INTRODUCTION TO FOURTH EDITION. xxxi 4,868,415 bushels over the amount used in the preceding fiscal year (16,122,509 bushels) and is 255,369 bushels less than the average (21,246,293 bushels) for the last ten years. The increased production of spirits accompanied by a lessened consumption of both grain and molasses, although very slight, must indicate an increased adulteration; and, accordingly, we find that the yield of spirits from each bushel of grain,' (the average yield) is 4.18 gallons. The yield for the two preceding years was 4.23 for 1887, and 4.24 for 1888." INCREASE OF LIQUOR PRODUCTION SINCE EXPIRATION OF LAST JUNE, 1889. FISCAL YEAR During the five months from August to December, 1889, inclusive, compared with the same months of the year 1888, the increase is as follows: This shows that the traffic continues its accelerated rate of increase down to the very latest data in possession of the govThe remaining seven months of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1890, will more fully demonstrate this disgraceful fact. It may be interesting to some to know that the income to the Treasury from tobacco In 1888, was In 1889, An increase last year of $30,662,431 31,866,860 I,204,429 I hope this item about tobacco will not be objected to as out of place. It may be a comfort to temperance preachers and lecturers who make use of "the weed" and it does not increase the price of the book. It will cost you nothing but thought. From all these sources we received last year $129,902,901, and from our share of profits in the liquor business $98,036,041. We made more out of alcohol last year than. any one else except the father of the business, and he took his share in souls, principally. He is very fair to our Nation in the division of profits so far as money is concerned, and that is what we are after. But it is too bad that we help him kidnap and destroy our own boys. Yet the money is a great help to us in paying the salaries of the President, Congress, and of the Supreme Court, for a new Navy, and in preparing for the next war. Nor should we ever forget the liberal sums which private individuals pay from the profits of the traffic to support churches, preachers and all the blessed institutions of education and religion. Thank fortune we have something to offset the statistics of destruction and despair. And then the great head of the firm kindly takes his share of the profits-these sons of ours-so far away that we do not hear their cries for a cup of cold water. But we shall meet them there ourselves. No people can go to heaven who prosecute the liquor trade against light and knowledge. The heathen shall be turned into hell and all nations that forget God. RECENT DECISIONS BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. In Bowman vs. Railroad Company, Justice Matthews delivering the opinion, March 19, 1888, the Supreme Court of the United States decided: That a State has no power to prohibit the importation of intoxicating liquors from another State, in the original packages. In that case the plaintiffs in error doing business at Marshalltown, in the State of Iowa, under the style of Bowman Bros., offered to the defendants, the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, "for shipment over its line of railway, and directed to themselves, at Marshalltown, Iowa, five thousand barrels of beer, which they had procured in the city of Chicago to be shipped from said city to the city of Marshalltown, be INTRODUCTION TO FOURTH EDITION. xxxiii tween said cities of Chicago and Council Bluffs, but the defendant then and there refused to receive said beer, to the damage of the plaintiffs, etc." To this complaint the defendants pleaded that the beer was intoxicating liquor and that the Statutes of Iowa forbid any railway company "to knowingly bring within the State" any intoxicating liquor to any person unless first furnished with a certificate that such person was authorized to sell according to the law of the State, which certificate the plaintiffs did not furnish and therefore the railway declined to transport the goods. The Supreme Court overruled the Circuit Court of the Northern District of Illinois and decided that the Iowa Statute was in violation of the constitutional power of the United States to regulate commerce between the States. The question whether the right to import intoxicating liquors from another State implies necessarily the right to sell in the exercise of the right to engage in lawful commerce, remains undecided. In Kidd vs. Pearson & Laughran, it was decided by the Supreme Court, October 22, 1888, Mr. Justice Lamar delivering the opinion, "that the police power of a State is as broad and plenary as its taxing power; and property within the State is subject to the operations of the former so long as it is subject to the regulating restrictions of the latter." This was an Iowa case in which the Court had held that the Statute prohibiting the manufacture of intoxicating liquors for exportation and not for sale within the State was valid and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa. In the Appendix will be found the Opinion of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice Harlan, December 5, 1887, in the celebrated Kansas cases, in which the Court upheld the power of a State to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors and to abate a distillery which had been established before the enactment of the law, as a nuisance, without compensation to the owner. This decision is rightly held to be a landmark in legal progress of the temperance movement-so is that by Justice Matthews, but the latter is a mark which must be rubbed out. It is, however, obvious that even if a valid law of Congress can be enacted authorizing a State so to regulate commerce under its police power as to destroy what the Supreme Court holds to be interstate commerce itself (as is generally believed), that, practically, the introduction from other States and Territories will be very difficult if not impossible to prevent; and, as in our time the locality of manufacture is not of much consequence by reason of the extraordinary facilities of transportation which we enjoy, that nothing but an affirmative National Constitutional provision, enforced by the needed legislation, can adequately reach this all-abounding evil. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION. In the following pages I have dwelt as much upon the origin of statutory prohibition as seemed to be desirable in a work which can indicate only the historical outlines of the subject; but the great movement for prohibition by the affirmative, fundamental, organic law of the States, to be supplemented by the necessary statutory detail for its complete enforcement, ought to be conspicuously mentioned as the most important of the practical measures that have at any time hitherto been pressed upon the people, and which have actually been embodied in the laws. This comprehensive remedy is comparatively free from the vicissitudes and perturbation of statutory legislation, which is merely permitted when not required by express prohibitory language in the Constitution of the State. But for the limitation imposed by the National Constitution, which Constitution practically controls importation, transportation and manufacture, that is to say, were each State really in possession of the powers of an independent nation over the traffic, State Constitutional Prohibition could and would end the nefarious business. And as it is, this great work by the States is of the greatest importance in the progress of the Nation to the final goal of absolute prohibition by the supreme law of the land. But Prohibition can not stop with the State. The movement began in New York, in the year 1856. The Court of Appeals had just decided the prohibitory statute of that State to be unconstitutional. Thereupon the necessity of the amendment was made manifest. William H. Armstrong, Esq., who still survives, wearing in this life his imperishable crown, was then chief officer of the Order of Sons of Temperance of Eastern New York. He conceived and fashioned a form of amendment to the Constitution, which was supported by the Order, and finally passed the Senate of New INTRODUCTION TO FOURTH EDITION. XXXV York on the 13th of March, 1861, by a vote of twenty to six, and in the Assembly on the 5th of April, by a vote of sixtynine to thirty-three. Mrs. Bittenbender, in her invaluable "National Prohibitory Amendment Guide," page 68, gives a sketch of this important matter. I may pause to quote further from her work, that in the Senate all the Republicans and one Democrat voted in the affirmative, and all the other Democrats in the negative. The war stopped this work-a calamity greater than the war itself, with none of its compensatory blessings. The movement was revived in the year 1878 in Wisconsin, by petitions presented to the Legislature, and in 1880, Kansas again led the way to freedom by planting these words in her organic law, where she will keep them until the heavens above her shall blot out their stars : "The manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors shall be forever prohibited in this State, except for medical, scientific and mechanical purposes." In 1882, Iowa adopted a similar amendment by 30,000 majority; but the Courts found a slip of the pen in the record, and broke the hearts of thousands. "Very like a weasel," In 1883, Ohio cast 323,189 votes for the State Prohibition Amendment. It failed to pass by less than 40,000 out of a total of 731,310 votes. The country will long remember the wonderful campaign for the amendment conducted by the women of Ohio, under the leadership of Mrs. Woodbridge and Mrs. Doty. In 1884, Maine put the Maine Law into her Constitution, excepting cider, the sale of which the Legislature may regulate. It is unfortunate that cider is excepted, but what does not the Temperance Reform owe to the State of Maine? And now South and North Dakota have entered upon their careers of sovereignty, with the absolute prohibition of the traffic in alcoholic beverages made an integral part of their organic being. No cautious nurse fixed the instant of precedence in their advent to life by an unerring sign, as when the mother of twin Patriarchs gave birth to the fathers of innumerable multitudes; but both these welcome sisters come into the Union of |