chapter 99

of the statutes of 1875 as will allow the sale of cider and lager beer without any license being required therefor.’

“It must be admitted, that in the state of Massachusetts, the liquor question has been as fully discussed, and the various legal expedients connected therewith have had as fair and full a trial as in any other state in the Union. It may therefore be claimed, without presumption, that to the results there attained, and the opinions there formed, when coming from official and authentic sources, the careful consideration of other state governments should be given. Acting from this view, we draw the attention of the reader to a very instructive report of the results of an investigation relative to drunkenness and liquor selling under prohibition and license legislation contained in the Tenth Annual Report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, issued as a public document in January, 1879. This investigation was undertaken at the special request of Governor Rice, whose object was to place on record a statement, as a basis for an intelligent consideration of the question, of as reliable a character as could be secured by impartial statistics. These statistics are drawn from official sources, and, as far as the figures are concerned, are thoroughly reliable.

“The years 1874 and 1877 were selected for comparison, because 1874 represented the last full year under the operation of the prohibitory law, and 1877 the last full year under the license law. The advantages resulting from this selection of years, if any, are on the side of the prohibitory law, because that law, in 1874, had been in operation for a number of years, while the license law, in 1877, had only been in force a year and a half.

“Four circulars were prepared and addressed by the chief of the state Bureau of Statistics and Labor to town clerks, city clerks, chiefs of police, to standing justices, clerks of district, municipal and police courts, and trial justices. These circulars solicited information regarding the sales of liquor, prosecutions therefor, and arrests and convictions for drunkenness for the prohibitory year 1874 and the license year 1877. The completeness of the investigation may be seen from the following statement:

“Circular ‘A’ was sent to 325 Town Clerks; 322 answered.

“Circular ‘B’ was sent to 19 City Clerks; 19 answered.

“Circular ‘C’ was sent to 19 Chiefs of Police; 19 answered.

“Circular ‘D’ was sent to 132 Court and Trial Justices; 130 answered.

“This is a total of 490 returns of 495 circulars of inquiry sent out. There can be no question that the investigation was exhaustive, for the few towns which did not answer are unimportant places. From the information thus obtained and tabulated in detail in the Report, the following totals are derived:

ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS. Under the prohibitory law, 1874, 28,044 Under the license law, 1877, 20,657

CONVICTIONS FOR DRUNKENNESS. Under the prohibitory law, 1874, 23,981 Under the license law, 1877, 17,862

NUMBER OF PLACES WHERE LIQUOR WAS ILLEGALLY SOLD. Under the prohibitory law, 1874, 5,609

NUMBER OF PLACES LICENSED TO SELL LIQUOR. Under the license law, 1877, 5,273

JUDGMENTS ON COMPLAINTS FOR ILLEGAL SALES. Under the prohibitory law, 1874, 3,644 Under the license law, 1877, 1,693

“It will thus be seen that the number of arrests for drunkenness under the operation of the license law, during the year 1877, as compared to the prohibitory year 1874, shows a decrease of fully twenty-five per cent. In the number of convictions for drunkenness the difference in favor of the license year is at the same rate. The number of places where liquor was _illegally_ sold under the prohibitory law of 1874, was larger by 336 than the number of places _licensed_ in 1877. It is evident from these returns that the prohibitory law has failed to prohibit, or even to regulate, the sale of liquor, while it is equally apparent that the license law, as a legislative measure, not only regulates the sale of liquor, but decreases drunkenness.

“A law, to be effective, must have the support of the people; the prohibitory law will never be thus supported, as common sense will teach that it is neither just nor judicious, to make somebody else than the drunkard himself responsible for his failing; and is not just this the questionable theory upon which prohibition is based?

“The prohibitionists condemn the use of alcoholic beverages of every kind, as the prolific source of sin and vice. Nothing less than total abstinence finds favor with them. To them, the terms use and abuse have no distinctive meaning, and their curse falls upon brewery and distillery alike. It must be admitted that as long as alcoholic stimulants are used, intemperance will exist, and that the evil of drunkenness will only disappear with their total suppression. In view of the actual state of social habits, and the position which alcoholic beverages hold in civilized life, as now constituted, no sane person will believe such a total suppression possible. There are no means by which a habit, transmitted from generation to generation, and forming so important an element in the development of the civilization of the human race, can be uprooted. Alcoholic stimulants once invented are never again abandoned, and seem to be destined to co-exist with man. The deplorable vice of drunkenness has always accompanied their use, and all attempts of rulers and philanthropists, the severest penalties and the sincerest compassion, have alike failed to suppress the evil. But it does not follow that, because the temptation of excessive use is too strong for some to be resisted, the great mass of people, who can and do use these beverages in moderation, should be made responsible for the weakness of the few. Nor does it follow that the intensity of the temptation is to be regarded as an excuse for the drunkard. Excess in the gratification of a desire, however natural, to the injury of others, is to be condemned morally and legally. Many actions of man, which the moral and legal code of society brands as a crime, and punishes as such, are the result of an inordinate gratification of instinctive desires implanted by nature, upon the proper indulgence of which the very propagation and the happiness of the human race depends, as for example, the instinct of self-preservation, of procreation and of acquisition. The more civilization advances, the more moral and intellectual discernment governs natural impulse, the less excess in the use of alcoholic stimulants the world will see. The vice of intemperance prevails to a far greater extent among the ignorant and uneducated than among the cultured classes of society. The spread of culture and education will do far more for temperance than the indiscriminate prohibition of the sale of alcoholic stimulants and the signing of pledges; it will divest the indulgence of the social cup of vulgarity, and will punish immoderation by social ostracism; by giving to the pleasure of exhilaration an ideal character, it will make the vine and the hop the emblems of harmless enjoyment. A clearer perception thus establishes a standard of ethics, which recognizes a proper gratification of the innate craving for enjoyment and exhilaration, as an essential to human happiness, but draws the line between what is permissible and what is not, between the becoming and the unbecoming. The craving for improvement of condition and for enjoyment is strongly developed in man—happily for him, for it is the very spur that urges him on to the physical improvement which is the necessary concomitant of mental advance. The love for exhilarating stimulants is but one phase of this craving. As such it is entitled to and has found recognition in our social laws, and the temperate use of alcoholic beverages is sanctioned by a practice as wide-spread as civilization itself, and by all classes, whatever their station or condition in life. Contravening legal statutes will always be found either wholly inoperative, or to fall far short of the intended effect. Whenever and wherever the temporary enforcement of a law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of such beverages has taken place, the cure, as far as the suppression of stimulants is concerned, has generally proved worse than the disease.”

The following particulars, taken from the report under the title of “Nativity of Prisoners,” given by the Chief of the Police of Boston, become very interesting when considered in reference to the usual drink of the classes mentioned. The table shows first the number in Boston of Irish and Germans, the number of prisoners of each nation and the percentage of prisoners to the whole population:

---------------+-------------+--------------+---------------- | | | PERCENTAGE OF | POPULATION. | NO. OF |PRISONERS TO THE | | PRISONERS. | POPULATION. ---------------+-------------+--------------+---------------- Irish | 56,900 | 14,673 | 25.78 German | 5,606 | 364 | 6.49 ---------------+-------------+--------------+----------------

Similar general results are found more or less marked wherever such laws are in force. Druggists tell us that as a rule the consumption of opium in various forms from paregoric to laudanum has increased, bitters are more extensively used and in some places Scotch snuff for “dipping” has come into demand. The amount of opium annually imported is greater than that received by China a hundred years ago, and there is reason to suppose that many who are called reformed drunkards have adopted opium in some form and thus given themselves to a new bondage no whit better than the old. Notice that the increase in the sale of opium keeps pace in a very fair measure with the enforcement of prohibitory laws. One dealer in drugs in Hartford, Conn., recently advertised for sale five thousand pounds of opium, certainly a good dose for the land of steady habits. In the state just mentioned both prohibition and “local option” laws have been tried and neither can be considered a success. Under the present “local option” many towns wholly forbid the sale of spirituous and malt liquors, and this fact has given great prominence to suits arising out of the sale of what is called Schenck beer, which is substantially lager beer. The courts at last decided that this article is not intoxicating within the meaning of the act, and though the decision as to intoxicating quality is just, the fact that this beer is allowed while lager beer under its own name is forbidden shows how great a part prejudice instead of reason has played in the contest. “Peripatetic gin mills” are increasing in about the same ratio as “temperance societies” and “temperance detectives.” Those who pass by the name of temperance reformers seem in many cases to lose the sense of human charity and brotherly kindness, and little else can be expected when we remember how often they are the slaves of this single idea and how in all ages of the world bigotry has been attended by cruelty. Before giving one striking instance of cruelty which it is to be hoped has since been sincerely regretted by all concerned, we must reiterate that any law which every one knows to be constantly violated brings law into disrespect and demoralizes the community so far forth. The case to which reference was just made was mentioned in the New York _World_, and although other matters are added the whole is of sufficient interest to bear reproduction. The article is as follows:

“Some time last September an old lady by the name of Stack who kept a farm at Northfield, Vt., sold two glasses of cider to a man by the name of Timothy Hogan, who informed against her and secured her conviction and a fine of $20 and expenses. In consideration of her age, sickness and poverty, she was allowed a short time to pay her fine, but not being prepared with the cash in January, she was arrested by Deputy Sheriff Avery, and, notwithstanding the severity of the weather, hauled off to prison in an open sleigh to Montpelier insufficiently clad. While in confinement sickness and poor treatment combined caused a rapid decline, until her niece, a domestic in a hotel, borrowed sufficient money to pay her fine and effect her release. Her death followed shortly afterward, caused, no doubt, by the treatment she had received. This at the hand and in the cause of philanthropic reformers is bad enough, but worse remains. Here is a temperance man’s description of the system by which these reformers are guided, and which one of our conscientious judges in Connecticut not long since truly denounced as infamous. The state referred to is the state of the ‘Green Mountain Boys,’ and noble Ethan Allen—Vermont. The manner of prosecuting liquor cases is by what is known as the ‘spy system.’ Every informer who can secure the conviction of any person receives a portion of the fine imposed. A respectable justice of the municipal court in one of the most important towns in the state is authority for the statement that there are certain justices of the peace who make a special arrangement with these informers and come in for a share of the profits, so that outside of the merits of the case conviction is a foregone conclusion every time. The prohibitory law in force in this state makes it a crime for a man to sell even a glass of cider. In the past few weeks the _World_ correspondent has visited Rutland, Burlington, St. Albans, Montpelier and other towns in the state, and found in every place that at the hotels and elsewhere liquor was sold and no questions asked. In this, as in every other state, where a similar law has been in force, people with money and influence can freely engage in the traffic with none to molest or make them afraid. The class of spies or informers who engage in the work of prosecuting liquor cases are the lowest people in the community. They are despised by everybody except fanatical temperance reformers, who employ and encourage them. A prominent citizen, who has held high office in the state and is one of the substantial business men, said the other day: ‘The result of the prohibitory law has been to honey-comb the social community with hypocrisy and immorality. I have closely investigated the course of events since this “temperance wave” has swept the state, and while drunkenness is not on the decrease other forms of immorality are certainly on the increase. I would not permit my daughter, or any respectable young lady over whom I might have any influence, to even attend the evening meetings of these temperance societies, as I think it has been conclusively proved that they promote immorality.’ Such a statement coming from an influential and respected citizen, who himself practices and inculcates temperance principles, shows the tendency of the prohibitory movement in this state.”

It would be an easy matter to collect volumes of evidence on this question of the real effect of prohibitory laws, all going to show that they do not prevent intemperance, that they do lead to the use of other stimulants, that they undermine the character of the community, and that, from whatever point of view regarded, they must be considered harmful to the individual and to the state. Enough, however, for our present purpose and for the space at command has been already said. Those best informed will be most ready to say that the presentation above given does not overstate, but rather falls short of displaying the corruption that creeps in where a prohibitory law is in force.

##