IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ^- 1.0 I.I 1.25 v'la Ilia ■ IB iim 12.0 m i i c 1.8 1.4 11.6 V] l cf' el v\. c# ^# 'X- <$>! ^ / /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy availablj 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. n n D D D n n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul^e ] I Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autrcs documents r~7 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure 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 ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional com.ments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires: L'Institut a microfiimd le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ V V n Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes I I Pages damaged/ I [ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d6color6es, tachet^es ou piqu6es □ Pages detached/ Pages d^tach^es Showthrough/ Transparence I I Quality of print varies/ Quality in6gale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire 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 dtd filmdes d nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. Th to Th po of fill Or be thi sic oti fir! sic or Th shi Tir wh M{ dif em be( rig rec me This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X J 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire fllm6 fut reproduit grdce d la g6n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada 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. 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. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Lb3 exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second plat, selon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: Ie symbole — ^-signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie symbole 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 corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 PRC i V U ■t ^'t^ \/ I t^ PROHIBITIONandCOMPENSATION «.« «« ^^{^"W"^^ 1S::>"( PROHIBITION AND COMPENSATION. .j»i- While the question of prohibition has been exhaustively discussed all ovei* tl;o country, another question which is inseparable from its just and fair consideration has received but scanty attention, either from legislators or electors, — namely, that of Com- pensation. * The whole scheme of prohibition is founded on the principle that the rights of individuals should be made subservient to the ))ublic welfare. It cannot bo denied that the numufacture and sale of liquor are lawful rights until restrained or forbidden by the Legislature. Why does the law restrict or take away these rights I It is not because there is anything abstractly wrong in the trade, but because the consequences of it have proved injurious to society. If no one used liquor to excess, prohibition would never have been heard of. • Many persons, it is true, assert that even the moderate use of intoxicants is rather injurious than bi neficial. But the same opinion is entertained in respect to tea, coffee and tobacco; and yet we never hear anything said about prohibiting these latter articles. The reason for interfering with the sale of liquor is that if it is sold without restriction, it will inevitably be used in excess, and that, when so used, it becomes a public evil. If intoxication were unknown, and liquor were used in moderation only, no attempt would be made to abolish or even restrict the right of manufacturing and selling it. Why, then, is the attempt male to restrict or take away the right of selling it, even to those who do use it in moderation only 1 Because it is impossible to prevent its sale to those who use it in excess, without also preventing its sale to those who use 't in moderation. In other words, the rights of individuals arc compelled to give way to the general good. It would be wrong to take away those rights, if the evil could be remedied without resorting to such stringent measures. Neces^sity is the only justification. The gravity of such measures will never be lost sight of by thoughtful men. It is well described by that very able writer, Mr. Cooley, in his valuable work on " Constitutional Limitations." He observes at page 728:— " 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 on " ycnoral ro;i«ons iA' |»iil»lic utility, jiiuiiliihitcs tlic tr,illie, di^atioys altc^otlicr the tmitloy- " lucnt, and reJuces to u nominal valuo tlie |)ioi»city on hand. Kven tho keeping of that " for tlic purposo of walo hccomos a criminal offence; and, witl out any change whatever " in his own conduct or employment, the merchant of yesterday becomes the criminal of '• to-day, and tho very building'in whieli lie lives and conducts the business, which to that " moment was lawful, becomes tho subject of legal proceediiigs, if tlie statute siiall so " declare, anrl liable to be proceeded against for a forfeiture. A statute which can do " this must be justified upon the highest reasons of public benefit; but whether satisfac- " tory or not the reasons address themselves exclusively to the legislative wisdom." » • It is to that legislative wisdom that these observations are addressed. When a brewer or distiller under the protection of law invests §20,000 in a building and machinery adapted to the manufacture of liquor, and almost worthless for any other purpose, it is not his object to sell his products to drunkards, any more than it is the object of the farmer, in selling his l>arley and rye, to be instrumental in causing drunk- enness to which that barley and rye in all probability will ultimately contribute. His object is to sell to those who will buy. A large proportion of those who use his liquor use it in moderation, and, to that extent, his business is harmless. But, because some of those who use his productions use them in excess, and jjublic injury is thereby caused, that portion of his business which is harmless must be, taken away along with the rest, because it is impossible to separate them. But if we grant that the public good demands this, does it follow that the public good demands that the brewer or distiller should bear the loss thus caused ? That is a very different matter. The pi'operty which cost him $20,000 is now worth 85,000. He has given up .$15,000 for the public benefit. He has not done this voluntarily, but by com- pulsion of law. This sum has not been taken from him as a penalty for any offence. His business was just as lawful the day before the Act passed as that of the dry goods merchant. He had even the express license of the Government, and the expenses of the protection afforded by Government to all other lawful trades was ])artly paid for out of the earnings of this one which has suddenly become unlawful. Tiie natuie of the transaction is too plain to be disguised — §15,000 has been taken from the indivi- dual against his will for the public benefit. The promoters of prohibition all contend that one effect of it is to add immensely to the public wealth. Kvery time a brewer or hotel-keeper is impoverished by his pi'operty being rendeied worthless or nearly so, the public is correspondingly enriched. On what principle have the public a jight to enrich themselves at the ex])ense of these individuals ? It can only be upon the principle tht\,t once the law comes into force, it makes them criminals ex post facto, and their property liable to confiscation. This doctrine is ond which many prohibitionists advocate and seem quite ready to father, but which no legislature ever can. rule 3 ; cmploy- ig of that whiitcvor iminiil of ill to that 3 shall so h can do • satisfac- n." I buikUng any other n it is th(j ng drunk - •ute. His use liis it, because is thereby dontj with ublic good vewcr or ttcr. The given up bv com- for any I as that it, and the w'AH partly 1io natui V 10 indivi- II contend brewer or rly so, the to enrich iciple thi\,t r property vocatc and It is iiupobsiblo to find any other principle which can be accepted by h'gislators as a tiiie basis for this kind of law, than the very same fundamental doctrine on which is founded the right ot the pultlic to compel the owner of land to give it up for a public road or public buildings, namely, that pri\ate rights must be given up, when necessary for the public benefit. This, however, does not mean, and never from the earliest times has been construed to imply, that the public ai'e entitled to the benefit at the expense or to the impoverishment of the individual. When the public takq from a man against his will an acre of his land, and pay him the full value of it, they still deprive him of his right. His right is to keep his land. This right must be given up, because it is necessary for the public benefit. But it is not at all necessary that ho should lose the value of his land. The public can, and must, pay him that, because there is no necessity to deprive him of it. Chancellor Kent on page 330, vol. 2 of his commentaries, shortly states the universal rule .' law in these words : — " The settled and fundamental doctrine is that Government has no right to take " [)rivate property for public jjurposes, without giving just compensation." It may be said that the property of the distiller, tlio brewer, or the hotel-keeper is not taken by Government. Literally speaking, this is true. Government does not take away the property ; it only takes away the object of its existence. It merely says, " You " must not use this property for the only purpose for which it is of any use." A similar argument, though not quite so untenable as this, has been used by Railway Companies in appropriating lands for the construction of their lines. They have said : " For the land " we actually take we are bound to pay, but for land which we only injure and depre- " ciate in value, we arc not bound to pay anything." In a number of the American Slates this contention, unjust as it is upon the face of it, has found favor with the Courts. It is, however, condemi\ed in clear language by an American legal author of eminence, Mr. Sedgwick, who, on page 462 of his work on Statutory and Constitutional Law, after stating the decisions of the Courts in iNIaine, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Connec* ticut, proceeds as fqllows : — " In Vermont, too, the course is to limit the compensation to damages sustained by " the actual taking of property. All other loss sustained by individuals comes under the " head of damnum absque injuria, or under the head of sacrifices which individuals must " bear for the common benefit." " To differ from the voice ot so many learned and sagacious magistrates, may almost *' wear the aspect of presumption ; but I cannot refrain from the expression of the opinion " that this limitation of the term * taking ' to the actual physical appropriation of prop« city, or a ilivcsting ul' tJiu title, is, it scciiis to lue, (uv too imiiow a conatructiou to answer the purposes of justice, or to meet the ilcniands of an equal administration of the great powers of (lovernment." " The tendency under our system is too olten to sacrifice the individual to the {'omnumity, and it seems very difficult, in reason, to show why the State should not pay for proiterty of which it dpjtroyn or mpnirK the value, as well as for what it physically takes. If, 1)y reason oT a conaeqwintinl damage, the value of real estate is positively dim'unshal, it doeu not ji[)pear arduous to prove that in point of fact the owner is ihjrrivrA/ of ]/ropcrti/, though no particular iiiecc of property may be actiially taken." When we observe the narrow construction placed by the States referred to upon the broad and comprehensive rule laid down by Chancellor Kent, we cannot wonder that those of them which have adopted prohibitory laws have failed to provide a scheme of compens-ation. A due regard for consistency precluded them from doing so. The Par- liament of Canada, however, avoiding the tendency condemned by Mr. Sedgwick, has clearly provided by its Railway Acts, that companies shall pay compensation, not only for land they actually take, but also for land the value of which they depreciate. A like due regard for consistency, therefore, will constrain this Parliament to depart from the American doctrine, in the one case as it has already done in the other, and to place upon the same fundamental rule of law the same equitable and enlightened construction in regard to one class of claims which it has placed upon it in regard to another class. When the British Government abolished slavery in the West Indies, much as the sclieme was ciiticized in its details, the strongest op\)oncnts of the Govei-nment did not question the justice and propriety of i)aying compensation to the slave owners. In the United States none was paid, because abolition with them was a war measure, just the same as the confiscation of any other property, or any other step thought expedient for the defeat of the enemy. Doubtless this confiscation now under discussion is also regarded by its advocates as a war measure; but that warfare is a moral one. The Government of Canada has no war with those lawfully engaged in the liquor trade. It will be remembered in this connection that three years before the famous thirteenth amend- ment was passed by the United States, a proposition was nuvde to the loyal slave States for the abolition of slavery on the basis of compensation by the Federal Government, and was rejected. But how much weaker was the claim for compensation in the case of slavery than in the present case ! The liquor trade is attacked on account of its couseqtiences. Slavery on the other hand was founded on a /also principle, and was wrong and wicked in its very essence. Trile the proj)erty in slaves had been recognize'd and protected by law, but not more so than the property and traflic in liquor, and there is this difference between the two, that the liquor trade, like the grain trade, being inherently lawful, requires no legislative sanction to authorize it; while the slave trade, ba.sed on the false I I 5 islnicliou lu listration of dual to the )uld not pay it physically is positively r is dejyriveJ to upon the wonder that a scheme of I. The Par- idgwick, has on, not only ftte. A like irt from the > place upon struction in class. nuch as the ent did not irs. In the ire, just the tpedient for ion is also I one. The r trade. It mth amend- slave States nnient, and e of slavery ntsequences. and wicked rotected by 8 difference tly lawful, on the false and monstrous assertion by man of property in niun, was inhcn-ntly unlawful, ami to legalize it was uftra vires of any human legislature. It may be said that in various trades and maiiufacturcs valuable property may at any time be in like manner ileprociated by the action of the fJovernment in altering the tariff, but that it would be an unheard of thing to compensate the owners of such pr()j)erty. The radical difference Ijetween the two eases is that, in regard to the taiitl", the (Joveni- ment, in estal)lishing a protective duty, confers a benefit whicli it is not bound to confer upon the trader or manufacturer interested, and is not bound to continue that benefit any longer than appears con.'iistent with the public interests. It never was a right; and the power which created it had authority to abolish it. There is a va.st differencD between doing th'\t, and taking away a right it never created, but which e.xisted indejiendently of it. This Act has been adjudged by our Court of last resoi-t to be a valid and constitutional one. While l)Owing to that decision we may still be permitted to doubt whether the mode j)rovided f(n" bringing it into force is such as our constitution contemplated. In the case of RuHsell vs. The, Qut'tn one ground of attack upon the Act was that it relates to a matter of merely local concern, and was t!u'r(ipon the authority conferred upon it by the B. N. A, Act to legislate for the regulation of trade and commerce. The .ludicial Committee of the Privy Council seem t3 have preferred to base it upon the power conferred upon Parliament to legislate for the peace, order, and good government of Canada. Certainly in view of the motives actuating the promoters of it, and the avowed object contained in the preamble, the Act appears to have; moro'affinity with peace, order and good government, than with trade and commerce. It is rather a movement of temperance reform than of trade reform. Did, then, the Parlia- ment of Canada enact this law because it decided that the provisions therein contained for the prohibition or restriction of the liquor traffic were necessary for the j^eace, order and good government of Canada \ No. It only decided that it was expedient to allow those provisions to Ik3 put in opemtion in any county, if the electoi-s of that county shoidd decide it to bo nece.s.sary for the peace, order and good Government of that county. Kuw, if Purliuiiient liiiM a juac right tu dtilogtitu this dcciHiun, that right iiiuHt Hiut^ly he subject to two conditions:— Ist. That the electors to whom the delegation is made embrace all those electors who are directly affected by tlie decision. 2nd. That the decision of the cuiestioii mn«t bo delegated in such ti manner that it may 1)6 decided npon its merits. As to the first of these conditions, legislation of this kind was entrusted to the Parliament of Canada; and if that body exercised its judgment, and rendered its decision upon the question, whetlier it did so in reference to the whole of Canada, or only a single County it would equally be acting on behalf of, and with authority from all those interested in or affected by, that decision, because it represents the whole people of Canada, But if Parliament does not dcsii-e to exercise its own judgment or give its own decision, but to surrender or delegate that decision, it must surely surrender it to all, and not a part only, of those on whoso behalf it would have acted in deciding, if it had cliosen to decide at all, in order that they may determine the question for themselvoK; or at least it must delegate the decision to all and not a part only, of those elc^tois who will be directly affected by it. But do the electors of any County embrace all the electors who are directly affected by the bringing of the Act into force in tii.a County; and will the majority of the electors of that County necessarily form the mnjority of those electors who are thus affected, and will the majority of the votes which may be cast necessarily constitute a majority of the votes which would be cast, if all the electors affected by the decision were electors of that particidar County 1 By no means. Instances can easily be given which show the contrary . Take the ease which often occurs of a hotel situated in a very thinly settled locality but on a leading road frequented by travellers between two centres of population. Tt depends upon this through ,travel for its support, and affects, and is affected by, the few people living in its vicinity to an almost inappreciable extent. The fate of this hotel may be decided by the passing of the Act in the County where it is situate. At all events those who will bo affected by the operation of the Act upon its business are mainly, besides the hotel keeper himself, the travelling public, many of whom are electors of other Counties, but not of this- one, and who therefore have no voice in the decision of the question which thus af!ects them. Take again the case of a hotel standing near the boundary between two Counties, The County' in which it is situate may have passed the Act, and the adjoining one may have refused to do so. The great majority of those who live near tliLs hotel may bo residents of the latter County, and have votes there, but not in the other. In that case the majority of those electors who are affected by this hotel and its business may very probably he electors who have no voice in and are opposed to a decision \yhich may have the effect of closing that hotel. Other instances of a similar nature might be given, ^nd thoge which have been given may occur in sevoial different localities in the \ sunn act of t fron witl relia affec nuiHl Hurtily electors wlio Minor that it listed to tlie 1 its ilocision only 11 single m all those lo people of give its own it to all, and t had fhosen ■■; or at least who will lie electors who and will the y of those wliich may t, if all the y no means, which oftci; 1 freqiipnted ough ,travel cinity to an ssing of tho icted by the himself, the lip one, and hem. Take Counties, ig one may )tel may bo n that case ? may very ly have tho ; be given, ics in tho saiiic county, it si'cuis unite clfar, tlitm, I lint the decision of the nucstiun wIiclIut ilie tuct shall le lirought into force in any county, is delegated to some only, ami not to all of tho electors who arc directly all'cctcd by it. I'arliamont, in desiring to relieve itself from the decision of the ([ucstion whether \lie jniblic good demanded lliis interference! with private rights, intended to substitute for the e.xerciso of its own judgment, the reliable guarantee which would bo afforded by a majority of the votes of all the electors )^ affected by the decision, who chose to vote. It is now .seen that the machinery provided ' fails to secure any such guarantee; and a litth* consideration will convince any imjiai-tial Uiind that any system will fail to do so which admits (>f o\w county having the law in force within its own limits, and yet being Kuriouuded on all sides liy counties which liavci it not. It may b<' said that many things which are done within tho limits of a particular county more or less affect the electors of other counties, such as the construction, main- tenance or closing of roads which may be used by the electors of other counties who yet have no voice in regu;.' to them. The answer is, that these are juirely local matters, attached to tlic territorianimits of the county; whereas, the very e.xistenc of this net was only preserved b\ stablishing th'' ;-rop()sition that its subject matter is in no sense local, but, on the conLiary, of gem al and national application ami concein. If this be true, where is tin consist(!nc\ in allowing a vote; upon the (|uestion to a man who lives on one side of a road or cvci'k, ;ind refusing it to another man, e Or would it be unreasonable for (jovernment to say that, as it is uncertain whether the injury done to private property is really necessary for tho public good, because it is uncertain whether a majority of those who were fairly entitled to expiess an opinion, and would have done so if they had been allowed, have pronounced it to be so, therefore compensation shall lie paiil for the injuiy to private lights which n)ay possibly have been done, without that public necessity that alone (ould justify it ? This, of course, would not be the logical remedy. That would bo of a much more sweeping nature. But it would be at least a nearer ajiproach to what is fair and just. I Then, as to tho .second condition, is the question submitted to the electors in such a I way as to enable them to decide it upon its merits ? It appears to have been intended I that the principle should be affirmed by the electors, and the details provided for by Par- liament. The principle involves two questions. — 1st. Shall private rights be thus intei- fcred with for the public benefit ? 2)i20 taverns out of r»,29l*, the total number licensed in Ontario 9 • for the years 1882-3, was $2,900. Assuming the leniaiuing taverns to be of the same average value, which is only reasonaMe, the total assessment of hotel proi)erty throughout Ontario is say $10,000,000. It is well known that the assessment of propeitics throughout Ontario is, as a rule, only from one-third to one-half of their actual value. In cities, notably in Toronto, it is somewhat higher. A fair average would probably be about one-half for the whole province. Now, assume the depreciation in the value of these properties to be one-half of their assessment value. If this turns out to be a large estimate, so much the better for all parties concerned. Then the total amount to be raised to pay off the loss caused by this depreciation would be $.1,000,000, which extended over a period of twenty years, with interest at 5 per cent., would require the raising of an annual sum of $401,500. As the total assessed value of property in Ontario is $050,000,000, the rate which would be necessary to meet this annual sum would be "017 of a mill on the dollar. To put the matter in another way, as the total population of Ontario by tlio last census was near two millions, the late required would be 20 cents per iir.-id. Then let us take a single county liy itself — say tin; County of Caileton. The num- ber of hotel-keepers in that county, according to the License Inspector'.s returns for the year 1 883, was 40. The total assessment of their property was, as shown by the returns from the municipal clerks, $30,920. The total assessmrnt of the county was $8,094,240. The amount of depreciation computed on the same Viasis as above would be $18,400. Now, to raise that sum by debentures, payable in equal instalments of principal and interest during a period of 20 years, with interest at 5 percent., would require the annual sum of $1,481, which would involve a rate of -IS of a mill in the dollar on the total assessment of the county, A fair average assessment for a farmer in that county would probably be about $1,250, farm property not being assessed as a rule higher than about one-third of its value. A faimer whose jiroperty was assessed for that amount would thus have to pay 25 cents every year for 20 yeais. Phall we be asked to believe that any man who sincerely desires prohibition would vote against the Act rather than submit to such a burden as that ? This whole move- ment takes its rise from a desire for moral reform. Many wise and earnest advocates of total abstinence believe that the condjat should be confined to the moral arena. No doctrine is more frequently preached than the duty of moderate drinkers to voluntarily abstain as an act of self-denial incumbent on them for the good of weaker men, who are led by their example to indulge in liquor, while lacking the strength to imitate their moderation. The strongest supporters of the Act admit the serious character of the ta.sk involved in its enforcement after it is passed, and the most experienced and practical among them agree that it is a \OYy vital point to have the moral .sense of the iieopk- in . 10. its favour. A moral sense sufliciently keen to be of any assistance in the enforcement of the Act involves self-denial. In the excitement of a campaign, and the enthusiasm ot public meetings it may be easy to express noble sentiments and assert heroic resolves. But after the Act is carried, and the excitement has cooled down, it will require an effort of self-denial for private individuals to render assistance in the overy-day enforcement of the law, without which assistance, experience shows, such enforcement is impossible. Revolutions are too often marked by plunder and spoliation, but true reforms are always dignified by the contrary features of self denial and self-sacrifice. Then surely we shall not be told that this measure is being carried by the votes of men who, not desiring to indulge in the use of lirpior themselves, aim at bringing about general abstinence tlirougii the self-denial of others now using it in modeiation, and by the legal injury of other men's property, but who, the moment it is projjosed that they themselves, even to the trifling extent above indicated, shall particij)ate in the self-denial which they preach, will abandon the principle tliey -have been advocating I If this were true, it would l)e unjust that rights of property should be left exposed to the mercy of men of that stamp. It would 1)6 much better in the interests of temperance itself, that the Act should be defeated by the defection than canied by the assistance of those men, ft would be the strongest proof that the moral sense of the connnunity was noc such as to afford the Act any promi.se of that support, without which the most earnest eilbrts to enforce it would be vain ; and no tinaiqier of him. The direct operation of the Act upon him tends to make him a criminal. lie feels that he has been oppressed, and bitter hatred, and a desire for revenge — fruitful sources of crime — rankle in his breast. You have treated him as if he were a criminal ; and he feels justified in keeping up the character. Thu.s you have raised iq) a desperate class of sworn enemies, to law and to society. But ai>art from this, the very state of poverty he is left in affords him no alternative between violating the law luul allowing his family to starve. II 19 Here, then, >vc have a law niming at the abolition of crime by the prohibition of a traflSc, which directly and indirectly causes that crime, actually producing crime by its own operation in the very same direct and indirect modes attributed to the traffic it prohibits. Moreover, as every ?ale of liquor implies a purchaser, and every violation of the law u corresponding want of success in enforcing it, it follows that the moi*e of the one kind of crime it creates the less of the other kind has it abolished. But, further, the advocates of prohibition fairly contend that the disastrous effect of the excessive use of liquor in pixducing poverty does not end with the mere impoverish- ment of these individuals and their families, but that it also deprives the country of a source of wealth which would accrue to it irom the industry of those whose energies are now paralysed by drink. How much wiser, then, would it be to devote the money which would otherwise be required for the detection, prosecution and imprisonment of these offenders, to the payment of a reasonable compensation, such as would enable them to embark in some lawful occupation, and thus at the same time remove the most danger- ous obstruction to the successful woiking of the Act, and change a source of national poverty into an element of public wealth. As a mere matter of money, then, is it not reasonable to expect that this policy of compensation is one which will jiay fm- itself? Nor must it be forgotten that many others besides thse persons themselves will be more directly affected than the jiublic in general. Merchants, money lenders, and others have had transactions with Ihem on the faith that they were dealing with men whose rights and property, like their own, were respected by the law. When the claims of these creditors are swept away in the general ruin, their enthusiasm and moral support are not likely to be enlisted on the side of a policy which thus involves injury, and loss to those who on no theory can be hold to have deserved it. Add to the.se another class, and not a small one, comprising those who have no very strong convictions on the prohibition question, but who take an intelligent interest in all that concerns the welfare of society, and would be ready to give their influence to encour age the experiment, if they saw good reasons to believe it to be a safe and practicable one. Not being men of extreme views, however, they see only injustice in the injury ot private property without compensation, which zealous prohibitionists regard as a well- merited punishment upon those who have been engaged in a reprehensible occupation. These men, if they do not actually take sides against the adoption of the Act, will look coldly upon all proceedings to enforce what they deem in that resjiect an oppressive law. In this way, the moral support of a class of men, whose influence is not to be despised, because it is not loudly exerted, will be estranged. Deprived of the supi)ort of men of moderate views, the Act will be left exposed to the odious charge of having to depend for its enforcement upon the exertions of extreme partizans, who may be supposed to be actuated more by a desire for the triumph of their own opinions, than by a spirit of impartial justice. On the wliolo, then, in view of the public iujuty which would result from the trial, and failure of the experiment, it is the clear duty of Parliament to annex to that trial a condition which cannot endanger, and which there is so much reason to believe will greatly contribute to its success, and which, if it do not make the experiment successful, will at least prevent it from being unjust. If it be suggested that advice in regard to policy must lie regarded with distrust, when coming in the form of a plea for those who are naturally opposed to the principle, we answer, firstly that the important question is whether the arguments here used aio sound, and not from what source they come ; and secondly, that to the large mass of those on whose behalf they are urged, the failure of the experiment could bring but little satis- faction, since the mere ti'ial of it will be quite sufficient to ruin them. They are shrewd enough to see that it would be far more to their interest, in consideration of reasonable compensation, to withdraw all opposition to the Act, and even give bonds not to violate it, than to cling to the hope, first of defeating it, and, failing that, then of evading its provisions. It is sometimes 'emarked that those at all events who have engaged in the tratRc since the Act was passsd by Parliament have no equity in this matter, becuuse they in- vested their means with their eyes open, knowing that the electorate were clothed with authority to bring the Act into force at any time they chose. But this argument might just as well be extended to those who embai'ked in the business before the Statute was enacted at all, because they knew perfectly well that Parliaujent had power to pass such an Act at any time it might see fit to do so. Besides, such a contention does violence to the elective principle on which the Act is based. If the mere existence of the Act upon the Statute book should deter persons from entering into the business, and could be used as an argument to defeat claims otherwise valid, then it would practically to some extent be brought into operation without consulting, and possibly against the will of, the electors, although the Parliament which enacted it expressly declared that it should not come into force without the electoral consent. For these reasons jit is urged that the Act calls loudly for immediate amendment in the following respects. 1st. By providing that every Municipality which adopts the Act shall make pro- visions for raising and paying a fair compensation to all hotel or tavern keepers within its limits, for the depreciation in value of their property caused by such adoption, some proper mode to be prescribed for determining the fact of the depreciation and the an)ouut which should be paid. 2nd. By providing for the ultimate compensation of the manufacturers of liquors, tlwit an estimate shall be made of the value of their property now devoted to the purpose u of manufacturing anil no further liconscs for such manufacture to bo granted. It in {iro- poseil that the total value of these properties shall be clistributocl over the various munici- palities in Canaila, in proportion to their respective i)oi»ulations, wherever a municipality adopts the act, it shall provide for the raising of its shave of the general value, which amount shall be deposited with the Government, and the interest thereon distributed amongst these municipalities in proportion to the amount which they can show the \n-o- perty within their limits has been effected by the adoption of the act therein. When eventually the Scott Act becomes generally adopted (if that shall take place) and it is de- cided to introduce prohibition properly so called, those municipalities which have not then contributed their share, shall forthwith contribute the same which shall be applied by the Government in liquidation of the loss sustained by the various municipalities. 3rd. By providing that the Act shall not come into force in any ihunfcipality, unless a majority of those entitled to vote are in its favor. 4tli. If, however, the second amendment be found impracticable, or is too cumbersome, then a general prohibitory law, with provision for compensation to the manufacturer as 'well as the tavern-keeper should be passed, to come into force if sustained by a vote of the people taken over the whole Dominion on a day to ^e fixed in a similar manner to that provided by the Canada Temperance Act, which Act shall be suspended in the mean- time, except where it has already come in force. NOTK.— THE PUBLISHER. Appended hereto is a table which has been prepared at a large expensp, shewing approximately the • assessed value of the taverns in the various municipalities in the Province of Ontario. . ' Those who are familiar with other provinces will be able from this to form some idea of the value of similar property in the rest of the Dominion. The method adopted to obtain the results below was as follows : A schedule was sent to every License Inspector in the Province, with the request that he should fill in the names and address of every tavern licensee in his district, and return \Vith a certificate of its correctness in memo of his fees or charges therefor. Answers were received from all except those mentioned below. The assessment of the real estate occupied by these tavern-keepers was then ascertained from the town or townshiji clerks of these respective municipal itiea. The result of the investigation was that, while by the last Ontario Government report obtainable, that of 1882-3, there appear to have been licensed 3,292 taverns; the assessment of 2,520 wan obtained, shewing an average assessment of $2,830.25. Assuming the total number of licensed hotels in the province to be the same as in that year, by multiplying the average value into it, we have approximately the total assessed value of the taverns in the prov* 15 incc, viz., say $9,320,000, wliili) tlio total assessuiciit of the proNincc for municipal jiur- poses is, say, $050,000,000. Now, it is submitted tliat the doprcciation of tavoj-n [iropeity ill country municipalities would average 50 per cent., except that in some when; there arc valuable hotel properties, as in Welland and Lincoln the dei)rcciation would not probably exceed 2.5 per cent, — while in cities where tavern buildings may be more readily turned to other purposes than in the country, the depreciation would not, it is thought, exceed 25 per cent, on an average. As this, however, is a matter of opinion upon which a diversity of views may be entertained, it was thought best to calculate what rate would have to be struck in each municipality to raise the whole assessed value by debentures, payable in equal instalments of principal and interest, during a period of 20 years,v.ith interest at 5 percent. Of cour-se, it is not supposed that the depreciation woukl e(]ual this in any instance, but it will enable every one, competent to form an oiiinion, readily to determine what the rate woidd have to be. • Tu some cases, viz., Oxford, Perth, Renfrew, Simcoe, York and p]lgin,the I^icense Inspector for one [»art of the county x-eported, but the License Inspector of the other part did not. In such cases the average value of the hotel property in the part of the county not heard from has been assumed to be the same as in that part heard from, and as the number of licenses granted is known from the Ontario Government report, we have a means of determining approximately the assessed value of the taverns where the License Inspectors have not reported. Outside of the cities the average value of taverns in the different nmnicipalities has not been found to differ greatly — and is about i$2,200. County or Citv. Brant (including BrantforU). Block ville, Leeds and "1 Crrenville j ' " Duiferiu Durham J Northumberland I Haldimaud Middlesex Norfolk Ontario I'cterboro Welland and Niagara London Toronto Essex Hastings (iiiclud. Belleville.) O > , ji u ^ 101 66 ■M 2'J 52 49 as 38 56 67 77 78 100 74 18 99 33 37 31 22 32 8 32 36 41 64 22 20 73 53 94 39 24 50 54 14 2,782 U V ca UJ « fl 117 75 44 37 60 55 40 39 36 68 75 99 90 98 no 18 104 33 37 37 40 50 5 31 36 40 64 23 20 69 53 81 39 27 50 54 14 3,086 Total as:- Rcssmcnts of hotels received. 235,618 155,665 42,500 22,600 135,920 96,650 36,920 73,900 71,700 85,521 224,030 186,645 188,439 186,620 179,372 114,920 447,220 149,000 81,500 102,640 34,9C0 53,302 19,875 89,125 97,128 127,635 199,202 36,659 33,320 139,590 101,336 167,925 69,654 38,895 81,000 88,076 IJ *-• to 0) ^ $8,272,164 272,943 176,892 50,540 28,845 156,830 108.484 42,394 73,900 67,926 103,847 250,779 233,896 217,429 182,888 208,448 114,920 409,797 149,000 81,500 122,479 63,440 85,970 12,420 86,340 97,128 124,522 199,232 38,325 33,320 131,928 101,336 143,606 69,654 43,740 81,000 88,076 $8,734,161 $2,830.25 $2,254 Total assess- ments of County or City. 29,770,095 15,397,502 I 4,804,845 > 10,660,189 \ 451,721 12,988,567 8,094,240 9,427,620 10,695,272 7,909,104 16,521,152 21,735,090 15,527,691 16,982,748 13,082,084 2,969.940 17,713,150 4,621,358 5,872,570 7,660,730 Included in Peel, Pufferin and Simcoe. I 24,520,133 I 22,488,181 \ 4,184,127 I 17,739,900 I 28,259,825 ]. 14,023,032 14,095,959 $607,148,802 10,097,465 5,515,505 5,022,408 7,290,428 $635,674,008 «'5 a a I- JO '••O !g5 03 < (2 <*♦' H'S O •73 •92 1-32 1-13 •67 •42 •62 •51 1-05 1^29 •8(5 1-12 •86 1^33 •31 2-12 2 • 58 111 1 • 28 ■0 1^:5 1^37 1'05 •6 ■71 •9 17 There was coUecbed in Ontario in the year 1882-83, from Licenses, !it435,l, 1.87. The salaries of Inspectors' and Commissioners' expenses, $47,9fi5.74. Proportion of Revenue derived by Muncipalitios, $284,379.79. The assessed value of real estate, buildings and plant, used in the manufacture of malt, beer and spirits, in Ontario and Quebec is between three and four millions. Esti- timated value seven millions. Revenue derived by Dominion (iovernment from wine, beer, and spirits, aboiifc six millions.