counties; 184 came from the 12 one-town license counties; 458 came from the 11 license counties.

One hundred and fifty-nine came from Fayette county, which has 3 per cent. of the population of the State, and 20 per cent. of the inmates of the pen.

Fayette county has 53 men in the penitentiary more than have the 32 no-license counties.

The license counties have one man in the pen for every 599 of their population; the 12 one-town license counties have one for every 1371; while the 32 no-license counties have one for every 4022.

Several no-license counties have no one in the pen, several have one each, and the highest number from any no-license county is 9.

Hancock county, which has not had a saloon for 60 years, had not one cent of criminal expenses for the year ending October 1, 1904.

The criminal expenses of the no-license counties averaged 72 mills for each inhabitant; the one-town license counties averaged 93 mills, and the license. counties averaged 267 mills.

Fayette county and McDowell is each a paradise for the saloon-that is, each has saloons everywhere any one thinks he can make the business pay, and the saloons are run without any reference to the law. The first has one person in the pen for every 202 of population, and McDowell has one for every 190; the criminal expenses in Fayette are 491 mills for each inhabitant, and in McDowell 919 mills for each inhabitant."

The contention is often made that, in the absence of the licensed saloon, the speak-easy and blind

tiger will flourish. The speak-easy prospers only where easy officers rule. The blind tigers inhabit only those municipalities where blind officers reign, officers that are blind to duty and public obligation. Blind officers are not likely to reign two successive terms unless there is a majority of blind voters, and there is not often a majority of blind voters in a community unless there is also a blind press.

We are surely justified in concluding, not that prohibition will prohibit, but that saloon prohibition can be enforced, and where it is done there is improvement in the financial, moral and criminal conditions of the people.

No more eloquent tribute can be paid to the happy and blessed conditions that will follow enforced prohibition than was done by Lincoln, in his temperance address, delivered in the Second Presbyterian Church of Springfield, Ill., February 22, 1842, when he said:

"Turn to the temperance revolution. In it we shall find a stronger bondage broken, a viler slavery manumitted, a greater tyrant deposed-in it, more of want supplied, more disease healed, more sorrow assuaged. By it, no orphans starving, no widows weeping; by it none wounded in feeling, none injured in interest. Even the dram-maker and dramseller will have glided into other occupations so gradually as never to have felt the change, and will stand ready to join all others in the universal song of gladness. And what a noble ally this is to the cause of political freedom; with such an aid, its march can not fail to be on and on, till every son of earth shall drink in rich fruition the sorrow-quench

ing draughts of perfect liberty! Happy day, when, all appetites controlled, all passions subdued, all matter subjugated, mind, all-conquering mind, shall live and move, the monarch of the world! Glorious consummation! Hail, fall of fury! Reign of reason, all hail!

"And when the victory shall be complete-when there shall be neither a slave nor a drunkard on the earth-how proud the title of the Land, which may truly claim to be the birthplace and the cradle of both those revolutions that shall have ended in that victory. How nobly distinguished that people who shall have planted and nurtured to maturity both the political and moral freedom of their species."

The only reasonable way to weigh prohibition is to ascertain the results of an enforced prohibitory statute, for, when we measure it by conditions prevailing, where the statute is not enforced, we draw our conclusions from conditions that do not result from prohibition, but, from the want or failure to have prohibition. Unenforced prohibition and free saloons are one and the same, and we should not judge enforced prohibition by the results of unenforced prohibitory statutes.

CHAPTER XIX

HIGH LICENSE A SUBTERFUGE

Even upon the basis of the extreme position, taken by the Indiana Supreme Court, in the Sopher case, that the saloon was made unlawful by the statute, in order to compel the person, who desires to sell, to secure a license for that purpose. A license is a permit, a privilege and a suspension of the criminal provisions of the statute. The position of the court makes the license a legalization of that which would, otherwise, be a crime. It is a means of compounding a misdemeanor. Upon the assumed theory, of the court, the license can not, in any sense, be a restriction or prohibition, because the statute first absolutely prohibited the saloon, outlawed it and made it a crime, and then, in order to make it exempt from this condemnation in certain instances, provides for a special privilege, springing alone from the provisions of the license statute.

So that, the license, whether it be high or low, is the root of the saloon evil. Then, we are up to the question of what advantage society can derive from charging a high fee for legalizing a crime. The state can not, certainly, afford to put itself in the attitude of legalizing crime for the sake of revenue. If so, then good financial judgment, would suggest the legalization of all offenses on the basis that will produce the most satisfactory revenue receipts.

However, the most ardent advocates of high license ordinarily disavow such an object, and argue that the purpose of the "high" fee is the restriction

of the saloon evils. The best answer is that, according to the Supreme Court, the evils were completely suppressed without the provision for any fee at all. But waiving that feature of the discussion, we shall run the red line of reason through the restriction theory. It is claimed that high license will restrict in, at least, two ways.

TWO CLAIMS FOR HIGH LICENSE

First, the claim is made that high license will reduce the number of saloons by driving out the low doggery and grog-shop. The casual observer will at once note that the statement does not intimate that high license will reduce the consumption of liquor. If we are to continue the saloon policy, and, yet desire fewer of them, the logical and sensible method of reaching the intended result is to limit directly, by legislation, the number of saloon licenses that may be granted to a given population. The courts have repeatedly held that such legislation is valid, as against the saloon, upon the ground that, as the saloon may be prohibited entirely, those engaged in the traffic have no just complaint if the legislature fails to do all that it may do.

We may here, parenthetically, say that such holdings are not founded on the theory that the saloon is lawful and has the same legal footing as the useful avocations of life. The United States Supreme. Court has said that a statute that would attempt to provide that only a certain per cent. of citizens might practice law, or medicine, or farm, or engage in the mercantile pursuits, or the carpenter trade, etc., would be void. If a reduction in the number of