drunkenness he does not like disturbances in his house, the chance of his name appearing in the police reports, and the remote probability of his license being endorsed; and the drunken man may involve him in any of these evil consequences. But he has no ob

jection to the excessive drinking of the man who can carry his liquor -such men are his best customers, and he is continually guilty of harbouring "idle people to spend and consume their money and their time." But to the advocate of temperance this excessive consumption of money and time is almost the greater evil of the two. Оссаsional bouts of drunkenness may be a terrible evil, but they are obviously an evil-as the drunkard would himself admit. But it is by constant tippling that a man keeps his family in poverty, it is this that really degrades them, while it is almost certain to end in misery and crime, since it is indeed the "fruitful mother of a hateful brood;" and hence the energies of the temperance party have been and are chiefly directed against "excessive tippling." There are, however, great difficulties in the way; if it is hard to prove that a man is drunk, it is far harder to say positively that he drinks too much without getting drunk; the offence is most difficult to define : however strongly one may feel that excessive tippling is wrong, it would be almost impossible to form an enactment which would render it punishable. This is the real crux in regard to all temperance legislation it cannot be so framed as to punish a crime, but only to insist on measures which may be expected to limit the occurrence of the crime. Prevention may be better than cure, and is certainly much better than punishment so far as crime is concerned but the aim of temperance legislation is so different from that of most legislation that the matter is beset with enormous difficulties. Other laws are intended to punish crime or enforce duty: it is wrong to steal at midday as at midnight: but temperance legislation carries outsome restriction which it is hoped will limit the opportunities of excessive drinking, and makes it wrong to do at midnight what it is not wrong to do at midday, or wrong to do in a village what it is not wrong to do in town. The temperance movement is a great moral movement; but by the very nature of the case temperance legislation is entirely devoid of any moral principle; it is a mere tissue of expediencies which vary enormously according to the circumstances of different countries. The mere fact that Local Option is such a favourite expedient with the teetotal party shows how entirely this is the case; we have no local option as to the punishment of other crimes, or enforcing of other duties, as to the working of factory acts, as to the question whether our children shall be educated or not. Local option can only be fairly urged in regard to carrying out a measure which does not punish any wrong, but insists on some arrangement for mutual convenience, as a police regulation.

It is not impossible, however, to indicate the principal maxims of prudence which have been accepted in different places as the best expedients for checking excessive drinking.

1. Prohibiting the habitual use of alcohol altogether. The Maine Law, as amended in 1877, provides for the appointment of agents to sell alcohol "for medicinal, mechanical, manufacturing purposes," and no other, and holds him bound in two sureties of 600 dollars to conform to the terms of this appointment. No person shall be a common seller of intoxicating liquors, or keep a drinking house; magistrates may issue a warrant of search for intoxicating liquors on the information of a single complainant, and there are of course penalties against manufacturing for sale. Neither the appointed agents nor the State derive revenue from the lawful sale of alcohol-an important contrast with the High License policy discussed below.

In New Hampshire and in Vermont too this prohibitory policy is carried out; drinking shops of all kinds are declared to be common nuisances kept in violation of the law; though it seems to be admitted that the law is not at present satisfactorily enforced in the latter State.

In these cases there appears to be no provision for granting licenses for the common sale of intoxicants in any part of the State; in New Jersey, on the other hand, where there is a license law, prohibition has been carried out in several counties and townships through the agency of Option powers conferred in Local Acts, according to which the majority of qualified voters at the annual town meeting can by voting No License prevent the issue of any license till a contrary decision is given at a later meeting. The earliest of these was the township of Chatham, in the county of Morris, and it is of interest, as it has served as a test case in regard to the constitutional character of Local Option in the United States. The judgment which affirmed that the Act was constitutional is worth quoting at some length:

"The Local Option law is alleged to be in conflict with that Article of our constitution which provides that the legislative power shall be vested in the Senate and General Assembly.

"The test will be, whether this enactment when it passed from the hands of the law-giver had taken the form of a complete law. . . . It left to the popular vote to determine not whether it be lawful to sell without license, but whether the contingency should arise under which license might be granted. . . . The right of the Legislature to grant the power of local government to municipalities is conceded, and it is immaterial whether the enactment conferring it is regarded as a declaration of the supreme legislative will and strictly a law, or merely as a concession of a grant by the Legislature, as the representative of the sovereignty of the people.

"While alcoholic stimulants are recognized as property, and entitled to the

protection of the law, ownership in them is subject to such restraints as are demanded by the highest considerations of public expediency. Such enactments are regarded as police regulations, established for the prevention of pauperism and crime, for the abatement of nuisances, and the promotion of public health and safety. They are a just restraint of an injurious use of property which the Legislature has authority to impose, and the extent to which such interference may be carried must rest exclusively in legislative wisdom, where it is not controlled by fundamental law. It is a settled principle, essential to the rights of self-preservation in every organized community, that, however absolute may be the owner's title to property he holds it under the implied condition that its use shall not work injury to the equal enjoyment and safety of others who have an equal right to the enjoyment of their property, nor be injurious to the community.'

"Rights of property are subject to such limitations as are demanded by the common welfare of society, and it is within the range and scope of legislative action to declare what general regulations may be deemed expedient.

"If therefore, the Legislature shall consider the retail of ardent spirits injurious to citizens or productive of idleness and vice it may provide for its total suppression. Such prohibition is justified only as a police regulation, and its legality has been recognized in well considered cases.

"It necessarily results that municipal corporations may derive the power to interdict the sale of intoxicating liquors, from the same source to which they owe their authority to regulate it."

Partly, perhaps, in consequence of this judgment, Local Option powers were acquired by several other towns in New Jersey, and have been adopted in North and South Carolina. But it has not gained quite steadily in public favour, as the Local Option system was discarded in 1875 by the State of Pennsylvania, and a licensing law of a more ordinary type was re-established.

In Canada, however, the principle of Local Option is in high favour. In 1864, the Dunkin Act gave each municipal council the power of passing a prohibitory bye-law, while the initiative in regard to prohibition might also be taken by the people themselves, who might demand that a special popular vote should be taken on the subject. In the Act of 1883, which has raised an interesting constitutional point as to the respective powers of the Dominion Parliament and the authorities of the several Provinces, the direct popular veto has been much extended, as it can now be imposed in the smallest organized area, instead of being brought into play throughout the whole of a county. A three-fifths majority is required to introduce the prohibition. The differentiation of comparatively small districts in this way may render it more easy to carry the proposal, but must render it much harder to work it.

It may, however, be safely said that there must be grave doubts as to how far such a law could be enforced in this country. One would like to know more about the failure in Pennsylvania, and about the character of the districts where the prohibition is in vogue. A county of small farmers who can each brew a little beer, or make some cider, for themselves, may be treated very differently from a large

urban population; and one would like to know how far it has been possible to enforce the law successfully in any large town with a crowded population. Till there is clearer evidence on this point, we must be in doubt as to whether a stringent prohibitory law or prohibitory local regulations would be an evil or a good. This is the real point to be considered in regard to Local Option; the common objection to local legislation seems to be met by the judgment already quoted; but the question, how far is prohibition effective in Maine, and what probability is there that it could be even as effectually enforced in the somewhat different circumstances of this country, ought to be well examined. There are, of course, crimes which escape detection in all countries; we are told that murder will out, but many murderers escape detection; but it is difficult to believe that the Maine Law is enforced with nearly as much success as the criminal law. But a prohibitory law that is not enforced is a great evil, both because of the effect on the public mind, and because of the uncertainty as to the nature and amount of punishment to which offenders may become liable. General laxity, tempered by occasional raids and severities, is likely to result from a badly enforced prohibitory law.

This view is confirmed by the experience of Newfoundland, the only other part of the world where prohibition has had a trial, though it has just been introduced in Queensland. It was provided by the Act of 1873 that "if two-thirds of the qualified electors of any electoral district who shall vote at a poll declare themselves in favour of a prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors, the Governor can, by proclamation, prevent the sale of such, and put in force this Act." Considering how large the requisite majority was, one would suppose that where the measure was adopted it would be well backed up by public opinion, and therefore well enforced; but in 1881 Sir F. B. T. Carter reported that "it was put in operation in two districts only, Brigus and Busin, for a period some time elapsed, and since then has been practically a dead-letter. In the districts referred to, the general opinion was that the Act occasioned more mischief from clandestine sale than had existed under the General Licensing Act."*

2. In cases where absolute prohibition cannot be attempted, the experiment has been tried of prohibiting the sale of intoxicants at special times. The limitation of hours of sale is practically universal in all places where there has been any effort at temperance legislation; but the expedient has been carried farther in the Forbes Mackenzie Act for Scotland, and the Sunday closing movement, as it has shown itself in Ireland, Wales, and Durham. In the State of New York there has been another attempt at occasional prohibition. * "Correspondence respecting the Impositions on the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in the Colonies [c-3224] 1882."

Not only is there to be no sale on Sundays, but none on "any day of a general or special election or town meeting." As the prohibition is directed against those who give away intoxicating liquors as well as those who sell them, it aims a very severe blow at the practice of treating. Not a few candidates in recent elections here might prefer to live under such a law, rather than to be exposed to the expense of a petition from the unwise zeal of an indiscreet friend.

3. There are also cases where the sale to particular persons is prohibited. The New York publican is prohibited from selling to paupers, and he cannot recover payment for liquor supplied on credit to those who are not lodging in his house; he may not supply drink to any "Indian or apprentice" without the consent of his master or mistress, nor to any minor under eighteen years of age without the consent of his father, mother, or guardian. A similar regulation in Ohio renders it unlawful to sell liquor to persons who are " in the habit of getting intoxicated."

4. There are also cases where the sale at particular places is prohibited. It is unlawful in New Jersey for the under-sheriff or jailor to sell wine, gin, whisky, ro any other intoxicant, in a courthouse or jail. But the most remarkable provision of this type is in regard to schools and colleges. The Americans do not desire to follow the Spartan practice, or rely on the deterrent effect which the sight of a drunkard may produce on the young. In Tennessee there is a four-mile law, which renders it unlawful for any person to " sell or tipple any intoxicating beverage within four miles of an incorporated institution of learning." It may be worth while to mention. in this connexion that temperance instruction is carried on in a good many of the American schools. In Vermont and Michigan, there is always to be instruction in physiology and hygiene, with special reference to the effects of stimulants and narcotics; and a similar course may be taken in any district in Connecticut. This was first provided in 1881 in Michigan, so that there has been little time to judge of its working; but it appears on the face of it, that the scheme is extremely limited, as nothing seems to be said about the evils of stimulating diet, or the ways in which indulgence of this kind creates a craving for intoxicants. Temperance education can make little progress so long as it is confined to demonstrating the evils of particular stimulants, as it is only too likely to result in the substitution of one form of self-indulgence for another.

While the policy of prohibition, either total or occasional, is impracticable, attempts have been made to reduce the evil of excessive drinking by limitation.

1. The simplest form is that of trying to limit the number of houses according to the population. This was carried out in the