opposed by the Anti-Saloon League. The leaders of this organization immediately beheld in such legislation an acknowledgment of the dependence of the State upon the liquor traffic for revenue and the futility of attempts to abolish or encumber the traffic with unreasonable and unnecessary burdens so as to materially reduce or wipe out the revenue derived therefrom.

At the expense of repetition this observation may be permitted on the increase of the liquor tax above referred to. The sur-tax was not imposed as a restrictive measure, but purely as one of taxation; and taxation involves the elemental factor of vested property rights which are assessed for contribution toward the expense of carrying on the government. When the State assumes this attitude towards a business, the public should hesitate before it asks that this source of revenue be abolished, and it ill becomes any one to advocate the extinction of the industry involved without compensation.

While discussing the subject of revenue from the liquor traffic in the State of New York, it may not be amiss to stop and look back so as to become acquainted with the immense amount of money derived by the State from it and how the existing law has operated. "By their fruits ye shall know them." If this sentiment is to prevail in judging the results obtained from the Liquor Tax Law of New York, it should win unstinted approval and support. From the economic point of view its operation has been actually remarkable. The present law went into effect on March 23, 1896, and on May 1, 1896, the Department of Excise was ready for its work. Prior to the enactment of this law on March 23, 1896, the number of licensed drinking places in the State of New York was 33,257, or one to every 180 of the population. At the end of the license year for 1914 there were only 23,373 such places, or one to every 425 of the population, and in the City of New York the ratio was one to every 528. In 1896 the population of the State was six million, while in 1914 it had increased to ten million. During the two years ending September 30, 1914, the number of places had decreased by 1,018; but a larger falling off in the number of places will be shown by the reports for the coming license year because of increased license fee.

The receipts from the liquor traffic of the entire State for the

last year under the old law were $2,921,268.62, while the receipts for the first license year ending September 30, 1897, under the present law, amounted to $12,268,341.14, and the receipts for the year ending September 30, 1914, from liquor tax certificates, penalties, etc., were $18,109,260.61; and this notwithstanding the great reduction in the number of places between 1896 and 1914. It cost the State $252,782.77 to collect less than three million dollars under the old law, whereas only $422,979.04 were required to collect considerably over eighteen million dollars under the existing law. The total revenue derived by the State directly from the liquor traffic for the period commencing May 1, 1896, and ending September 30, 1914, was $294,645,789. During this time the total expenses of the Department were $6,134,442.30, leaving a balance to the credit of the State and out of which much of its work was carried on, of $288,934,325.74. Not content with charging this traffic over eighteen million dollars a year directly for the privilege of doing business, it is now ordained that there shall be added to this. sum approximately $4,527,315.15, which will make a total of $22,636,575.76 that the State hopes to realize from the liquor traffic during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1916.

A reference to the Constitutional Convention which was held in the State of New York this year cannot properly be omitted in an adequate consideration of the measures that might affect the brewing industry. This body assembles in the State of New York once in every twenty years for the purpose of amending, changing and modifying the fundamental law of the State so as to adapt it to such changes as may have been wrought by time in the affairs of its people and make it a handy vehicle of government for conditions as they are found to exist. Notwithstanding that over seven hundred proposed changes have been introduced in and considered by this body, not one of them places any restriction of any kind or nature upon the traffic in liquors nor is any change suggested in the present statutory law regulating the same. This is significant in the light of the fact that in most States where changes in their constitutions have been considered, an attempt has generally been made to write into the constitution some clause which provided for either prohibition or local option. The absence of any consideration of the question of prohibition or local option by the Constitutional

Convention held in the State of New York this year leads reasonably, if not unavoidably, to the conclusion that the people of the State are by no means prepared to substitute either prohibition or local option for the present law which provides for the regulation and restriction of the traffic in liquors by the State through an elaborate, well organized and practically constituted State Department. The regulatory law of the State stands out as preeminently satisfactory when a contrast is drawn between the considerations by which it is attacked and those by which it is defended.

Local Option elections in the State of New York are confined entirely to the rural sections of the State. These sections vote under a township unit, the township frequently containing several small villages. At such elections four propositions are submitted to the electors, namely:

No. 1-To determine whether liquor should be sold to be drunk on the premises. (Saloon.)

No. 2-Liquor to be sold but not to be drunk on the premises; that is, bottle license only.

No. 3-The Pharmacist's or Druggist's License.

No. 4-Selling Liquor in connection with keeping a hotel. The results of local option elections in 1915 show few changes. Several "dry" towns returned to the license column and a number of license towns voted for no-license. In the majority of cases where license towns went "dry" the result was not due to any increase in prohibition sentiment but was brought about by local conditions.

The most notable achievement of the prohibitionists was that in Tioga County where the Towns of Waverly and Owego went over to the "dry" column by substantial majorities. Tioga County is now entirely “dry.”

In St. Lawrence County, where more than a score of towns voted, the no-license forces made slight gains.

Cayuga County remained unchanged.

Livingston County returns showed an increase of one license

town.

Chenango County remained unchanged and the no-license forces gained one town in Franklin County.

There are 933 townships in the State of New York and at the