IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I '* IIIIM IIIIM '' lilM ~~ >^' m 2.0 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 .4 6" - ► m ^ /}. / y »&> ^ /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 '^4. Uj. ^ ^> CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 1980 ^ Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted 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. Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D V Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e 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) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Boun( Reli6 Bound with other material/ avec d'autres documents n Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 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 ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t§ filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: Th to L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6x6 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 m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurdes et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages d6color6es, tachet6es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es Showthroughy Transparence Quality of prir Quality in6gale de I'impression Includes supplementary materia Comprend du matdriel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible l~~| Pages damaged/ rri Pages restored and/or laminated/ I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ I I Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I I Only edition available/ Th pa of fill Or be th( sic oti fin sic or Th sh Til wt Mi dif en be rig rec mc 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 6x6 filmdes 6 nouveau de facon 6 obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy fiimad here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grAce A la gAn6rosit4 da: 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 ttie symbol ^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies Les images suivantes ont M reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la netteti de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont ia couverture en papier est imprimAe sont filmAs en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film6s en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols — »• signifie "A SUIVRE", le 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 diff6rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmd A partir de I'angle supirieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Las diagrammes suivants illustrent ia mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 k Xettere on lC>robibition » ** TEMPERANCE" /097 HALIFAX PitiNma CO., til f/oLiis sr. JM i^vn J" 5-l7XS^ i PREFf\GE. Tlie following letters were puljlished in the Spring of 181)7 in tlie Halifax Morning Chronicle and Herald. They were written with a special view to the hill for a Provincial Prohibitory Law •H. that time Ixjfore the Provincial legislature, and with special reference to the probable results of such a measui-e in the City of Halifax ; but they have been deenied of sutHcient general import- ance to justify their re-production in pamphlet form, together with sorne'additional matter. Halifax, Ijst June, 1H97. ••TEMPERANCE." '#^44rw^vrkTi3%i.^4uri^4zM'JBUMV^mviC^ ^ ■.-.Provincial Prohibition. Sir, — It appears pix^bable that, acting upon a mistaken )>elief in the force and eft'ect of the recent decision of the Privy Council upon the (juestions submitted to it respecting the power of the Pro- vincial Ijegislatures to deal with the traffic in inloxinints, an attempt will Ik* miuie at this session of the I^gishiture to pass some measure of provincial prohibition. The «jue.slioii is one of the most serious moment from a great many p)int8 of view, many of which do not always meet the consideration whiih they deserve. It is the intention of the writer in this, and (with your permis- sion) some succeeding letters, to ask the dispassioniit«^ attention of the general public to a few of these aspects of the case. It is a subject batlly in need of calm consideration. Alnuist the only lan- guage heard in public upon it is the passionate and rhetorical appeals of the extreme prohibitionist wing of the temperance party — appeals in which the evils attending upon the trnrtic are paintad in the most lurid colors, but in which one seldom meets calm and '•andid attempts to deal with such aspects of the case as the rights of the common citizen who is neither prohibitionist nor " rum- seller," nor the rights of property, nor the question of revenue, nor the legal difficulties that surround the problem, nor the collateral eflfects of attempts at enforcement upon the general morality and regard for law of the communities in which such att<^mpfs have been made, nor what, in the light lx)th of the abundant experience of other countries and of our own peculiar circumstances and sur- roundings, is the prolmbility of any success in our own case of another such attempt. It is n(»t that such considerations are entirely ignored by the general public. One has only to mix in general con\ersation in any class of society, in this city, at any rate, to find out that these aspects of the case are thought of by the general public, and the prohibitionist's view of the problem is very far indeed fiom m<^eting with general acceptance. But the trouble is that the othnr mIiIu of the ciiko ho geldom makes itself hean] in public. The reaHon of this pnjltahly is the utter failure (»f the atteinptH thus far nuwle in the way of prohibition to aecunipliNh any practical rcsultn. In this Province we have had h«> far prohibition in theory only, an(ed in the li«pior traffic, especially t^) those of the humliler chws ; they have caused a great loss of revenue to the various municipalities, and put them to great ex[)ense in attempts at enforcement of the laws, and they have done much to demoralize the community, promote perjury, and brini^ all law into more or less disrepute. Hut when we come to look for the practical result which all ])rohil)itory law aims at, and ask how many persons have Iwen kept from obtaining li»|Uor when they wanted it, the only answer possible to anyone who knows any- thing of the facts of the ca.se is practically none at all. Speaking generally, there has never been iw tinrts except for brief intervals, in the history of prohibition in any country in which it has l)een attemptcil, when any person who really wished to obtain litjuor in any <|uaiitity, small or great, and for consumption in any manner or at any titnc that he preferred, has had any dilKculty in procuring all that he wanted. I have spoken of the history of *' prohibition " in this Pr(»vince, l)ecause we have lad for years what, if there was any force of pub- lic opinion at the hack of it, would l>e the stilfesl '^ind of prohibition in the shape of the Scott Act in force in almost the whole of the Province outside of the City of Halifax, and in the city itself the present license law was intended to operate an a measure of prohib- ition, both by its re«|uirements as to the obtaining of licen.ses and its prohibition of drinking at bars. So long as prohibition is thus destitute of practical effect upon the persons whom it is reiilly intendetl to reach, it is only natural that the latter should give themselves very little concern alM>ut it. But it is not right that the general public should treat the question with this indifference so long as their own toes are not trodden on. The question is too important, and its collateral effects on individuals, on trade, on the revenue and on general morality Mid regard for law, are too Herious to Ik> ignored in this fa^liion. The threatener(>hil)iti(>n law will l>e A 8t«p further in this direction than we have yet ^(mt-, and though an enormouH accumulation of experience furhidH the Welief that the AtUMnpt will l>e any more fruitful of succeH.s than its predeceHsoin, the disaHtrouH conHe({uenceH will Ije so certain and ho Herious that the general {)uhlic ought to take them into connideration, and it in with the hope that Home portion of the puhlic will give the matter ft little more thought than UHual that thin in written. It will l)e as well at the outset to ascertain just what the recent decision of the Privy Council, on which so much store is set, decides —because it is apparent that the most erroneous opinions prevail respecting it. It is often referred to as though it hae further finmi the truth. It is not an easy judgment to understand, and it is evident, as indeed their Lordships expressly stated, that the Court did not intend to he too precise or to bind itself too closely by the decision of a numl)er of purely speculative (luestions. But on the whole its effect is pretty clear. The (juestions which the Court were asked to answer were the following : — (1). " Has a Provincial FiCgislature jurisdiction to prohibit the flale within the Province of spirituous, fermented or other intoxi- cating liquors ?" (2). "Or has the I^egislature such jurisdiction regarding such portions of the Province as to which the Caniida Temperance Act ?the Scott Act) is not in oi)eration ?" (3). '* Has a Provincial Legislature jurisdiction to prohibit the manufacture of such li(|uors within the Province 1" (4). "Has a Provincial Legislature jurisdiction to prohibit the importation of such liquors into the Province .'"' (5). " If a Provincial IjCgislature has not jurisdiction to pro- hibit sales of such liquor, irrespective of quantity, has such Jjetrisla- ture jurisdiction to prohibit the sale by retail, according to the definition of a sale by retail either in statutes in force in the Pro- vince at the time of Confederation or any other definition thereof t" (6). "If a Provincial Legislature has a limited jurisdiction only aH rogards the pmhilMtion of Hnl<>, Iihh the TjegiHlaturv jurindic- tion to prohil)it HiiIeH Hubject t4» tl»i liinitH providefl by the w^veral Hub-Ht'ctions i»f the 9S)th Hertiori of tb« Cunu'la Temperance Act, or any of thove that limit ; and any reUiil trader may do the Hame, provide- hibition a merely local matter in the Province." An answer which, though artirmative in form, is practically a negative, because for Ixjth distilleries and breweries there exists, and so long as excise duties are continued, must exist the very Htrongest kind of conflicting legislation l»y the Parliament of Canada, and both are prevented from being merely " local matters •with the Province " by the facts, first, that they are very large con- tributors to the general revenue of the Dominion ; and second, that they all have extensive trtide with Provinces other than that in which they are situated, and with countries outside of Canada. As to the wholesale trade the Court gave no express finding In^yond ■what could l)e inferred froK; the mode in which they dealt with the other (juestions. But from these it may be gathered, that in the opinion of the Court, the Pro\ ince could certainly not touch it so far as concerned importation and sale outside of the Province, and also probably so far as concerned sale within the Pro\'ince, if really of a whole.sale character. It should 1)6 added that this measure of prohibition, limited as it is, could only l)e applied to those portions 8 of the Province in which the Canada Tenipemnce Act liad not \*een brought in force. In this Province this would include the counties of Halifax, Colchester, Antif^onish, Richmond and Victoria, and the City of Halifax. The counties, with the e-xception of one or two licenses in Halifax, are practically under a prohibitory law now in the Provincial Jjicense Act. .So far as the law goes the Province can do no more for them than they now have, except give the lawyers a fresh Bet of copundrums wherewith to vex the souls of prosecuting offi- cials, for which they will no douht he grateful, seeing that several years of experience have worn those afforded hy the Scott Act and the Provincial License Act somewhat threadbare. Practically, the only field for experiment is Halifax city. For this, putting the effect of the decision at its best, it would enable the passage of a law prohibiting retail sales ; the l)reweries would continue, a dis- tillery could l)e started if anyone chose, importation would go on ■without check, either from abroad or from the rest of Canae a useful reinforcement to a public sentiment which would l)e almost strong enough to bring alwut the .same result with- out an Act at all. But having conceded so much, I think T am fairly entitled to ask to be shown one of the more important country ■ towns in which anything like success has been achieved. In these the Act has to meet a totally different set of conditions, -a pro- hibition sentiment, although in a majority, yet by no means over- whelming, a small minority opposed to prohibition entirely and on principle, a large minority in favor of it in the abstract but opposed to it in practice, that is to say, who will vote for the Scott Act to-day and to-morrow buy a glass of whiskey, social habits very different from those of the country, far greater facilities for con- cealment and evasion of the law, and a tran^^ient i)opulation more or less numerous. I have not included the people actually engaged in selling licpior in this enun\cration, because I believe any candid person who thinks a moment must see that they are ab3t)lutely of no account at all. If the twenty or thirty people who are engaged in .selling liijuor in violation of the law in any one of our country towns were really, as some of our prohibitionist friends would have us believe, in the same jxjsititm as other .iolators of the law, criminalsj thieves, say, or forgers, they would be swept out of the community 10 in twenty-four hours, and if the community could not find law for doing 80 it would not be long in l)ecoming a law unto itself. What the prohibitionists have to deal with, though they not very candidly or honestly evade that ditticulty, is the rest of their fellow citizens who do not regard this cjuestion in the same way as themselves. Well, in the face of the conditions presented by our larger country towns how has the Scott Act succeeded i Its history in e enforced. Do they sup})ost' that this will add to its popularity ? Now, these are the considerations that ought to weight with practical, reasonable people at the present time, and yet with a cer- tain class of the prohibitionists they are as completely ignored jw though they did not exist. They seem to think that all that is required of them is the time-honored harangue against the evils of 12 the liquor trathi;, the hoiTors of the drunkard's home, the thousands of men noing down yearly to the drunkards grave, the magnitude of the countr)''8 yearly "rum bill," the misery and vice and pauper- ism that " rum " produces. Well, it is very sad, and for a good part, at any rate, very true^not altogether true, because these g(X)d gentlemen and ladies are, like most enthusiasts, somewhat given to exaggeration. And there is another side of the case from the point of view of the moderate users of liijuor, the really " tem- perate " people who outnumber those who use li(|uor to excess fifty or even a hundred to one ; but we will put that aside for the moment, Supposing all that the extremists of prohibition say to ]^e true, what has it got to do with the actual situation ? It is just what John B. (jrough and Neal Dow, and the other great apostles of pro- hibition said a half century ago. Since that day they have had their will in all the prohibitory law they could wish in a score of Legislatures, and in every case with the results entirely similar to or worse than thusf we see in our own country towns. Is this half a century of experience tt) count for nothing, and are we to go on in Halifax merely ti > add one more illustration of the utter inefficiency of all such laws ? If such laws were merely inefficaciou.s, it would be bad enough, but the trouble is that they are effective enough, but not in the way in which their promoters wish. If we want to see what they can do we must look at the results of an attempt to enforce prohib- ition of the reiil kind — not tiie milk and water sort that alone is open to our Provincial Legislatures — in cities of the size of Halifax, Fortunately, we have in the six volumes of evidence collected by the Canadian lloyal Commission an account of its workings, so com- plete that the only difficulty is that of selection. How utterly demoralizing to a community vSuch as Halifax the attempt to enforce ft pi-ohibitory law can l)e and is in other cities is probably not real- ized even V>y those who realize that it would be inefficacious for good. But I must reserve illustrations for a future time. III.— How it Wprked in Charlottetown. Sin, - I promised to give some of the experiences of cities under prohibition as detailed V>efore the Cana Halifax. She is very much smaller, her population being only 12,000, not much more than a fourth of that of Halifax at the present time. The sentiment in favor of prohibition was at least as strong as that in Halifax, and probably much stronger, seeing that the Scott Act was carried by a more than three to one majority, while in Halifax it is generally considered it ■would be impossible to carry it at all. The general character of the 14 populatiun, tlieir bocial and buHiiieHs habits, and means of livelihood, are practically identical with our own. It is not a military or naval station. For half the year it is practically closed to trade by the ice. The means of enforcing the law were identical — namely, the Summary Convictions Act liefore a Police Magistrate. And finally the whole island was under prohibition at the one time. Sui-ely the advocates of prohibition could not jwk a fairer or niore promis- ing field. The Act was adopted in 1879 by the sweeping majority of 837 votes to 253. In 1884, on a petition for repeal, the Act was sus- tained, this time, however, the vote standing 755 for the Act, to 715 against. .In 1887, a second attempt at repeal was defeated on a vote 689 for the Act to 609 against. In 1890 the repeal of the Act was carried by 700 votes against 686. So strong, however, was the feeling against the liquor traffic, even after the repeal of the Act, that the Legislature refused to pass a License Act, and the former License Act having been done away with by the adoption of the Scott Act, there was presented for a short time the curious spectacle of a Canadian city under "free rum." After a year of this an Act was passed regulating the traffic without licensing it- This was the condition of affairs at the time of the visit of the Com- mission in August, 1892. In 1894, the Act was again submitted, and was adopted by a vote of 734 to 712. I have no statistics available for the period since then. But from all the information which I can obtain from residents of the place and commercial travellers, the condition of affairs is identical with that prevailing under the former dispensation, and with what we are familiar with in the case of our own country towns. The sale of liquor goes on quite unchecked, and with scarcely even a pretence of concealment, and except for occasional spasms there is practically no attempt at enforcement and less in fact than under the period of " regula- tion " between 1891 and 1894 ; and the evidence before the Com- mission is therefore quite as applicable to the condition of affairs prevailing to-day as it was then. It will thus be seen that the experience of the capital of the " tight little island " has been uni(}ue, and ought to be most instruc- tive. The Commissioners evidently thought so, for the investigation made by them was very thorough, no fewer t'lan 32 witnesses being lA examined, their evidence covering 144 large pages. Of course it would y>e impoHsihle in the space at my dispottal to attempt even a summary of this mass of testimony. But so far as facts, and not opinion, were concerned, this much was not only clear but undis- puted : that the most vigorous and persistent efforts were made to enforce the law, that no legal difficultie.s were found in the way of so doing, that police officers, prosecuting officials and the police magistrate all did their duty fearlessly and zealously, and that the result of it all so far as the suppression of li(iuor-selling and liijuor- drinking was concerned was absolutely nothing, while its results for l)ad in promoting lawlessness, perjury and general demoraliza- tion were so marked that after 'dh years of experience of the law the business elements of the community were almost unanimous in working hard for its repeal. A few of the most significant and striking facts from the evi- dence is all I have rotjm for. Statistics as to convictions for drunkenness are apt to l)e mis- leading — a different magistrate with a varying view of what consti- tutes "drunkenness," a hard-hearted oi- an easy-going chief of police may make all the difference. In Charlottetown, fortunately, the same police magistrate, Mr. Fitzgeraid, occupied the position for some years before the adoption of the Scott Act, during th& whole period in which it was in force, and at the time of the Com- missionei-s' visit, and both the Commissioners and Judge Hodgson concur in speaking of him as an exceptionally able, careful and con- scientious official, as is indeed apparent from the manner in which he gave his evidence ; and the statistics furnished by him are, therefore, of more than ordinary value. The cases of drunkenness coming before him for the years before the Scott Act, during the period in which it was in force, and for the time after its repeal, were as follows : M 16 Year. ToUl Cm**ii in Court. Cams of Drunkenn«M. 1876 1,290 676 1877 1,297 737 , 1878 745 357 1879 544 321 1880 491 256 1881 472 197 1882 404 218 1883 528 250 1884 481 229 1885 040 244 1886 592 299 1887 ai6 213 18H8 598 262 1889 483 395 1890 510 239 1891 066 304 The witness added that the year 1882 was the first in which the Scott Act was really in operation, and he further explained the Dudden drop in 1878 by the fact in that year there was a change in the constitution of the Court. Summarizing the cases of drunken- ness, he stated that '* for the nine Scott Act years the average was 22 and a fraction per month ; during the 'free rum' period of 16 months, 22 11-18 per month, and for the short period of regulation 17 per month." It ought to be added that in a subsequent letter to the Commission he stated that the regulation did not work as well as it did first. Evidently, the Scott Act was not much of a success in preventing drunkenness in Charlottetown. It was not, liowever, for want of vigor of prosecution. During the time it was in force 364 convictions were made for offences against the Act, $12,643 collected in fines and 123 persons sent to gaol. As to the number of people engaged in violating the law and their character, the following evidence of this magistrate ought to be enough : — ** Do you think there were 243 people engaged in illicit trade in Charlottetown " " Yes, and a good many more." » " Looking at the matter generally, what were the classes of peo- ple engaged in conducting the illicit trade ? Were they people who belonged to all classes V " To all classes ; there was no distinction of class." " Did they include some of the people who formerly held licenses f "Yes, wealthy men as well as the poorest." •* Are some of these people now carrying on free sale under police M 17 regulatioiiM r *'Tli»>re ar»> fewor Ih»uh»»s than tliere wctt' in (li(»s»* d&y>i. I think the sale of lic^uor has u|t})rt!ciahly diniinishi-d under the present hiw." The city marshal corrolhtrated the inaj^istrato on ln»th of these ]K>intN. From ai'tual count he helicved that nearly two hundred places were cn^^aj^ed in selling' lH|Uor durinj,' the Scot I Act j.ciiod, wiiile at'U^r its repeal the nunilxT liad fallen to uhout 7' Mut it would he infinite to multiply <|Uotati< kind in illicit places than there had heen in the oju-n bai-s. Hut on this point the report ot' the (iraiul Worthy Scribe of the (Jrand Division ctf the Sons of Tenip(>rance of P, K. Island, presented at the meeting of that body in October, 1891, nine years after the adoption of the Scott Act, ought to Ik? pretty conclusive. In the rej)ort he said : "T think I am safe in saying that not for many yeais has there iK^en so much drinking among the young. Ilundrod.s, yes, thou- sands, of oui' boys, Ikivs yet in their teens, many of them Itelonging t*> Christian homes and Christian ]>arents, ai-e fast going the way that leadeth down to death, dragged down by the drink curse" Then one point more : All the witnesses agree that one maiked effect of the law was to enormously increase the crime of perjury. To take one piece of testimony out of scores, that of the man in the best position to know, the police magistrate. " Have you hjid any difficulty in regai'd to securing tlie atten- dance of witnesses in Scott Act cases 1" " Yes, it is a troublesome sort of measure. The uncertainty, beyond all question, conduces to A very large amount of perjury being committed. There appears to be a terrible temptation to perjury in connection with these cases." 18 And j^very «»th«'r witm'HH in u ixtsition to know says tlio huiiih thiii;^'. To tiikti An instiinco from anotlifr place tlin police rna^^iH- t rate of Portland, Maine: "What ertect on the nioraln of the coinniunity liaw all this law Itreakini^ and scciet sellirij; of li<|iioi' in violation of the law '." " It lias in one respect a v»'ry had eflect. It has a very strong tendency, and as a matter of fact has tcdiueil iIh; solemnity of an oath in court to a m.ii vellous dei^re<'. It is astiundin;^ to think that a man whose word you would take in all other cases will in a liipior cas«> eomtnit the most rank perjury in the world. That has heensowith people who are connected with the liipior cases. It has, iti my jud;^- ment, ^'one further than that. It has atVected other pc(»ple in this respect. I'eojile .see these ]>ersons commit perjury and yet scott free, and in my opinion it has a tendency to increase the crime of perjury intinitely." Now, I submit the ti'ue consideration for people who are talking of a measure of provincial juohihit ion foi' Halifax is this ; If jiro- hibition of a similar kind, hut stronger, had alwulutely no ell'ect in stoppinj^ tlie consumption of li(|uor in C'harlottetown, Imt only caused the.se bad elVeots, what can they hope for in this city ,' One (|ue8tion is sure to l>e asked : Why did Charlottetown with this experience go back to the Sc(l that the sanio thing haiu>ac-k it up, inak<>s things infinitely more eom fortal)h^ for the average li(|iior sellwr than a go(Ml licens*' act, well Imcked ujt by jiul)lic" ojiinion and conseiiuently enfoiced, does. There is un troidih' altoiit lii-enses, or hours, oi- shop-fittings, or locahties, and ev(Myl>ody is on a par of illegality. I have no douht that a few years" experience of prohibition as it would Im^ in Hali- fax would make ardent prohiliitioniHts out of four-tifthM of the men selling licjuor in the city. IV.— The Experience of Kansas. SiH, -'•] think if tlie peoph; desire to enact a statute to destroy the morals of the peo])le, there is nothing that will*ore h3'pocrites and liars, and more p«TJurers and scoundrels of every kind than any other law that waH 4iver enacted in Kansas." Such was the startling statement of the tirst witness called before the {prohibition commission in the city of Leav(in worth, Kan. Has, a witness who stated that he Iwwl yet to receive the first five cent j)iece from the li(juor tratlic, a newspaper man who had devoted juuch time to an impartial study of the working of proliibltion in Kansas since its first enactment in IH81, and I make the sUitement without qualification tJiat ny scores of witnesses — by lawyers, judges, doctors, bankers, business men of all sorts, police commissioners, sheriffs — men in the l)est position to know the facts and without any suspi- cion of a bias in favor of the licjuor interest, without being satisfied that what the witness said was aV)solutely ceen ridiculous if it were not so fearfully demoralizing, it had been turned into an instrument for doing the very thing it was intended to prevent — that is, the establishment of a license system. So long as the saloons complied with certain requirements unwrit- ten, but none the less well understood, and paid a monthly fine,. 21 they were allowed to sell in complete open defiance of the law. If they did not, then things were made unpleasant for them. Noth- ing could be more complete and systematic than the subvei-sion of the law. The Rev. Jos. Dougherty, Pastor of the First Congrega- tional Church in Kansas City (Kansas), a city of 40,000, just across the Missouri River from the Missouri city of the sjime name, described the process. It was all done in strict accordance with the law. Regularly every month a summons for illegal selling was made out and served on each saloon keeper. Then " They pleaded guilty. In more than one-half of the cases the men do not appear at the trial. There is simply a brown envelope on which is written the man's name, and a statement to this eftect : ' T hereby consent that there shall be entered against my name the plea of guilty to the charge of keeping a tippling shop ; provided that I do not appear on such a date at such a time in the morning, and the contents of this envelope be used towards the payment of my fine and the costs of the cause.' Into that envelope is put $50 and $1 for witness fees, and tlien it is sealed and sent to the police court." In this way Kansas City raises what is practically a license revenue of $40,000 a year. In Leavenworth, Wichita, Atchison, and all the large cities of the state, and also in the cities of lowji, the same thing was going on, with the exception of Topeka and Des Moines, where the trade was a little more secret, though scores of witnesses testified that licjuor was just as easily ol)tainable thei-e as in any of the other cities. So much for the complete failure of prohibition to prohibit in the cities. Now, as to the mischief, I can only summarize what witness af^er witness told with the fullest detail and circumstance : 1. — It was training up a generation accustomed to see law broken, defied and made mockery of. Surely I need not expatiate on what an enormous mischief this is. It is practically, so far as it goes, an undoing of the greatest acliievement of civilization, the training of a people to obey and respect the law. 2.— As to minors, and the "educative tjttect of doing away with the open saloon," hear the evidence of one witness, a man without suspicion of bias in favor of the li(|uor interests. " What do you think is the effect of joints on minors and young people ?" "Very bad, lt>ecause a boy can go inttj a joint and be hid- •>0 den from those who would see him in iU( open saloon, and the joint keeper never asks the awdy houses and gambling houses fined in that wa}'? — Yes, they pay a fine of so much a month. Is that considered a kind of license fee '? — Yes, it is done in lieu of a license. 23 Or this from the city marshal of Council Bluffs, Towa, another "prohibition" town of 30,000 people, which was at the time of the commissioners' visit collecting .S46,000 a year Ity blackmailing the saloons : - What about houses of ill-fame ? We collect a revenue from those. How much?- The girls pay $H.10 aneei- und whisky to the people of the prohibition states. I^irge dealers in Kansas City, Mo., traded exclusively with Kansas. C)iin man iuid made half a million in ten years in this way. Another |)rodueed his order book before 24 the commissioners, sliowing a cash in advance trade with all jtarts of Kansas, aggregating a ([uarter of a million yearly. N(jr was this all. Business men complained that othei- trade was drawn into the samp channel, and anybody at all familiar with trade will say that such must inevitably V)e the case. V. -The Lesson of Maine. Sir, — The state of Maine has had by far the longest experience of prohi])ition of any country of the world. It passed a prohibitory law in [H')l and has been under prohibition ever since. No less than 43 amending acts have ))een passed, all in the direction of making the law more stringent. Tlie penalties at one time were increased to such severity that it became practically impossible to enforce them. The prohibition was of a much more sweeping and thorough-going kind than would he possible in this province under the recent decision of the Privy Council, or even under the Scott Act, inasmuch as the powers of the state legislatures are in this respect, under the constitution of the Ignited States, much wider than those of the provinces have been decided to be by the decision just referred to. The States have been able, so far as law goes, to close the lireweries and distilleries and to piohibit entirely the wholesale trade. The population of Maine is \ery similar to our own. If prohibition is to be a success anywhere it ought to have })een by this time in Maine. I am aware that there are plenty of persons who any that it lias l)een a success, and plenty of pei-sons a})peare(I Dcfore the com- missioners to give their opinion in its favor. Hut \\ lien we come to look at the reasons for their opinion, and the grounds on which it was based, we find the same thing with which we have become so familiar elsewhere, because, in the first place, there had been a great improvement in the drinking hal)its of the state, as a whole, compared with the habits of half a century ago, an argument that would have some force, though not much, if it were not shown that Ml e<|ual improvement has taken place in the same time in com- munities that had never Ix'en under pi'ohibition, and in the second place l>ocause drinking had almost ceased in the villages and rui'al "'^^H^iTWi I P tiraMA<»$SfVi;^^. •-'.) I districts. lint when tho matter cuine down to the real issue— how had prohil)itioii fared in the cities of the stat«, and what were it« effects on them for ^(X)d or ill, and what were the actual facts re- specting the amount of drinking, T venture the statement that no candid man with tlie evidence Iwifore him could (Iraw any other conclusi(»n than this, that prohibition did not prohibit drinking in any appreciable degree, and did produce a number of very mischiev- ous coiise(|uences. It is more than a little doubtful if e\en in the country districttJ of Maine [irohiVution has l)een so complete a success as many of tho witnesses would seek to represent it. I'he trade was pretty well kept t)ut of sight, and ministers and avowed prohibitionists going through the country might easily make the mistake because they saw no sign of the traffic that therefore it was noti-existant. But one witness in a position to see and who did see, is worth in such a matter a score who did not see simply because they were not so circumstanced that they could see. Take for example this one, a gentleman engaged in the wholesale crockery and glassware business in Jiangor, who travelled extensively through the state. "Are li(piors sold in the greater number of these villages?" "Wherever they have hotels they sell liquor. I think there is scarcely a hotel but what sells it. 1 have nev<>r been into a hotel in which they did not sell litpior, not openly of course as they do here, but you can get li<{uor in your room."' " Do your travelling agents corroborate your statetnent as to what you say about the selling of li(|Uor I" "Yes, in the business I .am in we have a pretty good idea that they sell licpior, because I sell them beer tumblers and whisky tumblers." It is worth while to make (me further quotation from the .same witness just to give a further illustration of Ikjw easily good people may be deceived in such a matter as this, and how little value is Uy )ie attached to merely negative testimony. " Two years ago there were special state constables appointed in this city (liangor) for the purpose of preventing the importation of li(juor. About two weeks after they were appointed a prominent member of the school board told me quite jubilantly that it was utterly impossible then to get licjuor into the city. A friend of mine, a whole.sale dealer in li(iuor, showed me in his office that very afternoon a statement of account, and T jokingly said to him that he must find it very difficult to get tlie liquor in now for such a big 26 order. He said, ' 1 will show you Homething,' and he showed me a cheijue that he was sending away for S'>, 000, the cost of 100 barrels of liquor, and thos(> 100 barrels were taken from the cars that veiy afternoon betw<;en .'5 and (5 o'clock," and similar (juotations might be multipliefl indeiinitely. In liangt)r, said to be the most active and progressive city in the •tate, though not the largest, there was not the least disj)ute as to how the law worked. It was absolutely and completely ignored* In that city of 19,000 people, there were about 130 places (one witness said) engaged in selling litjuor as openly as any bar in Hali- fax to-day. Several wholesale houses did a big business. The city was, as one witness put it, practically a separate connuunity living apart in the midst of the state in ojien defiance of its law. It had an unwritten code of its own to which it exacted strict conformity. St» long as the saloons clo.sed (nominally at least) on Sundays and after ten at night, they went unmolested, if not they found things made unpleasant for them. In Lewiston, a city of about l'5,000, tlie sale of liijuor was not quite so open as at Bangor, but according to the Deputy Marshal of the city, wlio ought to know, there was more licpior being sold than there ever was, that all told there were l)etween 300 and -tOO places selling, including a dozen wholesale houses, and although the police were very lenient in the matter of drunken men, there was an average of 300 arrests for drunkenness every year. In Portland there has been a more determined effort at prohi- bition than in any other city of the state, and plenty of witnesses could be found to say that in their opinion the law had been more or less of a success. But, as usual when one comes to sift the evidence and se{)arate undoubted facts from extremely (loubtful opinions; and set the evidence of the men who were in u position to know, and did know, and gave positive evidence accordingly, against that of the men who were not in a position to know, and •iould f^''' i.'iNO negative evidence, the only conclusion possible is jur 1 .:<, tha,t it this l)e success for prohibition, then we would like U> :;;0 . whri failure would be. Vi'jhibition M'n,.-i Ijeing enforced with unusual vigor in Portland' at the time of the commissioners' visit. The (piestion had become, a dozen of witnesses testified, "the mere fi)otball of politics," and 27 the Republicans, who pretended to he its chunqiioiis, and who gen- erally had control of the state government, alternatt.'ly enforced it with severity or allowed it to fall into "innocuous desuetude," according as they thought the proliihitionist or the liipior interest the 1/etter worth cultivating. At the time of the conunissioTiers' visit the prohi})itionists were having their innings and a new sheriff was "making things lively foi' the rumsellers."' But about how much real good he was doing was easily gathered fi-om a few facts. Tn the opinion of the police force of the city there had l)een no decrefse in thi^ amount of drunkenness for ten years past. Not- withstanding extreme leniency and reluctance to punish for drunkenness, the number of cases for this oflence coming before tlu5 police couit each year had maintaine;! a steady a\erage during that perio(l of Ijetween SoO and 1 000. Though there were at that time no open bars in the city, yet it was perfectly clear that there were abundant sources of supply and that nobody need go thirsty. Some of these w ere : — 1.— All the principal liotels had al)undance of licpior, uhirli was served with more or less secrecy. 2. — " Dives " and " rumholes " of greater or loss respectability scattered in great profusion all over the town. One witness, an expressman, who handled large quantities of liijuor for such places, and therefore ought to know if anybody should, said he could stand in the door of the hotel in which the commissioners were sitting and t+irow a stone into half-a-dozen such places. 3. — A swarm of "bootleggers," men, women, boys and even girls as young as ten going about the streets with the vilest kind of li«luor, from which they peddled drinks in alleys and corners and stables. 4. — Clubs got up solely for drinking purposes. The expres.sman already ([uoted, said he knew of duzcTis of such in the city> the meml)ers of whicli were mostly young men, and from such opjior- tunities of observation and comparison as he had had, he was satisfied that their influence in i)romoting drunkenness (to say nothing of gambling) among the young men, was much worse than that of open licensed saloons. 5. — A very large importation of liquor by both freight and •js express, in sniiill parcels, evidently intended for domestic consump- tion. r». Tlift state licjuor a;^ency at whicli liquor was sold to anybody for meclianical or medicinal purposes. Xo further {)roof waH required of its l)eing required for " medicinal purposes " than the statement of the purcha.ser. Wince the stricter enforcement of the law a most alarmini; increase of illness liad taken place in the city, and (he a<,'ency was at that time doing a roaring retail trade to the tune of $90,000 a year. Tn all these ways it is manifest that the good people of Portland were not going dry by any means. It is. in fact, possible to make a lough upproxinmte to the amount they did consume. The expressman alreatly (juoted stated, that from his own business and what he knew of the business of the other four express agencies in the city, at least an average t)f 100 parciils of li(|uor wen; handled daily, of an average value of S2.50, or, roughly speaking and omitting Sundays, about .^75,000 y)er year. He further stated that the amount handled by express was ])ut " a drop in the bucket" compared to the amount coming as ordinary freight. Putting the amount coming l)y freight for home consumption At only double that coming l)y express, certainly a most mode- rate estimate, and adding the $90,000 sold by the state agency, we have a total yearly consumption of .*;{!."), 000. The population of Portland was given at 36,000, of which the adult males would constitute about one fourth, or 9,000. Assuming every one of these to use liquor, the amount consumed in the city would give them $35 a year apiece, which is not bad for a city that had been forty years under prohibition, f doubt if Halifax can beat it. I have forborne making any lengthy (|uotations, simply for want of space, liut I must give one respecting Portland, because of the position of the man giving the evidence, his ample experience and consequent knowledge, and the clear and careful manner of statement. Tt is that of the Hon. Chas. F. Libbey, Counsellor at- Law, ex-Mayor of Portland, Prosecuting Attorney for the State from 1873 to 1878. This is what he said :— "I consider that the prohibitory law is a failure so far as the city of Portland is concerned. T consider that it lias tended .directly and indirectly to bring alx)ut a certain condition of affairs •JO •wliicli I consider ifs nut fjuuniblc t'niin a inonil point (»t' \'\v\\. Now, J will }^i\■^' you my exjtcricnfe as Pros(M;uting OlHi'cr, hihI I :ini jijoiti^ to apeak »»f momjp matters that arc rather i»ersoiial, st» that you may fairly understand my uttiturosecuting oMicer. T kept a careful record of every li(|Uor-dealer that 1 had iiulicted or prosecuted Itefoiv the couits, and T had a))rogressive system of fines Hnd punishments. 1 ke]»t a record of all these men and the number of times tlit'v came before me. * * * I looked it all all o\er to see what I bail ac(;omplished at the end of my time. I found that I had driven out of th(- business one set of men and anoth(;r set of men had conu^ in, and so far as T can judge from my expe- rience the last set of men engaged in the business \vas worse than the first set who were out of the business and were in jail ; accord- ing as they were driven out of the business they got other men to take thisir places. Jn addition to that I founoth in the citieH and rural districts. 'I'lie results of the investigation are published, along with the results of the investi- gation of himself and that of Dr. Wines in othei- states, in a voluniu 4^ntitled "The Litjuor Prol)leni," puhlisluHJ hy the Riverside PresH, (-'arnbridge, Mass. The chapter devoted to Maine conijirises 74 pages, and I would heartily recommend anylMMly wishing really to stueHU'(l it ;ifi«'r a few ycurs' tixperifnce, tliat of the citieM of MuHsaehuHettM un(i IlIio(l<> IhIhikI, which, lifter trial of prohibition, l>oth al)an(lone(l it. There is probably no Hubjet't of liiinian experience on wliich there existH a greater amount of evidence, and it is all one way. Whatever may l)e the reHultM of the law in snuUl and scattered coninninities, the world huM yet to see the first city of a si/o anywhere approaching that of Halifax, in which it has not been a complete and utter failure for any gut establishments in which liquor is sold was, in 1H92, (JOl', receiving wages amount- ing to $305,232, of whom a very consideraljle number at any rate would be thrown out of employment in the event of an effective measure of prohibition. In addition to these, the trade gave a large amount of employment to people not directly connected with the places in which it was carried on -freight V)y land and water, teamsters, insurance and the like. The taxes paid the city in respect of properties engaged in the trade amounted in I S92 to $10,628, which, when added to the $11,000 derived from licenses matie up over $27,000 of revenue which the city stands a chance of losing in gcjod j)art, and which would have to Ix' made up from the other properties. As to trade generally one fact is undoubted that if the pro- liil)itionists could succeed by a provincial law in stopi)ing the wholesale trade of Halifax in liipiors within the city and the province, it w(^uld simply mean a transference of that much trade to St. John and Montreal. Wholesale liquor houses in both these cities already do a large trade in many parts of Nova Ncotia, and they would be only too ready to take advantage of our folly in cutting off our own tratle. With this tran.sfer of the tra have been pretty well concurred in by the draftsman of the act, except that he has gone further in dealing with the wholesale trade than can l)e gath- ered with certainty or cleaniHs.'i from the judgment. But apart from this the act is simply a Scott Act for the City of Halifax. Does anylx)dy in the light of the mass of experience of which I have endeavored to give some faint outlines, suppose that such a law in Halifax will have the slightest operation for good, or doubt that it will Ije attended by some or all of the evil consequences which have Ixjen found to follow it in every other cily of any size in which similar laws have l>een tried ? If anylxKly has any such belief, 1 should like to hear it, and the grounds on which it islMwed. If not, then will anybotly tell me what po.ssible good the sponsors of this law propose to gain by its enactment. The act is nothing more than the Scott Act. Tt has l)een open at any time to the friends of and believers in pnjhibition of that kind to have put the 8cott Act to a vote in Halifax. They have not done so becau.se of a pretty general belief that it would not have the remotest chance of carrying. I would like to know if thej' think it will increase the chances of such a law l)eing a success to have it passed thus over the heads and in defiance, as it were, of the vei-y people by whom it will have to be enforced. One thing more : Tijis law, if pas.sed, will be practically a law- passed by the Province exclusively for the City of Halifax. Is the Province prepared to enforce it f It can hardly expect the city to do so. For the city it will mean at once anath in 1892 one of the Law Ijords oi the House of Lords and Privy Council. Though brief, it would be difftcult to put tlie argument against prohibition more cogently or compactly than is here done : — " There are some opinions entertained as honestly, as strongly, and after as mu(!h thought, as the opinions to the contrary ; but which nevertheless are put forth in an apologetic way as though those who hold them were doing wrong and knew it, or at least dcting something they were not sure alM)ut. And, doubtless, where the opinion is one of entire novelty, or where it is contrary to the principlcB, feelings, and practice of all mankind, one can un- derstand this style in propounding it. Tf it is possible to suppose an honest and sensible man thinking infanticide or a community of women desirable institutions, one would make sure and think it reasonable that a man, so thinking, who put forth such ideas, would do it humbly and in the style of one asking pardon. But this apologetic style is not confined to such cases. It exists in some when the opinion entertained is righteous, just, moral, and ii^ con- 3Y formity with the praf^tioo t»f all mankind, ft exists where those who hold the (^ontraiy say, and are permitted by their opponents to say, " We are the rigliteous, the ;^ood, the virtuous, and you are wicked, had, and \ii'ious." This is what the total ahstainera and the like say of themselves, and those who do not aifree with them. T am one who do not, and I am goin^ to say why : and as I think my opinion as good and virtuous as theirs, with the additional merit of being right, F am going to state it without ask- ing pardon for it or myself. "Drink yes, drink ! T mean by that, drink which cheers and, if you take too much, inebriates. I>rink as Mr. .lustice Maule under- stood it, wlien he was asked \)y the bailiH". who had sworn to give the juryman "no meat or drink."' whether he might give a juryman some water. 'Well,' said the judge, * it is not meat, and I should not call it drink — 3'os, yf)u may.' "Drink I Yes, alcohol ; of which if 3'ou take too much, 'you put an enemy in \'our mouth to steal away your brains.' l)rink, which makes a man contemptil)le and ridiculous if under the influence of too nmch of it. Drink, which ruins the health and kills the unhappy wretch who persistently takes it to excess. " Drink ! Yes ; 1 say it is a good thing, and F think tJie world would act very foolishly if it gave it up. Why, if it can do all the harm I have mentioned ? For this reason that it does an inmiense deal of good. I say outright that it does a deal more good, because it gives a vast deal of pleasure and enjojMiient to those who take it with good sense and modei-ation All over the world, with the exception of the followers of Mahomet, whom we hold wrong, wherever people have had the skill to make alcoholic drink, they have made and drunk it. Wine, where wine could be made. Where it could not, and sometimes where it couhl, beer and spirits have been produced and drunk. " Js it n(jt true that it is a source of great pleasure and enjoy- ment I See the thorough relish with which a tired man takes his glass of beer, the keen pleasure of the fir-st glass of sherry at din- ner to the man exhausted with the labuur of his brain. But besides these keen enjoyments, take the more (|uiet and sober pleasure of the glass of beer at dinner and at supper, or with the pipe. This is a pleasure had ifi this country by millions daily — nay, twiite daily, and if, instead of the glass of beer or wine, a small i, Il> . li: inkers are wrong, and that those who do not agree with thei » .. ' •■ rong, and not only wrong, but viciously wnmg, oujrht to ht ashiuii f^ of themselves, and their prac- tice and jwlvocacy .'f urink denounctv' •^■\H put an end to. "This is hard i'';nn u.s «:• > thin', •..••••vwise. A little more charity might lie shown us. Fii.,tof all w. ^ '• the majority vastly here in this country. Out of it, or latlier out of Anglo-Saxon influence, there is no minority even. Then we may say to our oppo- nents — Your fathers drank, and your ancestors as far back as story goes ; let us have time to think it out and see the erior of our ways. And this, at least, we may say to our opponents without offence or irreverence. Those of them who are Christians should, in the Eucliarist and the miracle of Cana, have found some excuse for those who think that drinking wine is not in itself wicked. But no I Down with them ! — sinners, drunkards — shut up the shops. and so forth, right ? " Now let doubt honest. Is this reasonable, is it fair, is it charitable, even if us see what are the grounds of these opinions- no It is said that immense mischief is caused by exces- sive drink. T own at once that that is true. Disease is brought on, health is ruined, insanity and death caused by excessive drink. Further, the amount spent in drink is enormous, and a large part of it might l)e better expended, i.e., in tlie production of more pleasure and enjoyment than are given by drink. Whether as much as i/l.'U,000,000 a year is spent on drink, as it is said, may be doubt- ful. But a good many millions may he taken off, and still a figure remain which is very lamentable — too much for health, too much for comfort, too much for enjoyment . But what does it prove 1 Not that all the 8,000,000 male adults of the kingdom are doing wrong and are drunkards, but that some are ; that some have been drinking to excess, and have swollen the average. There is this, however, to l>e said, that if the sum is spent in that way, it shows the amount of enjoyment that must l)e derived from it, S9 J? 11 " There is no doubt also that crime is caused hy drink. It in certain that more is drunk on Saturdays, and more crime committed on that day than any othei-. The drunken man is more likely to commit a crime of violence or roblK3ry than the sober. The drunken man, also, is more likely to have a crime committed on iiim in his helpless state, than is the sol)er man. " This is the case aj^ainst drink, and a very strong one. Now, what is to be done? It seems obvious to answer — let those who drink in moderation continue to do so, and let others leave it alone or learn to take it nioderately. ' No,' says the total abstainers, or some of them, ' that can't be. If «lrink is to }>e had, some will take it in excess. .Stop it altogether.' Now, 1 do not say that tint is )>eyond the right of society to its members. T do not know what is. If society's light to interfere with individual lil)erty i.s limited to cases necessary to secure the object for which society exists, viz., security of person and property from external and internal attacks, then this prohibition of drink \>> not within the right of .society. But, certainly, society does not limit itself in that way. It pro- hibits disorderly houses anrl gaming houses. Perhaps on similar considerations it may prohibit the making and .sale of alcoholic drink. But if it is within its right, is it fair, is it just, is it rea- .sonable, expedient, because some take it to excess, that it is to \ye denied to millions to whom it is a daily pleasure and enjoyment with no attendant harm '( Does this seem fair 1 The glass of beer is taken from the whole of fifty men because one of them will take more than is good for him. And take even his case. He drinks and ruins his health. May he not say, ' What is that to you ? It is my affair ; it is my pleasure not to be as goo«l as you. How do I harm you V Of course, if he is drunk in public, or riotous, or his drinking injures the public, punish him ; but it does seem hard that, instead of this, the sober man should be punished- punished, I say. For withholding a pleasure and intlictitig a pain are equally punishment. " In truth, these li(iuor laws are either to make men l)etter who do not want to bo made better. oi- to make; men better who have not self-control, and in both cases at the expense of others. 'You shall not enjoy a glass of beer ; because if you can get it, so can I, and I shall make a beast of myself.' Or, ' You shall not enjoy one glass of beer, because you take too many.' Is that just 1 Is it warrantable interference 1 Then see the mischief of such laws. 1 he public conscience does not go witli them. 1 1 is certain dis- IJut everyone knows that drinking a no discredit attaches to it. It is done, and when done against the law, you have the usual mischiefs of law-breaking, .smuggling, informa.tioas, oaths, perjury, shuffling, and they will be broken. Everyone knows that stealing is wrong ; grace follows conviction, glass of beer is not wrong iO lies. iJpsidcs, as a inatter of fact, it fails. Nothing can show this more strongly than tht' failure in Wales of the Sunday Closing Act. Fmthrr, what is to he dune 1 Is the sale of drink t(j he siispemled nil over the rnited Kingdom? Impossihle. ]>i parts only ; Then all the more will he sold elsewhere. On certain days only ,' Then provision will he made for a store of it, and the, drnnkai'd will sot himself at home with no eyes on him to cheek him. Coiisidei-, too, the piaeticfU unfaii-ncss on men, who having no cellar, trust to the i)uhlic-hotise for what is a reasonahle and wholesome enjoyment when not ahused. "Can nothing then he done hy law to diminisli the mischief caused hy drink '. 1 say " No.' \Vlu;ther it is desirahle to limit the numher of drink-shops is a matter as to which f have great douht and dilliculty. But grant that there is the right to forhid it wholly, or partially, in ])lace or time, I say it is a right which shouhl not he exercised. To do so is to interfere with the innocent enjoyment of millions in order to lessen the mischief ai-ising from the folly or evil propensities, not of themselves, hut of others. And, further, that such legislation is attended with the mischiefs wliich always follow^ from the creation of olienee? in law which are not so in conscience. Punish the mischievous drunkard indeed, perhaps, even punish him for heing drunk in puhlic, and so a likely source of mischief. Punish, on tlie same juinciple, the man who sells drink to the drunken. lUit go no further. Ti-ust to the good sense and improvement of mankind, ant.1 let idiarity be shown to those who would trust to them rather than to law.' " 1\1H ^il^<