# ^a^ %, V^, sx IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) / O {/ ,*' MP.. % ,/ .gp^ ^^ <• V *^-^^ l< (/j V. 1.0 I.I 1.25 IIM Ilia 116 1.4 |M 1.6 %

-^*. H /T Can •I i / REPORT OF LOUIS P. KRIBS IN CONNKCTION WITH THE INVESTIGATION HELII BY TIIK ■i Canadian Royal Commission ON THK LIQUOR TRAFFIC TORONTCJ : THE MURRAY PRINTINf4 COMPANY 1894. 7 / HEJPOIiT OK LOTTZS ]P. ICZ^IBS IN CONNKCTION WITH THI5 INVEaTIOATION 11 KM) UY THE CANADIAN ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE LilQUOH Tf^flFFIG TORONTO : THE MURRAY PRINTING COMPANY 1894. HVS09I C3 Kl Ti i r a 11 • t V e V s t - F t t n w u To AUGUSTE I30LTE, Esq., Secretary of the Camidian Brewers' (m.d Distillers' Assoeiatioii. Sir. In pursuHiice of my engagement with your Association a« their representative before the Royal Commission on the Licjuor Traffic, I appeared before that body as a witness, having been duly notified that my evidence would be taken in Montreal. Tn preparing my notes of the evidence, I found that the accumulation of nearly two years of work had grown to such proportions, that, though I rigidly excluded everything that had already been testified to by other witnesses, it would be impossible to deal with the subject satisfactorily by merely speaking from notes. This was more especially the case when large tables of figures had to be dealt with. I therefore had the matter printed, and, in the greater part, it formed the evidence I gave before the Royal Commission. This pamphlet is not to be taken as dealing exhaustively Avith the question of Prohibition. It was designed to place before the Com- mission only such evidence as they had not already received. Its scope was, therefore, necessarily, very limited, but even so, it may not prove uninteresting to the members of your Association and others. Res})ectfully, LOUIS P. KRIBS. Toronto, December, 189S. Tl To dis boj sin till res dtii sioi Cai the out iUl reli 30tl divi fax. divi a te iiig vari Jun REPORT OF LOUIS P. KRIBS IN CONNECTION WITH The Canadian Royal Commission on the Liquor Traffic To Sir JoHcph Hii'kson and the Members of the llonnl Ctnnmimon <>ii flu- fj!(iiitir Truffir : When Piirliiiiiient appointed the Roytil CoininiHsitui on the licpu rtmftic the tUstilleivs ami brewers of C'lintubi decided upon hiivinj^ tiieir interests represented before that body tiirouyh an agent. I was selected for the position and have since, through the courtesy of your hon. bf)dy acconii)aniod the Conunission tiiroughout all its travels. With your permission I shall now give you the results of my ()bservati(ms and investigations, being careful not to repeat evi- dence already upon your records. QUESTION I. The first ((uestion submitted for consideration in Her Majesty's Commis- sion, viz., ( (1) The effects of the li(iuor traffic u[)on all interests affected by it in Canada) is so bx'oad as to be somewhat indefinite. However, the first ettect of the traffic is, I take it to be, the establishment of an enormous industry through- out the Dominion. I have spent a good deal of time, hard work and money in an endeavor to take such a census of the trade as will give us accurate and reliable data in this respect. I took for the purpose the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1892, and have to submit the following results : DISTILLERIES. There are seven distilleries in Canada, to be found in the Inland Revenue divisions of Toronto, Windsor, Prescott, Guelph, Belleville, Hamilton and Hali- fax. In some of the succeeding statements reference will be found to the Perth division as well. This will only be, however, where comparisons are made over a term of years — -the Perth manufactories being but very small concerns. Hav- ing first then reference to the product of these establishments : — The following is a memo, showing ((uantities of sjnrits nianuf;ictured in the various Inland Revenue Divisions of Canada from the 1st July, 1882 to 30th June, 1892 ; being a period of 10 years. Gallons. Toronto Windsor Prescott Guelph Belleville - Hamilton Perth Halifax - Miscellaneous 19,920„i70.5O 1.'),18«,5;«.98 4,!K);).53().63 2,529,773.48 1,379,402.99 1,030,479. G8 128,491.18 757,025.10 46,941.48 45,892,757.02 Of which the following (lUiuititiuH wuro ummifiicturod during tho your sot oppoHito thoin : - (Jiillonw. Year ondliiK 30lh June 1883 .... 4,281,207.08 l«8t . . . . 4,207, 575. 84 1885 .... 3.57»,:i;i2.17" 1886 . . . . 4,:i,V).7:«5.23* 1887 • 6,lll),o(Hi 33" 1888 . . . . .V)i4,58i).o;r 1889 .... 0,817,508.40* 1H!K» . . . . 6,(mi,475.43 181U .... 4,:«t7,5!ll.40 181)2 .... 3.498,231.51 !t yoarw. 4VS«)2,757.02 *Scott Ac Tho umount of gallons of spirits entered f lerieH during the term of years, was as follows »r consumption from tho distil- Duly 81.00, 1882 1883 • 1884 " 1885 • Duty 81.30. 1H80 1887 • 1888 •• 1889 • 1890 Duty $1.50. 1891 - 1892 Total for eleven j ears In ten yeiirs An average of In live yeai'H An average of GallouR. 2,851,612.15 3,(K>2,17o.l9 3,(i(Ht,li)1.9G 3,888,012.08 2,412,818.04 2,8(51,!»;i5.20 2,:«2(),320.99 2,lHiO,44tl.73 3,.V_'l,l!t3.9(> 2,(W7,(kJ4.28 2,545,934.73 32,151,711..36 29,300.198.91 2.93(1,019.00 14.(t41,;)(intiirio, may nuiko cloar tho recent groat accuninktions of stocks and form tho l)a«iH for certain deduc- tions. There was heUl in stock by the distillers Toronto IHviHion VVindHor rrt'scolt (luoli)h Hamilton " Bcllevillo " OnlloiiH, l8t July. 1892. 5,327,(1:10.7.') 3,ll;'.l.(ii;<.r>H l,2(i.">..S(h')„">4 7(i7,t.'«i.l8 648,3(NI.84 12,174,.'JS)1.80 OallohM. iHt Jiilj. IS!)3. 6,42(i.'J(is.-il 4.428,232.(!3 1.3(H,4(!7.20 82t,:«K«..')9 4«1,(')((.5.74 6()4.83U.fl6 13,079,774.ti3 This immense amount of spirits, hold in stock by tho distillors — held in stock because of the regulations of thoGovormnent — has a most important bear- ing when tho (juestiors of "loss of revenue" and "compensation ' come to be discussed. Let me come now to the quantities of grain used. I herewith pi-osent a table showing tho different amounts and kinds of grain used in tho distilleries during tlie ton years from 1883 to 1892, taking the years ending 30th June. The totals show as follows : — Malt (from barley) Corn Hyo Wheat Oats Barley (not malted) BuhIicIh. l,(m^)^l 10,984,710 2,199,875 104,087 342,!>70 16,087 14,747.800 Tn which is not included 121,237 lbs. of mill offal used iu 188(), 1,392,()54 lbs. of mola.s.sos, 13,0(5;") lbs. of buckwheat and 379,923 lbs. of ground apples and cider. The detailed statement is too bulky to be transcribed but is available at any time. We have now statements of the product, amount entered for con8um])tion, stocks in hand, grain used, etc., for a term of years, and all taken from official sources. I will now give you a census of the trade obtained from the di.stillers themselves, and which is not to be olitained from any otKcial source. 1 have secured from each distiller a statement of his business in detail for the year ending 30th June, 1892, and which T believe to be correct in every particular. The statement contains within itself all necessary explanation, and the totals are as follows : — SCHEDULE OF DISTILLERS, YE.\R ENDING JUNE 30th, 1892. Gkain Purchased: Corn : Number of biishelH FroiKbt paid on same Duty paid Customs Cost of the grain i?//e and Wheat : Number of bushels Freitfht paid on same Duty paid Customs (job lot) Cost of tho grain 1,380,252 $80,109 111,3,50 793,067 273,046 $12,668 15,888 170,586 Barlcj/: Number of bushels Kreiglit paid (in i-iinic Duly paid Customs Kxoise duty paid on the malt produced Cost of tlie grain .... Oats: XumlK-r of bushels Freif^lit jiaid on the same l)ut,\ iiaid Customs Cost of the u'rain Heps : Number of lbs. purchased Value of same - . - . Duty [laid Customs Fryijjrlit i)aid - - - - 13().407' 52.187 t>l,01»2 4(5.884 ?1.8,tO 17.01 i 29,9.'« $7,125 COAI- : Tons of hard coal purchased Value . . . . Frei^rht jiaid Duty [Mk-. ton) - Tons of soft eoal purchased Value . . - . Duty paid Customs ((i()c. ton) Freight jiaid Proi'kkty Account: 1.620 ?3.799 300 32.."i79 UtiiJ.Ol.S 14.337 15,022 Value of real estate (in part buildings and plant) Value of buildings ..... Value of plant and machinery Stable Account :* Value of horses ..... Value of liiirness ..... Value of \ehieles' .... Rlacksniil h's aci'ount ... Value of liay. oats or other fodder $3.58(i.5a9 8JHi,374 272,659 ?5.550 1,310 4, have therefore in Stable Account only 30 per cent, oi actual amount. The two largest distilleries hire all of their truckage. Feeding of Cattle:* Number of cut tie fed -.-..... 7,440 Value of same when bought - - - - - - $2.')'2,(K)0 Tons of liay consumed .-....-. MHO Value of Slime -.-..-.-. 8111,450 Number of liojjrs or other animals fed ..... 795 men employed in feeding ..... 83 Amount of wages paid them ....... $21,206 Total number of men employcil in and about distillery - - - 451 Total amount of yearly wages paid employees, including cost of manage- ment 3384.802 KEKDINO OK CATTLE AT DISTILLKRIES. Regarding the two items in the above table concerning which full informa- tion is not to hand ; the matter of cartage is not to be considered as outside of local imjiortance, V)ut with reference to the feeding of cattle a different story is to be told. This is a subject of very great im[)ortance indeed, so much so that I desire to devote a short space to its consideration. In this regard we are for- tunately in possession of data that enables us to arrive at an absolute conclu- sion. I beg herewith to submit a statement furnished by Messrs. Gooderham & Worts of Toronto, to Mr. Geo. Johnston, the Dominion statistician, contain- ing the number of cattle and hogs fed, and hay consiniied (together with other information) fed at these byres, from 1882 to 1892. Tpon this subject I si)eak with a certain amount of personal knowledge, having once been connected with that business, and I have no hesitation in saying tliat the figures given by Messrs. Gooderham & Worts are below rather than above the mark. Tiie statement is as follows : — GoonERHAM & Worts, Limited, Ednhlished 1832. Distillers, Maltsters and Millers, Toronto, Canada, May 9th, '92. Sir, — In accordance with your letter of the 14th Aj)ril we have had {)re- pared and now submit herewith the following table setting forth the number of cattle and hogs fed and the 5(!8 6.771 620 7,191 620 7.113 ^^ 6.419 466 6,720 410 4,793 410 4,8;«) The (juantity of hay was arrived at by estimating Ih tons per head per season. It may be mentioned that in the earlier part of the period referied to the stock of this distillery — and no doubt of others also — was somewliat low and we were running above the lunuial capacity ; and then for the next few years up to 1887-8 distillers were accumulating stock to com[»ly with the two-year clause of the Inland Revenue Act lately put into force. Since then the out-put of distilleries has slightly decreased and is now about normal. *In the case of one distillery the cattle ar.> fed by a company, in another all the " trrains" are sold. These two are not included in statement. In each of the distilleries "grainK" are sold to a greater or less extent. 8 Tn respect to values ; up to the year ending Ist July, 1887, the average price of cattle when tied u]) was $34 to $',ir> per head ; from that period up to I8t>0-{)1 the average price was ,i?37 per head, whilst in the present 1891-92 $40 was the orij/inal coat. Now it is generally agreed among feeders that cattle about double their value during their feeding season, so that the values at the end of the different seasitns would l)e about double the figures above given. The value of hogs average about $5 at the beginning of the season and abcmt $12 at the end. Yours truly, GOODEEHAM & WoRTS (Ltd.) (Sgd.) W. G. GooDEHHAM, Manager. ' Geo. Johnson, Esq., Government Statistician, Ottawa. T have, in addition, a considerable amount of detailed evidence, but will only trouble you with a statement from Messrs. L. Cott'ee & Co., who contract for a portion of the feeding at Gooderham & Worts' byres. Their statement is to this effect : — Cattle ])urchased, 572 ; cattle culled out, 58 ; cattle exported, 514. Hay purchased, (i59"1190 t(ms, cost $7,174.36, being over 1| tons per head, at an average cost of nearly $11.00 per ton. Nund)er of men employed, 5 ; total wages paid, $1,380. Freight paid on these cattle coming in would be from $20 to $30 per car of twenty or twenty-(»ne head. The outward freight to Montreal is $39 jjer car of sixteen to eighteen head. Ocean freight paid was 60 to 05 shillings per head without insurance. From this we are able to make an accurate calculation of all the cattle fed at the Canadian distilleries. Throwing aside altogether the feeding of hogs — which I may say is not by any means a s nail matter — we find from the table given above th;it the average number of cattle fed at Messrs. Got)derham & Worts' byres in the past ten years exceeded 4,000. This past year not so many were fed, owing to the fact that a great deal oi offal was sold to outside parties and to other causes, l)ut whether the offal is sold or fed on the premises, the result must be the same. So many bushels of grain distilled must produce so much offal, it matters not whether the distillation takes place in Halifax or Windsor, and tliat otl'al must l)e used in the feeding of cattle. • Without further aruument then, this statement may l)e given, based upon the figures of Messrs. Gooder- ham it Worts and Messrs. L. Coffee & Co., and other statements that I have in my possession : — Statement of cattle fed and particulars thereof at Messrs. Gooderham «fc Worts' cattle byres, Toronto : Average yearly innnber of cattle fed " " " men employed " •' wages paid ' " " tons of hay consumed at 1 1 Oostof havat 11 - . . - ^-irst cost of caltlcat $40 - Freight coining in at .?1 Vahie of cat tie going ont - Freight to Montreal, $->:H) per head - " Enghmd, i*15.75 4,000 .35 ?n.r)()0 - 5,(KW 5.1,000 - 160,000 4,000 - 320.(K)0 9,2tX) - 63,000 Messrs. Gooderham & Worts do 40 per cent, of the distilling business of Canada, as shown by the otticial returns before (| noted. This allows to the other distilleries 60 per cent., and calculating upon this l)asis — a perfectly correct cal- culation — the total feeding capacity will be, and is, whether utilized at the dis- tillery or outside by neighboring feeders, as follows ; — 9 CalLle fed yearly - Number of men employed in feeding Yearly wages ho paid Tons of hay consumed Cost of the bay First cost of the eai/tle Freight to stables Selling viriee of eattle Freight on same to Montreal " " Kngland 10,000 87 $24,150 12,500 ?137,500 400.0(10 10.000 8(KI.(H)0 2:{.(X)0 157,000 This does not include cost of drovers, of men employed in shipping, on the cars, on the vessels, or at landing. In every particular, too, the lowest esti- mate has been used, yet it will he seen at a glance of what great importance the cattle industry in connection with distilling is. In concluding this branch of the subject let me summarize thus : The distillers use in an average year 1,83(5,588 bushels of grain. At a cost of (()aid the farmer) .1^1,044,750. With freight charges of $105,034. Customs charges of $179,425. They have in real estate, buildings, plant and machinery, transportation facilities, casks, bottles, etc., etc., an investment of $4,9.'33,2l0. They carry an insurance of 87,015,862, With yearly premiums of 8100,939. They feed 10,000 head of cattle and pay out nearly §400,000 in wages yearly to 451 em])loyees, besides carrying a stock of nearly 14,000,000 gallons, togetlier with all the incidentals noted in the al)ove tables and statements. The effect of proiiibition upon this industry may l)e considered later. BREWERIES. There are in the Dominion of Canada 125 breweries. (The census returns place the number at 102, but in this as in many other instances the census returns are inaccurate.) These breweries are found in every province, and though many of them are small concerns, together they aggregate an enormous industry. The outpvit has been steadily increasing for many years and is still increasing. The following table gives the output of malt liquor, ale, lager and porter from the year 1884 down : Gallons. 13,(K)S,700 1889 12,07 1,7.T.' 1890 1.3,2.S2,2(;i 1891 U,7,S(),2,sr) 1892 15,!)44.002 1884 1885 - 1880 1887 - 1888 - - - Note.— The Scott Act years may be taken as from 1885 to 1889. Gallons. I(!.3a'?,a49 - 17,1!M;,115 18,(Hi9,183 - I(>,fl4(),245 This steady and ra])id increase in the annual consumpticm of malt licjuors is to-day one of the marked features of the liijuor traffic in Canada. The duty in connecti(m witli l)eer is levied upnu the malt. This among other things securing that deleterious matter shall not be used in the manufacture. The malting business, therefore, becomes one of great importance. All of the larger l)reweries have their own malt houses, l)nt in addition, to supply the smaller ctmcerns there are six malt houses — five in Ontario and one in Quebec, who do a malting business only, with a combined capital of 8223,5(M), and a yearly output valued at about a (piarter of a million of dollars. These malt houses give employment to 45 men, and have a yearly wage bill oi 815,300. The following statement gives particulars of the malting industry : 10 Sbitoiiiont showiiifi m;ilt inanufacturisd, malt exported, and malt consumed in Canada : — Year. 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1880 1800 1801 1802 Malt Mannfacttircd. Lbs. f>7.i:{2.-J(i(! 7(l.,'>()7. ■-'•-'() So.olC.L'-'-i ;w,M7,(iIfJ 4!),r)17.!l(i-.' IH,212,(;!),') r)i,r.(i2,8(i4 r.i.2.s2.!)i:; t!0„')(l(),l27 t;»,;^i i.2,)7 .■)2.!»!)n,874 ,"i2,718,9,-)« 55,952,712 Malt F^xijorted. Lbs. 22.5»7,5-)3 I0,0')5.9<)7 l(;,SS2.18(i i.9(;i,;{8:{ 11,S(!8,299 9,7!i;{,2(i2 5,47().:as .s,.'i;i9.(;27 5,171,737 .3,:H:i.s,(i:« 4,731,9.57 09,855 Consumed in Canada. Lbs. 44..')84,ft)3 30,451, :u;i 38,(!:}3,73(i 50,48l).233 37,(;49,(Hi3 38,419,493 48,598,444 48,812.C)()5 .57,1()(),8(«) ■58,842,520 49,()iiti,241 57,909,201 46.425,882 The malting l)iisiiicss is largt^ly confined to Ontario, where most excellent barley is grown, and whore consequently the business can be carried on most j)rofitably. The subjoined statement throws light upon this phase of the su))- ject :— Grains placed in steep. Malt Manufactured. Year. Ontario. Doiiiininii. Ontario. Lbs. Dominion. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. 1884 ,58.301,910 71,0.59.171 4.5,166,119 54.94,5,693 1885 50,308,703 62,819.640 39,.5(!0,742 49,22.5.213 1886 49.008,115 02.60."), liHi 37,7,5(i.4n5 48.07.3.218 1887 53,8(k),.581 69,7()2..573 42,131,943 54,327,924 1888 53,547,833 68,9!K),304 41.!M)7,609 .53.931,067 1889 60,007,096 7.5,270,514 48,379,239 60.310,818 1890 63,914,104 79.7.57.873 51,61.5,794 64,141.315 1891 ,51,243.216 (Mi..331,732 40,71.5.878 .52,718,9,5() 1892 ,50,695,785 70,45,8,779 ' 15,126,791 5,5,952,712 T now come to the brewing industry itself, of which I have taken a very careful census. T collectet sjiarivling) of all liinds. containing up to 40 per cent. si)irit, Chain pagnes, and otlior sparlc- ling wines Ales, beers and porters Year 1887. Year I88.i. Year 1880. Year 1890. Year 1891. Year 1802. 5.137 5,021 151.054 80,754 ;i<,HI.313 110,120 0.702 21,713 181,265 87.212 448,033 131,174 l(i,4(!0 22,7(W 10(i,416 00.570 I8i.rj00 154.37.5 16,317 21.321 2()8,(i62 120,837 498.7!»1 180,.t02 21.626 15.72!) 107,2.52 70.414 40<».012 161.028 18,090 16„575 182,8;i2 77,168 181,402 433,526 4,52,248 480.441 .525,249 514.148 473,641 15,101 .3;«.20(! 1,534,185 13,!t05 31.5,4.56 1,661,908 1(),205 333.365 18,4.32 ;584,6<)2 21.587 426.476 20,176 455,175 1,804,176 1,974,773 1,840,302 1,792,586 To get at an approximate idea of tlio extent of tlie retail trade, let u.s take first the city of Montreal. There are 1.5 large wholesale and importing houses in Montreal. From these I have gathered statistics of which I give you the totals for the year 1892 : Value of property, including capital ------ ^1,, 5115,000 stock, plant and lixturcs 3!H),000 Paid in premiums in insurance ...... 7,810 Yearly amoniU paid in freight .----.. 46,800 No. of persons who would be thrown out of cniploynicnt by a prohib- itory law 180 Their yearly wages - - - • ^OO.jVK) There are or were at the time oi the gathering of these statistics 458 licenced hotels and restaurants in the city of Montreal. I ascertain the value of the property in these hotels to be 88,817,075 ; the estimated depreciation thereof in the event of the passage of a prohibitory law to be ^4, 74,'i, .'{92 ; the value of plant, stock and fixtures to be .^1,75)4,215 ; the number of per.sons who would be tlirown out of employment ])y the ]tassage ot a ])rohibitory law to be .'^,99(5, and the yearly amount of their wages Si,07.'^,90t). Grocery stores and shops selling li(|Uor numbered 477. The total value of the property thus em|)loyed is estimated at §i2,()28,0()0, the estimated depreci- ation .^057,000, the value of plant, stock, etc., .ii!l,4.'{0,0()0, the t(jtal number of persons who would be thrown out of employment 551, and their yearly salaries $220,400. Soda water manufacturers have $72,.500 in property in their business whicli would deju-eciate !i<2(),.'W(>, their plant, stock, etc., is valued at )ii<77,.2(M) " 107.01S l,im $4,521,105 Value of Plant, .Stock and Fixtures. .?1, 171.749 (ilO.OOO 1.230,138 323.750 40,000 5,979 3,381,(510 No. of Persons tlirowiiout of Employ- ment. ,582 1,52 1,.')80 175 37 34 2,500 Their Yearly Wages. $350,788 1.37,(i7C 429.902 1()2,8:?9 11,()50 12,775 $1,048,030 I have also gathered statistics from various other cities and towns, but not to load uj) the record, I will, with your permission, give a table of the totals and omit, except in the case of Halifax, the manufacture which has already been covered. The figures are as follows : 14 Name of City or Town. Hiilifiix, N.S St. John. N.H Ottawa Haniilton London Guclnh WinuMor Woodntock Berlin VVallterton (no shops* Waterloo (no shops). . Value or Property. lfl,(Wl,;Ui) l,a'J2,0(H) (a7,8,50 581,(I0() l"8,'2(K» . Ki2,(KM) l<.)t.(N)0 l(i7.(HH) (ii;.r)()(i 11I,00(J Kstimated Depreci- ation. $!i:i5,2r}.") 21»7.172 r)i:{,(i5o 287,400 28;i.2(K» 8(),1(MI 242,.'J(J() ll.i.OOtJ •JO.IXXJ 37,50(1 71,200 Val\io of Plant, .Stock, and Fixtures. j;31t),7o.5 378,410 284,425 2!)7,00(» 101.:«KJ MAtTM (!!»,200 22, ;{.-)(» 25,1(X) 5,800 4,000 No. of Persons who wotild he thrown out of Ktu- ploynient. 618 ;i,55 488 372 349 151 251 1(H> 44 47 Their Yearly Wages. 5248.120 UM;,280 134,<»0 »1.040 85,140 31,412 55,052 17,7(J8 18,871) 8,014 8,040 In solecting the.se citie.s and towns it will l)e observed that .some are on the border, while others are as far inland as can Ite desired. They represent, as fairly as can be, all classes of population, and busy bustling as well as staid, (fuiet country places. My otiject now is to get a fair average census of the trade along the lines indicated in the above tables, an object not easy of absolute attainment, unless one were clothed with all the powers of the national govern- ment. Still an etiort may be made. For instance, in Toronto the averages for hotels (which would be considerably increased were wholesale and retail shops included) are : Value of property ---..-.. Estimated depreciation ...--. Value of i)lant, stock, tixtiires, etc. - . . . . Number of persons thrown out of employment - Yearly wages of these . - . . . In Montreal the averages for hotels aud restaurants are Value of property -.-.-..- Estinuited depreciation - - - - - Value of stock, plant, lixtures, etc. ... Number of persons thrown out of employment - Wages of these ........ ;«,257 4-9 15,108 1-17 :J8,2(K( 25-27 10 29-51 $2,»m 1-54 «19,251 1-4 ilO,;i')<) 3-4 $3,917 1-2 8 29-40 $2,423 3-4 I venture to submit that the average town and village hotel has as large an investment in property, as large a stock, and as many enn)loyees, at as good wages as the average city hotel, outside the few that are known as " leading." Outside the cities there are few shop and no wholesale licenses. The average town or village hotel would suffer just as nuich as that situated in the city. The combined shop and wholesale licenced esbiblishments run along about the same lines as to value of property, depreciation, plant, stock, employees, wages, etc., as the average hotel. Bearing these facts in mind we arrive at something like a fair basis of calculation. There are in round numbers say 7,000 retail licen.se8 (licenses include liotels selling li([uors over bars in prohibition counties) of various kinds issued in the Dominion of Canada. Let us take a very low figure: Let us place the average value of a licenced property, not at .§.'W,0usi- ness. there is no possibility of obtaining information except througli the census. The census returns for wine makers give the capital invested as 8.'50(J, 47r» , the value (»f the product as 824'.t,48!) (a ridiculously low figure), the number of industries as 41, the number of emi)loyees as 150 and the yearly wages paid as §.'37,055. The figures for the cider mills are given as : Capital invested, .S1.S(»,705 ; value of product, !?18(»,8.'?5 ; numl)er of industries, 175 ; luunber of empk)yees, .■{21, and yearly wages, .S47,l-!0. With this I have done with the stati.stics relative to the proportions of the lii^uor traffic in ('anada. Other " effects of the licpior traffic "' are insignilicant comjiared with the estal)lishnaent of this tremendous industry. PKOHIHITIVE MEASURES. Clause 2 of the Commi.ssion : " The measures which have been adopted in this and other countries with a view to lessen, reguhite or prohibit the traffic," I need not discuss, as I know the Commission is fully informed U[)on the sub- ject. I would beg, however, to direct attention to a work entitled " Li((uor Laws of the United States, their Spirit and Effect," a copy of which 1 beg to lay before you. In brief, this jiamphlet sliows that {)rohibitive attempts in the United States are as old, almost, as the I'liion itself, that they have all been attended with the same unerring blank failure, that partial prohibitive atfemi)ts in early times led not alone to riot but to armed insurrection, that the range of experiment in the United States has run from one extreme t(j the other, fnjm " free wiiiskey " under the law to " free whiskey " under [)rohibition, and that the result of it all is that the United States to-day ranks third among the beer consuming, and well to the front among the whiskey consuming nations of the earth. RESULTS OF PROHIBITION. Question 3 : "The result of these measures in eachca.se." Under this heading I may be permitted to give the results of my investigations and experi- ence in different counnnnities where ]trohibifive laws are or wei-e in force. In doing so I shall follow largely in the footsteps of the Commission. 1() NOVA SCOTIA. Noviii Scotia has, prohuhly, the iiiost iioii.soiisical liconco law that a wliito people ever lauglit'il at. It was paN.sL-tl by politiciauH on account of .supposed politi- cal exigencies, but why it is allowed to remain upon the Statute Hook nobody l)ut a Nova Scotia politician can pretend to understand, and even these do not attempt to explain. Tlure is (tne law for the capital and another for the rest of the Province, and it would be hard to say which of the two the more signally fails of its (alleged) purpose. Take the |)lace8 as I have visited them : Hdlifti.i'. — Here the law says that hotels shah have no buis, but may sell to guests in their rooms or at table, while shoj)s may sell in certain (piantities to be consumed otl' the premises. It is recpiired aLso that the lns|)ector shall be a mend)er in good standing of some temperance lodge. One can hardly speak in fittingly resitectful terms of this last provision. However, what is tlie result '( Practically nobody in Halifax wanted such a hiw, and as a matter of cour.se it is iiKJperative. Kvery hotel has a bar, and every shop has the same conveni- ence. The hiu is broken oj)enly and ilagrantly every minute of every hour of every day, Ii(i5 days in the year. It is a thing of contempt to Ijoth ]»rohibition- ists and licpior dealers. Something might have been done with ordinary restric- tions — now there is no restriction atall, and in the city which legally has no bars I saw more reeling drunkenness than I have observed in any other city in North .\merica, except where total prohibition prevailed. Prohil)itionists call Halifax the "(Jibraltar of Kuni." It is exactly what they have made it — what they have only themselves to blame for, and what is a|»parent in many other parts of the I'rovince if you get below the surface. I speak of Halifax after four or five vis- its thereto, and after inspecting nearly all of the hotels and dozens of the shops. Outside of Halifax (except in a couple of isolated cases in Halifax C(mnty) the law impo.ses such severe conditions that no licenses can be obtained. Trav- elling through the Province in company with the Commission and otherwise, I found these results : WindHi))- Jiinctiun. — This rocky sterile meeting place of tw() railroads, out- side of Halifax, contains nine buildings, including a church. Ft)urof these sell li(pior. Of three of these I know by personal experience. To whom do they .sell? Trvfo. — Another lailway junction and a place of considerable importance. I have visited Truro half a dozen times. The bars are practically wide opim. A stranger can get off the train, run across to a hotel, get a drink and get back be- fore the train starts. Here for the tirst, last, and oidy time, 1 beg to refer to the men)l)ers of the Conunission, and I only do it here because in his evidence Mr. Spence spoke of seeing members of the Comiiiission breaking the law. It was at this place, it was in reply to a challenge by Mr. Spence as the train rolled into the depot, "to get outand seethe workings of the j)rohibitory law of Nova Scotia." Therewas five minutes to do it in. Certain mend)ers of the Conunission accepted the invitation, did get out, accompanied by Mr. Spence, did investigate the working of the law, and returned. Thereafter I did not hear Mr. Spence repeat his challenge, not during the whole course of the Conunission. At the time the Conimssion took evidence in Truro there were from twenty to thirty-tive places selling li(|Uor regularly. Neu; Glas(fou\ — Here on the occasion of the pa.ssing through of the Com- mission, and on two former occasions, liquor was served openly at the hotel table. PictoH. — Practically open .sale on the occasion of my visit. Port Mularave. — A dozen places soiling liciuor. out- u sell they lit his nie tho l)laces Coin- ! hotel 17 (hand Xirn. -Served openly iit the tfi))lo. Ndiili Sidiifii. -Open siile, nrs were soltl. I do not know how many others there may have been. Yitnnniith Of this plaiio I want to spe.ik at a little greater length. It has ''enjoyed" prohibition ff)r seventy years, and yet there is no shadow of doubt that it is not as orderly and sober now as it was years ago. Two generations, at least, have grown up without knowledge of •' the baneful intluenco of the saloon," yet I have siarcely ever met a Varmouth man ((»'(((/ /r(*(u /io(/«; who would not drink, and very few at home who would notdrink on tho sly. Take, too, the Yarmouth election trial of 1887, when and this is a matter of court record — the county was carried by an enormous expenditure of whiskey. Tho prohilutionists had |)reviously always passed resolutions to support only tried and |)roved prohibitionists. ,\t the election foHowing these disclosures, a tried and ju'oved advocate of ])rohil)ition, Mr. T. 15. Crosl)y, ran against the gentle- man against whom the disclosures had been made — and was defeated. Did a single prohil)itionist dro[) his i)arty and vote for Crosby ! If so, ho has not yet l)een discovered. So much for seventy years of prohiiution along that lino. Again, is there not just as nuich need of temjierance work in Yannouth as over there was ! Why, even the fainiers from outside come into town and get drunk. Ah a matter of fact, and on this point I made careful enipiiry, mo.st of tho old time temperance societies have died or aie ke{it alive by a handful of oldi)eoplo. Even Ex.-(jlov. St. .lohn of Kansas, prohibiticm candidate of the United States, when he visitet' Yarmouth, could scarce get together a decent audience. Not because there was no need of temperance work, for in all these years, the .selling of liipior in its most dangerous form has gone steadily on, until now there are " walking bar-rooms." Men so low and degraded that no licenced or other res- pectable person would sell tliem li(|U()r, are thus supplied in alley ways and vile dens, and so are boys. Convictions are made but still tho sale goes on. This peddling by "bootleggers" to those who could not and would not be .served in a licenced place is one of the worst crimes that foUows prohibition. Then the prosecution of offenders has become a speculation for the money there is in it. The.se speculators are either blackguards them.selves, ov they enter into con- spiracies with blackguards offering them rewards to give evidence against parties in [)osition t<» pay tines. These hirelings conuiiit perjury without restraint. For instance, a man named Lambert, a seedy looking lai)orer, swore against Mr. A.J. McCallum, one of the most respectal)le druggists in the Province. Mr. McCalhim was convicted and fined on this evidence, but had Lambert arrested for pei'jury. Lambert confessed the perjury and was comnutted for trial, but later on got off on ;i technicality in the conunittal papers. Again, K. M. Nicholls, proprietor of the (.Queen's Hotel, was convicted and sent to jail for sixty days on similai- evidence. He took proceedings against the perjurer who fled the country and has never since returned. The papers in the case were sent to tho Minister of .Justice. These are specimens of prohibition in Yarmouth. I visited Yaiiuouth twice. My own observation showed me that there was a great deal of drinking in [)rivato houses. The etl'oct of this is a largo consump- (2) tioii, rts wlion , two or more |u!oi)li! sit down, in this way tln^ tt^ndoncy is to drink Hf^rmit doai. At tlio Imtul ul, wliicii tins (Jmnnii.sHion Nto|(|»od tliuni wiiro two hiu'H doinj,' a l)ii^ IdiHini-HH. 'I'lit' windows of this liotid wuro propped np witli on>pty wlii.skny ItottUts, a tliinL; I liavc ni'ver sonii outsiilf a pruliil»ition town. Tlu;ri) woro piles of onipty liipior Ixittk's in allry ways and in this viu'ant places lu'liind stores. 1 saw six drunken sailors march up the principal street hand i)i hand, sinj^inj^ hoistfrously, and the ixdicu Iookely in both jdaces the people have the (logree of enforcement they are |)re|)ared to submit to. In connection with St. dohn 1 wish to relate an inci tlont which bears directly upon this investigation, vi/., the inability of many men to know what is transpiring all around them. At the sittings in New iirunswick's great maritime port a reverend gentleman, a good old Methodist divine, stated, in reply to a ({uestion as to whether he knew of any place in New lirunswick where li(iuor was not sold, that such a place was McAdam •Junction. Upon this point he spoke with no uncertain sound, as the evidence taken by the C'oumiission will show, lie had bei^n there almost constantly for two years and he hm-ir that no licpior was sold in that burgh. Well, a more unlikely place than this roi'k-bonnd desolate junction of two railways out towards the Maine border in which to find anything contrary to law could not well be conceived, but just to test the matter, tin- next day, being at McAdam .Junction on the way to St. Stephen with the Commission, and sto|)])ing at this point for five minutes, 1 jiunped oil" the train, walked across the platform and addressed the Hr.st railway man 1 met, asking him where 1 could got a drink. He directed me at once : "(Jo into the station and turn to the left." I did so, and there, in the very I'ailway depot, was titted up a snug lilth," l)ar, at which all and sundry were served, and from which 1 secured a drink of the wor.st whiskey it has ever been my misfortinie to encounter. Now, I fully believe my old Methodist friend sj)oke the truth so far as he knew, but the trouble was he was talking about something he knew nothing about. Similar examples may suggest them- selves as I proceed. St. Stephen. — This town ha.s enjoyed the blessings of the Scott Act for several yeai's. There are, 1 think, not above a dozen places selling li(|Uor regularly. The leading hotel when we werethei-e hail a bar, and had (piietly notitiod the authorities that if another [)rosecution were entered into they would ch)se up the place entirely. One saloon, down at the Itridge, was lined 850 the day the Connnission sat in that town. I went down that evening. Two men behind the bar were industriously serving a large ci'owd, while the ]>roprietor told me he " would have to hustle for a day or two to make up for that tifty dolhirs." 19 VVIiilu hoi'o I iiifiy ilfsmiHH a trip iiiudi' to ('iiliii«, just (iciohh tlm rivt-r, in Miiinu, \>y Hiiying llmt (Hicn tlii! l>iiri;» tiilos nf tUv. piirly woio usIiihlisliiMl tliisro whm pK-nty to drink. Only tlio Iwulin^,' ln>f«l in tliu pliuH- whs viHitoil. Fii'diiiiiiin Jiiiirliiin. ( >pi!n hhIo. Freili'iictou. I'riu'tifiilly upt'n siilit. Tho wholo Dnfoiconiont of the liiw here in n rugiilur fraud. And ii nii.s«ml)li) fniud nt tliiit. This wiis tliu first plnoo in ('iinjidii til udopt tlii! Scott \vX. It Ims l»(jon niaintuinnd ovor Mint'o, but it liiiH not, if till' insidiMits tlionisulvos aru to ln! Itelicvi'd, dtjcitiasi'd tiio salu of liijuor oni! iota, 'riiuii* aio at iiwist twtinty-onu idacos sidling' li*|Uoi-, not count- inj.; drui^ ston-s, and wliili' tin to I saw an ordor for li(|Uor from ono of the drug storos tliat was sonidhin!,' aiiiazini;. I visitoda saloon lato on Saturday «voniiij^ that was I'unniu"^ wiiU- open, and was cortainly doin^^ a I'ushin;,' Kusini'ss. Thf propriotoi'H havit, I undorsland, l)uilt a lu^w lilocU this past Kuninutr. Within a month or HO, I havo heard from Fredurictmi that that saloon is still doing as largo a husino.ss as uvur. Itugarding thu salo of liipior gi'norally in that city, tliL'y havt' tried lines, they havi! tric-d ini|iii.snnnu!nt, and siu-h imprisonment was a fair sampli! of the fraud of the whole thing. Vet the sale goes on, and I'veryltody knows that it got's on, and in some plates itf the most demoralizing character. The oidy check is that the leading hotels are allowed to sell practi- cally with a licence coUectiid in the shajie of tines at ci'rtain intervals. Miiiirlini. In the shire town of Westmoreland C'ounty the sale is tlagrantly open. There is no pretence whatever of obeying tho law. Some twenty-eight places are selling, and the har-rooms are as wide open as those in any licenced district in Ontario. 1 might refer here to that celeltrated advertisement of the chief of police reipiesling that the bars should be closed on .July 12th. I'erhajis no stronger counuent on the enforcement of the law could lie given. With all, Moncton is a most (irderly place. Atnhcrd. The county seat of ('umberland has open .sale, and one of tho hirgest wholesale liipior establishments in the Province of New Brunswick. Evenatalittle junction where the Connnission had to wait for a train connection, Painsec, consisting only of the station and one little house, the said little house contained an elaliorate supjily of beer, which w.is plentifully sold to the waiting crowd. So far as I was al)le to learn, because I visited many other places in New Brunswick besides the.se mentioned, I do not think there is a single village or place of a dozen houses in that Province where li<|uor is not .sold, unless it may lie the town " for- eign element " of poiiulation, having im innnigration, its population made up of only two elemiiiits, who have lived for generations in the land, and one lace in the slums, are all classed alike. Can it be wondered at that bad feeling is prevalent. So nuich for one of the beauties of intemperate temperance. How then came the Scott Act to be adopted '. Simply because a little pea rattling around in an empty tin pail can make more noise than a brick of gold h)cked up in a bank vault. Tim Scott Act never had either the respect or sup- port of anything like the majority of the peo])le of P.E.I., and this 1 will prove. In Charlottetown the Act was carried on April 24, 187S), by 584 majority, there being polled 1,()!)0 votes of which 25.'3 were against. On Sejitember 17, 1878, six months |)reviously, 1,81,'} votes were polled at the Domini(jn elections. This shows tlij.t 72.S })ossible votes were not polled, and that the Act was carried l)y a majority of '.V.)2 of the possible, or rather ordinary vote. In King's County the Act was carried by 1,017, a large Uiajority truly, yet only 1,135 votes were polled, as against ;?,57') at the general elections. Over two-thirds of the voters did iu)t vote. In Prince County 2,0;?3 votes were polled, as against .'i,821 at the Dominion elections, and in Queen's only 1,41G, as against 4,5(i4. In the face of these figures, is it any v. onder that the Act is not successful 1 More- over, T state that the real sentiuient t >-day hi favor oi 2)rohibition in P.E.I, is absolutely insignificant, and I shall show you why. 21 An (iiiiily.siH of tho cry for prohibition in that Province, and this is true of some places besides the Ishind, reveals itself into five elements : (1) Men, mostly young and innnature, actuated mainly by pure motives, and a little by tho hope that their professions of temperance, may procure them worldly advancement. (2) The clergy of certain denominations, whose views as to public annise- ment and private relaxations arc of the strictest, and who, as sjjiritual guides, feel it their [)rofossional duty to urge their views without regard to secular conse- cpiences. Good men are these and well meaning, as a rule, but usually sadly and woefully ignorant of the world's ways and doings. (3) Certain matrons, with an assortment of maidens under their wing, who s))are time fnmi domestic duties to "reform" tlie habits of the age. These follow devoutly in tlie footsteps of their clergy, and far be it ivom me, the '' vile agent of an accursed tralHc," as one good "temperance" journal dubbed me, to impugn the purity of their motives or their singularly clear prece[)tion3 as to the chief duties of women on this terrestial sphere. (4) The usual class known in all communities, who to gain notoriety j)ut themselves forward in any current movement, and who are the unmitigated cui'se of any and every movement of whatsoever character. (5) Those good ])eople who on all public (piestions follow the lead of those making the most noise, most estimable people but not VLMuarkable for force of character. These are but laml)s in the hands of tiie [)rofessional agitator. These Hve classes have of course associated themselves with one or other of the temperance organizations on the Island. These are the Women's Christian Temperance I'nion, the Scms of Temperance, the Independent Order of Good Temi)lars. It is a legitimate inference that every [torson who Is really in ear- nest in wanting i)rohibition, will be in aftiiliatiim with one or other of these organizations. And taking this ground, and i)ressing it upon the attention of the Commission, I tnid that the grand total strength of the prohibitionists, divested of all press, pulpit and i)latform brag to be : Members. Woman's Christian Temperance Union 4()() Sons of Temperance 1,!I20 Indi'ponden* Order of Good Templars, Adults \,',i&\, .Juveniles 517, tottil. 1,880 A grand total of both soxes ? 3,2(H) The figures for the W.C.T.U. are an estimate, carefully made, and believed to be a liberal one. So far as I know they have no published report giving their membership. The figures for the S.O.T. and I.().(jr.T. are taken fnmi their annual [)ublished reports of the (then) last current year. Now Sirs, the census figures show, that there are in P.E.I, above the age of seventeen, at which age there are memV)ers in these temperance orders, 02,024 souls. The prohil)itionists number alxmt one-twentieth of these, old and young, men, women and children and nothing can controvert this fact. They would probably induce many others to vote with tliem, but upon tliis one-twentieth would rest the moral obligation of seeing the hiw carried out and two-thirds of these would notbe a\ ailable for reasons that I need not specify. Before leaving this bianch of the subject, let tne refer to a statement I made a short time back that the temperance societies were dwindling. Tho W.C.T. r., 1 have reason to believe, have declined in. strength, but of this T cainiot be positive in the aljsence of printed report,;. As regards the others we have positive information. The (Jood Templars after a year of active agita- tion, I8i>0-!)1, actually increased their membership apparently by the grand total of T'-*, though 1 have not f(jund any record of how many they lost, but that perhaps is due to my negligence. Over this glorio\is result, evidencing as it does such wonderful strides in the advancement of their great prohibition cause, 22 they were iiiituiiilly elated, and jubilantly sent to the Grand Lodge of Nova Scotia, (9th July, 18!)2), the following telegiani : " (ireetings reouiviul with great pleasure. Have had good session. In- creased inenihership seventy-nine, total l,.'^*!;}, juvenile 517. May this l)e a glorious year. Signed, A. D. Fraser. T think the Commission had the ])leasure of listening to the gentleman, who signed the above, as a witness while in Charlottetown. This niagniticent result of a year's extra hard labor was not however eciualled or participated in by the other organization the 8.O.T. The otHcial rejjort of this body, while congratulating the order that it has " held its own," is very despondent in tone. The order, (page 5)), " has sustained a slight k)ss of meuibership;" (l)age 10), " divisions will and do go down and it is only by organizing new ones to take their places, that w-e can exi)ect to hold our own; ' (page 14), "seventeen divis- ions report gains of from one to ten, while fourteen report losses of from (me to twenty, diniiKj Uw )ic,ir dlfisioiis hare hcoi iinidiii'.cil thf pa.st iiiiarti')/' T will defy anybody to show me such a report as that in the times when teuiperance societies were doing tem- ])erance work. The Sons of Temperance consist of three Division and tifty-two Subordinate Lodges, of which only forty-four are ettective, the l.O.dl.T. have thirty-four subordinate lodges. A considerable portion of the meml)ership, however, in the country districts is com[)osed of young men and women, not yet settled in life, and who in default of gayer anuisement naturally find meeting inider the guise of tem])erance at the lodge room, a not unpleasant way of spending the evening, but which cannot for a moment l)o seriously regarded as having any nu)re moral or |i.)litical weight, or as voicing the demands of any section of the community, than the meeting of singing classes, which indeed in practice they very much resemble. As to the operation of the Act itself its mo.st marked feature, aside from its continual infractitm, is [mibably the lamental)le deterioration in pultlic self res- ])ect that ha,s followed its adoption. The theory of the Act is that no liquor is to be procuralde in the ])rovince (aside from sacramental use) unless as medicine for use of the sick, on a medical certificate from a [)hysician presented to a duly appointed vendor. May 1 ask the Connnission to reflect for one moment up(m the general self respect of a connnunity, both as regards the men obtaining the certificates, the physician signing them and the man selling the iifpior, which would permit of such a state of affairs existing as was evidenced Uy the exam- inati(m of the licenced vendor at Sunnnerside. Yet this state of ati'airs pertains pretty much all over the province and where there is not the licenced vendor, there is an unlicenced one where not even the |)hysician's certificate is necessary. The attempt to enforce the law has led to most de]>lorable jjcrjury, of which the Commission have already ample evidence before them. But I would call your attention to this — what 1 hold to be a fact — that a greatdeal of this perjury on the Island is traceable to the pernicious theory of the Prohibitionists that " a law broken w-ith impunity is better than no law at all.' This view is not peculiar to the Island, yet is strongly upheld by the Island Prohibitionists and their organ, the Chddottctoirn Gumdinn. The evils arising from such a doc- trine are innnensely more formidable than any nnue (piestion of what (juantity of intoxicants are drunk or are not drunk in a given time. It is sulnersive of all order ; it leads to anarchy, and it ))rings into contempt

ys. We would save the l)oys, l)ut they won't helj) us ; we would save the boys, l)ut they won't let us." Of course, nobody believes for a moment that " yea, thousands " of the youth of P.E.I, are going hand in hand calndy down the hill to a drunkard's grave. The Worthy Grand Scribe liad probably become .so habituated to the intemperate use of language that he could not avoid exaggeration. But the fact that there has been a large increase of drinking among the young men is incontrovertable. T have seen them ((piite youths) drinking out of l)ottles on the cars, in out-of-the-way alleys, behind fences at the Exhibition groiuids, and elsewhere. And the worst of it was, that they apparently looked upon it as .something smart to defy decency and l)reak the law. Finally, let me give some few of my own experiences on the Island. I first .saw Charl.mining. That gentleman stated in his evidence that no liipior was sold l)y the glass in his place. 1 myself saw scores of people purchase liipior by the glass, and they were served by the vendor. As an instance of how the Scott Act is observed I may (piote one incident. On the race-track at Summerside, on the occasion of the visit of the Commission to the town, there were many bottles .tf whiskey kept in the horsesheds and stables. One gen- tleman found his stock had l)ecome exhausted, and he called out to another gentleman, " Doctor, give me an order for a bottle of Scotch." The medical gentleman thus a|)i)ealed to ilrew out a note-liook, tore out a leaf, wrote out the desired order, and a boy lirought it down to the town, returning in a few minutes from the licensed vendor's with the bottle of whiskey. I merely (|Uote this as an exam])le of the ease with which, without visiting the saloons at all, liijuor can be obtained by anybody who wishes to get it. The Scott Act in the Province of P.P].I., whether looked at from the social, moral, religious or temperance points of view, has proven an undoubted, unmiti- gated and comprehensive faihu'e. It hiS increased rather than decreased drink- ing ; it has made that drinking ten times more dangerous than it ever was before ; it has placed the sale of li()Uor in mo.st cases into the hands of the most disreputable and dangerous classes ; it places li(iuor within the reach of all, young and old, rich and ])oor, high or low, man, woman or child ; it gives them that li(pior at all hours of the day or night, Sunday or weekday ; it adds to drinking, hypocrisy and deceit ; it has made j)erjury a joke, and violatiim of the law a pastime ; it has set neighbor against neighbor, made war among the churches, to a large extent destroyed social intercourse and substituted rank acrimony and vicious vituperation for reasonable discussion, and all this among a people as intelligent, moral, sober, neighborly and kindly as any in the world, and under circumstances exceptionally favorable to the goctd working out of the law if there was any good in it. In my belief, total ])rohibition such as is now asked for would simply atUl to these evils the twins of smuggling and illicit stil- ling on an extensive scale. With reference to illicit distillation, I forgot to refer to the case of one .I(>se})h McLellan, a Vdacksmith, at Little Harbor, Lot 40, who manufactured a famous l)everage known as ".Jack the Rii)per brand" of illicit whiskey. He was finally seized upon by Excise Otticer Barraidale, of Halifax, and fined S'KX), or six months' imprisonment, at Chai'lottetcnvn. Lastly, I have this to say of P.E.I. The census of 1871 shows a population of 5)4,021, that of 1881 108,891, an increase of 14,870 in the decade; that of 181)1 109,088, an increase of only 197 in the ten years. Prohibition was not in force in the first ten years, ancl it was in the last. I leave to my prohibition friends to figure out cause and effect. QUEBEC. In the Province of Quebec I have seen the operation of the Scott Act in three counties. Chiroiitimi. — In this county my observation was confined to the town of Chicoutimi. I certainly would not have known the Scott Act was in force there had Fnot been so informed. of til 25 RIchmniuL' In sonio places in this county the Act is fairly well observeil, as for instance at Danville, where 1 think very little liiinor is sold. In other ]ilaces the condition of t]iint(K is (]uite the c(tntrary. It all depends upon the sentiment of the people in the different localities. Bromc. — T found no ]»lace in iironie that I visited where licpior could not readily be obtained by a stranger, but it was sold secretly — that is, the bar-room door was kept locked. The temperance .sentiment, undoubtedly, is stronj^ in Tirome, but Mr. Dyer, who voted against Prohibition in the House of Com- mons, in 1881, was re-elected by acclamation for that constituency in 1H\)2. Many districts in the Province of (^)uebec have no licenses, issued. These are in the midst of small country parishes, within reasonable distance of large towns as a source of suii[>Iy. There are any number of small country districts in Ontario without licenses, simply because the convenience of adjacent towns and villages having licenses renders them unnecessary in these particular h)cal- ities. Tn some of these "no licence" jiarishes the law is most distinctly vio- lated, but ujton that sul)ject ample evidence was taken at the sitting of the Com- mission in the city of Quebec. ONTAklO. Act in It seems somewiiat unneces.sary to add anything to the eviilence already given regarding the failure of the Sc(>tt Act in the counties of Ontario, yet 1 have been so astounded at some of the statements made before this Ccmnnission that T hoi)e yon will allow me a minute or two in which to relate certain facts. For instance, 1 could not have been more amazed than at the evidence given by Rev. Dr. Brethour, concerning Halton, and given, too, in all aj)parent shicerity, as to the absolute stopping of the sale of drink in that county. The reverend gentleman related a siory of a man who drove all thrraigh the county and could get no li(|uor. 1 had seen the same stuff printed in Scott Act cam- paign literature, but never dreamed that Rev. Dr. Brethour could be deceived by it. At about the lime he spoke of, T myself took a trip into Halton, in fact took more than one journey in that county. Cpon one occasion, right in the midst of the second JScott Act campaign, I was sent to Milton, the county town, to report a great series of prohibition meetings that were being hehl there. Ex- (irovernor St. John was there, and also that famous Nebraska gentleman, since dead, remarkable for his earnestness and vitu{)eration. Rev. Dr. Brethour i)rt!- sided at this meeting, and the Scott Act workers were gathered together from all j)arts of the county, and, in fact, iron\ nil parts of Ontario. I was therefrom Friday until Monday. The train T went out on from Toronto was loaded wi'h temperance peojjle going up to the meeting. The baggage car was also loaded, with either fourteen or sixteen barrels of beer, 1 ffirget the exact niuiiber. These barrels were unloaded on the platform while the train stoj)ped, and were carried down town withwut any attem])t at secrecy. This led me to start a little investi- gation of my own, and that night I went around the town of Milton. I .saw very many places, and was in very many places where lifpior was .sold. On Saturday night there was a great row— a drinking riot — and some ])eo])le were hurt. Sunday diliered from the preceding two days only in being a little worse — that is, I saw more diiakiiig going on. I myself saw more than one drunken man reeling on the streets of Milton that Siniday. There was a big bar running in the very hotel occupied as the Scott Act head(|uarters, or at least where the head(piarters of the organizers were. This, be it remendiered, was in the height of the campaign, and with a monster temi)erance demonstration being held in the town. 1 was at Milton on two or three occasions. 1 was also at Oakville and two or three other places. I am satisfied that most valorous ett'orts were made in 26 IlaUnn to enforce the Act, but it was siin|)ly iin|H)ssil)le. The men ii|)i)()inte(l to (Mifui'co the Act — Majnistrate Youiiif and innpector Brothers -were men without a Min;j;Ie drop of tlie milk of himian Iviiidness in their comixtsition — men who in tile olden times would have ridden behind ChiverhouHO for the mere j)leasure of the trami)ling down and ahiughtering of Covenanters. And yet with tlie vehement efforts of these men, the enforcement of the law was impossible. Is it any won- der that under such circumstances there was jierjury, and almost armed resist- anc(! to the law. It has i)een contended that, even as it was, crime was dimin- ished and drunkenness decreased in the county of llalton under the 8cott Act. The following table shows how utterly astray that statement is : HALTON. Act went into force May 1st, 1882. Repeal carried March Ist, 1888 ; went out of force May 1st, 1888. COMMITT.M.S UEFOUK HALTON MAGISTItATP^S. Assaults, Convic- Threat- tions for cniiiK LaiijyiiaKc, Lai'ceiiy and Tres- Dnmk and Uisordorly Misccllan- aneoiis. Violation Li(|Ui)r Laws. Total Convic- tions. otiier than breach of Liquor 1^1 ws. pass. I87!t 37 5 9 4 55 51 188(1 2(5 8 22 •^ 59 5H 1881 17 21 15 •> 11 28 2 18 45 (59 43 1882 51 188:5 !» 2(1 2(1 18 5 11 15 11 o 00 2(5 2!) 151 l!l 27 18 79 l(t9 82 19 1881 48 1885 9() imi 55 1887 1!) 15 51 17 132 85 Average of tlio last ] three vcnrs before ]■ 2m m 14 3 53 50 IheSoott Act . ) A V or age of last ) three .v Scott Act ) 10 m 11 31 107ii "6ii During the years of the Scott Act I observed its workings in the Ccmnty of Wellington, at Guelph and other places. The law was in most instances a dead letter, and nowhere could there be considered fair enforcement. T was in the County of Rruce, at VValkerton, where the law was simply laughed at, and at Hanover, which is peculiar in this re8{)ect: The county line as l)etween Grey and Bruce splits the village of Hanover in half. When the Dmikin Act was in force in Grey, the residents of the Bruce section of the vi^ lage crossed over on Sinidays into (irey to obtain their liquor, and when the Scott Act was in force in Bruce the inhabitants of the (Jrey section returned thinpliment. Practically the only effect of the prohibitive law that could be ol)served in either comity, was that on Sunday the licpuu" selling went on the same as on week day. I visited the C(mnty of Simcoe at Barrie, and other places. The law was a dead letter. I was detailed to go with Messrs. Wiman and Butterworth in 1887 when they made their famous Commercial Union tour through Canada, attended all J 27 tlioir nioufcinj^s, uiul witli thoui, and at ofcliur times, visitodHUch towns as Orango- villc!, Arthur, Drayton, Port Ilopo, 8t. Tlionias, Clintliani, and many other lilacoH. In iiouL! was there an ol)servaiiee of tlie law. I (tould j^ive details of all those towns if it were not for the necessity of not loading np the record too much. I was in Carleton County during the time of the Scutt Act there. I have lieen along those roads s|)oken of hy Mr, .1. K. Stewart as having had the liars closed, and I am afraid that Mr. Stewart cannot he considered a very good judge. The law was practically a dead letter in all parts of Carleton County in the last two years. The causes that led to the overthrow of tlie 8cott Act are not far to seek and are exceedingly simple. Not all the excuses of our prohibition friends, as varied in character as they are unsound in logic, can alter the facts. A stream cannot rise above its source, and the Scott Act could not jmiceed in etfect lieyond the power that gave it birth. A noisy l)ut most unstable uiinority invariably brought it into existence, and beyoncl the moral [tower of that noisy unstable minority in the connnunity the work of the Act could not go. The Scott Act was a failure just as the prohil)itive laws of Maine, Kansas and Iowa arc failures, simply because the people at large look U[)on the eii'orts at enforce- ment with contemi)t. The Scott Act was a failure from the start. Tinkered as it was, and it seems to be the esjiecial province of all such laws to l)e tinkered at, as witness the Maine law which has been amended 4(i times in 4<> years. So with the Scott Actt. It was amemhMl and re-amended until as it stands to-day it is a positive disgrace to the statute book of any free civilized country, but it was never a success and never could be made a success. And this is the secret of all legislation, whether license hiw, |trohibitive or otherwise. What the juio- j)le or any large number of them want they will have. The law says that far- mers shall cut the thistles cm the roadside before his farm, but the farmer does not cut the thistles. If the roadmaster comes down on him once he takes good care the next year to have a dilierent kind of a roadmaster. Sir Oliver Mowat passed a law prohibiting boys smoking cigai'ettes. The boys laugh at the law, and the people hiugh at the genius which devised it. The license law ])rohibits sale after certain hours and on Sundays, but in sections where the people wish to drink during these hours and on Sundays they calmly do so. In Halifax the law says there shall be no i)ar-rooms, but the bars in that city are as wide open as the break of day. The Scott Act said no li(pior should be retailed for bevei'- age purposes, but, the noisj^ nnnority to the contrary, li(pior was retailed for beverage purposes in every house whei'e it was before sold, and in hundreds upon hiuidreils besides, which ne\er sold Itefori; the Act and which have ceased selling since. And under any system of I'rohibition that can be devised the result will be exactly the same. To show that the Scott Act has almost invarial)ly been cari'ied by a minor- ity I have here a statement showing (i) the name of each comity orcity in which a vote was taken on the Scott Act and the date of the voting, (2) thenundterof votes on the list at the time of voting, {'•]) the votes jiolled for the Act, (4) votes polled against the Act, (5) majority for or against the Act ((i) total of the votes polled, (7) total votes p(tlled at the nearest Dominion election. This statement which is perhaps too l)ulky to l)e pla ed upon the record is at the service of the Connnission ; but I shall here extract a few in.stances to illu.strate my conten- tion. Starting first with Nova Scotia, for this argument willajiply tf< the whole Dominion, take the case of Cape IJreton County. The Act there was carried liy o2;{ majority, yet oidy 955 votes were jxtlled as against .'5,(»71 at the Dominion elections. The evidence will show the condition of a Hairs in Cape Breton. For New Brunswick, take Westmorehuid for instance. There the Act carried by 7H;} majority, but only l,oiSl votes were polled as against 4,500 at a Dominion election. I may remark here that this statement shows that where the full vote 28 (ir uutirly the full was poUuil tho Act whh ulrnoHt alwayH dofoiitod ; but evoii wlioro it w'fis not, iiiul was cnrriud by a small uiajority, tlio result was tlu! saiiio, as for iiistaiioe tlu! city of Fruderictou, which on tlic last occasion polled <>72 votos for the Scott Act as ayaiiist <58.'{ in the Dominion election ; and yet the Act is as Haj^rantly violated in Fredericton as it is almost anywhere. In P. K. [. tuko tlit^ case of QuecMi's Comity which <^ave the larj^'e majority of 1,218 for the Act. Only '.>'.• persons voted contra, and only l,4l(» votes were castas ai^ainst 4,5(54 in tile Dominion election. In (^Juehec the ditl'erences are not so niarke.'?, and 2,7(tl ; and in Richmond 1,I>52 and2,<)25. In Ontario numerous exami)les could he cited, hut it will do to take tho Irinner CVnuity, llaiton. When tlie Act was first carried the majority was 81, the total vote jiolled 2,885, as again.st .'5,5r>l at the Domini(m election. When the Act was reiiealed, majority against 197, .'{,{)()() votes were cast as against 4,4.'55 in the Dominion election. The voters on the roll in the meantime had increased from 5,275 to 5,(170. On the other hand, Hamilton, which polled 4,472, as against 4,8(10, nearly the full strength defeated the Act by 1,150; while Hastings which polled 4,745 as against (),7''52, oidy defeated the Act by 7. In Manitoba, Maniuette polled only 807 v<»tes for the Scott Act as against 2,25J{ in the Dominion election; and Li.sgar ;^(»7, as against 1,480. The Act never came into operation in either county. Tile figures tell the true story of the failure of the Scott Act. The jieoplo generally did not want it, would not su]»port it, and in Ontario repealed it at the first opportunity. In the Maritime Provinces it is still tolerated, why, the mind of mere man cannot conceive. Some enthusiasts down there still profess to 1)elieve that it is doing good, but my e.\[)erience is th.it four men out of five laugh at it as a consuinniate farce. Ontario would not tolerate the state of affairs that exists in the Maritime Province Scott Act counties a day. We have heard much of the alleged powerful Prohibition sentiment said to exist in Ontario. I have had as good opportunities during the last twelve years of becoming acipiainted with the jieople of Ontario as any man in it. I do not believe anytliing like one-half i>r even one-third of the voters of ()ntario favor Prohibition. 1 can find no evidence of it. 1 do not believe prohibitive senti- ment is anything like as strong as it was before the Scott Act trial. I do not believe a man running as a straight Prohil)itionist and that akme can be elected in a single constituency in Ontario. The Prohibitionists in Parliament from Ontario have decreased instead of increasing. In very many counties for a. (can- didate to be known as a Prohibitionist is to imperil the ])arty'» chances of suc- cess. Take the case of Halton, the banner i*rohibition county; when Mr. Henderson, a life long temperance man, acce])ted the platform of the Dominion Alliance, while Mr. Waldie refused to touch it with a ten foot pole, Mr. Hen- derson was ])romptly defeated. But when Mr. Henderson again running refused to have anything to do with the Prohibitionist body he was elected over his former opjionent, and later has accumulated a majority of nearly 500, and in defiance of the Prohibitionists. Do tht! different temperance societies show any remarkable increase in their menibershii) of men whose names are on the voters' lists >. But lo 1 there was the ])lebescite. It was triuiiii)hantly carried / Perhaps it was. The little jiea rattled around in the empty tin pail again and its clatter was heard throughout the land. Sundry United States citizens of mi>re or less fa i.c, loud of voice and forceful of gesture, settled down in our midst and the campaign of noise had full swing. There was no ojjposition, and no discussion. But whether the vote was for or against is of no moment. The plebescite in Ontario was a jiolitical dodge, and there liegins and ends all that may be said concerning it. Whether it is carried by 10,(H)0 or by 100,000 matters not. It did not moan anything, it was never intended to mean anything, it never can refused 29 ineuu aiiythiug. There was ii inajdrity of over 8(),.il ojjtiou in various places with unfailing unsuccoss. 'i'hey carried aplcliescite liy a large majority, because hoth political [)arties voted for it, each with the laud- able hope of injuring the other, but they have done nothing with the plebescite. I have met many li(|Uor dealers who voted for that })lebescite on political grounds, and I have met scores of (lovernment supporters who declared that they would vote against the (loveriunent if they dared attempt to pass a prohi- bitory law, though they had all voted for the plebescite. Does any one imagine for a moment that Mr. (Ireenaway would refrain for a moment fiom jtassing a prohil)itory law if he thought it would be po|tular, or that his Attorney-( General would allow the occasion to pass if he thought it would work ^ Otherwise 1 cannot speak of Manitoba beyond What the record of evidence shows. N( )RTH-\VKST TKRR1T( )U1 KS. Here again I need not go beyond what the evidence taken by the Commis- sion shows. But I wish to point out that the large extension of tlie permit 8y.stem in Liter years, did not lead to the breaking down of the prohibitive law. On the contrary, it was only the safety valve atlorded by the free u.se of permits that enabled such small ol)servation of the law as did exist. I'pon this point I can oti'er argument if the Counuission so desire. But whether or no, no amount of sophistry, no excuse for this or extenuation of that or ex|)lanation of the other thing can alter the fact that this law, most rigorous in all its j)ro- visions, tried in a s[)arsely settled country wherein conununication with the out- aide world was most difhcult, having at disposal for its enforcement not only the ordinary olhcers of the law, but also an armed mounted force of over 1,000 men, utterly failed to prevent the importaticm and consumption of licjuor, and was repealed uj)on the first op])ortunity offered to the people, and iHnni Itx rcpi'nl KVf.s iiKtde i( U'Aidimj issiii' at the polh. The fav<)ral)le circumstances under which Prohibition was attempted in the N(jrth-West are unparalellcd in the history of such legislation, the comjileteness (»f the failure is e(|ually unparalelled. Before lejiving the North-West I should like to add to the records of the Commission the evidence of Rev. Dr. Charles A. Berry, the celebrated divine from Wolver- hampton, PJngland, who will l)e best remend)ered on this side of the Atlantic as the successor for a sliort time of the late Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. Rev. Dr. lierry made a trip through the North-West and describes his experiences in a magazhie entitled "The Young Man,'" which is pul)lished 1 think in both Lon- don and New York, and a copy of which 1 herewith present. Alhnv me to call attention to the closing words. After pointing out the evasions of the law and that men will manage to dodge the law and make a j)atli to their goal, l_)r. Berry .says: — *' Wherefore it is to Christ and not to Cjesar that we must look for bet- ter things. The Church and not the State, the preacher and not the policeman 30 is, or imj^lit to 1)0, tlio iiyeiit of n lunv hikI Iii^'hor condition of lifo. Ft is only by ilio iiiiikiii^' (tf new men, tlmt wo can liopo to ii^jich ,i lietter civilization." I vvouKl (.•omniisiul this statoniont to tlio sfriou.s consideration (tf those well-niean- iny |)aHtorH who huvu thrown UHido the word of (Joil in favoi' of tlie polteunian's ehil). TUUTFSH ("OLrMHlA. We saw there a soiier connmniity, inosperous, liard working,', Itiit with jirac- tically nothin<4 in the sliape of rei)resHive li(|Uor hiws, even Snnihiy ehtsinj.? only a name. S( )rTHKRN CALI F( )liN I \. It was one of tlie peculiarities of our Prohiliition friends that whenever asked to point out a place where I'rohiljition has proven successful they refer to some district a very long distance away, in Manitol>a all I'rohiiiition hopt-s were centred upon Southern California and some unknown places in Kansas. In all that lonu distance from the lU'd Kiver to tht\ Pacific Coast we saw iiothini' in favor of l*rohil)ition. On the coast we leairied of the jtrohiliitive law in Alaska, but nobody contended that there was anything favorable to Prohibition to be found there. We then started south 1,100 miles to San Francisco, through Washington, Oregon and California. Outside (if Oaklands, o[)posite San Iianci.sco, there are a couple of Prohiliition nuniiciiialities, which our friends apparently never heard of, and which 1 discovered only accidentally. 1 may say there was no need for investigation there. Then we went about 400 miles further south to Los Angeles, and .still another sixty miles to that haven of Prohibition, Kivei- side. Hivernidf. — Here was the place where Prohibition was to be seen in all its glories. Riverside is an oi'ange grove in the nudst of a desert, and most certainly, if the people wanted Prohibition they could have it. They had tried it for one year and then gone back to the old sy.stem, e,\cepting that they in- cieased the mnnber of saloons. We had come nearly 1,(100 miles to tind the saloon in full blast. Pamdemt was the other Mecca of our Prohibition friends. This is sinijily a residence suburb of Los Angeles, S miles distant, with a train running be- tween the two [ilaces every half-hour or so. A prohibitive law of some sort was supjKKsed to be in force. The hotels all sell li(iuor8 to guests, furnish li(|Uors at the tables openly, and have wine cards. The restaurants have beer pumps, and are allowed to sell beer and light wine. The big winter hotel there — the " Kayimmd "absolutely refused to close its bar during the .season, and the ])roitrietor told the authorities that if the bar was clo.sed he would close the whole hotel. Thereafter he was not interfered with. There is a street railway runnnig straight through the town, from one side of the nninicipality to the other, about fifteen minutes' ride, and at each end of this street railway, just outside the limit of the town, there is a saloon. So that, under this famed Prohil)iti(in in Pasadena, of which we heard such glowing accounts in Manit(tba, the traveller is served at the hotel, the citizen is served at the restaurant with lighter drinks and with anything he wants at the two saloons mentioned ; or he brings out from Los .Vngeles his supplies — and the guests at the " Raymond " can stand up and drink at the bar the same as tliey can at any other licensed hotel in the country. So uuich for Prohil)ition in Southern California ! IMie whole tri[> was a fraud of the gravest and most gigantic pnjportions. There are .'{1 other pliicuH iihnut fur iiistuiico, Ontario, wliiiru tlie liiw \n nn'nX to lie |>firti!illy ohservfd ; Kedluiuls, where it is not ohHerved at all ; and San llernadino, mid- way between the two, with licenseH and plenty of them. \Ui\ even had it heen found out that the law was well observed, what argument could be deduced from the expei'ience of these small oasea in the midst of the great sand deserts of Southern California I While on tiiis point I may say that on the return trip I stopped, amonj^ other places, at Kl Paso, a frontier town of mixed pop\dation. In that town (a live jtlace of some .■50,(M(() people) they license a saloon at !<(1(M) a year, a gambling house at 8alities with the enormous number of tliose who never dream of such a thing as I'rohiliition, or how can they be used as an examjile ! There is not a city of any con.'^iiler- able size, in this or any other country, that has ever tolerated Prohibition or even unilue restriction. 1 have even heaid comparisons made between Pull- num and ('hicago. Pullman is a little place, owned by a company ; Chicago is a cosmopolitan city, the second in size on the continent. How absunl must iiny comparison between the two be f The (.'oinmission took certain statistics in Chicago which, no do\ibt, are valuable under certain circumstances. JJufc how can Chicago be comjiared with anytliing in Canada ! Its population is much larger than all our cities put together ; its b\isine8s interests as great in a day as ours in a week ; its po[)ulation made up of every nation under the sun. As well might one compare Lonchm, England, with Fredericton, New Urtins- wick. KANSAS. But now we come to the great Prohibition States. During our visit to Kansas, the Laii-fftire Joiiriinl, published this: "The testimony given has not been published, but it is safe to say that when the Commission returns to Canada, whatever else it may reptirt, it will declare that Kansas has mori! biggt-r liars than any country on earth." Probal)ly a Kansas newspaper knows the character of the population of that State, and we had perhaps better, theiefore, depend more ujion what we saw, than what was told us. Take tirst K(()ts,((0() peojde, is a nice clean town. The law of Prohi- bition was better observed in Tojieka than in any other place I have over visited. Not that there is any dithculty in anybody getting what liijuor he roijuires, or may want, but there is not o[)en or flagrant violation of the law. A druggist will sell to you if you will state that you want it for illness. Hotels will delivei" to your room whatever you order. There are any nundjor of club-rooms, and there are not a few joints. 'IMio Prohibitionists' rc^prosontativo with the Com- missioner says that tho law was bettor enforced in Topeka than lie had ever e.vpected t(» see it anywhere. Either the gentleman made no investigation or he is satished with the day of small things. Look at the nuud>or of druggists' oertiticates issued in one year, totalling, if my recollection servos me, over 7,000. And let mo say hero that tho lunubor of dr\iggists' coititicates rot urned to the Probate Court Judge, represent but a small proportion of tho liipior sold by druggists, because where one printer can ])rint a cortiticyite, another inintercan print a duplicate of it, or ten thousand duplicates if desired. 1 know that this is done, and largely done. I have said that Tojjoka was not without joints. From a copy of the Stdte Joiinidl, pul)lishod in that city, of Decend)er 2()th last, T learn that there were on Christmas Day thirty-six arrests, seventeen of which were charged with drunkenness, and all tho rest, with two or three exceptions, being due to drinking. The record of tho Police Court on Christmas niorning, and the morning after, is something Vemarkable. There were cases of violent and disorderly conduct, women assaulted by men, in one case a man knocked senseless by a beer nuig, and numerous tights and brawls. Connnenting upon this the SIdli' Journal says : " VV^ith over thirty cases of drunkenness in two days' session of the Police Court, the police authorities should be led to entpiiro into the cau.se of the drunkenness, and the ju'obablo place wheie tho men and women got their licpior. They hardly sent out of town for it as they are mostly a sot of loafers who don't know enough to get licpiorby express. Some of them can scarcely write. Probably a groat deal of it came frcmi the drug stores, but more of it came from the joints. Peoj)le who patronize joints say that Topeka is uu)ro joint infested than it has been for a hmg time, and those thirty drunks would give some strength to the assertion." All of which would make itappear that Topeka is not so truly good as the outsider may be led to believe. To fully a])pi'eciate the po.sition Topeka takes, and the ditlerenco between that city and other Kansas towns, it must be remembered that the capital never 38 wiiB n Ixtrdor town. It wuh sottlixl iit tlio tiiiio of tho oUl FrooKt>il HKitiition, hv tiiu I'oiiiiiiiiit of tliu ItUu! Soil u^itatoiH from Nuw Kiigliuul, who liroiiglit with thiMii thori) Hii iiuiiieiiHti toiii|K'mii(>(t .sciitiiiiDiit. I think it is Uii^j^H' liintory of KiinmiH which tolln of tht^ nu'ldiin^, n jriuat iiiiiiihor of yoarN ago, of a (Jorman who tfiidl to start a Haloon. 'I'hiH 'vas in tin; oarly chiyH. 'I'lio poor man oHcai)ud witii hiu life hy hitlin^r in thu rivur, with hin head concualod undur a lo^. But uvon aH it is I havu no hesitation in saying that Topoka wouhl ho huttur with a few ruHpuetahlo hars, than with tho 3'onng men's elulw, tliu UivoH, tint iniportn- tion i?wn of r),()(M) or (»,()(M) pt'ojile, .ind a nice pla(•l^ We wero told to go thoro hy Prohibit ionists, as a place where the prohibitory law would bo found to bo working well. Upon arrival at the town 1 went first to the .Justice of the Peace's court-ro(»m and wliero a trial of a li<[Uor case was in progress. The prisoner was a noted character, and was being tried l)y a jury of his poors. Tho District Attorney prosecuted, and there was a lawyer for i\w defence. The jury took Homo hours to como to a coui^lusion, i)ut tinally returned a verdict of guilty. Speaking to tho presiding .Justice after tho trial, I was suritrised to find liim expressing groat satisfaction at having securod a conviction, and from him learn- ed this was the tirst conviction he had ol)tained in a licjuor case during his term of otHco. The only reason, it seemed, why the verdict of guilty was given in this instance, was because they wanted to got the man out of town. Ho was rather a tough case, and the people wero tired of him. In consofptenco, I believe, he was allowed to go without paying his line. I interviewed Mr. R. A. Levitt, the District Attorney, a Prohibitionist, and a very sensible man. He told mo that in two years he had had twenty arrests of li(pior dealers, but found it especially difKcult to obtain a conviction. He said ho tried to avoid jury cases because tho jury could not be de[)onded upon. Ho was evidently a good man, trying to do his duty, but found it impossible to enforce the law. I also intei'- viewod J. H. Hutchison, the City Attoriusy. Ho had IrCod in Holton, Maine, and practised law there ten years ago. He said the law in Maine had got prac- tically to be a failure before he left, and that he belived there was not a town in the State whore licptor could not bo procured. Ho had boon in Selina since 1888. He said tho law there did not prohibit, and advised me to watch the express otiice for a day. It was nothing, he said, to see a one or two horse drayload of beer di.stril)uted about in broad daylight. (I afterwards did see such a drayload being distributed.) He spoke of tho tendency of the law to produce perjury, saying tliat it was almost im[)o.ssible to procure credible evidence. Ho further said that he was going to have a li((Uor dealer arrested that night, and added; "If he did not sell 'White Eye' he would not bo in this trouble." " White Eye " I discovered to be a particularly pernicious drink, being com- posed mainly of pure alcohol of the cheai)est grade. The man, I saw by the papers next day, was arrested that night. That evening I was shown about the town in order to see for mj'self as to the enforcement of the law, and the per- son chosen to escort me was tho chairman of the Rei)ublican County Associa- tion, which as.sociation of course sujjports the Prohibitive hiw. I saw the son of this man, who is an agent in the town for a beer firm. He said he brought in GOO dozen of beer per week on an average, and often from 2()0 to 250 dozen for a single holiday. These men all laughed at the idea of the law being enforced. My conductor, the Repui)lican chairman, explained carefully to me that there was a great dirterenco i)etween the workings of a party and the observance of a prohibitive law. I visited in his company probably a dozen places that sell (3) 34 lio|)ulation of Kansas (census returns) increased 173 per cent, from 1870 to 1880, and 43 per cent, from 1880 to 1890— Prohibition from 1881. Not only has there been this decreased per centage, but in 1889 and 1890 there was an actual falling ott". The figures are : 1880 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 996.0961 1,268..930* 1,406,738* 1,514,578' l,518,5o2« 1,464.914 « l,427,096t Speci- Alleged Diminidion of Crime (of which we hear a great deal), mens are : Governor John A. Martin : — " The abolition of the saloon has enormously diminished crime." Attorney-General Bradford : — " Tt is depopulating our penitentiary and reducing crime and pauperism to a minimum." (See Bradford's letter to Gover- nor St. John). Capital — Comimnurealtli, of Topeka, official oi'gan : — "Drunkenness and crime has diminished eighty i)er cent, since the saloons were closed in Kansas." Prohibititm i)amphlet, "Does Prohibition prohibit ":--" All jails show a marked falling off in the nund)er of prisoners." What are the facts 1 According to the United States returns, Kansas had more prisoners in its penitentiary and county jails in proportion to its jwpii- latioH in 1890 tlian it liad in 1880. The proportion was in 1880, 893 prisoners [)er million of population and in 1890, 946 prisoners per million. Moreover, of all tlie twelve States in what is known as the " Northern Central " group, Kan- sas liad in 1890 abscjlutely the largest ratio of prisoners to population. On the other hand, higii license Nel)raska shows a decrease of fi'om 738 in 1880 to 576 in 1890. Even the much -talked of and berated Missouri, and Illinois with all the wickedness of Chicago make a better showing than "saintly" Kansas. I append the twelve states with the number of prisoners in penitentiaries and county jails per million of poi)ulati(m : Ohio Indiana Illinois - Michigan Wisconsin Minnesota 587 Iowa 858 Missouri 708 North Dakota 720 South Dakota 619 Nebraska 492 Kansas verage 670 407 823 841 841 576 946 t U. S. Census. " State CensuB. 36 Admissions to Kansas State Penitentiary from 1870 to 1890, year ending lanuary 1st : — License. Pkohibition. 1871 - 127 1881 . 487 1872 . 173 1882 - . - im 1873 . 155 1883 . 252 1874 . 148 1884 - . - 295 1875 . 248 1885 . 321 1876 - 173 1886 - . - 396 1877 - 170 1887 . 415 1878 - 227 1888 - . - 360 1879 - 256 1889 . 375 18^0 131 1890 - - - 331 1,808 3.428 The population increased from 1870 to 1880 4,'i per cent., the penitentiary popuhition nearly doubled. Or bike it this way. In 1870 the population of Kansas was .S()4,8y!); 1880 the po])ulation of Kansas was l)9(),0y<»; in 1880, 1,4()4,1)14. During the first term there was one cimunittal to the penitentiary for every 'M'.i of the increasetl jiopulation, and in the latter jjeriod one for every l.'iO of tlie increase of population. This would seem to disprove the theory that good peoj)le f.jcked to Kansas to be under I'rohibition. There have been confined (authority piiblished statement by Charles Will- sie, Attorney-at-L{iw, Wellington, Kansas), in Kansas Penitentiary during the ten years 1881 to 1800, f(jr murder in the various degrees : — Murder in 1st degree 2nd " Manslaughter in 1st degree 2nd " 3rd " 4tli " Total 59 76 21 30 24 31 240 Ontario, under license law, makes a very ])oor shf)wing beside this ; not only so, but the jiaupers in almshouses })er million of population increased in Kansas from .'iod in 1880 to 41G in 1800; while in Nebraska they increased only from 250 in 1880 to 275 in 1800. If the penitentiary and the county jails are taken separately, Kansas with 04.M i)enitentiary }»ris|>eka, to irhich jiirpnilettffpndon under s^ixtfen ifexrs of iK/e (trerovimitted, shows that the number of inmates was : Jiuus MOtli, 1800, 18(> ; June 'AOth, 1802, 220. The official reports show that tlie number of admissions to the State Reform School have increased from forty-nine in 1881 to 117 in 1802. The board of 37 Trustees of the State charitable institutions in tlieir hist report said of this scliool, as well of other institutions under their control, that it was " full to cnerHow- ing," and strongly urged that its capacity should be increased. Much is made, and has l)een made before this Commission of the statement that certain county jads are at times vacant. On June 1st, 181)0, twenty-one out of 1()(> counties in Kansas had no prisoners in their jails, while at the same time in Nebraska thirty county jails were emjjty out of a total of ninety counties. (U. S. Census Hulletin No. 95, p. 10.) Right here I may as well throw out this suggestion, that there cannot be found under any law, in any State, pro- vince or territory in the United States or Canada, any county that — in the matter of arrests of all kinds, or of difterent kinds, connnittals to jail for differ- ent crimes, absence of the graver crimes, and frecjuency of intervals when the county jail has no inmates and absence of poverty — can compare with the county of Waterloo, Out., a county that possesses a large distillery, eight breweries, and in which the wildest enthusiast has never yet dreamed of attempting to in- troduce a prohil)itive law. Number of persons in Kansas who paid U. S. Internal Revenue tax to sell liciuors : 1891, :\lVMi, V. S. Statistical Abstract, p. 214: 1892, 2,500, U.S. Statistical Abstract, p. 218. This gives one li(pior dealer to every 450 and 000 inhabitants, respectively. The records of the collector of Internal Revenue for 1890 show that Atcheson took out (»8 U.S. revenue receipts for the sale of liipior, Argentine 25, Arkansas City 28, Abilene 20, Burlingham 8, Beloit 11, Coffey ville 14, Clay Centre 9, Dodge City 11, Emporia 1(3, Eldorado 10, Ellsworth 11, Fort Scott 52, Galena 20, Harton 21, Hayes City 16, Hutchison 24, Independence 11, Junction City 25, Kansas City 78, Leavenworth 114, Lawrence 2.'i, Lexington 15, Newton 22, Osage City 10, Parsons 20, Pittsburg lib, Salina 20, Toi)eka 01, Wichita 127, with a population of 24,000. Allow me U) draw attention to the extraordinary number of gold cure institutes in Kansas. These institutes cannot flourish except where there is hard drinking. I am told that there are over Hfty of these institutes in Kansas, l)ut have not statistics to vouch ior it. I know, however, that there are very many, and I wish to cite one instance. Madison is a town or village of 1,000 people, and at the last municipal election every successful candidate from the majMjr down was a bi-chloride of gold graduate. I venture to suggest that though uni(iue this is pertinent. Regarding insanity : From November .'iOth, 1870, to June 30th 1880, ten years prior to the enactment oi the [u-ohibitory law, there were 700 insane received into tlie State Asylum at Ossawatomie. From June 30th, 1880, to June 30th, 1890, received at Ossowatomie 1,479 patients, and at Tofjeka Asylum 1,822, a total of 3,301. During first period, average of one tcj every 1,301 inhabitants, and one to every 8.'^0 inhabitants of the increase of popuhition. Second period, average of one to every 443J5 inhabitants, and one to every 141 j] of the increase of ])opulation. Increase in population first per.od 631,097 ; second period (1889) 4(58,818. To tliose who still hold a lingering l)e]iof that the law is generally en- forced in Kansas, let me (piote fuai thts utterances of Mr. John A. Murray, author of the law, and published hy the Kansas State Temperance Union in this year : — " The inertia of ])ublic sentiment u|)on the temi)orance questi(m is cause f(U' apprehension. Tlie proiiibitory law, once tlie emblem of our j>ride has in parts of our state l)ecome a i)urden of apology. * * * The very at- mosjjliere of the principal streets of some of our Hourisliing cities is laden with the noxious odor of the undist<"rbe(l, defiant and ju-osperous 'joint.' * * * It is time f(U" an awakening." Tliis from the author of the law after twelve years of trial. 38 I havo under my hand tho finimal address delivered hy President Rev. Dr. Milner, to tlie Kansas State Tenif)erance Union, at Topeka, on October .'Jrd, last. President Milner says : " Prohibition has not had a fair trial in Kansas." (The old oonii>laint.) Again: — " In the great ])art of our state the illegal trattic is carried on out of sight of the public." (And that is the best even their president can say of it.) Again: — "No one will deny that tiiere is much violation of the Prohibi- tion law in Kansas." (I should say not after his trip witli us.) Again : — " We have to-day in cities of Kansas, cases of ' municipal nullitica- tion,' of cities trampling upon the law of the State." Finally : — " We are compelled to recognize the fact that within the past two years there has been an increase of violations of the law." (Dr. Milner then retired from the ])residency.) Having (juoted from the two leading authorities in favor of Prohil)ition, ])erhap8 I may be permitted to give the [)ublished views oi a leading opponent, Mr. David ( )vermeyer, Attorney-at-Law, of Topeka : " Prohibition is an exotic in our fundamental law. It should be torn from the constitution root and branch, and the legislature should be forbidden to pass any law jjrohibiting the conversion of the products of Kansas into any mer- chantable commodity or prohibiting the sale of such products. Instead of wasting time and money in vain and foolish efforts to build cotton and sugar mills, let us remove the restrictions and permit the upbuilding of industries that will work up our immense crops of corn, grain and fruits, aud thus furnish a " home market " for the farmer, employment for labor, investment for capital, increase of prices, and inducement to immigration. Men stand ready to en- gage in these enterprises without the aid of a protective taritl' and without bounty. This is one "way out "for Kansas. Another "way out" which depends upon the repeal of Prohibition, is to miload our surplus lands for cash, and still have enough hind left for homes. Our people have gone heavily into debt for lands and improvements, hoping, and justly hoping as pioneers, that the incoming population would relieve them of their sinplus acres, while the money thus realized wt>uld relieve them of debt. Prohib'cion came and the people (juit coming. During the ten years of Prohibition a mighty tide of emi- gration has swept over, beyond, and around Kansas. " At the advent of Prohibitiim Kansas was the best advertised State in the Union. While it, like other {)laces, has its di-awbacks, it is, after all, an en- chanted land, in which salubrious air, fertile soil, and sublimity of scene are so blended that the eye of man is gladdened and his heart rejoiced by the raptur- ous charm of burnished sky and shining [dains, and yet in ten years we are short at least 1,(X)0,000 of people by reason of Prohibition. People will not make homes where they cannot be free. Tear Prohibition from the constitu- tion and hurl it into the dark vortex of things accursed ; firmly control and wisely tax the traffic in intoxicating beverages, make known to the hardy and industrious home-seeker and worthy innnigrant that the curse of bigotry and fanaticism has been lifted from the State, and we shall witness such an influx of population and such a wave of rising prosperity as has never l)een seen in Kansas." I could multiply evidence but it is unnecessary. From the facts gathered by the Commission and those herein set forth, I submit that any unjirejudiced observer must come to the conclusion, in the words of Senator Ingalls (one of the greatest men Kansas has ever i)roduced), " The Prohibitionists have the law and the people have the whiskey." Under this law industry has languished, population has diminished, crime and poverty have increased, law is scorned, drinking is carried on in its most degrading form, while gambling and many 39 otn'r ovils flourish oponly. The law is a curse to State and people, a breeder of iiy|)ocrisy, perjury and calumny ; the playthin<^ of politiciiins and the scorn and contenii»t of honest men. So much for Prohibition in Kansas. NEBRASKA. In Nebraska we visited Lincoln and Omaha. Both are fine places, Omaha beini;a lar.L,fe city. They are under a high license law, all the facts of which are detaile.d in the evidence already l)efore the Commission, and the law, so far as T was able to observe, is well carried out. Omaha is more like Toronto on Sun- day (with the exception that street cars are allowed to run) than any American city I have ever been in. I visited a ])ark there cm Sunday, larger than the one in Kansas City, Kansas, but a direct contrast to it in every particular. It is beautifully situated and laid out, with large numbers of shade trees. Thous- ands of {,eople came out on the street cars and enjoyed the shade and the flowers and the beauty of the scene generally, and for their amusement an ex- cellent band performed a programme of a very high-class character. When the programme was completed the crowd gradvially wended their way home. No refreshments of any kind were sold. As to the observance of the Sal)bath closing law in Omaha, those who try can undoubtedly get into the side-doors without much trying. 1 found one of these jdaces, a man standing at the door keeping watch for the police, and we being admitted through the side-door. But nevertheless, T am perfectly safe in saying there is very little drinking d(me in ()mahi> on Sunday, although there are a large number of Omaha people who drink. These cross tlie river to Cinuicil Bluffs, in Iowa, where they can get ui)roariously drunk without fear of troul)le. The statistics regarding Nebraska will be given in comparison with other St;; tes. Before leaving Omaha, however, I wish to refer to a statement published by Professor Hutchins, a gentleman from Nel)raska, who, accompanied by another distinguished Professor of Prohibition, perambulated Ontario last fall. The Professor said he had lived near Oinahfi for thirteen years, and he knew that the saloons were as open for business on Sunday as on any other day of the week. I have no hesitatiim in characterizing this as a distinct falsehood, known to be s(j by tlie gentleman who uttered it. It was on a par with the statement of his travelling com- panicm, " Hon." W. F. Wolfenberger, who, in a Toronto church, said that the Royal Commission, presided over by Sir Joseph Hickscm, took its witnesses from the gutter, and that every one wiio appeared there to give evidence against Prohibition had a danger signal at the end of his nose. IOWA. I had l)een through Iowa twice before the visit of the Commission, but saw little of the workings of the law, except to ascertain that probably the only men deprived of tlie right to use li(juor, were the travellers or other persons on the trains who were most entitled to it. In connection with the trip of the Com- mission my first visit was to Council Blutt's. Coiinril Bluff's.-- I went over to that town from Omaha (m Sunday. There is communication by railway between the two towns, and an electrio street car service. The trains and cars were crowded with people going over and coming back. On the streets of Council Blufts I saw some drunkeinicss, but not a great deal. There was no difticulty in walking right into the bar-roimis; they were wide open. Some had the front door shut, but a man on duty directed you to the side door. Others did not trouble themselves with this precaution, but left 40 the front door wide oi)en. I saw in one lmr-ro(jni a set of Htereopticon views of a character that would never he allowed in any salot)n under license. Every saloon there has its sign out and tills the windows with bottles and other devices to attract attention. There is ncj pretence whatever at concealing the existence ofthetrafHc. Two days later T again visited Council Bluffs in company with the Commission. Being a week day the lousiness was going on perhaj)s not quite as freely as upon the Sunday, but (juite as freely as is to be found in any licensed place. The population of Council Bluils is 21,000, and there are 78 places selling licjuor. I was given a drive about the city l)y the City Marshal, who had previously testified before the Conunission, and who told me he was glad of the chance to "cut loose," as he expressed it, and tell the truth. The people there thought that the town was being seriously injured by the attempt to enforce the prohibitive law. They were not progressing as in Omaha, and they took the law into their own hands. The records show that despite the large — what we would consider unusually large number of drinking places, the town is orderly and (|uiet, one of the best in that res[)ect in the State. Tf non-obser- vance of the law from all parts of the State. These were leading financial men whose testimony can be relied upon. Des MoiiiPs. — This is the ca{)ital of the State and has a population of 30,000 or slightly better. The average Des Moines citizen will tell you it is anything from sixty to eighty thousand. On our entrance to the city we were greeted with the following from the Des Moines Leader: " If the distinguished visitors from the Dominion arc really seeking information and will consent to place themselves under the guidance of any private citizen and carefully avoid associa- tion with officers during their visit in Des Moines, they can easily gain access to not less than three hundred places in Des Moines where licjuor is sold. " If they will call upon the Federal District Attorney he will tell them that the revenue collector for this district has granted three hundred Govei'nment licenses in Des Moines alone for the sale of liipior. Tf they will visit the Dis- trict Court and inspect the records, ami later call upon the Justices of the Peace, the Police Judge, the Chief of Police, they will strike a lead that will open up a mine of information. They will discover that two-thirds of the culprits arraigned and tried in the Federal Court at the term now in progress were arrested for violating not only the Government revenue laws, but the State Pro- hibitory law. The gentlemen will remain in Des Moines? two days, and if they follow the course indicated the reading of their subse(|uent report will awaken lively inten'st in Des Moines." Subsecjuent investigation proved this challenge to be well founded, and the statements contained therein practictJly correct. On the night of our arrival, putting up at the leading hotel, the Savary House, having got in late, I put the usual (question, " Where is the bar?" The clerk said they did not have a bar, 41 but thoy would send to my room anytli iig I wanted, or I could f^o to the druj? Htoro. This drug store opened out of the rotunda of the hotel, and is one of the loading places in the town. I do not think that in this drug store at least litjuor is sold by the glass. 1 asked them if they had any Canadian whiskey. The nian sold me a bottle of Walker's Club rye without asking any (juestions or requiring from me any statement whatever. I may say here that I found Walker's Club rye in Kansas in every place which we visited that I asked for it. The follow- ing day, in company with the Commission, I visited the capital building, where Governor Boies made his statement, and where the Republican Secretary of State, strong Prohibiti(jnist though he was, frankly admitted that the working of the law convinced him in favor of license, or, rather, local option. I have no doubt that already at that time the Republicans had decided to adopt the i)lat- form which later on they carried to such marked party success. I visited the Police Court, and was shown in the cellar a large (juantity of confiscated liquors. I noticed tliat many of the barrels were marked John Doe and Richard Roe, and in one instance it was Mrs. Roe, but the object of this I learned later on. Dur- ing the day I had been told, and had partially satisfied myself, that although Des Moines professed to enforce the prcjhibitive law, that yet the enforcement was a marked piece of hypocrisy and fraud, and in visiting a newspaper office I asked the Editor if he would detail one of his staff to show me about the city for a short time in ' he evening, so that I could satisfy myself as to what really was the practice. He complied, and that evening his City Editor accompanied me, the Editor himself being of the party a short time. We went about probably for an hour. T need not go into the details of all the places we visited, but, in a way, the modus operandi was this : The drug store would have in the front a few bottles and a big cigar case. Back of the prescription counter would be the bar. A person entered, walked back of the prescription counter and ordered what he wanted and paid for it. We went into a number of such [)laces. The first we went into the city editor remarked to me that if the i)erson in charge was asked to put up a medical prescription he would probably drop dead. The bar-room innn one of these drug stores opened into the rotunda (jf a hotel. We crossed the rotunda, went through a door, and found ourselves in the bar-room of another drug store. So that this hotel had practically two bars running to suj>ply its guests. We went into one or two restaurants. These sold liquor, and I was told that practically every restaurant in the city had a bar attachment. Then the city editor said he would show us a saloon, and we went to a saloon. This saloon was exactly on a par with one of the Toronto saloons, except that it wfiS nf)t as well fitted up. The front room was a cigar stand, and passing through the folding doors you found yourself in the bar-room. Five minutes before we entered the police had raided this place, seizing a barrel partially filled with lager beer and carrying it away. They seized nothing else. There were bottles on the stand, there were bottles of whiskey and other liquors in the ice-box, but they tot)k nothing but the beer keg. Apparently nobody had gone away, nor was any excitement created, and when we were there a few minutes afterwards there were seventeen peo])le in the place, if I recollect, besides our party, some of them drinking and others talking. I here ascertained what tlie la})elling of the kegs "John Doe" and "Richard Roe," the old English legal fiction, meant. It appeared that next morn- ing at the Police Court the keg, and not the proprietor of the saloon, would be tried, found guilty and condemned. Could anything more ludicrous be imagined than the solemn trial in court, in public before the ])eople, of the keg of beer, the condemnation of it, the glorious vindication of the law that would follow its destruction, and the projirietor of the illegal saloon, within two minutes of the departure of ihe police, having another keg of beer on taj) and business going on as usual. Leaving this, we were shown, among other places, two clubs. One was a club of the better class, there being several rooms fitted up comfortably. 42 ami H very nicely apixnnted l»ir in one of thcni. 1 l)elievc that nobody but moni- bers of the chib could puivluise liciuorH nt ti.e bar. Above this, on the next lloor, was the second club, more of the character of a workinj^nien's club, with a barrel of beer on ta|», two or three rooms in which games of amusement could bo held, and smoking rooms. It was an ordinary, comfortable itlaee. There were a number of men there, apparently workingmen, and they were enjoying themselves (juietly in conversation, and were having a glass of beor with their jjipe. I saw nothing objectional)le in either jjlace. We did not visit any (»f the lower class of joints, although the places where they exist were pointed out to us. We were out ])rob!ibly an hour, and at no time were we away, 1 should judge, more than 400 yards distant from the newsjtaper otlice from which we started. Yet in that time, and in that radius, we must have visited [)robably twelve or fifteen places where li(|Uor was sold, and had a great many others pointed out to us. T have no doubt whatever that the challenge thrown out by the Des Moines paper was perfectly correct, and that at least from 260 to .'500 places are regularly engaged in selling li(|uor at Des Moines. Yet there is where was held a week or two later the world's conclave of Good Tem- plars as a chosen spot of I'rohibition, and at that conclave the glories of Prohi- bition in Iowa, and especially in Des Moines, were loudly chanted. I'robably if a 8ah)on fell upim the heads of some of these people they might theii dis- cover it. Cedar l{2 show 5,84(». Further conuuent is iinneceHsiiry. Perhaps it will lie claimed these are all (lru<^ stores? Mr. Spaiildiny, secretary of the Iowa State 15oard of Pharmacists, ])uts the numher of drug stores at 1,.'{5(). How many of them are of the character of the drug stores 1 visited in Des Moines I do not know. Further, the annual report of the State Temi)er- ance Alliance, delivered at Des Moines, in March, 181)0, stated: "The Alli- ance has the name and post office address of ev< ry one who has paid a govern- ment tax for the purpose of selling li(pior." More than that, they publish- ed a list giving the number for each town and county, making a total (»f 5,8(»7. (Government returns for 1881) only give 4,012. j In this table Clin- ton is credited with 105, Burlington 170, Dul)U(|ue U88, Cechir Rapids l 217 1887 I8<) 93 127 137 14 3 9 29 15 12 {hi 41 m 247 1888 143 1SS9 190 1890 175 249 12 17 99 176 1891 153 33.3 11 16 84 181 1892 154 367 7 16 15;^ 28i) A foature in connection with the prohilntory law is to hu found in tho f()llowin<^ tal)le, allowing for the same years the court expenses for criminal prosecutions in the State : Finos InipoHcd. Fines Col- lected. Paid Dis- trict Attor- neys for Criminal Prosecu- tions. Total cost of Proseeu- tion, not in(^lu(lint< District Attorney's Fees. 1884 '':'. $a5,513 7.5,581 117,624 180,557 9.5,170 i;W,930 lIl,8tHJ 149,990 175,514 $.3.5,381 .30,728 46,:{62 ■50.871 39,771 37,008 37,316 48,268 56,568 $26,2.39 2(i,232 31,648 41.169 5:1,518 67,897 56.348 79,391 84,1.27 $379,.580 1885 413,319 1886 .... 421,024 1887 .382,877 1888 300,424 1889 3!t9,420 1890 452,294 1891 1892 4.55,204 575,638 ai,078,778 $382,210 $ 466,769 $3,779,810 There were eighty-four more convictions in 1884, the first year after license, than in 181)2, and yet the cost of prosecutions in 18'.)2 amounted to nearly $200,- 000 m )ie than in 1884. County Attorneys received $84,027 in 18!)2 as against .S28,2.'{!> in 1884. I beg to commend these features to tlujse vvlio profess to believe that Prohibition would etl'ect a saving in the cost of the administration of justice. '1887 was tho year of greatest enforeemont ; more assaults, p 'ultery, and larceny. Why? 46 Let niogivo one detail. In 1889 Polk County, which incliiduH Dun Moines, tMiid $(>2,(»4(» in court costs, of which $.'$7,755 wiih .luHtico and Police Court costs, n the Huninter of 185M), on the authority of the "KogiHtcr," and which authority I am asHurud has never been denied, in the first six nionth.s tiiure was taken from the treasury, for the criminal costs of .Justices Courts in that city alone, over $.'{0,(MK). Of this amount )|!, and then trying and convicting it at a cost of ^10 to |llo, that in measure the practice had to be stopped. It is now largely run at the Police Court, where ".John Doe" and " lliciiard Roe" are daily on trial. Now, take the ([uestion of the increase or decrease of population. Have the peoples of the earth, throbbing with anxiety to live under the glorious privileges of Prohibition, flocked in countless numbers to settle within the borders of Iowa ? A fairer, a more fruitful State is not to be foiuul in the Union. The following table of comparison with surrounding States, all of which have licenses, gives the facts of the case : — Iowa IlliiioiH Wist'.oiiHin MiniieHota Nobmska MisHouri I'op. Fop. I'op. 1870. 1880. 1890. - 1.1!M,02(» 1,624,()15 1,9I1,8!« 2,5:«»,891 .•},077,871 3,82(),:C)7 l,Or>4.(!70 1,315,497 I,(i8t5,3!)0 43!».7(Hi 780,773 1,.301,82(J 122.!t!)3 452,402 1.058,910 1.721,21)5 2, 108,380 Per 2,079, ItW Per Cent. Cent Gain Gain Gain Gain 1870 1880 1870 1880 to to to to 1880. 1890. 1880. 1890. 4»),;)95 287,271 .S6.(H) 17.t» .537,!»80 748.18(t 21.18 24.32 2(iO,827 371,38;j 24.73 28.23 3tI,(HJ7 ■")21,(),-)3 77..57 m.ii 32JI.40!) ()(Hi,.T08 267.82 131.04) 447,085 570,804 25.97 23, .'w Iowa ... - - Illinois - . . . WiHconsin - - . - MiiinoKota Nobraska .... MisHouri Will anybody exjjlain the decreased immigration into Iowa and the increased immigration into all these neighboritig states, north, south, east and west, and leave out the prohibitive law as the factor. Twenty-seven counties actually decreased betweeti 1880 and 18!)0. Illincjis increased three times as much as Iowa, Wisconsin went ahead of her by nearly 100,000, Minnesota's increase was about double that of Iowa, wicked Missouri's more than double, while over (iOO,000 people travelled across prohibition Iowa to get into licensed Nebraska. Again take the statistics as to poverty in Iowa. In 1880 the proj)ortion was 717 paupers in almshouses per million of population, whiie in 1890 the percentage had increased to 848. In other words, in 1880, with a population of 1,624,015, Iowa had 1,105 persons in her almshouses, in 1890 with a popula- tion of 1,911,890 she had 1,021 paupers. In 1880 the ratio was one pauper to every 1,;W4 inhabitants, while in 1890 after a term of Prohibition, there was one pauper to every 1,178 iidiabitants. ^ Nt)w take the figures as to insanity. The Superintendent's reports of the State Asylums show as the average number of patients in two selected years as follows : (year ending 30th .1 une in each case). 1883 1891 Motmt Pleasant 518 793 Independence ...-..-- 552 810 Clarindo, not open in 1883 309 1,070 1,912 S tl ti t(j an re a (In we oft( wit 8tr< wli ieii gre thi a hJ 47 The Ntiiteiiient in iiimlu in connuctioti with Ihu iihovo : "In mlditioii to th« niiinltur i>f iuKtmu oontiiiud in tliu lioHpittilH theru wuru, on .liino .'U)tli, IKHl, 7<')7 |»iililii! inmiiH! ciiivd fov in tlm vuriouH coiintioH, and wixty-Hix priviitc iiiBiino pursonM. Furty-ninti of tla- coinitioH Imil county iiMylinns whore inciimliluH wero continud. Prueticidly nil, if not lill of thu county iiHyhnim hiivo liuun l>uilt Hinco IHH;{ in ordor to rolimo tho Statu AsyluniH itf tho incuriiltloH. The total insano in thu Stato hoHpitals at tlio t>nd of tint last hiennial puriod wan l,*.)r>K, and the total in tho Statu 'J,7<>l." Of coursu [ do not charyo this onornioUH inuruuHo in iuHanity to Pi-ohil)ition, hut na thu prohihitionistH havu niiHcii tliat iHHUu thuy are wolconiu to thu concluMions to ho duiivuld indiscn. 'uately by men, women and children, and drunkenness thu most debasing is prevalent and continuous. I have no hesitation in saying that in Portland, e; en under the strict rule of Shurifi' (viam, money can buy immunity frt)m the law every time, and in sayintr this I do not wish for one moment to reflect U{H)n Sheriff" Cram, whom I judge tried his bust to enforce the law. Perhaps the most amazing tiling to me was to find reputable citizens api>ear l)eforu the Commission and " profess " ignor- ance of what the slightest investigation nmst have revealed to them. 1 recollect sitting in thu room while the Commission was in session and hearing a witness testify that no licjuor, or j)ractically noli(pior was .sold in the Portland drug stores. I got right up, walked across the street to the nearest drug store, went in, j)urchased a bottle of whiskey, no ld ^OOO or $800 worth the day before 4th July and closed at six o'clock — mostly to people going out of town. Drunkenness is very prevalent in Portland, but the arrests for drunken- ness are no criterion. The police do not arrest if they can conveniently avoid it. We have evidence to that effect and what I saw w( uld confirm it. I never saw such beastly disgraceful exhibitions of drunkenness in any city on Sunday as I saw in Portland. Before noon, for attacking the i)olice, drunken men were being handcuffed and carted ott" in the patrol wagon, and in the late afternoon and evening (went out to Orchard Beach at noon) plenty of drunks around, fights in the park, etc. — no policeman. Next morning saw fourteen of these men sentenced ; don't believe they reprysented one in twenty of the visil)le drunks. Neither morning paper menticmed the matter, evening paper simply said so many drunks so disposed of ; must have been the regular thing. Such 13 trade. If they ;l liiivior saw the people have Ji le down [ly. A ed and Ito mad- lot hurt people. 3d at I |runken- |ly avoid I never Sunday lien were fternoon iround, )f these le visible |r simply Such 49 a state of affairs in Toronto would have raised a howl that could have been heard from one end of the comitry to the other. Drunkenness in I'ortland does not excite remark it is so counnon, even the death of a man found lying on the street through an overdose of " I'ortland S[)lit " created no excitement and was given only a {)aragraph in the newspafiera. I have spoken about official corruption. While we were in Portland seizure was made of liijuors in two hotels. The licpior was seized and taken to the Police Station. Neither j>arty was fined. Two sheritis officers nuide a descent upon a hotel in Maine with a search and seizure warrant. There was a bar run- ning in the hotel. Tji(|Uor of any kind was served in the rooms and at the tiible so that there nmst have l)eena large reserve stock somewhere within the place. At the very time, I, witli another gentleman, was at dinner in the dining room, and we were having a pint of Bass' ale with our .iieal. Perhaps a dozen or twenty others were having li(iuors at the same time with their meals. The sheriff's officers searched the house and four.d nothing, and returned the war- rant. I have reason to believe that 875 was what it cost upon that occasion. The proprietor of one of the leading hotels outside Portland told me it cost $150 each to three officers to run an open bar during the season. 1 saw the open bar running, t myself have s 3en sheriffs officers drinking at the bar with other people, and liave no doubt of the truth of wliat I was told ; that everywhere except Bangor the officers have to be tipped. Now let us leave Portland for a while. Augusta, the capital of the State, is a very pretty place. The Augusta House has a bar that is o[)en all througli the session of the Legislature, day and night, and never closes. I have this on the authority of the proprietor who introduced me to the place. In the sununer time the bar as only open when it is needed, as the Augusta House, being somewhat away from the centre of the town, is not a i)lace of general resort, except when the Legislature is in session. In the down town lu)tels the bars I'un all the year round. L was in two of them. A peculiarity here is that restaurants are not interfered with if they only sell beer, conseciuently half a dozen restaurants along the main streets have bars with beer pumps and all the attachments for serving beer, but supply nothing else. In (Jiie of them I asked for si)irits, the proprietor obligingly came with me to the door and piuited out tlie drug store at which 1 could get what I wanted. I counted thirteen of tliese restaurants in the town during the course of an hour's walk. Drug stoi'es do the general li((uor trade outside the hotel bars, but there is a great deal of private importation, so 1 was informed. The proprietor of the Augusta House told me tliat he knew of only two members of the State Legislature who did not drink some, but he thought that a great many of them only drank when away from home. Bangor. — Here we had a return to the Iowa system, only with somewhat better regulations. The saloons ai-e wide open, but are required to close on Sunday. As a rule I tliink they do so, though the bar in t'le hotel at which i stopped ran on Sunday the same as any other day. The saloons are very numerous in this town. I counted five in succession on one street, and fourteen in a block and a half. There is of course no pretence of concealment, from the highest to the lowest. Out of curiosity I visited the City Agency. The old gentleman in charge sold me a bottle of li(pior without going through the formality of getting an application of any kind, and in conversation complained l)itterly that the saloons were destroying his trade, although he held tliat he had still the best class of customers in consecjuence of selling the best quality of licjuor. There is mighty little hypocrisy as far as regards the licjuor business in Bangor. Pittsjield. — A place visited by the Commission in search of a town where- in the Maine law was strictly enforced. It is a little place with one liotel. You either stopped at that hotel, or you lay outside. The hotel sells liquors to (4) 60 guests, and to residents of the better class and the teni[)eranco people there, according to the landlord knew it. He said he would close the hotel if he could not sell to his guests, and as a matter of fact, the hotel was closed for a time before he took hold of it. The gentleman served us innnediately after our arrival with whiskey and apollinaris, and with Nuremberger beer imported from Germany, all oil" the ice. It will l)e observed that a jjoor 'lass of li(juor was not ke})t here. 1 have reason to believe that there were two other places sell- ing lifjuor in that village at the time we were there. jV!)itlirop.—\ mi.ssed the visit to Winthrop, having g(me back to Portland to study that citj upon a holiday, and also f(ir the purpose of obtaining some additional evidence with rtigard to < )lil Orchard lieach. 1 got back to I'ortland late at night, and I may say that the drunkenness in that city the following day exceeded anything T have ever seen of the kind in eitlier Canada or the I'nited States. OrcliKid licaih. — Wiiut caused me nmre iiarticvdarly to visit this sununer- ing place, was the statement of the Hon. Neal Dow that no li(iuors were sold there. On the train many of the passengers had bottles, and the newsboy was hawking about lewd illustrated pa] lers that were jtrohiliited in C'iinada. The season was not then practically open, but I put up at a hotel which had a bar and was furnishing liquor at the diinier table. Visiting an;>ther hotel 1 was also shown the bar. On the occasion of the 4th July, in four or five hotels which 1 went into, all the bars were wide ojjen. Places along the street were selling openly. At tl~ j race track there was a l)ar as long as a house, o])en to every- body, and croweled with people drinking. A j)ool room was running in connec- tion. So nuich for Old Orchard Beach, which, as far as I can learn, has always been the same. Returning to Portland the drunkenness there had increased during the day and was something amazing. They were selling l)eer even in the Grand Trunk station so openly that nobody ])assing the door could fail to see it. I never saw as many drunken men upon a train in my life, as 1 saw on that train that took me to Lewistou that night, and many of them were otieusively drunk. Leiriafon.- This place can be disnu.ssed in a tew words. There are about 'AOQ places selling liipior, and 1 saw lots of them myself. There is no troiible whatever about getting it. Bid(li*idd. — Here I went to a drug store and jturchased a bottle of litjuor without being asked any (piestions. I did the same at the City Agency. This ended my investigation in Maine so far as .actual experience Avent, but 1 may mention that on the road to Boston, at the place in New Hampshire where the train stopped for lunch, there w;is a large dining-rfiom in the station, and the bar run all along one end of it. Apparently in that place the prohibi- tive law of New Ham])shire is not better observed than the prohibitive law in Maine. It is claimed that in the ruial parts of the State the law is well enforced. I have no doubt that places not large enough to support an hotel do nf)t have sale of liquor, but t'le same is ecpially true of the Province of Ontario or (.^luebec, and proves not ling. The farmers of Maine, as the farmers of Ontario, do not, as a rule, drink to any extent, but if they do, they have the towns to supply them, and in Maine it is literally true about freezing one barrel of cider to strengthen up the other. Take the Internal Ileveni e tax receipts for the dirterent towns. T have abstained from statistics which 1 know are already in your posses- siim. They tell their r)wn story of drunkenness not diminished, of i)opulation at a stand .still, of industries decayed and died away, of (jrisons and alms-houses tilled, and I ask you to compare these with Ma.ss!\' luisetts or New York or Pennsylvania, or our own province of Ontario, and see if you will not find the contrast between decay and progress. 61 OTHER STATES. Kir I'ceil. 1 ave sale l.^)nel)ec, do not, supply cider to for tlie posses- luliition s-houses 'ork or tiiid the While we hear a great deal about Maine, Kansas and Iowa, and consider- able less about Vermont and New Hanij)shire, where the law seems to be practically a dead letter, and still less about the Dakotas, where the cyclones mayhap have driven the Prohibiticmists into the cellar, how is it that we hear so little of those other states which have tried Prohibition and rejected it ? Arc we to learn nothing by the experience of these other great connnonwealths ? Mlchi.)t be collected ; it was declared that every person injured by such sales shoidd be able to sue the seller and recover damages ; that owners of the buildings should be also liable ; that any lease of premises where liiiuor was sold could be declared forfeited ; that every act of selling should be a separate offence, punishable with fines not exceeding $100, and imprisonment up to six months, until the liability of every li«pior dealer in the state would aggregate perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars and imprisonment for many lifetimes. Com- mon law rules of evidence were changed to make convictions easier, and the simple solicitation of any intemperate person to drink subjected the inviter to the penalties jjrovided for the seller." It all went for naught. The law soon fell into contempt, produced the greatest of evils ; saloons were run openly in defiance of the law, and were upheld by public opinicm. Two years before the I'epeal there were 8,500 saloons in the State, and the condition of affairs became intolerable. Then the temper- ate and law abiding peo])le lianded together against the extreme Prohibitionists, and the groggery keepers, and the ol)noxious law was 8wei)t away, lieing replaced by a moderate license law. A writer says : " Within a short time 2,000 of the lowest groggeries in the State were swept away, offences against public peace and order decreased to a marked degree, and the licjuor interest, which for twenty-five years had paid no taxes to the Stiite, was made to bear its fair share of the ))ublic burdens." The following table, giving the number of licjuor dealers in the last five years of Prohibition, and the first five years under license, would seem to bear out this assertion in part, and speaks for itself : Liquor Dealers. 5.020 ■ 5,095 5,8i6 8,t88 0.392 - - - - 5.680 4.828 - 4,.S84 - 4,.'i05 4,373 Michigan is now under a high license law which lias still further decreased the number notwithstanding that the population has increased since 1870 over 66 per cent. 1870- Prohibit ion 1871 *' 1872 ** 1873 ** 1871 ♦* 1875- License 1876 '• 1877 ** 1878 ** 1879 *' 62 A Prohibition aniendment was 8ul)mitted in 1H87 .and was defeated : for 178,03(5, against 184,281, majority 5,()4r); total 3(>2,i>l7 — vote at nearest im- portant election, 380,855, therefore did not vote 17,i>38. Michigan has a local option featnre for counties. In 1890 (animal report Auditor (ieneral) only four counties under local option. Of these counties. Isle Royale is the islandof that name in Lake Superior, and has a total population of 135 who heroically deprive themselves of the open saloon ; Manitou County is a group of islands in Lake Michigan with a total po[)ulation of 8<)0. Van Buren and Kalkaska, the other two, have neither of them a town of 2,000 peo])le. (Hillsdale County, now said to he under the law, hut not enforced. Local option apparently does not work in Michigan any better than Scott Act in Ontario.) MASSACHUSETTS. Massachusetts, with its great institutions of learning, its great manufactur- ing industries, its great ]topulation, its great lawyers, doctors, professors and engineers, has tried Prohibition, returned to license, and is determined to stay there. In 1852 a law was passed which was declared unconstitutional, enacted a general })rohibitory law in 1855. This lasted until 18()8 when it was re[)ealed, aiid restored the following year. In 1870 a " free beer " amendment was car- ried, which was repealed in 1873. The election in 1874 was decisive against Prohibition, and the law was finally repealed in 1875, local option being added in 1881. In 1880 a vote was taken (jn a constituticmal amendment which was overwhelmingly defeated, the vote standing : for 85,242, against 131,0()2 — ma- jority against 45,820 — total vote judled, 210,304; at nearest election 344,517. In this State was tried the experiment of an nidependent State Police so often talked about to enforce the law, l)ut with no success. They were appoint- ed in 18(55, but the opposition to the law developed to such an extent that in 18(57 a joint connuittee of the two Houses of the State Legislature was ajjpointed to en(juire into the whole subject. If the Commission have not a copy of that report they .should try to get it. The connnittee rejxa'ted that the number of arrests for drunkenness in Boston had increased under Prohibition from (5,983 in 1854 to 15,542 in 18()(), and they concluded as follows : " That the time had come when this prohibitory law —unsound in theory, inconsistent with the tra- ditional rights and liberties of tlie peo])le, tempting to fraud and protecting those who commit it, in many connnunities not enforced because oi thorough disbe- Hef in its princi{)les, in other commuiuties when enforced driving the liipior trattic into .secret ])laces, and so increa.sing rather than diminishing the auiount of driuikenness and other crime -should be so far modified as that the rights of the citizens will i)e respected, while at the same time the general peace and order of the conununity will be [)romoted." They gave a detailed license law. Eight members signed this ; four signed a minority report in favor of Prohi- bition. When Prohiltition was before the people in 1889, six out of eight college' presidents in the State spoke against it, 88 clergymen signed a manifesto in a Boston ])aper against it, and 127 jdiysicians of Boston signed a published protest. At the I'residential elections in this State votes were cast for the Prohdiition candidate as follows : (Massachusetts casts from 350,(KX) to 400,000 votes.) 18S4 1888 1892 lo.im 8.700 7,500 mm CTaaH 58 At the uloctiouo for Governor tlie Prohibition votes cast were : 1886 4.714 1886 8,251 1887 10,945 1888 9,374 1889 - - 15,108 1890 13,554 1891 - - - 8,968 1892 7.067 This is the record of I'roliibition in the great cominonwealtii of Massachu- setts. Bhode Island. — This little State has inade three trials of Prohiljition and three times given it up, the last time by a decisive majority. The tirst Prohibi- tary law was passed in 1852 and continued until ISli."!, the second was passed in 1874 and lived one year. The third was fi constitutional amendment submitted to the jjeople in 1886 with this result: for 15,11.'^, against 9,2;W, majority 5,883. In 1889 another vote was taken with this result : for 9,1)5(5, against, 28,315, majointy against Prohibition 10,3.59. The history of the three years of Prohilution, resulting in lie | nor being sold in an immensely greater number of places than under license is too long to be related here, but T beg to lay before the Connuissi(jn an extract from the report of the i»r()ceedings of the 10th annual meeting of tlie charity oi'ganization society of the city of Newport in this State, published in 1888 : — i'rohi- coUege* ito in a )rotest. nbition tes.) 10,(H)0 8,700 7,500 RKl'OKT CHARITY 0R(}ANIZAT10N .SOCIKTV NEWPORT, K.I., 1888. A difticulty encountered by our visitors with increasing frecpiency during the past two yeai's, and one likely to become still gruates, is the sale of li([Uor in dwelling houses. Our [)olicy has l)een, when the fact is well-ascertained, to bring it at once to the attention of the person visited and to cease visiting unless a promise is given to innnediately stop the objectionable and uiilawful [)ractice. Of course we endeavor to see that the [tromise is ke[)t. There are cases now under our care where there are uncomfortable and well-founded sus- {)icions that such practices prevail, but where. Nevertheless, the evidence is not sufficiently clear to justify the termination of our oversight and care. That the gravity of the situation in this regard may be a|)parent, some facts of a general nature may l)e stated. During the efficient administration of the office of mayor for the past three years in this city, the sale of liipior has jtractically l)een driven for our public streets. It may fairly be .said that there are no open saloons here. Yet the evidence that large ([uantities of licpior are brought here and sold is un([ues- tioned. By accounts officially kept, it appears that the importation of liipior has largely increased during the past eighteen months ; that by the Old Colony steamboat company alone, during the past summer season, from f(jrty to two hundred barrels of kegs, cliiefly of malt licjuors, arrived here daily. During the nine months of 1888, from Februaiy to ( ictober inclusive, there were in New- jxirt 127 ser.rches for and seizures of licpiors on warrants in buildings where it was alleged to be sold. Eighty-cme of these were in dwelling houses kept by fifty different persons. This shows that there were re})eated seizures in several cases. The remaining forty-six searches were in stores and small shops kept by seventy-one different persons, many of which places were innnediately adjoining to or connected with the dwelling houses. Eleven of these seventy- one persons were women. The reports of police officers, as well as the state- ments of those whom duty calls to visit such localities, show that these places which have been raided, do not constitute a majority of those where li(|Uor is sold. Indetid, there is a good reason to believe that there are strec^^s where liquor has been sold during the past year in nearly every house. Many of these 54 peoplo hiivo nover sold before, nnd tlie daugliter.s of some of them are in our laomos as servanta. They are easily led into it. A friend and neighbor has perhaps started in upon the business, induced, it may be, l)y the lil)eral terms of the wholesale dealer, who is reported to put in the iirst barrel on credit, to be jKvid for when sold. The example is contagious ; here appears to be an op[)ortunity to make a little money in a hcmsehold where s])are [lennies are not over-al)undant ; the moral forces are not strong enough to resist the temptation ; such scruj)les as e.\ist again.st the wretched business go by the board, and soon, ])erhaps, the majority in some little neighborhood are engaging, to a greater or less extent in this miserable employment, and if it is thus asy for pers(Mi8 removed from pressing want to take up the l)usiness how much easier is it for those u})on wh(mi the burden of extreme j)overty bears heavily. "If I d. Respectfully submitted. Edmund Tweedy, president ; F. W. Tilton, vice-president ; J. T. Burdock, treasurer ; M. S. Burdick, .secretary ; Jipsejjh P. Cotton, William P. Uutl'um, John H. Crosby, jr., William P. Shettield, jr., Darius Baker, Ainia F Hunter, Andrew K. Quinn, Catherine White, K. P. Wormeley, M. Downing, M. T. Berry, from the Dorcas Society ; Lydia Melville, from Townsend Aid to Aged ; P. (J. Hammett, from Home for Friendless Children ; Emily B. Chace, from Flower Mission. OTHER STATES. Making reference to the other States in as short SDace as pos.sible : Delaware passed a prohibitive law in 1848, which w'as declared unconstitu- tional, and has never been re-enacted. Minnesota tried a prohibitory law as far back as 1852, but soon gave it up, and is now a steadfast higli license State. New York — In 1853 the Legislature passed a i)rohibitory law which (iov. Seymour vetoed. In 1855 another law was passed, but declared unconstitutional. Not tried since. Connecticut passed a prohibitory law in 1853, and ke[)t it in operation until 1874 — voted on and defeated a constitution.al amendment in 1889. Indiana pass( 1 a prohibitory law in 1855 ; courts ecpially divided on its constitutionality ; Ijecame a dead letter ; lu^thing since. Nebraska and Illinois passed prohibitive laws in 1855; don't know how long they were kept in operation, but both have been replaced by license laws, and both States have since defeated constitutional amendments, Illinois 1880, Nebraska 1890. Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, Tennessee and Texas defeated pro- hibitive Jiniendments in recent years. Ohio carried Prohibition in 1883, but it is a dead letter. % 5b ; in f)ur l)()r has 1,1 tonus edit, to I be an are not [)tati()n ; d soon, eater or persons is it for 1 dcjn't lan once presence lot only )ni these )al)ilities I (loj^rad- i kitchen e sugges- ing. < )f ganizing, 3 and life Bnrdock, Bnffinn, Hunter, ig, M. T. to Aged ; ice, from H(3W THE VOTES STOOD. The votes on the prohibitory aniendiiient to the State constitution have been as f(jllows ; iconstitu- iive it uj), lich (Jov. :itutional. ,tiou until ed on its huw long laws, and ois 1880, jated pro- Kansas Iowa Ohio Maine Itliodo Island . Michigan Texas Tonnossoo Oregon West Virginia Now Hanipshiro Massacliusctts Pennsylvania . . Rhode Island . . South Dakota . . North Dakota . . VVa!-.hin>jton Connecticnt .... Nebraska Yoa'r. For. Against. Majority For. Majority Against. 1880 91,874 81,0.37 7.8.37 1882 155,13(5 125,(577 29,749 1883 323.189 240,975 82,214 1881 70,78;{ 23,81 1 4(5,972 188(5 15,113 9,230 .5,8;53 1887 178,(53(5 181,2S1 5,(515 1887 129,270 220,(527 91,:«7 1887 117,.")01 145,197 27,(593 1887 19,973 27,958 7,98.5 1888 11,(5(58 7(5,5,55 34,887 1889 2.'>,7«(5 30,970 .5,290 1889 85,212 131,0(52 45,820 1889 29(5,(517 484,(544 188,027 1889 9,95(5 28,315 10,359 1889 39,.T(»!t 33.1,5(5 (5,0.5.3 1889 18,5.52 17,393 1,159 1889 Ut.'ilG 31,489 11,943 1889 22,3/9 49.974 27.595 18!K) 82,296 111.728 179,817 29,432 48(5,033 In other words seven (7) States in the ten years adopted a prohibitive amendment with combined majorities of 179,817, while twelve (12)) States rejected the same with 48(5,().'33 combined majority. Of the seven, Ohio, with its 82,214 majority, must be taken out of the ranks, leaving the actual working combined majority le.ss than 100,000 in favor of Prohiljition in six States. If Rhode Island, which has voted both ways, but with much the larger majority against, be t;Uven out, the total figure is reduced to less than JtO.OOO. The populati5 12,041,298 269,299 I do not know that I have anything further to say under this head. 56 THE FOURTH (JREAT QUESTION. We now come to Question 4. "The effect that the onactmeiit of a Pro- hibitory li<|iu)r law in Canada nould have in respect of : (d) Siiriiil roiiditioii.s. (b) A(fric\iU\ir(il hnsinesa. (c) Indnstrifd uml Commeirud interests. (d) Revenue reililii of efficient enforrenient. Taking these in their order, we liave first to consider the eti'uct of a prohi- bitory law upcm social conditions, liy this 1 assume is meant " would there be an improvement in the social condition of the j)eople if a prolul)itory law were passed. The prohil)itionist will answer this ((uestion glibly enough. He will tell you that drunkenness and poverty would disappear, crime would be almost unknown, the jails would be emptied, policemen would be out of a job, the burglar would beat his "jiunny " into a ploughshare and the barkeeper turn his corkscrew into a jjruning hook. Unfortunately your I'rohibitionist, especially if he be a " Rev." or a "Prof." is not to be held accountable for his state- ments. I have before me, as an example, a statement made by Rev. Ward B. Pickard, at Toronto, on Nov. 20tli last, who said : Wliererer the liiptov trojfie is enconroijed proMitfition [iroirs. Onutlm lios o t}ioiiso)id dollcr license, and in C07inectio)i tritli o Uirije nnmlier ofs(doons are houses of prostitution. This absurdity was .started by " Prof." Dickey and " Rev." Sam Small, two brilliant Prohibition lights, out in Nebraska at the time of the Pi'ohibition con- test there. T knew it had travelled around a good deal since, but mu.st confess to surprise at hearing it rejjeated by a gentleman such as Rev. Mr. Pickard. In the light of morality and decency Omaha is as much ahead of his own city of Buffalo as can well be expressed. In the same way, the Prohibititmists' talk about the improved social ccmditiou of the peo})le under Prohibition is usually the vaporings of some ilemagoge or fakir, uttered a long distance away and thereafter gravely repeated by every side-line, lodge-room orator until it actually gets to be acce])te(las a fact, whereas the slightest investigation wt)uld prove its absurdity. The facts, proven by statistics are that drunkenness is greater, crime is greater, infractions of the law are more numerous, while general prosperity is less inuler a prohibitive than under a license law. This being so do we not at once arrive at the true effect of a prohibitive law on social conditions. Now for the facts. Prince Edward Island, ofi" o\it by herself in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, inider total Prohibition for the Island, increased her convic- tions for breach of the liipior laws from four in 1880 to 90 in 1891, and increa.sed the ctmnnittals for drunkenness from 260 in 1880 to .311 in 1891. The only thing P.E.T. did not increase was her po|mlati(m, which practically remained stationary. Nova Scotia, with Prohibition everywhere outside the city of Halifax, but with open sale in many of the counties, increased the convictions for breach of the liquor law from tifty-flve in 1880 to 118 in 1891, drunkenness 677 to 635. New Brunswick, the banner Pn)hibition province, increased the convictions for breach of the litpior laws from 36 in 1880 to 245 in 1891, and the convictions for drunkenness from 850 to 1628 in the same period. Quebec which is claimed to be from one-third to one-half under Prohibition, had 839 convictions for breach of the liijuor law in 1880 and 434 in 1891 . Drunken- ness 1,348 in 1880 and 4,199 in 1891. Now take Ontario, which is all under license law. In this ju-ovince the convictions for breach of the li(iuor law were 1,089 in 1880 and 1,220 in 1891, but in 1886 under the Scott Act they were 1646, in 1887 under the Scott Act 2,664, and in 1888 under the Scott Act 3,108 67 dropping to 1,982 in 1889 when the Scott Act went out, iind to 1,1.'U the follow- ing yeiir. ConvictionH for drunkennesK in Ontario were 6,282 in 1880 imd docroasod to 4,973 in 1891, but in the Scott Act years the Hgures were : 1884 — 4,<)94 ; 1886-5,868; 1880 5,4r);5 ; 1887- 6.2(X) ; 1888— 6, (KW , 1889—7,059. Manitolirt convictions for breach of the iiijuor license laws decreased from sixty- two in 1880 to eleven in 1891, and convictions for drunkenness from 526 in 1881 to 518 in 1891. Now Prince Edward Island increased in [)opulation in the last census decade 0.18 per cent. ; Nova Scotia 2.26 per cent, ; New Brunswick (►.02 j)er cent. ; Quebec 9.53 per cent. ; Onter cent. The North-West Territories returned 83 employes in industrial establish- ments in 1881 and 1,081 in 1891. British Columbia had 2,871 in 1881, and 11,473 in 1891 -iui increase of nearly 300 per cent. Ontario increased the number of her industrial establishments by 8,970 and her emiiloyes by 47,027. New Bi-unswick increased the Hrst by 2,302 and her industrial population by only (),087. P.E.I, made the great gain in the ten years of 2,139 to her industrial population. Compare the increase in Manitoba and in British Columbia with any Prohibition j>rovince, section or state in America, and it will be found that the advantage by a long way is on the side of the Canadian license provinces. Kansas increased in pojtulation from 1880 to 1890, 43 percent. Iowa in the same time increased 17 per cent. Manitoba, without a tithe of the advantages of these older States, increased 148 per cent. Maine only increased 2 per cent. Kansas had more prisoners in 1880 than 1890 (given elsewhere). Ontario had 11,300 of a jail poi)ulation in 1880, and only 9,011 in 1892, At the State Reform School, Tojjcka, Kansas, the ii mates numbered (June 30th, 1890), 18() ; June 30th, 1892, 220— a great increase. Ontario's Re- foruiatory— Sept. 30tb, 1890, 201 ; Sept. 30th, 1892, 168— a most gratifying decrease (all under KJ years go to l)oth of these). This table also tells a story ; — Kansas Iowa Maine Ontario jpulation. No. licenses to sell liquor 1890-91. 1,172.096 1.911.896 0»i 1,086 2,112,989 - - 3,336 6,871 ' - " - " 1,256 I 58 In lowH, in 1H!)2, the liiiuor Hnos colloctod funonntod to ^Sd.HHS ; in On- turio, l£t2M,>'U(i. In lowu the cimt (if jtnmecution wuh $^(>^)i),2. (Head [)p. (» and 7.) The views of In- spector Chand)erlain I take to he worth recording. Cst gratifying circumstance. Lest it may be said tluit under a pro- hibitive system still better results might havfe been obtained, I wish to point out that during this jieriod we h.id the Scott Act, for a time, over three-fourths of the Province, and that dining that proliil)itive period the counuittals f to 181)2 incliisivo, and this iiicludoH priHonerH of till ugos iiiid soxeH : Tot)il uoiiunittinuiitB to gaol in fchu I'rovinco of Ontario in the yours niontioned ((»f nil iiyos), year ending .'iOtli Sopt. : I87(i l«77 187H l«7!) IS«() IHHl 1S«2 I8K1 1884 1885 1882 ii,2»n 13.481 i2.o:ui II, '-'20 ii,:i(H) 9,22S» il,(i2(l 0.880 12.081* 11.426* 10.(545 11.017* 12.454' 12.631' 11.810 10.423 9,011 Hero, again, 1 would call attention to the break in the good progresH being made during the Scott Act period. From 1877, the year after the Crooks' Act came into force, there \va.s a steady diminution in crime until that miserable ])ro- hibition lawcamo into force. Then crime sprung uj) to greater ])roportion8 than ever, and so remained until the law was re[)ealed. It has taken fnnn that time until this to get bacK to the conditicm of affairs w,e were in in 1881. .fust that length of time did the Scott Act set back the cause of temperance. Coming to the Central Prison, where the more serious ott'enders are incarcer- ated, what is fcjund t I have here the committals to that prison ever since its foundation. There is a most gratifying decrease in conuiiittals, yet here, again, the greatest number of committals the Central Prison has ever known in all its history was in the celebrated Scott Act year of 1887, when every ditticidty in the way of the Act had been settled. Population of Ontario— 1871, 1,020,851; 18i»l, 2,112,989; increase in jjopulation in that time, 492,i;{8 ; an increase of nearly one-fourth. The daily average in custody for the year 1982 was .'^21. Central prison committals during the following years : 1874 (year prinon started) 1875 1870 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1881 - 1885 1886 - '887 \S88 ■ 89 1,..M 1891 1892 370 426 (»7 655 636 5(57 560 745 767 669 723 761 594 862 669 739 715 674 *Scott Act term. 60 Coiniiiittud Niiiiiluir duriiiK at cloHO of Year. Your. «() 211) - 90 2.VI 84 2ti3 ■ S 249 242 . 61 220 64 2(» - 00 102 78 103 • 85 210 63 201 • 68 185 67 168 PKNKTANOUiailKNK Uh^FOIlMATOIlY. 1880 - • - 1881 - 18K2 18811 - 1881 - - ■ I88A .... imi 1887 ... 1888 -. . 1889 - imt 1891 . 1892 - • . Nearly >vn hundred loss in 1H!)2 thiin in 1882, conaidoral)ly overatliird Iohh. The figures for the Reforniatory at Penetnnguisheno are such an must grati- fy everyone. I'pon them I need oH'or no comment. Anotlier hraneli of the subject I do wish to touch upon. Prohibition is to make everybody happy, till everybody's pocket, give* everyone employment, empty the poor houses, and turn the jails into factories. 1 have here in the following table the committals for vagrancy in Ontario from 1877 down and side by side with it, as an ol)joct lesson, if you will, I beg to repeat the list of committals for drunkenness : 1877 1878 1879 188(1 1881 1882 18K3 1881 1885 188<) 1887 1888 1889 18!Ht 1891 1892 Druiikand Vagrancy. Disordisrly 3,888 1,032 . 2,.52» 3.78.5 2,.J3(5 3,581 ■ 2,210 3,795 1,580 3,.328 • 1,119 3.497 l,5i)4 3.895 . 2,130 4,0.50 2,4-).5 3.(«t0 - 2,2W S.iVV." 2,192 4.130 - 2,:«ll 4.551 2,104 1.797- ■ 1,9.58 4., 573 1.877 3,t>14 - 1.775 2,73« Again I would ask you to note the Scott Act years. This matter of the committal of vagrants is, however, wortliy of another thought. It is this feature which swells largely the committals to gaol in On- tario. That I may be understood I have made a condensation from the specific reports of the Insi)ector (year 181)2) showing the nuiuber of inmates of gaols ;vt the time of his visit and the numl)er who were there as vagrants, with mention of one or two other matters. A vagrant is ostensibly and technically a hxise, idle and disorderly person having no visible means of su[)port, but in nine cases out of ten he is an unfortunate and not a criminal. This shoiUd be constantly borne in mind in comparing cnir "criminal' class with the criminal stiitistics of other countries. The extracts I have made read : *Scott Act years. 61 Harrio Hoi-lln •• (2) Holluvlllo . " (2) ... limn If Old .. '■ <^* ••• itraiiiploii „ " <2) ... UriK-k villi) „ " .... Perth " (2) Plcton Pomhroko Potorborougli . . . Port Arthur .... Parry Soiuul .... Kat Portage .Sinicoe St. Catharines . . Sarnia Stratford Sandwich (2) St. Thomas Sault Sto. Marie Toronto Walkorton WdodHtock VV'elland Whitby Prisoners. Vagrants. 22 10 6 1 4 16 81 e »2 1 'l 1 itiHane. 8 1 10 trespass. 6 1 Insane. 3 2 1 idiot. 2 1 I Idiot. 2 • • assaidt ami drunk and a iliHonlrrly. nuui and daughter. incest and infant icl bulky tol)e placed upon the record, are b»>me of them very curious and instructive. The statistics of the Penitentiary at Kingston are in line with those of the Central Prison and county jails. Jn the year ending HOth June last the num- ber of convicts in this institution decreased 51, and in the previous year there was a decrease of 54. Inspector Moylan in liis last refjort says that " the falling otf for some years past in penitentiary p(.,;alation is a subject for rejoicing," with which sentiment we will all agree. It may be worth noting that while Ontario's penitentiary population decreased 51 last year, Quol)ec's remained ab- solutely stationary, Dorchester increased six and Manitoba decreased four. British Cohnubia increased 15. Indians, lialf-breeds and Chinese form a con- siderable proportion of the convicts on the I'acitic slope. In 18!)2 the penitentiary impulation of Maine was 170; Iowa, 438; Kansas, 902; Ontario, 481. Ontari.-. has 200,000 more poi)ulation than Iowa, TOO.tMJO more than Kan.sas, and nearly four times as nnich as Maine. I think nothing more need be .said as to the relation of Prohibition to crime except in this general way. Intemperance undoubtedly produces S(mie crime, l)ut Prohibition does not reduce intemperance, and therefore does not reduce crime. On the other hand it greatly increases certain classes of crime, and by bringing law i..to c(mtemj)t increases the probability of crime being conmiitted. At one t;me a judge said that 5*5 per cent, of all crime arose tlu'ough drink. This statement has done duty with our Prohibition friends ever since, yet a more untrue assertion could not well have been made. Statistics ju-oveit to be false ; hi.story proves it to befaLse ; common sei'.se shows it to be al)surd. Yourtenjperate Chinese is the rankest thief in the world. A drunken Chinaman is an unknown thing onthePacihc Coast, yet 28 Chinese are in the British Columbia Penitentiary, and all for serious crimes. Yourabstemious Spaniard will plunge a knife into yt)ur vitals witli as little compunction as he will eat an onion. Italy is a temjierate country, yet its criminal po])ulati2. Ontario has about seven times the popubitioii of N.H., giving the latter in ratio of poi>ulation, 4,214. Maine's yearly average increased from 7") in 1850 to ()8r) in 18!M-2. Iowa's in- crease I from 1,070 in 1884 to 1,912 in 1891, but these figures do not tell the whole story for Iowa, (iovernor B(iij/ for the four years ending June 30, 1889, was 1,511,619 bushels. The yearly average jiroduct of barley in Ontario for the past nine or ten years is twenty-five bushels per acre. The amount of barley for brewers' purposes would, therefore, take the product of 60,460 acres yearly. Or, the entire product of 604 farms of 100 acres each devoted entirely to barley. But, on an average, only one-half of the farm is devoted to grain, th« balance being taken up with bush, pasture, fallow, hay, roots and waste land. If the grain part of the farm were devoted entirely to barley it would take the product of 1,208 farms to produce the supply required by brewers. Allowing five to a family and one farm laborer to each farm, 7,248 of our agricultural population would be devoted to raising this supply of grain. But the average amount of grain land used in the raising of barley is in Ontario only about one-«ixth, as shown by the report of the Ontario Bureau of Industries for 1893 : It will be seen that as barley bears its fair proportion to the five great cereals (fall wheat, spring wheat, oats, peas, barley), the barley produce of 7,248 farms would be left without a pui-chaser by the enactment of a prohibi- tory law. This would mean a loss of one-sixth of their income from grain (counting five to a family and one farm laborer to each fa.Tu) to 43,488 of our farm ])o])ulation. This pertains only to the brewery business. In addition, Proliibiti(Mi would mean the entire loss to tlie farmers of the corn product of Essex, which is purchased by Hiram Walker ife Co. Further, the distillers purchased and used in the last year 273,045 bushels of rye and wheat, 136,407 bushels of barley, 46,884 bushels of oats. Add these all together and an idea of the loss to the farmer will be something like this : — Amount of grain used, calculating 400,000 bushels as the quantity of corn purchased in Ontario : 2,350, 0(X) bushels. •■. 'erago price, say 50c. per bushel : 31,150,000 tliat would be lost to the farmers ■ i grain yearly. But this is only one item. Take hops, for instance. Theamnunt of ho])8 used in 1891 by brewers and distillers was 1,507,336 lbs., which, at an average of 20c. per lb., would mean 8301,467. The amount of hops imported that year was 606,464 lbs. It may, I think, be fairly calculated that the amount of Canadian-raised, hops used for 67 other purposes would ecjuivl the importation, leaving the hop-grower of Canada A deficiency in hia market, if Prohibition were passed, of the amount quoted above. Then take the (juestion of the feeding of cattle at distillerio* and breweries. The figures in this item are as follows : — Cattle fed. netu\. By Distillers - By Brewers ■ 10,000 9.000 19,000 Cost of cattle. J400.000 360,000 $700, CKX) Tons hay. 12,500 11,250 Cost hay. 1137,500 123,760 23,750 9261,250 Th farmer would lose a market for 19,000 head of cattle, valued at ^760,0(K), and 2.'},750 tons of hay, valued at §201,260. In addition, he would lose the sale of the fodder for all the teaming and truckage of brewers and dis- tillers, which must mean a very large amount. The eit'ect of a prohibitory law upon the agriculturist who produces grapes and apples for cider may be fairly calculated. The great bulk of the grapes pro- duced in Canada are made into wine. They must either be made into wine or rot. At any rate, 41 industries, emj)loying 150 men would be destroyed, and in cider 175 industries, eni[)loying 321 men. And finally calculate the loss to the farmer when an enormous number of men are thrown out of employment and their wages gone, as would be the ease under Prohibition. There can '^e only one conclusion as to the ett'ect upon agricultural interests — it would be most disastrous. The farmer woidd be hurt, and hurt badly in his surest point— his home market. It is argued that other cro[)s could l)e substituted for barley and hops ; that changed conditions would be met by changed methods. This talk is fallacious ; supply is only the result of demand. A man is not going to eat more wheat because he cannot take bar- ley in a liquid form, nor will he devote himself assiduously to the consumption of beef because he cannot sell his cattle. When he cannot sell his barley or his ho[)s or irrapes or cattle advantageously he is injured, and anything that tends to prevent him thus selling to advantage is to him an injury. Moreover, I say as a practical farmer — as one who has had practical experience in the growing of gr.vins and in the feeding of cattle, both upon the farm and in distillery stables, that l)oth barley and cattle are what are known as " ready money" products. IJarley is a crop only produced on certain lands. It is easily cul- tivated, is the l)est grain known with which to get a good catch of clover, matures early, is a safe crop, is ([uickly harvested and threshed, and can be sold at (mce. It brings the farmer ready money just at the time he most needs it ; the home market is always open to him ; he is not subject to foreign competi- tion ; and he is always sure of a sale. With cattle and hay, the latter can be sold at any time when he is at leisure, and his steers, having looked after themselves during the summer, are ready to be disposed of before the winter sets in. In these he is again not subject to foreign competition. But in both the law of demand rules, and to interfere with that denuuid is to injure him most seriously. I may say, in conclusion, that the excessive duty on malt was the greatest mistake the Dominion Government has made since Hon. Geo. E. Fo.ster has become Finance Minister. I will not discuss that sul)ject here further than to say that it has hurt the barley market in Canada, and consequently the farmer, ten-fold more than the McKinley taritFon this same grain. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL INTERESTS. Under this heading we discuss, perhaps, the most serious aspect of the Pro- hibition propaganda. The proposal is to calmly annihilate a trade, a commercial industry, of most gigantic proportion.^. ( )ur ProhibitioTi friends speak of this destruction as one would say "go to swallow a gooseberry." They speak of "a mem 68 ),000,000 drink bill," as though it were the veriest trifle, and in that "drink bill," as they ai'e pleased to term it, they include a commercial enterprise involv- ing interests which none of them apparently have ever dreamed of, or taken the trouble to enquire into. For the credit of their sanity, I must assume that they speak in ignorance, nor do I wish to be unduly severe, but I may express the belief that if one out of ten of the horde of "Profs." and ";Hons." and "Revs." who swarm through this country advising the people to " stamp out " (a favorite expression) this industry, taking up a silver collection at the door, and living free upon the country, had one five dollar bill of his own to rustle against another, we would hear less of this " stamjung " business and perhaps a little more common sense. Your man who lives by his wits has always the least respect for the honest hard earnings of others. What do these people propose ? The distillers have a jiroperty investment of S4, 933, 210 — wipe it out. They are carrying a stock of nearly 14,000,000 gallons — wipe it out. They have a total capital invested of, say, ^10,000,000 — wipe it out. Brewers have a jjroperty investment of $5,373,564 — wipe it out. A i)robable total investment of capital of over $10,000,000 — wipe it out. A yearly product, the value of which is $5,721, 6(!() — wipe it out. The selling trade have a property investment of $70,000,000 — wipe it out. A value of stock, plant and fixtures of not less than $21,000,000— wipe it out. What difterence whether it be one million or one hundred million — wipe it out. Nearly 40,000 people would be thrown out of employment— wipe them out, too. The yearly loss of wages would be over $10,000,000 — wipe that out also. What are a few million dollars of wages, hardly earned, compared with the silver collection at the door. Now, let us look at the details. The commercial industry proposed to be wiped out is as follows : The loss to the farmers we have already considered. It can be added to the total if so desired, but I am now considering solely the commercial enterprise. Leaving out altogether the total capital invested, there are in distilleries : A property investment of $4,933,210 Stock held, 14,000,000 gallons at say.50c 7,000,000 Total $11,933,210 Which would all be absolutely destroyed. I will discuss the question of any possi})le use that could otherwise be made of this property later. In breweries there is a property investment of $5,373,654. We will throw in any loss of stock on hand for the benefit of our friends. In the selling trade there is a property investment of $70,000,000, which would depreciate $23,000,000 An investment of stock, plant and fixtures (not including furniture) 21,000,000 Total $44,000,000 There is a loss on the feeding of cattle, price between when entered and when taken out, 19,000 at $40, $760,000. (Class this as property). *>!!■• Wine trade, capital $390,475, take half of that as invested in property, $198,237. Cider trade, capital, all property, $30,835. Cognate trades: In this is included such trades as soda-water manufacturers, .Sj'. ers, brewers' and distillers' supplies, coopers, case makers, etc., etc. I have 69 some information on this subject, and place the property investment in these trades that would be lost under Prohibition at a very low figure, at $200,000. From three corks manufacturers I have returns as follows : Property (that would be destroyed), $55,779. See returns. This shows a total property in the trade, and which is cooly proposed to be destroyed, of : Distilleries - Breweries Selling trade t'attle Wine manufacturing Cider Manufacturing Cognate trades Coric trade $11,933,210 5,373,5.54 44,(100,(K)0 76(»,000 198.237 30,835 200,000 55.779 162.557.615 No. of Men. Yearly wages 451 8384.802 - 1.724 774,411 35.000 10.500,000 LW 37,955 175 47.129 49 29,275 100 100,000 37.649 $11,864,572 This sum, it must be remembered, does not represent the total capital invested, but the actual loss, the " wiping out," that will take place if our good friends have their way. Then there are the men who will be thrown out of employment and their yearly wages to bo considered . These figure up as follows : Employed in— Distilleries ..-..- Breweries ...... Selling trades ..... Wine trade .-•-.. Cider trade - . . Corlt trade ...... Cognate trades . - . . - This is a "wiping out" which our friends the Prohibitionists have little studied. These men will be, if they are successful, absolutely out of employ- ment, and their wages will be absolutely lost. The great mass who are going to save ten cents a day by being deprived of their two glasses of beer will have to put up considerable above their savings if they are to compensate for the loss of trade by the " wiping out " process. Take the loss that will ensue in freight rates. The distillerf pay freights, including cattle, amounting to $359,74(J yearly, the brewers ^388,155 yearly — I do not know what is paid in other branches, but here is a total of 8742,901 from these two branches alone. Then consider the freights on imported liquors and on the various supplies that go to hotels. The railways do not look upon this as a small matter. In reply to questions put by me, the three great railway systems have responded as follows : Intercolonial Railway, 1891 : weight carried, 2,427 tons ; freight, $12,376. Canadian Pacific Railway, 1891: weight carried, 27,372 tons; freight, $200,000. Grand Trunk Railway : The general in'inager writes that the company's accounts are not made to show each v; riety of tralHc separately, and to compile it at the numerous stations would take a very considerable time and be an ex- pensive work. "lean say," he continues, "that the traffic in question does represent a very large interest of considerable importance to the company." I may say that the Intercolonial Railway must do an innnense traffic among the Prohibition counties in the Maritime Provinces that does not appear in its true colors. Approximate, too, if it be possible, the loss there will be in passenger travel to the railways, hotels and business houses, for once let it be known abroad that Canada has adopted a Prt)hibition law and tourist travel will shun us as 70 though we liad the plague. Take these and otlier iiiinor matters into consider- ation and it can readily be seen that tlie effect of the enactment of a prohibitory law in industrial and commercial interests would l)e most disastnjus. I have classed the brewery and distillery properties iis a total loss simply because that would be the result. It is folly to talk of turning them to other account. Built as they are, they are not suitable for any other business, and even were they, it would make no difference. There is never progress suffi- cient in a Prohibition country to require them for other purposes. Maine lost over eleven hundred industries under Prohibition in ten years. What did she want with her empty breweries and distilleries for industrial purposes. The breweries oi Kaasas and Iowa, where they have not defied the law, are to-day lying in ruiuK. Prohibition in Canada would cause such a tremendous loss, such an enormous displacement of cajiital, that commercial industry would feel the blow in every branch, and no man now alive would live to see a recovery sufhcient to require a brewery or disfdlery building now standing to be used for other industrial pursuits. It is said that capital would find investment in other channels of trade . Will any man tell me to-daj' of a i)rofitable branch of trade lacking capital ? If so, I will undertake to find hini all the capital he can use. Will any man to-day tell me of any branch of trade that is not producing more than is consumed, and that is not even now being hurt by the keenness of competition 'I If so, I will, in twenty-four hours, find him the caj)ital to bring this branch of business into the keenest competition. It is not one million or five millions of capital that is in question. An enforced Prohibitive law would mean 140 to 150 millions of capital that would either re(iuire prompt investment or be lost. And even if investment could be idtimately found elsewhere, calculate the loss there would inevitaVdy be in tran.sferriiig such amount of caj)ital from one branch of business to another. And when you have the other branch of business you are no better off than you were before. How comes it that no Prohibition State has within its borders a city worthy of the name ? This is a fact. No State or Province in North America enjoying the blessings of Prohibition has a city of 40,000 inhabitants excej)t in Nova Scotia, Halifax, which was built up under license law. St. John, New Bruns- wick, much as that bright little city has .struggled, lost in population instead of gaining during the last decade. Fredericton has been stationery ever since she has had Prohibition, and even Moncton, which grew while openly defying the law, has now been struck by the general .stagnation. Meanwhile, Toronto doubled her population in ten years, Montreal added alxnit 100,000 to hers in the same length of time, and big cities are growing up in the west. Maine has Portland with less than 40,0()0, but when a license State is .struck, there is Boston with 450,000. The most striking example is Iowa, with such paltry towns as Des Moines, Dubuque, Council Bluffs, etc. Bordering this State are Illinois, with Chicago, 1,098,000; Wisconsin with Milwaukee, 204,0U0 ; Minne- sota with St. Paul, 133,000, and Minneai)olis, 1(54,000 ; Nebraska with Omaha, 140,000, and Missouri with St. Louis, 450,000, and Kansas City, 132,000. There is another bordering State, wind swept Dakota, but it, too, is suffering from the blight of Prohibition, and has no town of importance. The same is true of Kansas with Kansas City, Omaha, Denver and other large cities in the bordering States, but no industrial centre worthy of the name within her own borders. Now, why is this ? Why, especially, should Iowa, with all her advantages, be in this position ? Simply because capital, the most sensitive thing in the world, and inmiigration, the next most sensitive thing, will not settle where this constant war is being waged Ijy fanaticism. Capital requires stability, and stability is just the thing that your Prohibitionist cannot have and does not want. The effect of Prohibition would be to bind, shackle and manacle commercial industry in Canada. 71 REVENUE REQUIREMENTS. Revenue reiiuirenients of the Municipalities, Provinces and Dominion, how they are to be met, is the next (question. Let us first, as nearly as possible, ascertain what revenues are now received from the licjuor traffic. Commencing first with the Municipalities I can give the figures exactly so far as Ontario is concerned. The following table gives the figures received by the Municipalities from all licenses and liquor fines since 187(>-7, the time of the inauguration of the Crooks Act : 1876-7 ?281,243 1877-8 24!),1GC 1878-9 22y,!K)2 1879-80 ,.. 269,047 1880-1 271,574 1881-2 2.58,945 1882-3 284.379 1883-4 287,246 1884-5 $28.%.589 1885-6 2M,iXi 1886-7 1.t4,438 1887-8 l,r.,979 1888-9 190.297 1889-90 297,353 1890-1 294.968 1891-2 J89.487 In Quebec I cannot find that any portion of the fines goes to the Munici- pality. In New Brunswick — In Nova Scotia, Halifax receives — In Prince Edward Island there are no license fees. In Manitoba— In the North- West Territory, for the year ending 30th June last, $7,4 U(),019 '2U Total. 95,(>52.5I8 (38 3()7,87C (U !K».i»2,') 10 935,t«i7 (54 $l,819,2d0 00 $2,233,738 03 $7,032,088 12 But to the Dominion will con)e also the loss of the duty on 14,000,000 gallons of spirits at $1.50 per gallon, Jt?21, 000,000 in e(lric- ton, N.B., wiiH one of tliu ]>1iic*uh wliure Huch a olHim wiih made. Theru are at least twenty liijuor Hellurs in Fruderictoii. Each niiiHt Hull in a day to make a living, Hay fifty drinkH this is a very low cHtiinate. That would moan 1,(KJ0 infractiouH of the law. Can one conceive of 1,(MM) thefts in Fredericton in one day and 1,(H)() thu next and 1,(),()0<) liiiuor dealers Bulling fifty times a day ; .'KM), 000 thefts a day — cii\ild absurdity go farther I Tnder this head rufurunce might bu made to snniggling and illicit distilla- tion. The enormous amount of liiiuor-smuggling up the St. Lawrence has C(mi- pelled tho(Jovurnment to go to the uxpensu of practically fitting out warships to defend their ruvunuu. If this would occur with practically vndimited sale of licpjor in the country, what may be expected under a prohibitivo law ? As to illicit distillation, there is no limit to the possibilities if occasion re(|uired. I could make a still for 8-. no that will turn out several gallons of alcohol daily, and undur Prohibition, if it were attempted to bo enforced, the imagination can hardly conceive of the amount of illicit distillaticm that would ensue. GENERAL INFORMATION. *' All other information bearing upcm the (piestion of Prohibition." Under this heading we can properly discuss the employment of men with reference to the (piestion fruipiently asked by the Commission, " Do emj)loyees waste much time througii drink I " I do not think tlrit as a rule any class of employees waste much time because the man who would waste nuich time would soon have nothing to waste but time, for he would very (piickly find himself out of em- ployment. In factories where I have had experience, as well as in sawmills, flouring-mills, foundries and works of that nature, generally speaking, the men lose i)ractically no time tluough thu use of li(pior. I know men, moderate drinkers, who have worked for thirty years in one establishment and never lost an hour througii this cause, and I know hundreds of working-men who are moderate drinkers and never lose time. In a printing-office there is some loss of timo occasionally by those who are engaged in "piece" work ; but I will say this that I have known ])rinter8 to lose much more time going to baseball matches than I ever knew them to lose through indulgence in drink. " Does moderation load to exce.ss?" I think this is very seldom the case, except where excess follows moderation almost immediately. Frequently as time goes on somewhat heavy drinkers become more moderate — in fact, this is almost the invariable rule. There are to my kiKnvledge now comparatively few moderate drinkers who are habitual drinkers. With reference to Sunday closing and the other prohibitive clauses of the license law , reasonable restricticms nmst be welcomed by all and are not dis- tasteful to the li(|Uor-dealers themselves. But it must be borne in mind that people will have what they want, and where infractions of the Sunday-closing law, t)r other prohibitive features of the license law, are found, it is because of the fact that a portion of the community desire to be served contrary to the provisions of the law. That is the reascjn why some places observe Sunday- closing better than others. For example, take Omaha and St. Paul or take Toronto and Montreal. Sunday closing, except where the peo])le are favorable to it, is by no means a success, and upon tliis ])oint I beg to lay before the Com- mission a report upon the Welsh Sunday Closing Act, which will be found profitable reading. It demonstrates that in Wales Sunday-closing led to un- mitigated evils, instead of doing good as was anticij)ated. 75 '* Ih flriiikinK (Iticreftsin),' ? " Dninkmiiiess cortainly is. Drinking apjxir- oiitly Ih not, if <»iu) is to jiul^'o by tiio HtiitiHtics isHUuil upon the Hul)joct. Tho following tahlu, isHuud by the Inliiiul Huvunuu DupHitiiiunt, hIiowh tliiit in the hist twonty-fivt! yours thoro has boon a considoiablo di^cToaHo in the amount of sj)irit8 consuinud, but a very conHiilorablo incnsase in tlio amount of l)oer and wine. Ta))le showing the annual conHumption per head uf the undermentioned articluH paying axciBe or cuntoms duties, and the revenue per head derived annually. Yearn, 1807 1808 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 •1886 1887 1888 18S9 I8iK) 1891 SplrltB. Oul«. Boer. Wine GalH. Gain. 1.621 1.973 .098 l.(K)i 2,269 .174 1.124 2,290 .115 1.434 2.101 .195 1.578 2.490 .259 1.723 2.774 .257 1.682 3.188 .238 l.tH)t 3.012 .288 1.:J1)4 .^091 .149 1.2U4 2,454 -177 .975 2.-m .OiMJ .900 2.109 .090 i.i:n 2.209 .104 .715 2.248 .077 .922 2.293 .099 I.IKIO 2.747 .120 1.090 2.882 .m .998 2.924 .117 1.126 2.(539 .100 .711 2.839 .110 .746 3.084 .095 .645 3.247 .094 .776 3.263 .097 .883 3.3C0 .104 .743 3.790 .111 Average 1.151 2.708 .140 The general supijosition is that drinking has very considerably decreased of lato years. My own improssion is that tho facts as shown by tho table above are correct; that while there is less iuiuioderato drinking than there was yeard ago, there is a more general consumption of li(iuor, especially of beer and light wines. Adulteration. — This evil is much worse than is generally supposed. The increased duty on spirits has led, not only to a groat amount of smuggling, but also to very general adulteration. I know of houses, both in Quebec and On- tario, entirely engaged in tho numufacture of adulterated lic^uors. This is a most serious evil, and ono that the authorities should take strong action against. I should favor as strong a law against the adulteration of liiiuors as could be framed, and have very frecpient inspections. Does reducing the number of licensed ])laces, beyond reasonable limits, de- crease drinking ? Unhesitatingly 1 say no. It results, where a number of places are cut off, in granting a larger monopoly over a more considerable area to the places that are left, in larger numbers of people gathering in those places with the consequent temptation to stay where the crowd is; in excessive drinking, in those places when they are very far apart, through the fact that another drink will not be easily obtained before reaching their destination, and in supplies of liijuor being kept in ])rivate houses. All the facts obtainable go to show that a reducticjn in the number of licenses increases drunkenness instea4 of diminish- ing it, and the cause of this apparent anomaly is to be found in the statements made above. For instance, in Toronto, the Fleming by-law came into effect on May 1st, 1887, and it struck off 74 hotel and 1(5 shop licenses. Three months were allowed to dispose of the stocks, so that the by-law actually went into oper- *Duty increa.sed. mm 76 ation on ^st August. I submit herewith a statement of the arrests for drunken- ness in th^ five numtlis following, for the year 1886 before the licenses were reduced, and for the year 1887 after they were cut off : ARRESTED FOR DRUNKENNESS. August - Scn.bniber Oc. ;i.. - No' (.'PiDer Dei ..ber 1886. 1887 S3tf 472 866 163 312 469 331 36<> 302 375 Total 1,647 2,145 Increase 1887 over 1886 498, ornearly one-third more under the reduced licenses. Further illustrating this subject I herewith submit a table of the total arrests for drimkennesa in Toronto for a number of years : Total number of per- sons av)prchended or eummoned for being Date. drunk or disorderly. 1880 2,873 1881 - - - 2,908 1882 2,974 1883 - - - - - - 3.407 1884 • . . . . 3,544 1885 3.864 1886 - - - - 4,283 1887 5.209 1888 4,882 1889 5,441 1890 5,023 1891 3,768 1892 - - 3,657 1893 - - 3,644 It will V;e observed that the arrests for drunkenness took a very large upward leap in 1887, and the evil effect which thus aror.e from decreasing the number of drinking places cot'tinued tor years, and it is (mly lately that Toronto has again returned to the sobriety that was always one of her chief characteristics. Exactly the same result h's been found in England. The figures there are very inter- esting. In. 1880 there were in England and Wales 110,590 drinking houses, and the conviction.s for drunkenness were 127, CW. Between 1880 and 1890 nearly 10,000 of the.se huus^s were cl'>sed up. Yet there was an increase of over 17,000 in the convictions ior drunkennes.-s in 1891 as compared with 1880. The police returns, wliic'i are very carefully kept in England, show undoubtedly the start- ling result that in districts with an excessive amount of drunkenness, the number of licenses ivere, aa a rule, es[)ecially small, whilst in the districts compara- tively free from drunkenness there were, as a rule, large numbers of licensed houses. I submit herewith for your inspection a statistical liable, compiled by Mr. v. Gui'ney Benham, from which a great deal of information upon this point may be gatiiered. Again, in 1884, the Fedenil Legislature >f Switzerland appointed a Commis- sion to act jointly with the Federal Bureau of Sbitistics in regard to an incjuiry into tlie liqi or tiiffic. The report deals at length with this subject, and arrives at the conclusion that thi.s favorite idea of realising the objects of temperance is not sustained by practical experience. On is point the report reads as fol- lows : " In the cour.se of our investigation we have not found any data uu war- ranting the assumption, now become almost a dogU)a in many places, that the reduction of the number of drinking places tends to restrict the consumption of 77 and the nearly 17,000 police le start - number nipara- licensed )iled by lis point ardent spirits. On the contrary we are constrained to state that we have fre- quently found tlie evil eliects of alcoholism most prevalent in the very localities where the number of drinking places was smallest, an apparent anomaly which finds its explanation in the fact that in the absence of a sufficient number of conveniently located public bar-rooms the people of the localities in question become accustomed to tippling at home, laying in store greater or smaller quan- tities of spirits according to their means. The number of salcons is not a criterion of the consumjjtion of spirits. We hold that a much more effective temperance measure than the reduction of saloons is to be found in all these rules and regu- lations which, by exacting certain securities from pers(ms licensed to retail ardent spirits, render the retailers as a class more respectable, and improve the condi- tion an'l the management of drinking places." I would commend this last senteiiv^v- to the careful consideration of those among our Prohibition friends who hope to increase morality by rendering drinking places disreputable. " The effects of beer upon those who make and drink it." Upon this subject I beg to iay before you a detailed report of an examination held by physicians as to the condition of brewery employes in New York. Briefly the report shows that the percentage of deaths among Lvewery employes is much smaller than the general avei'age. The Biblical side of the question. "Rev." Sam Jones said in Toronto : " If my wife could not live without beer let her die." The CiDiadian Citizen said that the Church which used the fermented wine in the Holy Communion introduced thi' communicant to " the first step m the downward path — the first step of the drunkard." 1 will not attempt to ai'gue with these good people, liut beg to present for the consideration of the Commission "Papers on Prohibition," by Rev. n, a large percentage of the vote is not polled. Take the first name on the list, Lanark township ; only 191 votes were polled out «)f 449 on the list. This year some few nu)nicipalities have jiassed the by-law, but altogether their number is few, the area covered insignificant ; they are almost entirely strictly rural municipalities within easy reach oi towns or largo villages not under tlie operation of the law, and whether the law is observed or not is of very little imj)OJtance. 1 apprehend that the number, even as it is, will decrease rather tlian increase. On the other side of the line the worknig of local option can be studied on a uu)re extended scale. Massachusetts is, of course, the most rigid local option State, and there Cambridge is pcjinted to as an example of the beneficial work- ings of the law in that it has voted against licenses for many years. But Cam- bridge is j)ractically a part of Boston, just as much as is the section of Toronto west of Yonge and north of Queen. In that section there is a population of 35,000 or 40,00() inhabitants who hnw no licensed hotel, and that without the operation of any law. Somewhat similar is the case of Cote St. Antoine in Montreal. Other towns in Massachusetts vary considerably, adopting license ;>«yniliii»M>^ 79 ;ion as to tie town- petition 3ry year, nd of an but stiill luing the certainly , and like inortifica- ition laws e and re- aa to the embered, ich in the ook upon I have not the oppo- the law as hat would ig all this y instruc- e to study lether the ies which jhip I am travellers nd I have le subject profitable that time years up ;he otticial as in all lot polled, re polled altogether entirely illages not is of very 1 decrease studied on )Ciil option ciiil work- 15 lit Cam- f Toronto (Illation of ithout the vntoine in i>.g license one year and no license the next, in some cases with remarkalde regularity. Some of the rural districts adopt license, some refuse it, some vary. The whole thing is largely a matter of politics, but in addition, if the law had been designed for the purpose it could not be better adopted for the furthering of private revenge and the working out of private spleen. While in Missouri I made some study of the working of local option there. This State passed the law in 1887, and the by-law was in the same year adopted in thirty-nine counties and eleven towns. Very few elections have since been held, while tlie by-law has been set aside in thirty-three counties, and, I think, in all the towns. In some cases, the by-laws were set aside on technical grounds, in others by a direct vote of the people. As nearly as I could judge, the law worked something like our own Scott Act and was disposed of on the same grounds. Where it is still in force the statement is made that it is a dead letter. It is now in force in, I believe, only nine or ten out of 116 counties. I have already referred to Michigan, which has retained the law in only four counties, two of whicli are composed of islands in Lake Superior, and all of which are of inconsiderable population . Wisconsin has a local option law in force in several counties, but my infor- mation is that it does not work at all well. A Law and Order League organized to destroy the liquor tratHc has destroyed itself. In the west, Colorado Springs, a city in Colorado of 10, (KX) inhabitants, is frequently mentioned. No saloons are licensed, the titU-deeds forbidding it. I have seen the statent t that the hotel sells to guests under the sanction of the general community, and that the drug stores are not liotliered if they do not sell in less quantities than a quart. What is certain is that Colorado City, lying contiguous to the Springs, has no lack of saloons. As to the working of local option in California, we know. Texas is retjuired ))y the Constitution to pass a local option law, and has done so. Some few counties have tried it and repealed it. My acquaintance with Texas leads me to believe that in that State the Prohibition sentiment is not strong. Several of the Southern States have adopted local option as a measure of defence against the negro population. It is only enacted in the rural districts where the white population is sparse, in towns it is not used. In Kentucky, where it ie in use, in the south, where ulie large negro population is, enquiry leads me to l)elieve it is not very success- ful even in preventing the negroes from getting drink. In Virginia where local option was passed in 188(5 there was at first a sweep in its favor, but the law has since been largely if not a!mt)st entirely repealed. Maryland has local option of a pincemeal character. I cannot ascertain that Prohibition is in force in more than one county thougl) several have tried it, but I must confess my information is not very exact. Now we come to Georgia, which has done more in the Local Option way than aiiv otlier State. There is no official return on the subject, but apparently — I speak on the authority of residents -m.iny rural municipal- ities have adopted and retained it. The towns and cities have not. The "ncfrro question " is what predcmiinates here. A very large "jug" trade is, however, done with the whites. In all of the Southern States there is undoubt- edly a great deal of illicit distillation. The City * Atlanta was under this style of Prohibition from 1885 to 1887. The rej)eal coni,.,8t was an exceedingly hot one, and if one-half of what was said about the effects of Prohibition in .\tlanta was true, this instance shcjuld be a warning to other cities. At any rate, Prohibition was carried by 226 majority and two years later was repealed by 1,128, every precinct in the city voting against the measure. Finally we come to South Carolina with her State Dispensary I aw, a curious jinuble of the (iuthenbiirg system, LocalOption, State control, and State profits. The whole thing is a medley. For instance, the law is an outcome of an agita- tion for State Prohibition. But instead of the plebescite which is now the , r-fnti rinftri*.-^-" . 80 favorite fad of our Prohibition friends they took a separate vote of the Demo- c atic voters at the State primary elections of 1892. The other party were not apparently consulted in the matter at all. 88,500 votes were cast at these primaries, 70,500 voted on Prohibition and the majority in its favor was 10,000. But 18,000 had refused to vote on this question, and Legislature notin<^ this made the compromise of the State Dispensary. In other words they close the saloon and take over th« -business themselves. Unlike the city agency in Maine, however, they tix a good round profit of somewhere between 75 and 100 per cent, which is divided, oi:e-half to the State, and the other half equally between the County and the nnuiicipality. There is thus a direct incentive to the dispenser to sell all he can. Local option comes in, in that a municipality so voting may not have a "dispensary." Prior to this. Local Option in South Carolina had been a decided failure, and I should like to have an opportunity of visiting this State a year hence. I have been told that already the law- is practically a dead letter in Cliajlestown. Generally siieaking Local Option appears to work very well where nobody wants to drink. If anybody wants to drink he will have it. If there are enough of this mind to make it pay they will have a saloon, law or nti law. It simply comes back to the first principle of a free people- -whatever any consid- erable portion of the community want they will have. If the Prohibitionist wants Prohibition he can have it so far as he is personally concerned, if the other fellow wants a glass of beer he will have it so far as he is personally con cerned. COMPENSATION. On this point I may be allowed to offer a short argument. The whole scheme of Prohibition is founded on the alleged necessity of, in the matter of the consumption of lifjuor, making the rights of capital subservient to the pub- lic welfare. It is not denied that the manufacture and sale of liquor are lawful rights until restrained or forbidden by the Legislature. The restrictions placed upon the manufacture and sale of li(juor are not because there is anything abstractly wrong in the trade, but because of the idea of protection to a certain class of society. If no one used liijuor to excess restrictions would be unneces- sary and Proliibition would never be heard of. The idea of restriction is to j)revent as far as possible the excessive use, while the idea of Pnthibition is to prevent any use whatever. Not being abstractly wrung, it follows that those engaged in the trattic have a right, and the only justification for interference with that right would be urgent necessity. How urgent that necessity must be to justifj' interference with admitted individual rights, is what each one must determine for himself. But the gravity of such measures will not be lo.st sight of by thoughtful men. Mr. C(>oley in his valuable work on Constitutional Li: litations says : " The trade in alcoholic drinks being lawful, and the capital employed in it being fully protected by law, the Legislature then steps in and by an enactment based upon general reasons of public utility annihilate the traffic, destroys altogether the employment, and reduces to a nominal value the property on hand. Even the keeping of that for the purposes of sale becomes a criminal ott'ence, and without any change whatever in his own conduct or employment the merchant of yesterday becomes the criminal of to-day, and the very building in which he lives and conducts the business, which to that nioment was lawful, becomes the subject of legal proceedings if the statutes shall so declare, and liable to be proceeded against for a forfeiture." Now granting that the public good demands a prohibitive law, does it follow that tbo public good demands that the brewer or distiller shall bear the losfi thus caused ? The property which cost hnn, say $50,0(X), is now worth $10,0(X). He has given up ^40,000 for the public benefit. He has not done this voluntarily, but wmmm mammas. '■"■^'-•- 81 by compulsion of law. This sum has been taken from him as a penalty for no offence. His business was just as lawful the day before the Act passed as that of the dry goods merchant. Even more he had the expressed license of the Government. Therefore this S40,0()0 has been taken from the individual against his will for the public good. I do not think it can be successfully con- tended for one moment that any public necessity can justify the taking of a man's ])roperty against his will, and for no otience of his own, without compen- sation for that projjerty. Consiiler, for instance, when the public take from a man an acre of land by exjjrojiriation. His right is to keep his land. Public necessity compels him to give it up, but it has never been held in any country, or under any form of law that public necessity recjuired that he should lose the value of his land. In fact the most stringent regulations are made in his behalf that he shall recf)ver to the last dollar the value of the property expiopriated for the public good. Tt may be contended that the property of the distiller or the brewer is not taken by the Government. True, the Government does not take away the property but it takes away the object of its existence, and in saying to the manufacturer, " You must not use this property for the only purpose for which it is of any use,'" the Govern- ment as effectually deprives him of it, as though it had been exproj»riated and the owner prevented from entering therein. The compensation given by the British Government for the abolition of slavery in the West Indies isfre([uently referred to. In this case, however, the claim for compensation is much stronger than even that of the liberation of the slaves. Slavery was founded on a false principle, was inherently wrong, and in that case compensation might have been refused because the end sought to be obtained, was the righting of a gross wrong. Nutof 10,07>iin 1890; 388 out of 12,394 in 1891 ; and 311 out of 10,270 in 1892. . ii Canada and New- foundland 44 out of 1,626 in 1890, 26 out of 1,846 in 1891, and 37 out of 1,682 in 1892. Lack of capital is the great cause of business failure. CONCLUSION. 270 I am, therefore, opposed to Prohibition because : (1) It is wrong in theory and impossible of effect. (2) It contempl.ates a tyranny that cannot be justified by even the good its promoters ostensibly seek. (3) It increases the evil sought to be removed, and develops other and far greater evils. (4) It is based upon an atrocious injustice to a large section of the com- munity, and boundless lirigandage towards a large, legitimate trade. (5) It is fostered by gross exaggeration, moral and scientific error and im- moral and unchristian lioctrine. (6) It breeds perjury in the courts, knavery in politics, unrighteousness in the pulpits, and contempt for law among the people. (7) Where attempted to l)e enforced it destroys a reputable and open traffic only to drive it into the hands of the most disreputable cla-sses, robs the com- munity of those wise restrictions they are content to submit to, opens the way for v/holesale adulteration, gives free play to all that is evil in the traffic and offers opposition to only that which is good. (8) Under it crime increases while prosperity decreases, drunkenness in- creases while immigration decreases, it destroys industry while furnishing ready avocation to the blackmailer, the bootlegger and the professional Prohibition agitator. (9) Itasks,for its success (which it eventhenfails to attain), powers notgranted under any other law, robs the citizen of a fundamental principle of British law, viz., that he shall be held guilty until proven innocent; elevates to the magis- trate's bench men utterly unfit for the position, and in whose hands justice be- comes a mockery ; depends for evidence to convict largely upon the .scum of creation — the base professional informer, the character assassin, and the social thug who betrays his host through the very means by which hospitality was oftered. (10) It robs the young man of his manliness and his morH.) sense, and devel- ops in him sneaking, quibbling, lying or open defiance of law ; where aV/tempted to be enforced shields him from the temptation of the open saloon but initiates him into the mysteries of the disreputable "joint," the unsavory "dive," the mmmtmm Bk: 84 crossness of the kitchen bar, the dangers of the "jug" and "bottle" brigade and the drinking club ; when not attemi)ted to be enforced faimhanzes hyn with open, constant, flagrant violation of the law until he loses all respect for the majesty of the law. , (11) Professedly designed for the moral regeneration of man, it throws aside the Word of God to take in hand the policeman's club. (12) It is based upon a false assumption, presupposing a condition of attaira that does not exist. (1.3) it deprives the country of a large revenue under false pretences. (14) It is unchristian, unjust, unworkable and unnecessary. ■^\ v-m.-m^... brigade tiiin with for the b throws of affairs ' "" |-|irT-iM.a„.m-iri-n'rii:.'.i~-.<.vj , ;-|.j...,.o,'»i, ■ ^