The Liquor Traffic And Legislation

nu; x iMinuejMMH iicB nat oeen u me rouble ot' propounding a serie of quMionn t. the Secrrtarii-a of the sevoral States and Tenitoriw relativo t the kgslation of the liquor traffip, eliciting a food deal ot intormation pertinent to the eason, tor now is the time of all times of hií ycar for legislatures to conveue. lt is customaiy to class the New Engand Stutes tngetber, and assumc tliat prolibitiün is the established custoin there, but the tact is tliat only half of thoge six itntes have prohibición, nniiiely, Malne, !íew Hampshire, and Vermouc. Alassahusetts gave it a íair trial, as compared w'uh a stiinstent license Ihw, and turne to ,he conclusión tliat the latter tendeied to 'obre y ratUer Chao the foimer. A careful investigatinu In detail was made, and license was found to be in the interesL ot' ;einperance. Co'inecücut tried proliibi:ion and gave it up as failure. Rhode [sland irt contented with local option hs it btains In Illinois. Those three oíd original puritan stHtes are not m verv pin itauical after al!. Maine has the most stringent laws, for it has embedded proliibttion n its oonetitutio, but Vil munt ie the most rigid in the enforeement of the law, The-well dre-ped traveler howi-ver it may be with the residents, has no ditlicuty in the larer villages in getting something stronger thau sweet eider f he wanti it. The Middle States have no prolnbition, nor has the South. Under the operation of local opinión therc are some localities whcre the sale is forbidden, and it is notable tliat local prohibition is uiucli more effective than staie prohibition, that Is, where the prohibition rests altogether upon local uction. In aeveral Southern States the Lerislatuies have enacted prohibition in spots, in response to special reQuest. Hiicli lawc could notexist in tliis Mate under our ronstitution, which forbids special legislation. It seems to be a somewhat favurite mode of procedure at the South. Speaking generally :t mny be said that high license wilh local option -eem be the tendency and drift of legislation throughout the country. Several states havo tried prohibition and given it pp. Ohlo, no doubt, meant to head oö' the traffle when it forbid its I cense, but t-xperience has shown the folly of it. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana have each settled back after some experimenting into the idea that local option works better for tempernnce th-iii piohi ition. At least that is the practical verdict entered tipon the stat books. The flve slates in whlch prohibition ex ists now are not likelv to give it up. They They are Iowa and Kansas. Maiue, New Hamp8hire, and Vermont. In one respect tlii'sc etates are all alike, namely, in the absence of any larjre cities. Ñellbei can be said to have a commercial cipiia in its midst; Wisconsin has its Milwaukee Ohio its Cincinnatl, Michigan its Detroit Indiana its Indianapolis, etc., but tlitst ttve st.itcs are lumentably deficiënt or happily exempt from tliem, whicheveí way one may view it. Mal na aml New Hampsliire have always pald tribute to Boston. Vermont used to, but is now a part of the empire of whicli New York City is the trading c:ipital. Iowa tiade does not stop at any one of the river towns, but converges in Chlcáiro, as Kansas has built up and is buiUling Op Ivm gas City, ju-t across the state line in Missouri. These facts In regard to legislation in the different States on the liquor trafile do nol by iniy means justify or palliatc Cha tr.ifflc. The ínter Ocean gives t.liein prom inence for no sueli puipo.se. Hut tliey d Ilústrate and teach Impressively the folh of expecting to eoforce or even pass pio hibitory luwa In any state of this Unloi whlch lias within its border a town o sutricient size and niportauce to be ranke araong the inany business capital of the country.