s* } ON THE Tcrr> JN W- IN NORWICH AND NEW LONDON, AS PROVED BY THE OFFICIAL RECORDS. DELIVERED I \ NORWICH AND NEW LONDON, BY REV. L. T. CH A M! B E It L A I IV , Pastor of Broadway Cbnrch, N<u-\\i<-h. PRINTED FOR DISTRIBUTION IN THE TWO CITIES. ORDERS FILLED AT THE COST RATE OF $7.00 PER THOUSAND. ADDRESS REV. L. T. CHAMBERLAIN, NORWICH, CT. UCSB LIBRARY Mu. PRESIDENT AND F-ENS: Five months ago, the citizens of Norwich and New London met to consider the effects of No-License. We all felt that sufficient time had elapsed for the arrival at decisive conclusions. Wo recognized the truth that the cause was to find its practical defeat or tri- umph in the observation and recorVl of results. It was then said from this plat- form. "If the facts arc against us, we wish to know it. If they are for us, we wish our opponents to join us in ac- knowledgment thereof. For, by the re- sults, we stand or fall. To be con- demned in the matter of results, is to be assigned not only >o present obloquy, but also to future defeat." It was pro- claimed, moreover, that nothing would suffice, save the proved realities and the authentic record; tint ihe only honest, as the only wise course, was to search the case to its actual events. You will join me to-night, fcllow- citi/en-s, 1 am sure, in the reiteration ot those fearless words. Neither you, nor I, nor any well wisher of Temperance, will ask for evasion or concealment. We have no purpose to shut our eyes to the thing that is veritable. Show us the evidence, and we will admit the infer- ence to which the evidence points. AV'e welcome the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As Chaucer says: "Truth is the highest thing that man may keep." And weadmit, with equal unreserve, that the conclusions t:> which the results point us to-night, will justly be even more decisive than those of rive months ago. The period of trial has been extended to double the former limit. It now verges upon a year since, in these two cities, the decree against the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, was passed by popular vote. If, therefore, the former period reviewed gave signifi- cant results, the period now in be sur veyed will be doubly suggestive. Ex- perience is more than mere theory. For one, I fully recognize that fact. For one, I have pledged myself to abide that, test rightfully applied Show me that fair experiment reveals the unadvisable- nessof No-License, and I will cease its advocacy, from this hour forth. God forbid that any of us should seek the maintenance of what is proved to be worthless. I would only desire, that those op- posed tons >hould unite in the same confession of purpose. It would be enough, if they too would sincere- ly pledge themselves to be ruled by the authenticated demands of the public welfare. If only that fair premise might be agreed upon, conflict would soon give place to accord. For the results are overwhelming in their conclusiveness They are so plain that he may run who reads. They are so manifold that even the foolish need not err with regard thereto! And yet, before I name the results, let me point out certain considerations which should be borne in mind. Con- siderations pertinent not only to this discussion, but essentially to all ques- tions of the public well-being. It is of exceeding importance that we rise to the ground that is both fair and fun- damental. In the first place, then, it is not war- rantable to rest the decision of such i-^ues, upon the mere record as figured and tabulated. That record is itself to be viewed in the light of the principles to which it stands related. A moment ago, I pledged myself to abide the test of fair experiment. Observe, fair experi- ment. 1 announced my abandonment of what ever was proved worthless. Ob- serve, the worthlessness was to be proved. I now add, accordingly, that the fairness of an experiment includes something more than that an experiment has been made; and that the proof of worthlcss- nes< must go beyond the mere citation of figures. For example. Suppose that in our midst, the crime of highway robberv should become prevalent and systemat- ic. Suppose it should gain the power which comes from wealth and numbers. Suppose, too, that the citizens, in self- defense, should pass a special law against it; should characterize it as it deserved, and should essay to rid them- selves of its curse. Suppose, however, that the highwaymen, in (heir criminal- it}', and in their determination to show the law to be futile, should multiply their robberies, and should add the ter- rors of murder, as well; that, fora brief period, they should prevail by a violence which was like that of armed invasion and rapine! Would that be a fair ex- periment? Would the law have been shown to be valueless? You answer, at once, and with all the conscience and c immon-sense you pos- sess, "No! The law was simply inade- quate. Its enforcement was insufficient. It lacked sustaining power." And in the same breath with which you named the deficiency, you would name the remedy. You would say, "L'-( the au- thorities redouble their efforts. Let them arm themselves with their own utmost prerogatives And if even that be insufficient, let them summon the people to their aid, until there be not another hand which can be lifted for the common defense." You would look past the present increase of woe, to see that the relief was to be sought in the one direction of increased support of the law. Yon would aver that there was no option; that to gain respite by the compassion of oul -laws, would be fatal disgrace, and that to be overpowered by them, would be the end of all free, right- eous government. Fellow-citizens, that illustration is applicable in more relations than one. ll not only shows that statistical results, the observed outward aspects, are to \n> viewed in thc-ir relations, as well as in themselves; it also shows that there may be considerations which transcend the so-called practical results, and hold sway even in apparent spite of them. You could'nt do otherwise than oppose the highwaymen, whether you succeed- ed or not! Well, as the case stands with refer- ence to license, it is not far otherwise. On the one hand, and I pray that the alternatives may be remembered on the one hand, you have to deal, not with an ideal system of license, in which the public welfare should be the end, and in which that end should be secured by routining the sale of liquors as a beverage, to a few, responsible, consid- erate persons: but you have to deal with a license which means, practically, the engaging in the traffic of all who choose, and who can pay the license fee. That is what license means historically. That is what it has meant in Norwich and New London, in all the, years of its prevalence. As I chance to know, the citi/.eti of Norwich who was most con- cerned in the passage of the Act by the Legislature, earnestly endeavored to se- cure the ideal application of it to his municipality. He counseled the Select- men to put the permissive license in the hands of the trustworthy few. He en- treated them. But the inherent import of the law itself, and the fierce pressure from without, broke down the imprac- ticable theory. Permissions were grant- ed to the larger number, and that prec- edent lias ruled ever since. This, then, is the issue. By favoring license, you favor the dram-shop, and to whatever extent the profit thereof will warrant. The restrictions which the license lawVssays to put about the I raffle, are found to be dillicult of enforcement, and, so far as any fealty of the dram- shop itself is coacerned, are no more than a deceiving mockery. Therefore, I submit, it were hardly worth one's while to indulge the fancy that in voting for license, he is voting for something which cannot fairly be likened to highway robbery and mur- der. License in Connecticut, is the dram-shop at every corner; and the' dram-shop u worse than the high way 1 robbery or the highway nitirder! Ah, ladies and gentlemen, you have but to look anew and for one moment, to real- ize that I am not speaking unadvisedly: As against the mere robbery which it were within the highwayman's power to inflict, put the desolations which you know to be wrought by the drun-shop traffic; the indolence, the waste, the want, the unkindness, the brutality, the licentiousness, the defiance of all social, and legal, and divine restraints. Put in that contrast, the hunger and naked- ness of children; the tears and anguish of wives and mothers; the shame, and remorse, and blasphemy of the stricken fathers and sons. What is robbery com- pared with the thing which works such work as that? Wrong done to the dram-shop by the comparison ; No ! One should rather beg pardon of the highwayman for bringing his compara- tively harmless plundering, into a com- panionship so incomparably foul ! And as against the highway murder, you have but to put the second death, the loss of the soul itself, in that eternal world toward which we all are hasten- ing! Let us not cajole ourselves into think- ing that our alternative is between any- thing other, or less momentous, than 1 No-License on the one side, and the le- galized, destroying dram-shop mi the other. Let us not conjure up some baseless thing, and suppose that that is whal stands a- Hie. possible nnd harm !(>-. alternate. 1 have said that, on the one hand, ii- reuse means I he'di ani-sliop with all its horrors. 1 pray yon to note, on the other hand, u consideration which re- veals, and in which consists, an added baseness on the pail of that same li- cense. The consideration is this, that those who, under^ license, keep the dram-shops, and who work such woe, arejlhosc who habitually trample on the very law whose protection they invoke, and who, even thus, belie all their asserted regard for the public will. Did those'engaged in the dram-shop traffic say|openlyjthat their advocacy of license was for purely selfish ends; and that when they had secured the law, th?y intended to violate it to every practica- ble extent, that so they might further gratify their greed; that would some what mitigate their sin. That would at least relieve them of hypocrisy, con- cerning which Montaigne once said, "I mortally hate it ; and of all vices, find none that does evidence so much base- ness and meanness of spirit ." As it is al present, they discuss meth- ods with us. They talk of the common welfare. They claim to be within the pale of good faith, and to be deserving of a place in the body politic. They profess to regard it as an injustice,when they are ranked with desperadoes and villains! Yet look again at the facts. The sup- porters of the dram-shop not only break the law under cover of which they have an authorized existence, but they appear as lull citizens, and enter into the covenant which is involved in the fran- chise! They move in society, and take the sacred ballot as their means of vic- tory. The}' not only persistently evade and defy all -the restrictive provisions of license, and lift nohand against those ! who secretly do 'business in intoxicating liquors without so much as the form of license, they also claim the highest pre- rogative within the social, political com- pact. They lay their unclean hands on the very ark of our hope, and turn it into an engine of sin and death. They come up from the depths of their desperate trallic. and arm themselves wi'h the armor of light. They thus make war upon the safety and practical value of popular government itself. Their'* is treason against the fundamental right of every man who casts his ballot in good faith. Their hypocrisy and treachery lend the greater infamy to their destruct- ive course. Good friends, when you take those considerations into account, a re you not compelled to say of license, even as of highway rapine and murder, that you must oppose it, whether you succeed or not? Is it not, practically, one of those supreme offences which must be antag- onized? Is there, in reason, any option for us? Does not the issue transcend a'l mention of the statistical results se- cured by No-License, and demand of us an absolute, unchangeable oppositon to license? I have listened, indeed, to the talk about its being no sin perxc to drink and sell, under certain circumstances and due cautions, the intoxicating beverages. I have heard it affirmed that the "high moral argument" is sometimes inapplic- able, and that the case is to be wholly de- cided in the forum of experiment. They have zealously assured us that a direct comnarison of results, is the only proper direction in which to turn our thoughts. But such statements are as as wide of the real, urgent question be- fore this municipality, as would be re- finements of logic and analysis, with reirard to the possible right of the per- ishing to save themselves by taking what was not their own, or (lie right of the assaulted to' take llie life oi' a deadly as- sailant, when the actual issue \\ as re- specting highway robbery and n.imler! License in Norwich, in New London, in Connecticut, means the dram-shop in its usual character, and against that we are mornll}', religiously bound to contend utterly, unless we have ceased to fear God or to regard man. Though the is- sue had been originally one of practical results alone, yet has time shown that the results of license, of the dram-.shops, are always so shameful, so deadly, that the issue becomes, at last, an issue of absolute morality and absolute right. From that point-on, there is essentially no rightful choice. In reality, you do not need to compare results. You know, in advance,, that the true path is the path of the opposition! And now r I point out to you still another consideration which properly precedes the enumeration of specific re- sults. It is involved in what I have al- ready said, yet it deserves this further notice. You hear of a comparison of t he workings of license and No-License. And one who did not know the condi- dition of t'jings, might suppose that the two methods were subjected to the same equitable test. He might infer thai when the one course or the other was adopted by the choice of the people, at the ballot-box, it was permitted to have its essentially unhindered application. Would not a "comparison of results" imply that? Ought not that to be the fact? But what is the actual condition of things, in this municipality and in this State? Is it that of a fair, equitable test? Oh no! The condition is this. Whenever license is to be adopted or rejected at the polls, its opponents op- pose it by only legitimate means. They invariably honor the sacredness ol the franchise ;md the obligations of good faith. And even when the law of license has been- adopted agair.st their honest effort, they still labor earnestly to make its practical success as great as possible. They endeavor to enforce its provisions. They seek to maintain its safeguards. They are active; in the attempt to pre- vent the lawless from bringing it into discredit by its violation. They try, under it. to restrain drunkenness and to hinder crime. I appeal to-night and in tl. is presence, for the corroboration of my words. Has not that been 1 lie case, fellow-citi/ens, from the hour that Lo- cal Option became the policy of the IState? Has not that been the course of the most earnest No-License men, in all the years of the conflict? Is not that the action to which they feel bound by their own fealty to God mid man? And yet, what is the fact respecting the reverse case? How is it, when No- License is likely to win at the polls? And how is it, when it has fairly gained the victory there? You know, to your sorrow. You know that in such an emergency at the polls, the rum-inter- est, the distinctively license-interest, stops at no unfairness of method. Its champions make intoxication itself, and bribery, and falsehood, and virtual in- timidation, the weapons of their war- fare. I am not slandering them. I am not talking at random. I am simply stating what, a year ago, and at elections preceding, was seen to be. was known to be, the fact; what was done in Nor- wich and New London, and in the coun- try towns, under the flag, and in the light of day! Yes, and since the election of Octo- ber, 1878, which was carried for No-Li- cense, in spite of such opposition, what has been the attitude of the friends of the rum-traffic? Have they endeavored to make No-License a success? Have they reciprocated the former action of Temperance men, and aimed to give ef- ficiency to the statute which was fairly secured at the polls? Have they even been neutral, and permitted the unhind- ered movement of that to which they were, at least, bound to submit? You know the answer. It seems almost pre- posterous to ask the questions. You know that from that day to this.the rum- interest of Norwich and New London, with no known exception, has set itself against the execution of the No-License law. Though, as voting citizens, they virtually covenanted to obey it, in case it was adopted, they have sought to trample it under their feet. By day and by night; through the week of labor and the Sunday of rest: by stealth and fraud; by boldness and bravado; by their press and their lawyers: by their money and their influence; they have attempted the defeat of No-License, in its practical working. They have even boasted of their faithlessness and crime; for they have whispered it in the ear, and shout- ed it on the house-tops, that the sales of spirituous liquors as a beverage, have- not been much diminished under No- License. As if they were oblivious to all considerations of honor, they have unceasingly, mercilessly, fought against the success of the measure whose un- hindered application, in case it was car- ried, was itnpliedly guarantied by them at the ballot-box. And under such circumstances.we art* told, with coolness, that it is not for us to claim for No-License, any worth which is not substantiated bv the com- parative statistics! When the friends of No-License, the most earnest workers for Temperance, have wrought whole- heartedly for the public sobriety and well-being, under license; ;md have de- fend, -d the public welfare, under Ni> License against the unrelenting, un- scrupulous attacks of that interest which is never regardful of law: they are re- minded that they deserve to stand or fall, and their law to be retained or re- jected, according to the mere sums-total which they may be able to show as their net gain! What an essential unfairness! Aye, how profound, how fearful, the underlying evil which, in the anguish of our protest, we thus point out! As I have said before, and as I reiter- ate to-night, the case so stands in these communities, that the plea to be made is not simply in behalf of Temperance, and of No-License as promoting Tem- perance. It is also, and even more fun- damentally, in behalf of law as law, and of the lawfully, solemnly expressed will of the people as something more than a farce. Why is it, 1 wonder, that these prevailingly Christian, law-honoring communities tolerate, in respect to Temperance laws, a persistent lawless- ness which, in any other matter, would be deemed unendurable? Suppose that there was a division of preference in this city, as to the relatio* of law to public education. Suppose that the greed of many, their unwilling- ness to be taxed for the support of the public schools, should lead them to op- pose the whole plan; should lead them to pronounce in favor of leaving each parent to educate his own children, or not, as he pleased. And suppose that in due time, and in due manner, the public will expressed itself at the polls, in favor of general taxation for schools, and compulsory attendance. Suppose, however, that thereafter the opponents of the plan thus adopted, should indi- vidually, and by combination, attempt to thwart it. Should secrete their own children, and tempt others into truancy; should plan evasions and resort, to false- hood; -hould virtually resist the law, and boast that (hey had piv.r-uted its proposed working. Would you lose faith in the excellence ol' ( thc law itself? Would you, indeed, quietly admit that it was only a question of education, to be decided by comparative results in this given community? No, no, fellow- citizens! You would say, "The issue transcends even that It has become the question of respect for law fairly enact- ed. It is the question of the existence of society and real government." And then you would say, further, "We pro- pose to have that greater question set- tled, and settled first." You would swear by the sacredness of decency and right that, in some way, the lawlessness should be made to cease. By an aroused : public opinion; by a re-enforcement of both the statute and its execution; you would oblige the defiance of the law, in the main at least, to come to an end. You would declare that that was the condition precedent, on which alone any fair test of educational measures could be made. Well, then, say the same, I pray you, with reference to this issue of Temper- ance legislation. Say that when a law is adopted by the people themselves, after full discussion, and in the pre- scribed way, it shall be prevalently ex- ecuted; even though it require every third man to be enrolled as police, or the calling out of the whole body of citizens.at summons of the Mayor. Say that when that end has been secured, you shall have your first opportunity for a fair trial of the merits of No-License. Friends, the supporters of No-License are law-abiding people. Whether they win or lo.ie at the polls, they work for the observance of statutes and the secur- ing of the public good. Contrariwise, the most active: supporters of license are prevailingly law-breakers, especially when the will of the people is against their dram-shops. Let then, 'the con testants themselves, as well .as th$ cific result*,, -by judged >iu ; that, lighU; Tak your, own stand nccoidingly. .),?.- And th';re is yet another reflection wnich should bo borne in mind, as we approach the recorded results. I.t is this, and this emphasized by what has gone before, viz: that the single year, or more exactly ten months, which has elapsed since the passage of No-License, is not sufficient time for a proper percep- lion of what No-'jicense will do. Li- cense has held the field during a vastly longer period. It has had its extended trial. Those who voted against it, have given its provisions their adhesion and support. Fellow-citizens, let No-License have similar trial, for there are reasons manifold, why its results may be expect- ed to become even more satisfactory, as the years go by. Look, for instance, at this one fact. Last year, No License was carried in the cities, by a majority so slight as to lead the drain-shops to suppose that they might reverse the de- cision, at the next election. Conse- quently, the utmost practicable amount of money has been retained in the business. The utmost risks have been taken, in the effort to live on until the day of release. With the determina- tion which naturally belongs to one who deems himself to have suffered only a passing defeat, the rum-seller has pursued his course. The whole rum- interest has stood alive, alert, waiting tor its return to power, expectant of re- UL'wed success. Its opposition, there- fore, to the working of No- License, has been quick and powerful. It has fed itself with the thought of revenge. Put, now, the matter of a return to license beyond the probability of imme- diate reopening. Say. by your over- whelming vote, that you intend to con- tinue the existing plan, until it has had full time for its effects; aud especially, until the shameless, lawle.-^ assail its upon it by the nun-interest, a'ro brought to an end. Let it be thoroughly understood that the reversal of the decree will not be made at present. Have you any question that thus the whole aspect and attitude of the opposition to No-License, would change;' Have yon any question that that opposition would become far less persistent and intense? Bear in mind, too, that the methods, the evasions, the violations, on the part of the dram-shops, are becoming more thoroughly understood by the friends of sobriety, and by the police and Pros- ecuting Agents. Nor is it wide of the mark to suggest, in general, that if the breaches of the No- License legislation, have taken a form which was not con- templated, and for which provision was not made, the legislation can be amend- ed to meet the issue. I suppose it pos- sible to make law keep pace with the public need! In fine, as touching the extent, the permanence of the trial of No-License, let it be unalterably sustained for a term of years, such a term as has been given to license. Let the whole body of good citizens so signify their will on the sixth of October. In that act, as in the determination that lawlessness shall cease its prevalence, you will meet one of the essential, and hitherto nnsupplied conditions of a jnst, reasonable trial of the statute against the dram-shop?. And now we come to the results which can be specifically set down, results drawn, in every instance, from the official sources. In the overwhelming support which they give to No-Eicense, you are still to re- member the fundamental considerations which I have urged. You are to reflect that though the favorable results were far less computable and far less deci- sive, you would be bound to oppose the licensed dram-sliop You are to recol- lect against what an energy and infamy of lawless opposition, No-L ; cense lias wrought its work. You are to recog- nize the truth that a single year, under such circumstances, is not sufficient for the trial; and that the future gives promise of still greater gains. Fellow-citizens, in addressing yen five months ago on the Success of No- License, I first gave you the figures re- lating to the total arrests for drunken- ness in Norwich and New London, com- paring the five months preceding No- License, with the five months following. Those figures still stand. They have not been gainsaid by so much as a unit. They were as follows: Norwich, under license, 161; under No-License, 58. New London, under license, 230; under No-License, 57. Making similar com- parison for the other half of the ten months which have now pas-sed, we have, Norwich, under license, 126; un- der No-License, 83. New London, un- der license, 104; under No-License, 104. Or, summing up the arrests for drunk- enness, in each city, for the ten months preceding No-License, and the ten months following, we have, Norwich, under license, 287; under No-License, 141. New London, under license, 3a4; under No-License, 161. As you per- ceive, IN EACH CITY. No-LlCENSE SHOWS LESS THAN ONE-HALF THE ARRESTED OK, IN OTHER WORDS, THE OBSERVABLE DRUNKENNESS. And that, in spite of the unjust odds under which No-License lr-s been obliged to contend! Take next, us before, the arrests for all crimes. In the comparison for the first five months, dating each way from the commencement of No-License, the record stood, Norwich, under license, 414; under No-License, 283. New Lon- doH, under license, 389; under No-Li- cense, 114. For the succeeding five 11 months, the record stands, Norwich, under license 302; under No-License, (omitting the arrests for non-compliance with the dog-law, which went into ef- fect May 1st, 1879) 263. New London, under license, 256; under No-License, 203. Or, summing up the total arrests for crime, in each city, for the ten months preceding No-License, and the ten months following, we have, Nor- wich, under license, 716; under No-Li- cense, 546. New London, under license, 645; under No-License, 317. As you perceive, IN NORWICH,LESS THAN FOUR- FIFTHS 'JHE CRIME IN GENERAL, AND IN NEW LONDON, LESS THAN ONE-HALF. And lhat, in spite of the unjust odds against which No-License has had to contend! Take next, the jails of New London County. Five months ago the statistics were, Total number of commitments, under lic( nse, 197; under No-License, 80. Since that, reckoning, we have, under hcense, 139; under No-License, 119. Committed for drunkenness, for the first period, under license, 87; under No-Li- cense, 27. For the second period, under license. 47; under No-License, 35. Or, summing up the statistics of the jails, for the ten months preceding No-Li- cense, and the ten months following, we have, total commitments for crime, under license, 336; under No-License, 199. Total commitments for diunken- ness, under license, 144; under No-Li- cense 62. Average of jail inmates, un- der license, 46; under No-License, 26. As you perceive, LESS THAN TWO-THIRDS THE TOTAL COMMITMENTS FOR CRIME; LESS TUAN ONE-HALF THE COMMITMENTS FOR DRUNKENNESS; AND LESS THAN THREE-FIFTHS THE AVERAGE OF IN- MATES OF JAIL. And that, in spite of the unjust odds against which No-Li- cense lias IK en obliged to contend! Though we were to abide, simply and solely by statistical results, what must we judge concerning the fruits of No-License? What must we conclude concerning the law which single-hand- ed, and against such tremendous and criminal opposition, has won Mich a triumph! The law which has lit erally plucked its victory out of the very jaws of the enemy! The law which lias reduced drunkenness to less than one-half, and crime in general to less than two thirds! The Ir.w which has well nigh half depopula- ted our jails, and given added safety to both property and person! Does the street say that such a law is to be repealed, in these cities, before the ides of October? Does the rum-seller declare that that statute is to b- swept from the book in this enlightened, Christian community? Does the dram shop proclaim, with insolent, assurance. that the good men of this town are to help it in regaining its former destructive power? It must be false. The claim is preposterous. It is morally impossi- ble that such should be the verdict in Norwich and New London. The Hose j of New England will not so diminish her glory, and the fair City by the Sea will not so dim her lustre! And here, good friends, 1 ask your at- tention to certain very significant infer- ences, to be drawn from within the re- sults which I have laid before you. They are too important to be overlooked. For example, you may have noticed lhat in Norwich there was an increase of drunk- enness during the last live months of No-License, as compared with, its first five months. You may have noted that in New London, thej-eported diunken- ness was 104 in the last five months, as compared with the 07, in the live months preceding. Did you somewhat won- der at the change? It is wholly expli- cable. It is vastly expressive. It be- IS hooves you to treasure llic conclusion to which it points. You will remember that in April ami .May there was currently reported a marked increase in the saleot the .so-call- ed non-intoxicating beers. The attention of the Prosecuting Agent- was drawn to the fact. Prosecutions were instituted and seizures made. In the test cases however, which were tried in June, the State was defeated. The dealers denied that the beers were intoxicating. They brought witnesses to testify that they were quite harmless, one citizen of Norwich alleging that in a comparative- ly brief time, he had drunk twenty glasses without ill effects! The former rum-sellers declared, privately and on oath, that all they sold, or proposed to sell, was the non-intoxicating drinks. Well, see in the light of the past five months how much that declaration was worth. Infer how much the decla- rations of tho-;e in the dram-shops are ever worth! COIM IDKNTLY WITH TIIK S( IIKNCK l)KKi: IM-X'ISIO.Ns \\HHII 1M1T TIIK SIIIKI.]) OF LICKNSK OVKK 'I UK SO- r\M,KI> NON-INTOXICANTS, THKKKWAS A CKKAT AND SISTAINKl) I NCK KASK IN miu.NKKNNKss. In Norwich, drunken ness increased nearl\ one-half, and in New London it was nearly doubled. In Norwich, at the tim-j of the special beer excitement, the monthly average of ob- served drunkenness was less than 12. Since then, the average has been nearly 17, the number in a single month going as high as 2-J. In'New London, the previous average was scarcely more than 11. Since that tim.- it lias been upwards of 20. Now what does all that go to show, fellow-citizens? Either that the so- called non-intoxicating beers are j,in re- ality intoxicating, Nir thai the whole be,T traffic is bul a u'uise Cor the s-|]e of the usual spirMuous li(juor.s! The con- clusion is unavoidable; and, in either case, the keepers of I he saloons arc con- victed of disloyalty to truth, and crime against the public welfare. They them- selves have thus given us a timely warning! It is really safer for the good, when evil appears in its true character. As Shakespeare wrote: "If damn'd commotion so appeared. In his true, native, and most proper shape. You, reverend fathers, and these noble lords, Had not been there, to dress the ugly form Of base and bloody insurrection, With your fair honours." Had there been no such outburst of falsehood and crime, some might have been beguiled into thinking that, after all, the rum-interest meant to respect good faith and the intent of law. It might have been supposed that, even though the restraints should be relaxed, no special harm would ensue. But now, even the blindest are forced to see that there is no safety for the public, save by laying its inexorable hand on the very throat of the rum-interest. It must be strangled out and out. Evidently, that i> the necessity now, just as in times past. Rather than look toward the re- peal of No-License in these cities, we must look toward its receiving a further adaptation to the emergency, at the hands of the Legislature! And that reminds me that there is, a rumor afloat with regard to the rise of club-rooms, as an evasion of No-License. Somebody hints that they are places where debauchery is rife, and where the evils of the open dram-shop are sur- passed. But what is there to indicate it? The police records don't yet say so. The sums-total ot crime and drunken- ness don't really make it probable. If the information comes from any respon- sible source, at present, it would seem it must come from the frequenters of the dub-rooms! But do they mean to tell us I hat such is the nature of their 13 organizations V If they do so tell us, r if from any oilier authentic source, that tact is substantiated, they will find that the remedy, as in the preceding case, will lie, not in the direction of giving up the No-License which they thus evade, but in amending it so as to be applicable to their summary dispersion and punishment. Meantime, a good law is not to bs held responsible for evasions of it, cither alleged or real. On the occasion of the former address, fellow-citizens, I made answer to cer- tain assertions of the rum-interest, re- specting the financial relations between No-License and its opposite. I averred then, however, as I emphatically aver now, that such considerations come not near the prime merits of the case. In one sense, they do not deserve mention. In one view, I feel like craving your pardon for the bringing forward ot such concerns. To give them special moment, were alike beneath the great- ness of the issue itself, and the dictates of citizenship and wisdom. If direct financial advantage attends the steps of righteousness, it may be proper to cite the fact. It is incidentally an encour- agement. But that is not fundamental. The righteous, the beneficent thing should be done, whether immediate monetaiy gain be on this side or on that. The priceless, supreme interests of hu- manity are not to be sold in the sham- bles. Yon suffer u blow to be struck at, society, and government, and right itself, when you are betrayed into such a thought. And yet, in the unprincipled assault to which No-License has been con- stantly subjected, it has been cast, at us that the city's resources lack the thou- sands of dollars which the former li- cense-fees afforded, and that there is no considerable offset. 1 say again, thai it. were well, even then, that the money previously received from licenses, should be given up, for the sake of the sobrie- ty, and good order, and comfort, and personal reformation which has result- ed. There is, however, in part, a financial recompense for the unhallowed gains surrendered. The prosecutions of all violations of No-License have 1 hem- selves brought, in the, aggregate, a sur- plus to the city treasury. 1 find, from examination of the account for the fiscal year ending September 1st, as rendered by the Norwich Board of Selectmen, the same noble Board which held office last year, that the expenses of the Town for the outside and alms- house poor, are $7,064.76, less in 1879 than in 1878. You can judge whether that would have been so, in the absence of No-License. Do you think that even the superb ability of the Board, would have compassed that result, with the liquor-saloons in their former activity ? The expenses for the poor in New London, 1 have been unable to obtain. It further appears that to thcCounty of New London, there iias probably been a saving, in the jail expenses, of upwards of $2,000. Doubtless, to the State there has been expense in excess of receipts, but of that, I venture the State does not complain. It is no more than belongs to her whole function of combating crime. And for even that, the law- breakers, and not the law, arc to be held accountable! Thus does even the money question which, at most, is as nothing, when compared with the maintenance of law and the public well-being, wear a very different aspect from that portrayed by the patrons of the dram-shops. The financial offsets attest the yet higher benefits, and lend emphasis to the more essential gains. 14 All, fellow-citizens, I wish it were within my power to show you those advantages of No-License which are beyond the compass of figures! The weak souls succored in their mortal struggles; the guilty souls given van- tage ground on which to stand, in the consideration and preference of a holy life; the young men stayed in their ru- inous course; the families where drunk- en brutality reigned, made peaceful and safe; the almost naked clothed, I and the almost starving fed; the bro- ken-hearted mother made to rejoice, and the sorrowing wife restored to her cheer; they who were in the path to eternal death, led to the salvation which is the gift of Christ. All that has been favored, and rendered the more prac- ticable, by No-License. All the moral and spiritual forces have been aided by the decree against the dram-shops. The actual sources of temptation have been restrained, lessened. As in a clearer light, and with the more ade- quate support, the friends of God and humanity have wrought. Will you permit the beneficent statute to be re- pealed? Yet I have heard it suggested that the unquestionably good results which have been reached under No-License, may not be justly cited as wholly its due. It has been questioned whether they ought not, in strictness, to be assigned to the faithfulness of individual Tem- perance workers. But the suggestion and the questioning lack force. The issue now before the people, in large part, is a comparative one. It is made the issue, of whether the comparison between license and No-License, shows a gain for the latter. To that issue, that comparison, the reference to the fidelity of Temperance workers has no pertinence. For, as I have shown, all such workers wrought as unremittingly and as devotedly, under license, as un- der No-Licinse. Their efforts are a constant factor. I will even venture to affirm that they made greater effort when the dram-shop was licensed, than since it has been legally forbidden. The need of effort was more imperative; the prev- alent ruin was more appalMng. Ask him who, beyond all others, is the leader, the hero of the rescue, and he will tell you that, owing lo later ex- haustion and ill-health, his Jaboiswere most abundant when liceme was the rule of the city. No! Barring certain incidental ad- vantages which may be credited to the partial revival of business in general, the changed aspect of things is due to No License, and to that alone. For the most part, ever} 7 oher force in the community has remained unchanged. The repressive statute was adopted, and in spite of the bitterness, the lawless- ness of the opposition to it, it has ac- complished what we have mentioned. Never was an effect more closely, more manifestly, bound to its cause, than the advance of the public welfare is bound to the No-License statute. In its en- forcement lies the wonder-working pow- er. And of that we have an added evi- dence, in the fact that against the No- License statute, the rum-interest of the city sets itself, as one man. That alone were enough to show us our true course! And now, fellow-citizens, I must close. I confess that I see not how there can be the reversal at the polls, of the verdict of last year. When you look at the considerations which are more supieme than even the tabulated, proved results, they are seen to be on the side of No-License. The is- sue is, most profoundly, one of the Maintenance of righteous law, as law. It is between you, as law-abiding citi- zens, and those who habitually violate the law relating to the rum traffic, even though it be the law of their choice. It is between you, as voters, and those who, entering into sacred covenant with you at the polls, seek to trample the will of the people under their very feet, if it be against, their destructive traffic. It is, for the most part, between you, and the keepers and patrons of tfie liquor- saloons. Not simply between No-Li- cense, and license rigorously restricted and obeyed by those who invoke it, bul between No-License, and the legalized, manifold, accursed dram-shop. It is between you, and those who, having been aided by Temperance men in the genuine application of license, oppose the working of No-License by every un- holy means within their reach. Surely I am right, therefore, in say- ing that the considerations which are most utterly supreme, considerations which admit of no alternative, are on the side of No-License. On that side, too, are the observed re- sults. Though the opposition encoun- tered has been so extreme, and though the time has been inadequate, the re- turns show an overwhelming gain on the part of No-License. CRIME IN GEN- ERAL HAS BEEN REDUCED TO TWO- THIRDS; OBSERVED DRUNKENNESS TO LESS THAN ONE-HALF. TlIE JAILS HAVE BEEN ALMOST HALF DEPOPULATED. The expenses for both the outside and the alms-house poor, have been greatly re- duced, and there has been a general ad- vance in the public well-being. That the results have not been still more fa- vorable, the last five months even sur- passing the earlier has been because the rum-sellers have violated both truth and statute, either by selling intoxicating beers and claiming them to be non-in- toxicating, or by making the sale of beer the mere cover for the customary spirituous liquors. The results bespeak the maintenance of No-License for the years to come. As against the possibility of a deci- sion of the people adverse to No-License, there rises to my lips the prayer of Goethe, "God h-jlp us, and enlighten us for the future; that we may not so much stand in our own way, but may have clear notions of the consequences of things." As against that possibility, I remember the woe which we arc com- bating, and recall the impassioned words of Edward Irving, as he bewailed a similar evil, "Thou k no west the ser- pent cunning of this thing. It is killing our children; it has already slain its tens of thousands; this city is sick unto death, and dying of the mortal wounds which she hath received from it." As against it, I invoke the sentiment of the Right Honorable Mr. Glad- stone, "A Government should so leg- islate, as to make it easy to do right, and difficult to do wrong." As against it, I put the declaration of Cardi- nal Manning, "I look upon the pro hibition of the dram-shop, as no more than the exercise of the legal right and power of the people to protect them selves." As against it, I bespeak the merciful favor of Heaven, and the sym- pathizing pity of every human heart. I have confidence in the wisdom and virtue of the people. We may say with hopeful Lamariine, "I place my bark on the highest promontory of the beach, and trust the rising of the tide to make it float." We may say with Wesley, "The best of all is, God is with us." We may trust that all the good will rouse themselves for the conflict and the triumph. We will invite the friends of Temperance to overlook their minor disagreements, and make common 'CSB LIBRARY caus<- against the common foe. We will entreat them to stand shoulder to shoulder and hand to hand. I have somewhere read I hat in the early spring of 1 (!:{, when the Federal and confederate armies were confront- ing each other, the bands chanced one evening to be playing, on either side of the dividing Rappahanm ck. On the one side, it was "Star-Spangled Ban- ner;'' on the other side, it was "Dixie." One the one side it was "Columbia:" on the other, it was "The Bonnie Blue Flag." Presently one of the bands struck up "Home, Sweet Home." 16 The other joined; and at the close, there went up a simultaneous shout, in which not even the listening angels, could tell whether the acclaim was from tho-e who wore the blue or the gray. In both the camps, at thought of home, there was something which d.'ew heart to heart. "Something on the soldier's cheek. Washed off the powder's stain." So let us be of one mind and one heart, as we march to our conflict against intemperance, to our victory for "God and Native Land! 1 '