, 525, 543-4. 
 Public sentiment, 580-1. 
 Pugh, Esther, vi. 
 
 Pullman (111.). Prohibition in, 536. 
 Pulque, a Mexcan intoxicant, 428-9. 
 " Pulverize the rum power! " 401. 
 Pure spirits, 616. 
 
 Quakers, 30, 186, 246. 
 
 Quay, Matthew S., 29, 121, 122. 
 
 Quebec, 64, 66. 
 
 Queen's Bench, Decisions by the, 94. 
 
 Queensland, 38. 
 
 Quincy (Mass.), Prohibition in, 531. 
 
 Race troubles, 557-8. 
 
 Railroad companies, Regulations of concerning the use 
 
 of liquor by employes, 632 (note). 
 Raleigh (N. C), Prohibition and High License in, 535. 
 Ramabai, Pundita, 244. 
 Ranavalona (Queen), 13. 
 Raster Resolution, The, 590-1, 594. 
 
Index.] 
 
 667 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Ratafia, a liqueur, 618. 
 
 Raum, Green B. (Commi88ioner),an(J the brewers, 639. 
 
 Reagan, John H. (Senator), 112-13. 
 
 Real estate agents, Testimony from, 555-6. 
 
 Rechabites, 581. 
 
 Rechabites, Independent Order of, 588. 
 
 — in foreign countries : Australasia, 37 ; England, 197 ; 
 
 Ireland, 259. 
 
 — Longevity statistics of, 404-6. 
 Rectification, 582-3. 
 
 Red Ribbon, 57, 175. 
 
 Red wines, 648. 
 
 .Reformed drinkers, 583-4. 
 
 Reformed Episcopal Church, 584. 
 
 Reformed Presbyterian Church, 584-5. 
 
 Reid, William (Rev.), vi. 
 
 Reimestad, T. S. (Prof.), Article by, 454-6. 
 
 JJeligious denominations, 11, 17, 41-2, 61, 81-2, 96, 145, 
 
 154, 160, 169-70, 186, 187, 26.3, 410-11, 425-S, 494-5, 580, 
 
 584-5, 597-600, 608, 634, 646, 650. 
 Rents paid by saloon-keeperB, 606. 
 Repeals (notable instances), 63, 124-6, 588, 589-90, 591. 
 Republican party, 585-95. 
 
 — Anti-Saloon movement in, 27-30. 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition contests, Behavior of in, 
 
 104-28, 444-5, 449-50. 
 
 — Declaration of concerning the Internal Revenue, 256. 
 
 — Foreign-born voters, Influence of upon, 182. 
 
 — Intolerance of, 574. 
 Resources or the rum power, 381-2. 
 Restriction, 595-7. 
 
 — Anti-Prohibition view of, 27. 
 
 — Distinction between restriction and license or tax, 
 
 207-8. 
 Retailers, 371-2, 378-9, 383-1. 
 
 — Legislation relating to (see " Legislation "). 
 Revenue (Liquor): 
 
 — Federal, 251-4, 638. 
 
 Frauds of the liquor-makers, 375 (note). 
 
 — Great Britain, 195; France, 181; Germany, 191 ; India, 
 
 242-3; Ireland, 258-9; Jamaica, 260; Japan, 261; 
 
 Norway, 456 ; Persia, 470 -1 ; Russia, 604 ; Sweden, 624. 
 Revenue (Tobacco), 629. 
 Revenue argument, The, 121, 122, 215-16, 492-3. 
 
 — Emperor of China, The, Noble words of, 76. 
 
 — Grier (Justice) on, 90. 
 
 — Loss of revenue is more than made good by the advan- 
 
 tages of Prohibition, 545-51. 
 
 — Madagascar, The Queen of, Example of, 13. 
 Rhine wines, 19, 647, 649. 
 
 Rhode Island ; 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition in, 101, 102, 103, 109-11. 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — High License and Prohibition, Results of in, 124-6, 
 
 269, 525-6, 543-4. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 341-4. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 566, 568, 573, 577. 
 Ribbon movements, 57. 
 
 Rice, Helen G., Article by, 409-10. 
 Richardson, A. M. (Rev.), 104 (note). 
 Richardson, B. W. (Dr.), iv. 
 
 — Article by, 20-6. 
 
 — on alcoholic epilepsy, 161. 
 
 the maximum strength of fermented liquors, 614. 
 
 the valuelessness of alcohol as a food, 179. 
 
 Richmond, T. C, Article by, 476-7 ; see also vi. 
 Riley, Ashbel Wells, Biographical sketch of, 597. 
 Ritter, Eli F., 634 (note). 
 Robbins, Alonzo, Table prepared by, 615. 
 Jiobie (Governor), on Prohibition in Maine, 504. 
 Bockford (111.), High License and Prohibition in, 210, 212, 
 535. 
 
 Romai^ Catholic Church, 597-600. 
 
 Romans, The (see "Historical and Philosophical "). 
 
 Roosevelt, George W., Report of on the phylloxera, 479. 
 
 Root, H. G,, on Prohibition in Vermont, 523. 
 
 Rosewater, Edward, 445. 
 
 Ross, William, Biographical sketch of, 600-1. 
 
 Rough wines, 648. 
 
 Roumelia, 633. 
 
 Roussillon wines, 649. 
 
 Rowan County (Ky.), Murders in, 558. 
 
 Royal Templars of Temperance, 61, 601. 
 
 " Rub-a-dub agitation," 33. 
 
 Rum, 19, 619. 
 
 — Exports of from the United States to Africa, 240-1. 
 
 — on the Congo, 15-16. 498 (note). 
 Rum Power, The, 384-5, 601. 
 
 Rush, Benjamin, Biographical sketch of, 601-3. 
 
 — Inebriate asylums advocated by, 247. 
 Russell, Frank D., Article by, 582. 
 
 Russell, John (Rev.), Biographical sketch of, 603; see 
 
 al so vi. 
 Russia, 603-5. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 134. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 498 
 
 (note). 
 
 — Phylloxera, Ravages of the in, 482. 
 Ryder, Emma Brainerd, 242 (note), 244. 
 
 Sabine, Henry, on Prohibition in Iowa, 542. 
 
 Sack. 649. 
 
 St. Croix, 154. 
 
 St. John, John P., Biographical sketch of, 605 ; see 
 
 also vi. 
 St. John campaign, 570-4. 
 St. Louis (Mo.l, High License in, 210, 212, 217. 
 St. Paul (Minn.), High License in, 521. 
 Sake, a Japanese distilled drink, 260-2. 
 Salem (Mass.), Results of High License in, 210, 531. 
 Salisbury, Lord, 94-5. 
 Saloon, 605-6. 
 
 "Saloon, Never try to defend the," 122. 
 Saltaire (Eng.), Prohibition in, 536. 
 Samlag system, 455. 
 Samoa, Prohibition in, 497. 
 Samshu, a Chinese distilled drink, 74-5. 
 Samson, G. W., Articles by, 50-7, 86-8, 220-32, 462-5. 
 Sanborn, B. T., on Prohibition in Maine, 503. 
 Sandwich Islands, 606-7. 
 Satter'ee, W. W. (Rev.), vi. 
 Saumur wines, 649. 
 Sauterne wines, 649. 
 "Save the Boys," 267. 
 Scandinavians (in America), 127, 181. 
 Scheltema. Adema von (Rev. Dr.), 232. 
 Schmidt Bros., Case of, 92. 
 Schnapps, 618. 
 Schweigaard (Prof.), 454. 
 Sciences, manufactures, arts, etc., Spirits used in the, 
 
 18, 19, 130-1, 615. 
 Scientific Temperance Educational laws, 607. 
 Scientific testimony (see " Medical Testimony "). 
 Scomp, H. A. (Prof.), Article by, 390-6. 
 Scotch whiskey, 19, 42. 
 Scotland, 607-8. 
 Scott, George R., 573. 
 Scott act (Canada), 62. 
 Scott Tax law (Ohio), 107, 335. 
 Scottish Temperance Leagne, 608. 
 Screen laws: 
 
 — Connecticut, 285 ; Delaware, 287 ; Massachusetts, 313; 
 
 Michigan, 316; Nebraska, 323; Rhode Island, 344; 
 South Carolina (1839), 345. 
 
Index.] 
 
 668 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Sedwards, Jeffery, 257. 
 
 Sentiment, Strength of, 102. 
 
 Seven men of Preston, 389. 
 
 Seventh-Day Adventists, 608. 
 
 Sewall, Thomas (Dr.), 608-9. 
 
 Seymour Horatio, 149. 
 
 Shaftesbury Park (Eng.), Prohibition in, 536. 
 
 Sherbet, 51. 
 
 Sherlin. Charles A., vi. 
 
 Sherman, John (Senator), 168, 593. 
 
 Sherry, 19, 614, 647, 649. 
 
 — How imitated, 8. 
 Shu-King. Book of, 73. 
 Sibley, Frank J., vi, 264 (note). 
 
 Sickness, Abstainers less liable to than drinkers, 26. 
 (See also " Longevity.") 
 
 Signal, The Delaware. 573, 
 
 Sikes, J R. (Rev.), 122. 
 
 Sims, William, on Prohibition in Kansas, 540. 
 
 '• Sin, It can never be legalized without," 426. 
 
 Sin per se, 609. 
 
 Singleton, W. F., vi. 
 
 Sioux City (la.), Prohibition in, 517. 
 
 " Six'Sermnns on Intemperance," 44. 
 
 Slavery Issue, Aspects of the, 30-3, 585-7. 
 
 Sloan, William H. (Rev.), Article by, 428-30. 
 
 Siocumb law (Nebraska), 209, 322-3. 
 
 Smith, Gerrit, Biographical sketch of, 610. 
 
 Smith, Green Clay, Biographical sketch of, 610. (See 
 also vi, and " Prohibition Party.") 
 
 Smith, James (Rev.), Discourse by, 369. 
 
 Smith, James H. (Consul), Report of on the phylloxera, 
 481-2. 
 
 Smith, Sidney, on the results of legislative discrimina- 
 tions in favor of beer, 366. 
 
 Smith Sunday law (Ohio), 107, 335. 
 
 Smollett, Tobias G., on the effects of gin-drinking in 
 England, 273. 
 
 Sobieski, John, Article by, 180-2. 
 
 Social Purity, 610-11. 
 
 Soldiers and Sailors, Regulations concerning the sale of 
 drink to, 642-3. 
 
 Solidarity of the rum power, 370-89. 
 
 Somali, 13. 
 
 Somerville (Mass.), Prohibition in, 531. 
 
 Sons of Jonadab, 631. 
 
 Sons of Temperance, 611-12. 
 
 — Death-rate of, 405. 
 
 — Lincoln, Abraham, a member of the Order, 369, 370. 
 
 — in Australasia, 37 ; Canada, 61. 
 South Africa, 14-15. 
 
 South America, 612-13. 
 South Carolina: 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 344-6. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 South Dakota: 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition in, 101,102, 109, 126-7. 
 
 — Prohibition in, 523. 
 
 — Prohibitory law of, 613. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Southern problem, How affected by the drink system, 
 
 236-7, 557-8. 
 Southwick, Thomas S., Article by, 606-7. 
 Spain, 613-14. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 184. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 498 
 
 (note). '. 
 
 — Phylloxera, ravages of the in, 481. 
 Sparkling wines, 648. 
 
 Sparta, 198, 621-2. 
 Special taxes, 257, 636. 
 
 Spence, F. S., Article by, 60-7. 
 
 " Spies," The liquor-sellers' denunciations of, 268. 
 
 Spirit of wine, 616. 
 
 Spirit ration in the army, 642. 
 
 Spirits, 614-18. 
 
 — Used in fortifying wines, 7-9, 12, 14, 481, 614, 647. 
 
 ■ in the arts, manufactures, sciences, etc., 18, 19 
 
 130-1, 615. 
 Spirituous liquors, 614, 616- 18. 
 
 — Adulterations of, 10, 616. 
 
 — Alcoholic strength of, 19, 616. 
 
 — Consumption of, 128-35. 
 
 — Discriminations against (see "Light Liquors;" also the 
 
 digests of State laws, 275-360). 
 
 — Distillation of, Process of, 154-5. 
 
 — Expenditure for, 136-7. 
 
 — Expjrts of, 240-1. 
 
 — "Fine" whiskey, Comparative insignificance of th© 
 
 production ..f, 376-7. 
 
 — Imports of, 238-7. 
 
 — Manufacturing interests, Different branches of the, 
 
 376-8. 
 
 — Materials used in the production of, 172. 
 
 — Presidential declaration against, 147. 
 
 — Revenue from (Federal), 254. 
 
 — Taxes on (Federal), 636. 
 
 Springfield (Mass.), High License and Prohibition in, 210, 
 582. 
 
 Stalker, M., en Prohibition in Iowa, 542. 
 
 Stanley, Henry M., on the fatal effects of strong drink, 15. 
 
 Starch of grain, converted into Bugar by malting, 58. 
 
 State, The, and Prohibition, 618-20. 
 
 States, Powers of the, 635, 645-6. 
 
 Statutory Prohibition as distinguished from Constitu- 
 tional Prohibition, 97-8. 
 
 Stearns, John N., vi, 99 (note). 
 
 Stevens, A. A., vi. 
 
 Stevens, Thomas, on drink in Russia, 604. 
 
 Stewart, E. D. (Mrs.), 143. 
 
 Stewart, Gideon T., Biographical sketch of, 620. (See 
 also vi, and " Prohibition party.") 
 
 Still wines, 648. 
 
 Stimulants, 620-1. 
 
 Stone v. Mississippi, Case of, 93, 645. 
 
 Stopping suddenly, No danger from, 632 (note). 
 
 Stout, 414. 
 
 Stratton, Joel, 193. 
 
 Strength of alcoholic liquors, 19, 615, 616, 647. 
 
 Strength of the body, How affected by alcoholic drink, 
 22-4, 491. 
 
 Strong drink, 621. 
 
 Stuart, Moses, Biographical sketch of. 621. 
 
 Stubbs, H. S., Statistics prepared by, 505-6. 
 
 Sudder still system (India), 242. 
 
 Suffrage plank, 564, 565, 568, 569, 571, 576. 
 
 Suicide and drink, 45, 365. 
 
 Sumner, Charles, 81-2, 33. 
 
 Sumptuary laws, 621-2. 
 
 — Democratic party, The, and, 149-50. 
 Sunday-closing, 622-3. 
 
 — Beneficial results of, 537. 
 
 — Legislation concerning (see digests of State laws, 275- 
 
 360). 
 Supreme Court of the United States, 644-6. (See also 
 
 "Judicial Decisions.") 
 Swartz, Joel (Rev. Dr.), Article by, 167-9, 
 Sweden, 623-4. 
 
 — Consumption of liquors in, 133-4. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 498 
 
 (note). 
 Sweet wines, 648. 
 Switzerland, 624. 
 
Index.] 
 
 669 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Switzler, W. P., Estimate* of, 373. 
 Syndicates, English brewery, 374-5. 
 
 Tammany Hall, 152, 489. 
 Taney (Chfef-Justice), on Prohibition, 645. 
 Tao Kwang (Emperor), Noble words of, 76. 
 "Tapering off" plan, The, 632 (note). 
 Tariff duties: 
 
 — on liquors, 238-9, 637-8. 
 tobacco, 629-30. 
 
 Tariff issue, Effects of upon the Prohibition movement, 
 575. 
 
 Tasmania, 38. 
 
 Tattler, The, on wine adulterations, 7. 
 
 Tax, as distinguished from license, 168, 624-5. 
 
 Taxes (General), How affected by Prohibition, 545-51. 
 
 Taxes (Liquor), levied by the Federal Government, 254, 
 636-8. 
 
 Tax-rates under Prohibition and High License com- 
 pared, 548-50. 
 
 Taylor, Zachary (President), 147. 
 
 Teachers and Prohibition, 448. 
 
 Temperance, Definitions of, 35, 221 , 599, 625. 
 
 Temperance Hospital, Tlie London, 424-5. 
 
 Temperature : 
 
 — of distillation, 18, 20, 155. 
 fermentation , 8, 58. 
 
 the body, How affected by alcohol, 23-4. 
 
 Templars of Honor and Temperance, 625. 
 Temple, Frederick (Bishop), 442. 
 Temptation, 625-6. 
 Teneriffe wines, 649. 
 Tennessee : 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 101, 102, 
 
 103, 114-15. 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 346-8. 
 
 — Prohibition pany, Vote of in, 573, 577. 
 Tequila, a Mexican intoxicant, 429. 
 
 Territories, The, 634, 641. (See also "Alaska," " Ariz- 
 ona," " New Mexico," " Oklahoma" and " Utah.") 
 Texas : 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 101, 102, 
 
 103, 112-13. 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 348-50. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 573, 577. 
 41 Third " parties, Charles Sumner on, 32. 
 Thomas, John Lloyd, vi, 386 (note). 
 
 Thomas, W. H., on the dishonesty of fruit distillers, 375 
 
 (note). 
 Thompson, G. B., vi. 
 
 Thompson, H. A. (Kev. Dr.), Biographical sketch of, 623. 
 Thompson Thomas, R., vi. 
 Three-Mile law (Arkansas), 278-9. 
 Thwing, E P. (Dr.), Article by, 626-9. 
 Tied houses, 379. 
 Tilden, Samuel J., 149. 
 Ti7nes, The London : 
 
 — on the liquor traffic in the Pacific islands, 643 (note). 
 the results of legislative discriminations in favor 
 
 of beer, 366. 
 Tinling, J. F. B., 197 (note). 
 
 Tisdel, W. P., on the liquor traffic in Africa, 16, 17. 
 Title-deeds, Prohibition by, 536. 
 Tobacco, 626-30 ; see also 254. 
 Toddy : 
 
 — a fermented drink of India, 649. 
 
 — a spirituous preparation, 616. 
 Tokay wines, 19, 647, 649. 
 Tolstoi, Leo (Count), 605. 
 
 Tomlinson, W. P., on Prohibition in Topeka, 511. 
 
 Topeka (Kan.), Prohibition in, 611. 
 
 Total abstinence, 630-2. 
 
 — Bible, The, and (see "Bible and Drink," "Bible 
 
 Wines," and " Historical and Philosophical "). 
 
 — Death-rate among abstainers as compared with 
 
 drinkers, 26, 404-9. 
 
 — Enjoined by the great religions of the East, 47. (See 
 
 also " Historical and Philosophical.") 
 
 — Fundamental principles (notable arguments), 71-2, 
 
 265-6 (note), 368, 457-8, 598-9, 650. 
 
 — Longevity, Comparative, of abstainers and drinkers, 
 
 404-9. 
 
 — Movement and organizations in the United States, 57, 
 
 60, 68, 84, 96, 161, 203, 241-2, 262-3, 264, 265-6, 409-10, 
 416, 419, 582, 601, 611-12, 625, 630-2, 649, 650-2. 
 
 in other countries : Australasia, 35, 37 ; Burmah, 
 
 59-60; Canada, 61; Denmark, 153 ; Germany, 190; 
 Great Britain and Ireland, 57, 58, 83, 84, 161, 197, 257-9, 
 389-90, 417-20, 607-8; Holland, 232-3; India, 244; Nor- 
 way, 455-6 ; Persia, 470-1 ; Sandwich Islands, 607-8 ; 
 Sweden, 624 ; Switzerland. 624. 
 
 — Pope Leo XIII. on, 598-9. 
 
 — Protestant Episcopal Church, Exceptional attitude of, 
 
 81. 
 
 — (See also "Medical Testimony" and "Religious 
 
 Denominations.") 
 Tovey, A. E. J., 374 (notes). 
 Trade, Effects of Prohibition upon, 537-45. 
 Trappistine, a liqueur, 618. 
 Treating, 632-3. 
 
 Treaty with China, respecting opium and liquors, 79. 
 Tribune, The Chicago, 362, 593. 
 
 Tribune, The New York, 198-200, 218, 256, 487, 577, 593. 
 Tripoli, 12. , 
 
 Tuck, Henry (Dr.), on the comparative longevity of 
 
 abstainers and drinkers, 409. 
 Tunis, 12. 
 Turkey, 633. 
 
 — International regulations, Action of regarding, 498 
 
 (note). 
 Turner, C. C, 122. 
 Tyler, John (President), 147. 
 
 Ulung, a Mexican intoxicant, 430. 
 
 Unfermented Wines (see "Bible and Drink," "Bible 
 
 Wines," "Communion Wines" and "Passover 
 
 Wines "). 
 Union Prohibitory League, The, 453. 
 Union Signal, The, 651. 
 Unitarians, 634, 
 United Brethren Church, 634. 
 United Kingdom. Consumption of liquors in, 131-2. 
 United Kingdom Alliance, 196, 197. 
 
 — Father Mathew's approval of the, 420. 
 United Presbyterian Church, 634. 
 
 United States Brewers' Association, 10, 92, 111, 113, 114, 
 163, 202, 256-7, 372-3, 381, 388, 560, 591, 638-9. 
 
 United States Dispensatory, 615 (note). 
 
 United States Government and the liquor traffic, 634-46 ; 
 see also 16, 90, 91-4, 245-6, 251-7, 372-3, 439-42, 475-6, 
 497, 498 (note). 
 
 Universalists, 646. 
 
 Uraguay, 613. 
 
 Usquebaugh, 616. 
 
 Utah: 
 
 — Brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 350. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 
 Vail, Lewis, D., 214 (note), 267. 
 
 Valentine, D. M. (Justice), on Prohibition in Kansas, 
 
 639, 551. 
 
Index.] 
 
 670 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Van Buren, Martin (President), 147. 
 
 Venezuela, 613. 
 
 Vernlont: 
 
 — " Federal permits " in, 383, 384, 522. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 350-3. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 573, 577. 
 
 — Prohibition, Results of in. 522-3. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Vermouth, a liqueur, 19, 618. 
 
 Vernon, Leroy, M. (Rev. Dr,), 259. 
 
 Vest, George G. (Senator), 91 (note), 92. 
 
 " Vested Rights," 90, 91-2, 93, 94, 473. 
 
 "Vicious in principle and powerless as a remedy," 426. 
 
 Victoria, 38. 
 
 Vidal. A., 62. 
 
 Villars. I. (Rev. Dr.), 5S5 (note). 
 
 Vinegar, 18. 174, 175. 
 
 Vinous fermentation, 174-5. 
 
 Vinous Liquors, 646-9. 
 
 — Adulterations of, 7-9, 132-3, 647, 648. 
 
 — Alcoholic strength of, 19, 647. 
 
 — Consumption of, 128-35. (See also the various conn- 
 
 tries.) 
 
 — Expenditure for. 137. 
 
 — Exports of, 240. 
 
 — Imports of, 238-9. 
 
 — Materials used in the manufacture of, 173. 
 
 — Not taxed by the Federal Government, 636. 
 
 — Pharmacopoeia, The United States, on the dangers of, 
 
 648. 
 
 — Phylloxera, Ravages of the, Effects of, 478-82. 
 Virginia : 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 353-5. , 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 573, 577. 
 Viticultural Commission (California), 374. 
 Vizetelly, M., 9 (note). 
 
 Vodka, a Russian intoxicant, 604. 
 
 Voice, The, v, 573. 
 
 Vote: 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition, 100-28, 450. 
 
 — Local Option, 396-400. 
 
 — Prohibition party, 33, 562, 563, 664, 566, 568, 573, 577. 
 Voters' Union, The, 453. 
 
 Wade, Thomas (Sir), on opium in China, 79. 
 Wage-workers, The drink traffic and, 264-6, 386, 447-8, 
 
 536, 544, 554-7. 
 Walker, Francis A., on the unreliability of statistics of 
 
 capital invested in manufacturing industries, 380 
 
 (note). 
 Walker, George (Consul), on the adulteration of wines, 
 
 9, 647. 
 Walruff case, 91. 
 Walsh (Archbishop), 259. 
 Walworth (Chancellor), 33. 
 Ward, Henry, D.D , Article by, 96-7 ; see also vi, 634 
 
 (note). 
 Warmth, Deceptiveuess of the increase id, caused by 
 
 alcohol, 22-3, 83. 
 Washington (D. C), The liquor traffic in, 641. 
 Washington (State of) : 
 
 — Brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 102, 103, 127. 
 
 — Hop culture in, 234. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 355-6. 
 
 — Tobacco to minors, Legislation against, 630. 
 Washingtonians, The, 203, 649. 
 
 — Lincoln, Abraham, as a promoter of their agitation, 
 
 368-9. 
 Water, Strong affinity of alcohol for, 20, 154. 
 Watterson, Henry, 149. 
 
 Wayland, Francis, Biographical sketch of, 649-50. 
 Webb, James A. & Son. Estimate by of the quantity of 
 
 spirits used in the arts, etc., 19. 
 Webb, R. C, on Prohibition in Iowa, 542. 
 Webb, W. C. (Judge), on Prohibition in Kansas, 510. 
 Webster, Daniel, on the Anti-Slavery agitation, 33. 
 Welch, M. M., on Prohibition in Atlanta, 544-5. 
 Wells, David A., Report by on the use of spirits in the- 
 
 arts, etc., 130-1. 
 Wenngren, C. A., Article by, 623-4. 
 Wescott, W. Wynne (Dr.), on mortality from drink, 436.. 
 Wesley, John, 88, 650. 
 Wesleyan Methodist Church, 650. 
 West, Mary Allen, vi. 
 We6t Virginia: 
 
 — Constitutional Prohibition movement in, 102, 103, 
 
 116-17. 
 
 — Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 356-8. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote of in, 573, 577. 
 
 Wheat, Quantity of used in the manufacture of spiritnous- 
 
 liquors, 172. 
 Wheeler, E. J., Articles by, 609, 618-20; see also iv, 138 r 
 
 437, 503-4, 505 (note), 527 (note). 
 Whig party, 30, 32, 33, 585-6. 
 Whiskey, 19, 616. 
 
 — Adulterations of, 10, 616. 
 
 — " Fine," Comparative insignificance of the production. 
 
 of, 376-7. 
 Whiskey frauds, 639. 
 Whiskey Power (see Ll Liquor Traffic "). 
 Whiskey Rebellion, 252, 268. 
 Whiskey Trust, 377-8, 449 (note). 
 White, John F. (Judge), 123. 
 White Cross, The, 611. 
 White House, Wine in the, 203-4, 644. 
 White Ribbon, 57, 651. 
 White wines, 8, 12, 648. 
 Wholesalers, 883^1, 636. (See also the digests of State 
 
 laws, 275-360.) 
 Whyte, JameB, Article by, 404-6. 
 Wieselgren (Archdeacon), 623. 
 Wilberforce (Canon), 198. 
 Wilder, D. W., on Prohibition in Kansas, 540. 
 Wilkinson, W. C. (Prof.), vi. 
 Willard, Frances E. : 
 
 — Article by, 610-11 ; see also vi, 650 (note). 
 
 — Plea of before the Republican Convention, 594. ; 
 
 — Suffrage plank, Championship of by, 576 (note). 
 Willey, Austin, 31. 
 
 Williams, C. F. (Rev.), on Prohibition in Iowa, 516. 
 
 Williams, E. T. (Rev.), 72 (note). 
 
 Williams, James W., Article by, 109-11. 
 
 Williams, S. Wells (Dr.), 72. 77. 
 
 Wilson, Henry (Vice-President), Biographical sketch of, 
 
 650. 
 Wilson, James F. (Senator), on Prohibition in Iowa, 516- 
 Wilson, Samuel G. (Rev.), Article by, 469-71. 
 Wilson bill, The, 646. 
 Windom, William (Secretary), 28, 644. 
 Wine and Spirit Traders 1 Society, 640. 
 Wine-manufaciurers, Strength, capital invested, etC- 
 
 (see " Liquor Traffic "). 
 Wines, 19, 646-9. (See also " Vinous Liquors.") 
 Wines, Fred. H., Estimates by, 139. 
 Wisconsin : 
 
 Distillers, brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 358-60. 
 
 — Prohibition party, Vote or in, 564, 506, 568, 573, 577. 
 Witness, The, 573. 
 
 Woburn (Mass.), Prohibition and High License in, 533. 
 " Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink," 225. 
 
Index.] 
 
 671 
 
 [Index. 
 
 Wolfe campaign, 120, 575. 
 Woman Suffrage: 
 
 — General principles, 162-7. 
 
 — Prohibition party, The, and, 564, 565, 568, 569, 571, 576. 
 Woman's Christian Temperance Union, 650-2. 
 
 — and the Internal Revenue, 257. 
 
 the Prohibition party, 569, 572, 576 (note), 652. 
 
 — Juvenile department of, 409-10. 
 
 Work of in Constitutional Amendment campaigns, 
 99, 128, 445; amontr foreigners, 182; for social purity, 
 610-11; for scientific temperance education, 607. 
 
 — Foreign countries: Australasia.37; Burmah, 59; Canada, 
 
 61; China, 75; Holland, 232-3; India, 244; Sandwich 
 Islands, 007. 
 Women's Temperance Association, British, 58. 
 Wood, D. W., 202. 
 Wood spirit, 18, 20, 616. 
 
 Woodbridge, Mrs. Mary A., 106 (note), 107 (note). 
 Woodbury, Charlotte, F., vi, 632 (note). 
 Woodruff, C. S. (Eev.), vi. 
 Woods, Leonard (Rev. Dr.), 630. 
 
 Worcester (Mass.), Prohibition and High License in, 532 
 
 Wort, 58. 
 
 Wright, B. F., 99, 100, 105 (note). 
 
 Wright, Carroll D., Statistical reports of, 
 
 — on divorce, 155 6. 
 
 the percentage of crime due to drink, 529 (note). 
 
 Wright, Edwin V. (Prof.), vi. 
 Wu Wang, 73. 
 Wyatt, Francis, 10, 172. 
 Wynehamer case, 90. 
 Wyoming : 
 
 — Brewers and liquor-dealers in, 383, 384. 
 
 — Legislation (Liquor) in, 360. 
 
 Xenophon, 220-1, 228. 
 
 Yeast, a product of fermentation, 10, 58, 174-5. 
 Young Crusaders, 81. 
 Young Men's Prohibition Association, 574. 
 Yucatan, 430. 
 
 Zanzibar, 14. 
 
^ -7fe7 * ^ ^ Tfe , <:, v k -$- ,;Hf ^ , * v 5' < 
 
 6 
 
 -"-"?>'- 7'- v — 7'- f; v <7£7: ^7^. /.^-fc^ ^ 
 
 •f AC, 4^ f'Hfe't*,^ f *4 
 A -a-. ■■■-*■ i- * i\;^rt • 4 s - ^"- li- .;••#'* 
 
 f7ife^;f^7^% TM^- %? 
 
 * TV' "(7 r />V)T" f. '.4/^^-1 ..(..^rfe^^J; 
 
 ^;- 
 
 i;. : , (-''>■ > 
 
 '■^''/"•^p-. ">•- ^~te v ' / • ! -v^v- ( .'" /; •. 7feK-7- l 7 
 ^?^ ^ f ' f ^ ^fe r 7" j - ;, 
 
 ^^ 4^<^^ 7^ ; ' ^^-^7^-"^ 
 %^7 #V"7-.U # / -^%^1Nr,'<J 
 
 v, .('.- 
 

 »^>T //•'%' -.-^ (;•-■> tTV ('-" ^- * ■ ^^> 7 ! 7- ( , \ ^fe 
 
 -,X%> ■ 7^- t: • .,- -'X\. ^-B v.Ar ry , -- r<.\ - . ( 7v- y ^g>-- 
 
 * ^ 4 ^aX- - Y /#^: />; , - -ig.~ )•• > , .: 'i 
 X* *, XX . v "a*-^ X^ ,■ ••■ X> . -; "aa 
 
 X-,:-_X 
 
 7- 7 xx 
 X^c^ X>^; 
 
 ^, 
 
 
 site*- •- f •• fc- j ' -' \>' -■> ■-'Vi>^ t 'T^-^:4 .'V-' ^^^-s*- 1 
 
 i£'--f mK^;/,- -ffc-'^: v e **■-( 7 iv ' f -x)t>r r.- ( ^,7. v ^-v!' 
 
 ^'■"' m'^'«''/,- ^7-u-'^ v e *■-( 7 iv ' -7r.-r f . ( ^7,' . ■,■ £-'/' 
 ^ -7-7c^;« f i ^/^k -, 7 >7 >- A -x^ r.. ' 
 
 S ymM^xi:^x^\M^- 1x7- * 
 
 ^fc7 ... -■■■(•'.- W^<^ 7 •-■ <7l^^7^-- ^ -7" s -^7 _ ^7 
 
 ^^ u ---7->^ ( c 7- i^- ->^^- ■ ^^^ 
 
 ' 77777 : 7^ ,^7, ■ ^.--jr ,. v ^-|^ 
 M^ (■ { ^7 •' { ■ v 7'Mf . . 
 
 
 v *-.-• '-i\%; />^^ •'V--l^'-^ <".-.v7 , 
 
 7^;4^--^->-^ 
 
 v 7 
 
 -r,'- x 
 
 
 'X- 
 
 ''--X,:x2J> 
 
 ,X ^ 
 
 f7%:-,^?7x_ a. /;-. y