IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 /c 
 
 % A^^.. 
 
 ^> ^^ <r>^ -#5^ 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 lalM |2.5 
 ■^ liii 12.2 
 
 [Ska i— 
 
 HUu 
 
 II '-'^ 1'-^ 
 
 
 I.I 
 
 1 
 
 L^ 
 
 - 6" 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 M 
 
 \ 
 
 :\ 
 
 \ 
 
 
 23 WIST MAIN STREfT 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SS0 
 
 (716)S73-4S03 
 
 
 h 
 
A, 
 
 ><i' 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/iCIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions/ Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Tschnicai and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attnmpted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'ii lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details 
 da cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibiiographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, cu qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thode normaie de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 □ Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture d« couleur 
 
 □ Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture ondommagio 
 
 D 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculAe 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 r~~| Coloured maps/ 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en coulsur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other thar* blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autrf; que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations an couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Ralii avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distornion !• long de la marge intirieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouttes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaiss^nt dans le taxte, 
 main, lorsque cala itait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6ti filmies. 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagies 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restauries et/ou pelliculies 
 
 r~~l>^P3ges discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 lie! Pages dicolor^es, tachetAes ou piquies 
 
 □ Pages detached/ 
 Pages ditach^es 
 
 r~~y' Showthrough/ 
 ULJ Transparence 
 
 □ Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality inigale de I'imprassion 
 
 □ Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplimentaire 
 
 □ Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 □ 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc.. have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, 
 etc.. ont ^ti filmies A nouveau de faqon i 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 D 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplimentaires; 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 y 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduceci thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 L'exempiaire film4 fut reproduit grice i la 
 giniro8it6 de: 
 
 Archives of Ontario 
 Toronto 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Archives of Ontario 
 Toronto 
 
 Las images suivantes ont M reproduites avec Ifl 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition st 
 de la nettat* de l'exempiaire filmA, et en 
 conformity avec lea conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol —^(meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Lss exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier eat imprimte sont filmte en commenpant 
 par la premier plat at en terminant soit par la 
 demiire page qui com porta une ampreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, seion le cas. Tous les autres exempiaires 
 originaux sont filmto en commenqant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la derniAre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 demiire image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — *>signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc.. may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand comer, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Lea cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmto A des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour atre 
 reproduit en un seui cliche, il est fiim^ A partir 
 de Tangle supirieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas. en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m^thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
mr 
 
 yn 
 
 -zc. 
 
 I 2 ff 
 
 u 
 
 THE 
 
 SCOTT ACT REVIEWED 
 
 FOR THE BENEFIT OF FARMERS 
 And other Persons Interested. 
 
 At the present time, when so much is being said and done to 
 deceive the Farmer in regard to the operations of the Scott Act, 
 it becomes highly necessary that a plain and unvarnished statement 
 in connection therewith should be placed in his hands, so that he 
 might be able to determine for himself the best course to pur- 
 sue — whether to oppose or support the adoption of the Act in this 
 district. And in order to accomplish this object the more effectu> 
 ally we will now proceed to show how the operations of the Scott Act 
 well affect our A.gricultural population generally. In the first place, 
 we may state that the census returns of 1881 show that the popur 
 lation offthe whole Dominion was then 4,324,810, distributed accord- 
 ing to provinces as follows : — 
 
 Prince Bdward Island 108.891 
 
 Nova Scotia 440.672 
 
 NcwBronswiok 321.233 
 
 Province of Quebec 1.369.027 
 
 Ontario 1.923.228 
 
 . Manitoba 65.964 
 
 British Columbia 49.460 
 
 North-West Territories 66.446 
 
 • .^__— ____ 
 
 Total 4.324.810 
 
 The increase of population during the decade preceding the cen- 
 sus of 1881 was within a fraction of seventy thousand a year, so 
 that taking a somewhat higher ri»tio of increase for the past three 
 years, we may very safely assume that the total population^of the 
 Dominion ia now 4,600,000 souls. According to the last census 
 the population of all the cities in the Dominion, and of towns hav- 
 ing 5,000 inhabitants and upwards, was 560,110. If we add there- 
 to their probable increase for the past three years, and the smaller 
 town population, it may safely be assumed that the city and town 
 population of the Dominion now stands at 700,000 souls, or a little 
 over fifteen per cent of the whole total. And thus we see at a 
 glance that the Agricultural or rural population of the Dominion 
 stands to the population of the cities and towns in the proportion of 
 within a fraction of sue and a half to one, or|in other words, of 
 a1x)ut 86 to 15 in every hundred. Those who take the trouble to 
 
look closely into the matter, will find that the real and personal 
 property of the country districts stands in very neai'ly tlio .Siiuie 
 ratio to the real and personal property of the cities and towns that 
 the population does. Hence it will be seen at a glance, that the 
 agricultuial population of the Dominion constitute-. Its true back 
 bone, both as regards numbers and real, and personal property,- and 
 ^ill be affected by its adversity or prosperity to a far greater extent 
 than its city and town, population combined. Let our farming 
 friends beai* these plain and easily understood facts well in mind. 
 
 The total revenue of the Dominion, according to the Public 
 Accounts Blue Book for the fiscal year ending June 30th 1883, 
 was $36,803,668.95, derived from customs duties and various other 
 sources. Of this revenue the amount accruing from the internal 
 excise on spirits and malt liquors, and the customs duties on im- 
 ported liquors, stood as follows : — 
 
 Excise on Spirits.. . ^3.862.099 84 
 
 «• MaltLiquor 5.434 32 
 
 " Malt 401.905 89 
 
 Total Excise duties ^.269.440 05 
 
 Duties paid on imported Wines and liquors of various 
 kinds 1.887.72G 95 
 
 Total $6,157,167 00 
 
 The revenue of the Province of Ontario during the year ending 
 Dec. 31st, 1883, was as follows : — 
 
 Received from 'Dominion Government $1,333,569 42 
 
 Keceived from all other sources 1.357.715 57 
 
 Total revenue. 
 
 $2,691,284 98 
 
 The expenditure of this Province during the same year was 
 $2,887,037 73, or $195,752 75 more than the receipts. This defi- 
 ciency the Ontario Government seeks to make good by imposing an 
 additional duty on liquor licenses, so as to increase the revenue 
 derived from that source from $96,460 50 in 1883 to probably 
 double that amount this year, as will be seen from the Act Chap. 35 
 passed at the last session of our Local Ijegislature. In addition to 
 the revenue derived by the Ontario Government from liquor 
 licenses it may be safely assumed that the various municipalities in 
 the Province will receive $600,000 more from the same source, mak- 
 ing a total altogether of $800,000, or about 40 cents per capita of 
 the whole population, computed at two million of souls ; and at the 
 same ratio the whole Dominion would give a local government 
 and municipal revenue, derived also from the same source, of $1,- 
 840,000, which added to the Dominion revenue will show a total 
 annual revenue of $7,997,167, derived from the mannfacture and 
 importation of liquor and(sale of licenses. And in this c >nnection 
 it should be remembered that a very considerable part of the spirits 
 manufactured in this country is exported to France, Spain and 
 Italy, »o be used there to fortify brandy and various grades of 
 wines, while the Ganadian cujstoms duties on wines, and on nearly all 
 
 other 
 
 woalt 
 
 wine! 
 
 orabh 
 
 wliic 
 
 aunuti 
 
 for 
 
 may 
 
 large 
 
•;: W' 
 
 8 
 
 other imported liquors, are not paid by the farmerfi bnt by the 
 wealthy classes in cities and towns which chiefly oonsiniie those 
 wines and liquors. The Farmer is therefore relieved of a consid- 
 erable part of the burden of the Dominion expenditure, and of 
 v^hich part he would otherwise have to pay 85 per cent 
 annually. As in the case of tobacco, which produced a revf^nue 
 for the past fiscal year, of $11,885,536, the duties On licjuors 
 uiay be rejfarded as a tax levied on the luxuries of life, and being 
 largely psiid by the rich falls lightly on the bulk of the coranumity, 
 and in ()oint i fact makes less taxes for them to pay. 
 
 Let ou trming friends sit down quietly, take up their pencils, 
 and figure out the question for themselves. S\ip[)0SH, the Scott 
 Act people succeed in getting the Act adopted in a number of 
 counties, and that they are thus placed in a position to go to the 
 general government (as they state emphatically they design to do) 
 and demand a prohibitory law for the whole Dominion, and get 
 that law, who will have to Diake good (for made good it must hv) 
 the huge gap of nearly eight millions of dollars in the revenue of 
 the country. Out of whose pockets w^ill it come 1 That's the rub ! 
 If our agricultural population rej)resent eighty-five per cent, of the 
 population and property of the whole Dominion they will have to 
 pay eighty-five cents in the dollar of the loss to the public revenue. 
 They cannot get out of that financial box in any shape or form ; 
 and they will either have to make the deficiency good by 
 direct taxation, or otherwise, as the wisdom of Parliament may 
 provide ; but made good it must be, as the Dominion requires the 
 money to meet its fast increasing expenditure. And precisely in 
 the same way eighty-flve per cent of the direct loss sustained in any 
 county, or group of counties, where the Scott Act is adopted, will 
 have to be made good by the farmer, directly or indirectly, while 
 the more wealthy classes who now pay a large proportion of the 
 revenue derived from the Customs' duties on impoi-ted liquors will 
 only have their share of the fifteen per cent to pay when th^t im- 
 portation ceases, so that their taxes will be decreased, while the 
 taxes of the Farmers will be increased in the same ratio. 
 
 But the direct loss is not the only one which the Farmer will 
 have to sustain fix)m the adoption of prohibition. He will lo.se a 
 home market for all his bright barley, of which the Ontario Faimer 
 now grows several million bushels annually. He vill lose a 
 home market, also, for his rye, and the loss in this way will take a 
 very large sum annually from his poc'--*. Breweries and distilleries 
 fatten a large amount of cattle for i a foreign and home markets : 
 that industry will disappear, and the farmer will lose the sale of 
 those cattle. Breweries and distilleries give a large amount of 
 employment, and represent a large amount of taxable property. — 
 Shut them suddenly up, and the workmen will all have to be dis- 
 charged, and can no longer buy food from the fanner ; and the 
 property ijeoomiog valueless will r»o loc er pay taxes. The country 
 will beuonie so much the poorer; and the farmer will have to pay 
 
eighty-five per cent of the loss, indirectly of course, but it will come 
 out of his pocket all the same, j^ And will whisky be kept out of 
 the country 1 Not a bit of it ! With some three thousand miles of 
 Yankeedom lying along our Southern boundary, all the able-bor^ied 
 men of the Dominion were they to be strung along that boundary, 
 would not be able to keep whisky out of the country ; whileTillicit 
 stills would abound in{every direction. Al the same time, the whole 
 community would be in constant turmoil, quarrels and disturbance 
 would prevail from the Atlantic to the Pacific; and the terrible 
 struggle would throw society back half a century. Strung as 
 Canada is like a thin strip along the frontier of the United States, 
 prohibition means the transfer of the liquor trade from this country 
 to Uncle Sam's territories, and the cause of temperance would only 
 I'ecede instead of advancing, and because all influential public senti> 
 ment would soon cease to be at its back. 
 
 But farmers would suffer also in various other ways. When they 
 travel to market now the country tavern gives them food for 
 themselves, and accommodation for their horses, at very moderate 
 rates. The Scott Act will close up all these places. In market 
 towns farmers can get their dinner and a stall for their horses for 
 twenty-five cents. When the Scott Act passes the town taverns 
 will have to close up or double their rates, and the farmers will suffer 
 no small inconvenience in this direction. But this is not all. — 
 When the license revenue disappears, and the Scott Act comes to be 
 enforced, and there will be no fund to enforce it, the License 
 Inspectors' salaries and expenses will still have to be paid ; and 
 while the Ontario (Government will only pay one-third of those 
 expenses, the local tax-payers will have to pay the other two-thirds. 
 And our farming friends will finu also that they will have a good 
 deal more to pay before they get through ; and the question of direct 
 taxation, not only for the Dominion but also for Provincial purposes, 
 will be the burning one for *them, by-and-bye, just as it is in the 
 United States at this moment. Let prohibition become the law of 
 the land, and the lightly taxed Canadian Farmer will no longer 
 exist amongst us as hitherto. Out of the total loss to the public 
 revenue, of some eight million dollars each year. Farmers will have 
 to pay eighty-five per cent of the whole loss, or $6,800,000, inde- 
 pendent of various other burdens which must necessarily be imposed 
 on the proi)erty of the country. 
 
 This article, designed for the information of our farming friends, 
 is as long as our space will permit, and we must now bring it to a 
 close. Our figures and statistics are all derived from Dominion or 
 Ontario Blue Books, or from sources otherwise beyond dispute. We 
 have made no attempt to cook them up in any way. We have 
 endeavored to put them before our readers in the simplest and 
 plainest form so that they might be easUy understood, and we now 
 leave our farming friends to work them all out for themselves, and 
 to make up their minds what they had better do. Of one thing they 
 may rest assured, and that is that Prohibition, local or general, 
 
 all 
 
l^rhile it tntist lamentably fail to advance the cause of either religioti 
 or true tea perance will teiiibly derange the finances of the whole 
 country, will seriously retard its prosperity, and will set, in one way 
 or another, the community by the ears. Peonle cannot be made 
 moral, or temperate, or religious, by proscriptive laws. Moral 
 suasion and sound religious teaching can alone efiect a true refor- 
 mation now as in Apostolic times, and when clergymen abandon 
 the example of their great Head in this respect, and essay to be- 
 come the masters instead of the teachers of the community, they 
 abandon their vantage ground, and will be sadly crushed by the 
 reaction which will ensue sooner or later. This is the lesson which 
 all history teaches. 
 
 ■ <•» ' 
 
 The Scott Act and Prohibition 
 
 KEVIEWED IN A LETTER TO THE "GLOBE," 
 
 FROM CHARLES RICE, ESQ., OF PERTH, 
 
 Clerk of the Crown, 
 
 Perth, (Lanark), July 19th, 1884. 
 
 "The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither 
 advise nor submit to arbitrary meauures." — Olobe motto jrom "Juniua." 
 
 Sir, — It is evident from the movement set on foot in different 
 
 parts of the country by the advocates of prohibitory liquor laws, 
 
 that the Dominion of Canada has once moie to paf>s througia the 
 
 ordeal of one of those waves of fanaticism which at different times, 
 
 but with a ceitain degree of periodic fatality, and with yaried 
 
 measures of resultant evil to the people, have, at one time or another, 
 
 swept over every civilized nation in the world. Well-meaning men, 
 
 witnessing certain classes of evils among the people, become actuated 
 
 by a laudable desire to remove those evils ; and the evils of intern. 
 
 perance being probably more prominently noticeable than many 
 
 Others of much greater nagnitude, jaturally attract and invite the 
 
 attention of those classes of minds unaccustomed to look beneath 
 
 the surface of things, and who are dominated by emotional impulses 
 
 rather than cool reason. Their mode of cure, originating in the 
 
 emotions, becomes first a hobby, then a craze, and finally culminates 
 
 in persecution and measures of arbitrary despotism. With the ex- 
 
 ample of those before them, who adopted that most expeditious 
 
 and effective mode of silencing a man who tells unpalatable truths 
 
 by cutting off his head, they jump to the conclusion that the only 
 
' 
 
 
 « 
 
 true oUre for the existing intempemnce is to stop the sale of spirit- 
 uoits liquor, forgetting that the manafacture and sale are but the 
 inevitable outcome of the operation of the inexorable natural laws 
 that regulate and govern supply and demand. So lon^ as hunmn 
 nature craves and demands a stimulant, hun:an beings will invent 
 and manufucture one to meet that demand, hU the Scott Acts and 
 ])rohibition liquor laws in the world to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 Let the deiuand cease and the supply will stop itself. No one will 
 waste labour and capital in producing an article that nobody wants ; 
 but so long as everybody (or nearly everj body) wants it, somebody 
 will produce it. To reason with men dominated by a hobby or a 
 craze would be a sheer waste of time — as well try to reason a 
 hypochondriac out of his delusion. I have no hope of influencing 
 such men, but there are others just as well-meaning, upright, 
 honest, and conscientious, if not more so, who may bo induced to 
 pause and think, ere committing themselves to the support of a 
 system of sumptuary penal laws which, wherever tried, and iinder 
 whatevex name, have invariably produced vastly more evil than 
 good. 
 
 The Scott Act prohibits the sale of spirituous liquors except 
 (1) to druggists licensed to sell it again under certain restrictions, 
 and (2) in quantities. of not less than ten gallons to be forthwith 
 removed out of the county, and any adjoining county in which the 
 Scott Act is in force. The licensed druggists are permitted to sell 
 in quantities of not less than one pint (1) on the requisition of a 
 clergyman for sacramental pui*po8es ; (2) on the certificate of a 
 physioiam for medical purposes; (3) on the certificate of two Justices 
 of the Peace for mechanical purposes. And here the question 
 naturally suggests itself. If the sale of spirituous liquois be such 
 an unmitigated evil as the Scott Act assumes it to be, why submit 
 the druggist and his clerks to the temptation of keeping large (juan- 
 tities of it in stock for salel Are they not entitled to the protec- 
 tion of the law from the danger and temptation of becoming 
 drunkards 1 Why sacrifice the poor druggist to save the poor gutter 
 slums'? The clergyman's certificate will procure an unlimited 
 qnantity of wine. What is to prevent him and his elders or 
 deacons or trustees from ordering enough to supply all their private 
 wants] The physician can procure any quantity of spirituous or 
 fermented liquors on a certificate that it is required for medicinal 
 purposes. What is to prevent the physician and his intimate friends 
 in this way getting all the liquor they want 1 Two justices of the 
 peace — the Scott Act only entrusts as much discretion in this matter 
 to two justices as to one clergyman or one physician, which is rather 
 hard on the justices, some of whom are respectable, honest men — 
 but two justices can at any time procure a supply of the ardent by 
 simply certifying that it is required for mechanical purposes. They 
 can get a mechanic to join in the pool just to keep up appearances. 
 But here a strange anomaly comes in. The certificate alone of 
 justice number one is not worth the paper it is written on ; the 
 
IP 
 
 cfirtiticate of justice number two ifl equally worthleaa ; but the two 
 worthless certificateH joined into one become good and validauthov- 
 ity for the sale of any quantity of spirits ] Two worthless nothings 
 under Scott Act ethics become a very important something, and the 
 whole contains vastly more than all its parts. If the joint certifi- 
 cate of two justices is sufficient to warrant the sale of a pint of 
 spirits, why not simplify matters a little and make the certificate of 
 one justice good for half a pint ] But then the whole gist and 
 tenor of the Scott Act is directed against the danger of selling, not 
 too much but too little ! It is not safe to sell a man less than a 
 pint, but perfectly safe to sell him a barrel ! Scott Act logic limps 
 baflly. Again, if it is right to drink wine in church on Sunday, why 
 is it wrong to drink it in the dining room or the hotel on Monday ] 
 If it is right for a man to drink spiiits with the sanction of a phy- 
 sician, why is it wrong to drink it with the sanction of a man's own 
 judgment and conscience ? Why discriminate and allow clergymen, 
 doctors, and justices to procure all the liquor they want, while all 
 other classes are debarred the indulgence? Firat banish wine and 
 spirits from the churches and the druggists before undertaking to 
 banish it from the the dining-rooms and hotels. First, pull the 
 beam out of your own eye, and theo you will see better how to pull 
 the mote out of your brother's eye. In counties where the Scott 
 Act is in force, distillers are allowed lo manufacture and sell spirits 
 in quantities not lesH than ten gallons, and brewers to make and sell 
 beer in quantities not less than five gallons, to be forthwith removed 
 out of the county, and out of any adjoining county in which the 
 Scott|Act is in force. If it is wrong to sell liquor for consumption 
 in one county, on what principle of justice or equity can it be right . 
 to allow it to be sold for use in another county 1 If it is wrong'for 
 the individual to buy liquor from the distiller or brewer in his own 
 county (and the Scott Act declares it to be wrong), on what princi- 
 ple of justice can it be right for him to buy it from the distiller or 
 brewer in another county, and bring it into his own for use ? Why 
 drive the trade out of one county into another ?]|^ Why compel the 
 inhabitants of one county to do all their trading in liquor in another 
 county ] Why banish whiskey and beer, from one county merely to 
 deluge the inhabitants of another county vrith it 1 On what prin- 
 ciple of moral ethics can this phase of the Scott Act be jn8tifi.ed. — 
 Gentlemen, it won't do. 
 
 By a strange perversion of the very principle claimed to be at the 
 bottom of prohibitory legislation, the 'miniumm quantity allowed to • 
 be sold by a druggist under the Scott Act is limited to one pint, 
 while the maximum is unlimited — the druggist cannot sell less than 
 a pint to one person, but he can sell him a barrel 1 How this sys- 
 tem is calculated to promote temperance and sobriety baf&es ordi- 
 nary comprehensions. It won't do. 
 
 Tlie Scott Act ^injustly discriminates in favour of privileged 
 classes. The doctor, the clergyman, and two justices and a mechanic 
 (it always takes two justices and a mechanic to equal one doctor and 
 
i 
 
 'wr^F^^^rt^K 
 
 •^tmF^mimm^lfW 
 
 
 I 
 
 II ' 
 
 a fliok man, or one clergyman, under SoottAot ethics) can get hia ale, 
 brandy, wine, gin, &c., as much as he wants and whenever he wants 
 it ; but the respectable, well-behaved, temperate, sober merchant, 
 lawyer, trader, mason, farmer, teacher, carpenter, shoemaker, tailor, 
 Ac., is put to the humiliation of begging a certificate from a clergy- 
 man, a doctor, or two justices and a mechanic, before he can get a 
 drop of spirits to rub on his wife's lame back or preserve her sweet- 
 meats from spoiling. On what principles of equity can this unjust 
 class privilege be justified) It won't do. 
 
 Again, the Act, like almost all sumptuary legislation, discrimi- 
 nates in favour of the rich man against the poor man. The rich 
 man can purchase from the wholesale dealer at a distance where the 
 Scott Act is not in force, his barrel of wine, ale, gin, brandy, dn., 
 and bring it in and store it away in his cellar, and enjoy the luxuries 
 and comforts of civilization, and make merry with his friends, all 
 under the sanction of the Scott Act, while the poor man is driven to 
 the humiliation of applying to a clergyman for a certificate, or pre- 
 tending to the doctor that he is sick for a drink, or taking two 
 jostioes and a mechanic into his confidence, betore he can get even a 
 pint of ale or wiue to recruit his exhausted energies and cheer him 
 up after a hard day's toil ; for " wine oheereth God and man," 
 (Judges ix, 13) and "maketh glad the heart of man," )Psalm civ., 15). 
 It won't do. 
 
 That system of government and laws approaches the nearest to 
 perfection which allows the widest liberty of individual choice and 
 action, while it affords the best possible protection to person and 
 property. It allows every citizen free choice of action, but holds 
 him strictly responsible for the choice he makes, so fir as it affects 
 the rights and liberties of other citizens. The Scott Act takes away 
 the liberty of choice, and aims to make men sober by rendering it 
 impossible to get drunk, and thus fosters moral degeneracy by weak- 
 ening and ultimately destroying self-reliance and self-control. The 
 man who can get drank if he chooses, and does not, possesses the 
 virtues of temperance and sobriety, while the man who would get 
 drunk if he*could, but cannot, is already a drunkard in his heart, 
 and will indulge in a debauch on the first opportunity. The inmates 
 of the penitentiary are models of sobriety while they are there, be- 
 cause th / are under restraint and cannot get drunk ; but does not 
 the restraint imposed on them weaken rather than strengthen their 
 moral stamina and self-reliance 1 The Scott Act] seeks to surround 
 every county with|a prison wall of law, so far (as^the use of spiritu- 
 ous liquor is concerned, by rendering it impossible for the inmates i.o 
 get liquor, druggists, clergymen, doctors, two justices, and a meck^: aio 
 always excepted ; and every man who votes for the Scott Act^ places 
 on record the fact that, in his own judgment, he is not fit to tekt^ 
 care of himself — and probably in this matter he is not far astr^^j — 
 but it won't do. , 
 
 One man in a hundred may be thriftless, improvident, untruthful, 
 unreliable, gives free scope to the indulgence of his animal appetites 
 
 f 
 
)t his ale, 
 he wants 
 aerohant, 
 Br, tailor, 
 a olei^z- 
 can get a 
 er sweeU 
 is unjust 
 
 diRorimi- 
 The rich 
 rhere the 
 ndy, 4o., 
 luxuries 
 ends, all 
 1 riven to 
 ,or pre- 
 ing two 
 it even a 
 leer him 
 id man," 
 civ., 16). 
 
 aarest to 
 oice and 
 ion and 
 it holds 
 b affects 
 es away 
 lering it 
 Y weak- 
 il. The 
 ses the 
 mid get 
 I heart, 
 inmates 
 ere, be- 
 loes not 
 in their 
 irround 
 apiritu- 
 iatej< (.0 
 3ch»j„aio 
 places 
 ;o tek»* 
 
 uthful, 
 petites 
 
 and passions, cares for nobody but himself, drinks liquor to excess, 
 becomes a drunkard, injures himself and abuses his family, if he has 
 one ; and to save this incorrigible crank from the natural consequen- 
 ces of his own voluntary acts, and innate cussedness, prohibitionistb 
 would place under legal restraint the ninety-nine just persons who 
 never drink to excess, and never get drunk, and deprive them of the 
 enjoymonts and comforts of life, the fruits of their own industry, 
 economy, and good management. It won't do ; an*' the ninety-nine 
 will not tamely submit to such arbitrary tyra)iny uiki injustice. If 
 prohibitionists choose to lead a life of total abstinrnoe from the use 
 of stimulants, let them do so — it is their own affaii — but let them 
 not arrogate to themselves the right to impose that restraint upon 
 others who choose to live differently. The voluntary celibate might 
 with equal justice claim the right to impose forced legal celibacy on 
 the whole male population. It won't do. 
 
 The Scott Act makes it a crime for any person but a licensed 
 druggist to sell liquor. But a sale always involves a purchase, and 
 there can be no seller without a buyer j and when there are twQ 
 parties to the commission of a crime, ooth should be punished alikt ; 
 but the Scott Act metes out no such even-handed justice as that. It 
 punishes the man who sells, yet says there is no harm in the sale as 
 such, else why allow the druggist to sell ; but with a strange perver- 
 sity of moral sense truly deplorable, the man who buys and puts the 
 liquor to a bad use, and does all the evil by iQdulging to excess in a 
 mere sensuous gratification, ia petted and sympathized with, and held 
 held up to the public ga^e asa perfect paragon of injuiod innocence. 
 This morbid, sickly sentimentalism which is always lavished on un- 
 worthy objects, inflicts on society a vast amount of evil by giving 
 genuine philanthropy a wrong direction. 
 
 It is not my intention to trespass on the ground taken up by Mr. 
 Kyle in his articles in the Qhhe for some time past, further than 
 this : — Mr. Kyle has challenged prohibitionists to quote from the 
 fiiMe one solitary passage condemnatory of the manufacture and 
 sale of spirituous liquors, or in Scripture language wine and strong 
 drink, and they have not done so, for the simple reason that thpy 
 cannot. The Scriptures abound in warnings against intemperance, 
 and denunications againss drunkenness, but nowhere is the manu,- 
 faoture and sale of wine and strong drink prohibited, and in this re- 
 spect the Scripture and the Scott Act are in dii'ect antagonism. The 
 evil consequences of intemperance and drunkenness are vividly ppr- 
 trayed in the sacred writings, while temperance and sobriety are 
 strongly inculcated and enjoined, and the blessings resulting 
 therefrom are held up as inducements to lead a sober and temperf^te 
 life. But, at the same time, perfec freedom of choice of option is 
 left, and on his own shoulders rests the responsibility of the choice 
 the noian makes. If he eschews the evil and chooses the good, he 
 reaps all the blessings resulting from a sober and temperate life ; but 
 if he gives himself up to wine and strong drink, he sujQp^ all th^ 
 evils resulting from a life of . dr'-ikeiw^ss aiid debaughery. Deprjive 
 
T 
 
 WWWWJ^I'WI' 
 
 1 1 
 
 I) 
 
 Is 
 
 10 
 
 a man of his freedom of chMce, and you at once relieve him of his 
 responsibility. The forbidden fruit was left insid'i the walls of Eden, 
 within easy reach of our first parents, where it could be seen by 
 them every day, and they were warned of the evil consequences 
 that would befall them if they touched it. But our modern prohibi- 
 tionists, who imagine that they understand how to manage the af- 
 fairs of this world so much better than the Moral Governor of the 
 universe, would improve on this plan ; they would never have com- 
 mitted so grave a mistake as to place the forbidden fruit inside the 
 walls of Eden where it could be easily got at, but would have placed 
 it outside the walls, or destroyed it altogether, and thus would have 
 kept our first parents in a state of innocence by rendering it impos- 
 sible for them to sin. That is the modern prohibition plan, but it is 
 not the plan of the Moral Ruler of the world. 
 
 It is strange how men's judgments become perverted when their 
 minds are dominated by a craze. This is pitiably illustrated in the 
 replies to Mr. Kyle, published in t' e Globe, on the JBible wine ques- 
 tion. Having adopted the theory that Christ ought not to have 
 changed a large quantity of water into intoxicating liquor at the 
 wedding in Cana, they at once conclude that morally he could not, 
 and the transition is easy to the logical non sequitur that he did not. 
 Instead of basing their theory on the preponderance of evidence, 
 after a careful, unbiassed, and unprejudiced examination of all the 
 facts and evidence, j9ro and con, they first form the theory and then 
 twist and pervert the plain meaning of the language of the Scriptures 
 to suit the theory. Had it not been for the exigencies of modern 
 prohibition theories, the intoxicating quality of Bible wine never 
 would have been called into question. Having made up their minds 
 that the Bible ought to condemn the manufacture and sale of wine 
 and strong drink, they jump to the conclusion that it must and does 
 condemn it. When challenged to quote evidence in support of the 
 assumption, they avoid the issue by asserting that the whole scope 
 and tenor of the moral teaching of the Bible is condemnatory of the 
 liquor traffic, or, in other words, that the Bible as a whole contains 
 what is not contained in any of its parts. You carefully examine a 
 basket of peaches, and find that it contains no apples among the 
 peaches, and yet you maintain that the basket of peaches as a whole con- 
 tains a large percentage of apple. Dearly beloved brethren, it won't do. 
 This saying of St. Paul (1 Cor. viii., 13)is often quoted in justifi- 
 cation of a prohibitory liquor law : — " Wherefore, if meat make my 
 brother to oflfend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I 
 make mv brother to offend." Be it so. Every man and woman is 
 at perfect liberty to refrain from eating meat as a matter of consci- 
 ence to save an erring brother or sister ; but would that justify the 
 Government in passing a penal law to compel the whole people to 
 refrain from eating "meat ? It won't do. Prohibitionists seem utterly 
 incapable of drawing the destinction between voluntary abstinence 
 and compulsory abstinence. A man may do voluntary a great many 
 things that it would be rank injustice and tyrq,nny to compel him to 
 
pim of his 
 s of Eden, 
 e seen by 
 sequences 
 n prohibi- 
 ige the af- 
 nor of the 
 lave com- 
 inside the 
 .ve placed 
 ould have 
 it impos- 
 , but it is 
 
 hen their 
 ed in the 
 ine ques- 
 to have 
 ior at the 
 ould not, 
 did not. 
 svidence, 
 f all the 
 tnd then 
 jriptures 
 ' modern 
 Id never 
 ir minds 
 of wine 
 bud does 
 : of the 
 le scope 
 y of the 
 ;ontains 
 imine a 
 mg the 
 ole con- 
 on't do. 
 justifi- 
 ike my 
 , lest I 
 man ia 
 consci- 
 fy the 
 }ple to 
 itterly 
 inenee 
 many 
 bim to 
 
 n 
 
 11 
 
 do. It may be necessary to subject the imfortunate individual afflict- 
 ed with dipsomania to a cprtaia measure of restraint in order to wean 
 him from his vicious habits and bring liim back to temperance and 
 sobriety ; but is that any reason why all the rest of the community, 
 not so afflicted, should be subjectful to what is tantamount to the 
 same or similar restraint 1 The sui'geon may find it necessary to 
 amputate the 'diseased limb of bis patient in order to save his life ; 
 but would that justify him in amputating the healthy limbs of 
 healthy people in order to save them from the possibility of becom- 
 ing diseased? Why punish all virtuous people because some people are 
 vicious, and all soberpeople because some peopleget drunk? Itwon't do. 
 
 Prohibitionists are in the habit of styling themselves temperance 
 men. This is a misnomer. They are rather extremists, absolutists, 
 pessimists or optimists. Temperance is defined by Webster as 
 " moderation, sobriety, habitual moderation in regard to the indul- 
 gence of the natural appetites and passions, restrained or moderate 
 indulgence." The difference; between temperance as thus dehned and 
 prohibition is as wide as, the Poles. Temperance is the mean be- 
 tween excess on the one hand and total abstinence on the other. — 
 Where a prohibitory liquor law is enforced there can be no temperance. 
 
 In an editorial in a recent number of the Globe it is stated that 
 the evils of intemperance are so great that the adoption of any mea- 
 sure, however extreme, is justifiable that will tend to abate these 
 evils. This is going a little too far, and always is and always has 
 been used to justify every act of arbitrary tyrannj' that has ever 
 been conjmitted. The end does not always justify the means, and a 
 Government even has no right to do wrong. The majority have no 
 more right to compel the minority to eat and drink certain things, 
 or to refrain from eating and drinking certain things, than they have 
 to compel them to go to a particular church on Sunday. It won't do. 
 
 What a vast amount of morbid sympathy and sentimental gush 
 is wasted on the ideal drunkard. This mythical being, who is as 
 different from the real article as day is from night, is exhibited on 
 the f^rohibition platform in all the gorgeous colouring of a fervid 
 and heated imagination in order to excite the morbid sympathies of 
 a class of peo[)le who flow over on hearing or reading a harrowing 
 tale of fiction as easily and naturally as a kitchen swill-pail. Yet 
 these same individuals who expend so much gush on the platform 
 will pass by on the other side lest their sacred persons should be 
 contaminated by lending a helping hand to the poor unfortunate 
 inebriate who lies wallowing in the gutter. It is so much easier to 
 cure, or rather to affect to cure, the evils of intemperance by displays 
 of ^ latform oratory and Acts of Pailiament than by actual deeds of 
 charity and benevolence ; but it won't do. 
 
 I, being opposed to every form of tyranny over the mind of man,de- 
 nounce the Scott Act as one of the most arbitrary and tyrannical mea- 
 lures outside despotic Russia, and "the subject who is truly loyal to the 
 chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures. 
 
 Perth, July 19th. 0. RIOE. 
 
12 
 
 THE SCOTT AOT REVIEWED 
 
 In a Letter from a Clergyman to the Daily •' Mail." 
 
 ) I 
 
 l: 
 
 Sir, — To the sour reformers v/ho having become " vjrtuous" would 
 stop other people's " cakeB and ale," I do uot address my words ; but 
 rather to that large class of persons who would adopt any measures 
 that justice allowed, provided there were a reasonable hope of suc- 
 cess in diminishing the great evil of excessive drinking. In your 
 columns 1 reach many readers of this class, and am thankful for the 
 privilege. I will confine myself in this letter to merely prudential 
 considerations, designing to notice some higher ones further on. — 
 1. To expatiate on the evils of drunkenness is beside the mark. I 
 sincerely deplore them, and I deplore the great pecuniary waste en- 
 tailed ; but I deny at the outset that the great sums which this 
 drinking costs are to be all set down to the score of drunkenness. — 
 This is constantly done by temperance orators, but it is a mere 
 slander. Take, for example, the case of Mr. Gladstone. He drinks 
 daily half a pint of claret and a glass of port, though Sir Andrew 
 Clark, a famous authority of our extremists, is his friend and physi- 
 cian. Now this must be called really moderate drinking, yet it 
 amounts in a year to half a hogshead of claret and ten or a dozen gal- 
 lons of port, the cost of which makes a pretty contribution for one 
 individual to the national drink bill, and I for one feel sure that the 
 great financier makes a wise expenditure. But the same defence is 
 to be made for a large proportion of those who driuk, whether wine, 
 beer or spirits. However great the number of drunkards, they are 
 really but few compai'ed with the moderate and abstemious, 
 and many a man of those who are given to occasional excess may 
 not driuk as much in the year as a strictly sober man whose dietary 
 includes a very moderate quantum of drink. So that the residuum 
 that strictly belongs to excess is a very much smaller figure, thank God, 
 than is so hastily imagined. Of course if my neighbour thinks* it is 
 all excess — well and good ; let him have his opinion ; but I decided- 
 ly object to his making me conform to it by force. I do net believe 
 that ten linos in a statute book can crush vice and make virtue tri- 
 umphant. Were it so, how easily could the evils of humanity be 
 remedied. I maintain that we shall but intensify drunkenness by 
 putting the Scott Act in force. Nothing is easier in this day of easy 
 communication than to obtain trom outside the county ample sup- 
 plies for all who can afford them ; and for poorer people it is just as 
 easy if they choose to club their contributions. There can be no doubt 
 they will do this ; and look.at Ihe result. In the case of such as 
 are not sots, but given to occasional excess, will not the temptation 
 from having drink in a large quantity at hand be likely to prove 
 more dangerous than an occasional visit to the tavern 1 In many 
 cases will not the drinking be continuous, and so destructive 1 Here 
 is a case in point from the report of the Main Law Statistical Society 
 
 I 
 
 t '■' 
 
13 
 
 Mail." 
 
 is" would 
 )rds ; but 
 measures 
 )e of sue- 
 In your 
 il for the 
 rudential 
 er on. — 
 nark. I 
 «^aste en- 
 lich this 
 nnrss. — 
 s a mere 
 !e drinks 
 Andrew 
 id physi- 
 yet it 
 3zen gal- 
 1 for one 
 that the 
 sfence is 
 er wine, 
 hey are 
 temious, 
 less may 
 ' dietary 
 Bsiduum 
 mkGod, 
 nks* it is 
 decided- 
 I believe 
 rtue tri- 
 mity be 
 ness by 
 of easy 
 )le sup- 
 > just a% 
 
 doubt 
 such as 
 ptation 
 ) prove 
 
 1 many 
 ? Here 
 Sodety 
 
 of a former period : — " Fatal resulu of evading the Maine Liquor 
 Law." A son-in-law went to New York, soon after the Ist of 
 August, procured fifteen gallons of liquor, allowed his father-in-law 
 all he wished, and in about siji weeks carried him* to his grave." — 
 2. An illicit trade in drink is another certain consequence of the 
 Scott Act, and this is immeasurably worse in its effects than the 
 present imperfectly regulated trade of licensed houses. It is purely 
 preposterous to think that in the absence of an organized and costly 
 police force this illicit trade can be prevented, especially in rural 
 localities. Here is an example of many years ago from the New 
 Haven Palladium : ** A labourer remarked the present week to 
 one of our merchants that he knew of twenty-three places in one 
 short street where liquor was sold." Quite lately a gentie^ian 
 whom I know and can trust, whose business takes him to the 
 original home of the Scott Act, informed me that as much liquor of 
 every sort as you want can be obtained in every town ; and in one 
 little town of Maine he learned from those in the secrets of the 
 place that there were twenty-six places where liquor was sold, with 
 the accompaniment of much worse things. I chanced upon lately, in a 
 letter of Mr. KingDodds' to the Globe,the stateipent professedly taken 
 from authorized reports, which are named, that the arrests for 
 drunkenness in the towns of Maine are far in excess of those in 
 places where the trade is legal, while the morality of the State has 
 deteriorated. If this be true, it is enough ; if not true it should be 
 distinctly disproved. Then add to this the certainly deleterious 
 character of the liquor that will be sold, and the increased moral 
 and physicial disadvantages may be inferred. 3. Another still 
 more peraicious result is to be anticipated, in the diminished respect 
 for law. By a large minority the law will be felt to be unjust and 
 opfjressive, the outcome of a misguided zeal, and it will most certain- 
 ly be largely evaded. There can hardly be a graver evil than thus 
 undermining the popular respect for the sanctity of law unless it be 
 the lying, hypocrisy, and systematic chicanery which will be fostered 
 extensively, to the horrible demoralization of the community. Now 
 the trade houses are open to inspection, and subject to the various 
 restraint? of authority and public sentiment ; and many evils aie 
 kept within bounds, and more could be with proper effort. But 
 under the prohibitory act the disease will not be stamped out, 
 but driven inwards, to the peril of the patient's life. 4. Again, an 
 enforced abstinence will from time to time be broken through, espe- 
 cially iu travelling outside, and many will, in sheer I'ebellion, drink 
 all the more fiercely for the restraint ; und thus the traffic will be 
 kept up. I have known myself some melancholy cases of this sort, 
 5. Is the social bitterness that must spring up from this law of no 
 account 1 Look now at the mere advocacy of it, and what monstrous 
 uncharitableness does it everywhere engender towards any who so 
 much as speak against it 3 and when we have a general espionage, 
 always hateful in a fi-ee country, and one-half of the population en- 
 forcing the legal observance on the other half, is the morality of the 
 
 ■ ,i " 
 
u 
 
 country likely to be advanced 1 It will give rise to a new sort of 
 factionisui, immensely embittering our present political strifes. It 
 is an open declaration of war ; foi' the advocates of the Act every 
 where, in newspapers and conferences, declare it to be but a stepping- 
 stone to the total suppression of the trade in intoxicants. 
 
 6. If this end be attained, the craving for stimulants will find 
 other vents and more dangerous means of gratification. We 
 shall have noxious drugs in use, in regard to which let one word 
 suffice — China ! where opium is such a terrible curse. 7. For the 
 present I must stop with the mention of one othor serious mischief. 
 The eflforts of religious and pliilanthropic people will be much dis- 
 couraged. Any roan ot intelligence knows how wide, and various, 
 and successful are those efforts in England. Nothing can be more 
 cheering than the thought of them. In Canada much is being done 
 in the same direction ; but adopt this Act and you inevitably chill 
 the zeal of benevolent labourers in the true reform of voluntary 
 abstinence. And you do what is enormously worse — you deaden 
 the efforts at self-help. The occasional offender against sobriety 
 feels, it may be vaguely, that the great lesson he has to learn is to 
 use without abusing : but this law destroys the spring of right with- 
 in him. It puts him on the level with the savage Indian of the 
 North-West or, with a brute beast, and denies him the opportunity 
 of showing that there is anything better in him. For the sake of a 
 handful of sots whom nothing will elevate, a whole class are degi'ad- 
 ed. Short and easy methods in moi-als never succeed ; and if this 
 foolish law were to succeed in its aim, it would be an evil worse than 
 drunkenness ;fora people wonld bo thus taught to lean on the rotten 
 reed of external enactments, and so the very foundations of right 
 would be sapped, and the springs of all moral action destroyed. — 
 The remedy would be worse than the disease, and we should have 
 dearly purchased an external sobriety at the price of true freedom 
 and the sense of the moral worth of man. 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 
 JOHN CARRY. 
 Port Perry, 30th June, 1884. 
 
 ti* 
 
 THE SCOTT ACT AND CRIME. 
 
 The one great argument with the advocate of a Prohibitory Law 
 is that it not only prevents drinking habits, but also reduces very 
 materially the commission of serious crime of all kinds. Statistics, 
 however, of the most reliable character pro\ e that prohibitory laws do 
 not bring about results of this satisfactory natute,and these Statistics 
 can only be had in those States of the American Union where laws 
 of this description have been in force for a series of years. In the 
 State of Maine, for example, for the 24 years before the passage of 
 a prohibitory law, that is from 1827 to 1851, there were 2026 
 persons committed to the State penitentiary, or an average of 81 for 
 
•iM mmm'W^ 
 
 ♦i* 
 
 15 
 
 each year. The record for the next 30 years, that is from 1852 to 
 1882, shows that under a prohibitory law 4157 convicts were sent 
 into the State penitentiary, or an average for each year of 134. — 
 During this long [leriod there has been but little increase in the 
 population of Maine. In 1851 it stood at 587,680, and in 1880, 
 the date of the last United States .census, it had only increased to 
 648,945. During those thirty yeai-s while the increase in population 
 was not quite ten per cent, the increase of serious crime was nearly 
 seventy percent. In Alabama the convicts number 1 to each 1,930 
 of the population ; in Nebraska 1 to 1,800; in Florida 1 to 1,911 ; 
 in Louisiana 1 to 1,595 ; in Wisconsin 1 to 1,486 ; in Illinois 1 t" 
 1,494 ; in Indiana 1 to 1,607 ; in Minnesota 1 to 2,159 ; in Arkansas 
 1 to 1,540 ; West Virginia 1 to 1,659 ; while in the prohibitory 
 State of Maine, the proportion of convicts is 1 to each 1,508 of the 
 population, and in Vermont (the adjoining State) 1 to each 
 1,406. Chicago, probably one of the most dissolute cities in the 
 United States, in one year had 18,000 arrests for dirunkenness, in a 
 population of 600.000, or about 1 to 33 of its .inhabitants ; while 
 in Portland, the principal city of Maine, the arrests for drunkenness 
 during the same year was in the proportion of about 1 to every 23, 
 These figures, all drawn from public documents, show most conclu- 
 sively that prohibition does not change people's moral nature and 
 make them better, nor diminish crime. 
 
 The advocates of a prohibitory law also claim that it increases 
 national as well as individual prosperity, and prevents pauperism. 
 Statistics, however, most emphatically disprove this theory. While 
 the population of the whole United States has increased during the 
 ten years from 1870 to 1880 at the rate of thirty-three percent, 
 Maine increased only at the rate of three per cent ; and in 1880 she 
 showed, as regards pauperism, the worst record of any State in the 
 Union. Look for example at the following figures : 
 
 Population Number of Pau- 
 
 Id 1880. pers in 1880. 
 
 Iowa 1,624,615 2,133 
 
 Indiana 1,978,301 3,965 
 
 Michigan 1,636,937 2,300 
 
 Minnesota 780,773 496 ♦ 
 
 New Jersey 1,131,116 2,981 
 
 Maine 648,936 3,211 
 
 With a smaller population than Minnesota, Maine has over six 
 times as many paupers as that State. With a population larger by 
 almost a million than that of Maine, Iowa has only 2,133 paupers, or 
 1,078 less than Maine. Michigan is ahead of Maine in point of 
 population by nearly one million, but the latter State takes the palm 
 in point of pauperism by 911, 
 
 In Michigan after an experience of for about a quarter of a cen- 
 tury of a prohibitory law, it was found to be a complete failure, as it 
 only filled the country with unlicensed liquor sellers, waa 
 therefore repealed, and a stringent license law substituted therefor, 
 
".r-fTfyn^^ : 
 
 16 
 
 V 
 
 which gives infinitely more satisfaction. In the State of Massa- 
 chusetts the evil effects of prohibitory legislation became so marked 
 that in May, 1867, a joint special Committee of the Senate and Leg* 
 islature sent out invitations to leading citizens of the Commonwealth 
 to come before them and testify to the working of the law 
 Id their respective localities. In response to the invitation 183 
 prominent citizens went before the Committee ; of this number, 108i' 
 condemued the prohibitory law in the strongest manner. On the 
 list of dissentients there were thirty-four Ministers of the Gospel, 
 all of whom, with rare unanimity, testified to the increased drunk- 
 enness it had inaugurated in their respective parishes. Of ,the 
 seventy-'five who stil' expressed a favorable opinion of prohibition, 
 only twenty-four weie clergymen. The weight of evidence was, 
 therefore, strongly in favor of a stringent license law, and the Com- 
 mittee on the part of the Senate and the Legislature closed their 
 report in the following words : — " As good citizens, whose only 
 interest is to promote the highest good of the State, we should not 
 be deterred by prejudice or pride of opinion, or the mistaken judg- 
 ments of good men from reforming in season a law unsound in theory 
 and bad in practice." Gentlemen of distinguished names were among 
 the most prominent witnesses*, who, from their daily experience 
 during many years, were induced to come forward and testify to the 
 evil effects of prohibitory legislation. In the language of several of 
 the most noted clergymen, the effect of the law had been " To largely 
 increase homo drinking, and introduce the tippling habit to the 
 notice of wives and children." 
 
 In the City of Boston alone the arrests for being drunk and di»> 
 orderly during the years of prohibition averaged about eighteen 
 thousand per annum, while under a license law (although the popu- 
 lation of the city has largely increased) the average does not rise 
 above fourteen thousand per annum ; and from a report made to the 
 governor of the State in November, 1878, we learn that the arrests 
 for drunkenness in the whole State of Massachusetts during the year 
 1874 (under prohibition) numbered 28,044, and in 1877 {Ucense law) 
 the number was reduced to 20,657. 
 
 With these facts before them the people of Canada should certain- 
 ly p&use before they vote to impose the Scott Act on their country.