power as seems to those who hold to the democratic theory of the government to pertain exclusively to the regulation of the internal police affairs of the several States, the exercise of which power ought to be retained by the State governments or by the people of the individual states. The difference is only as to the means of suppressing the evil; there is no disagreement as to the necessity for immediate and decisive action in the premises. For my part, I would prefer that the States first make the trial, and if they, after a fair test of their strength in the struggle with this gigantic evil, should fail to come off victorious, then I would say, regardless of pet theories of government, though they have been my own; let us suppress it by any available means and through any agency on earth that will be most effectual in the accomplishment of the desired result. We already have a provision in our Federal Constitution which gives to Congress the power to declare war; and even the chief executive without the aid or advice of Congress, may call out the militia for suppressing insurrection or repelling invasion. It is doubtful if a liberal construction of that provision would not of itself authorize Congress to declare and prosecute a war of extermination against this, the worst enemy the nation has ever had since the organization of our government. No insurrection or invasion however fierce and destructive can compare in its blood-curdling terrors to the blighting sway of the liquor traffic. If the people of the several States, acting in their sovereign capacity over their own internal affairs can not with their militia triumph over this enemy; then let us call out the regulars and move on to glorious victory.

CHAPTER XI.

THE LICENSE SYSTEM.

HIGH LICENSE, LOW LICENSE, FREE TRADE IN WHISKY.

So far as I am informed, in all states where general prohibition laws do not prevail the license system is in vogue.* I am not now aware that there is one state in the Union where no special restrictions are laid by the State on the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. While men are permitted everywhere to engage in other commercial pursuits without such restriction, they can not sell whisky in any of the states without paying large sums for the privilege, in addition to the ordinary taxes imposed upon dealers in the harmless commodities of the country. If the right to traffic in whisky, or rather, intoxicating liquor, is absolute and inalienable, then, by what authority does the State impose any restriction upon its exercise which is not imposed upon the traffic in other goods, wares, and merchandise recognized as legitimate articles of commerce? Can any man who makes the least pretensions to capacity for logical reasoning give an idea of the distinction between the right to restrict and the right to destroy? There is not, and in the very nature of things, cannot be, any half-way ground in the argument. If the State can lawfully restrict in the slightest degree, then where must it stop before transgressing the boundaries of legitimate constitutional authority? If any advocate of license who denies the

*See Appendix. Some of the states collect taxes, but refuse to license.

right of the State to prohibit, will draw for me the line where the right of restriction by taxation or otherwise shall stop, then I will take back all that I have said in advocacy of the majority to absolutely prohibit not only the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, but anything else that is found to be detrimental to the welfare of the people at large, I promise that the next book I write will be in favor of the destruction of all human governments, the abrogation of all laws, the complete overthrow of all sovereign power and legislative authority. I will be ready to accept the inevitable result. I will be ready then to admit that anarchy is not only right, but that it is conducive to the establishment and maintenance of good government. The right of a state to restrict by special taxation or positive law the exercise of any calling or business whatever is as palpable, inconsistent, and irreconcilable with the personal liberty contended for by the opposition as Egyptian darkness with the burning rays; of a mid-day sun. No reasonable mind can contemplate for a moment the idea of the contemporaneous exercise of these two inconsistencies without being overwhelmed by the grandeur and sublimity of this monstrous absurdity. And yet how full is the world, how full is this great state of Texas, of men, and men too who have been honored by the very highest distinctions within the gift of the people, who, in one breath, advocate high license on principle, and in the next breath overturn and destroy the whole basis of their argument, denying the existence of any such principle by assailing the right of the government to prohibit. When the argument is complete, and stands out in bold relief upon the stage of human sophistry where it belongs, it is something like "the play of Hamlet, with Hamlet left out." The argument turns upon and destroys itself. Indeed, it is well enough that it does, for the reason that common sense and good logic have more decent and difficult work to perform. But I leave this self-emasculated proposi

tinn to the further contemplation of the reader, who can not fail to appreciate the absurdity.

The next question I shall consider is, What good can high license accomplish in the suppression or correction of the evil? Will it have the effect to diminish the sale and consumption of this demoralizing fluid? Such is not the purpose of high license. It diminishes one thing and one thing only, and that is competition. When the whisky business of a town is carried on by ten saloons, it will probably reduce the number to five, provided the license is doubled. If it is multiplied by three or four the number of good healthy, thriving saloons will likely decrease in inverse proportion. They will not have to sell their liquid insanity for any greater price by the drink and if they did, it would not make a particle of difference, as drinking men do not stand on a nickle. The increase of their trade by the suspension of those which are unable to pay the increased license for the privilege of competing with them in the corruption of humanity, more than repays them for the increase of taxes and by reason of their wealth and magnificence, they become if possible, more respectable and perhaps less loathsome in their appearance and surroundings.*

*Rev. DeWitt Talmadge, D. D., in his sermon on High License says: Now, this high-license movement is the property qualification in the most offensive shape. Why do you not carry it out in other things? Why do you not stop all these bakers until the bakers can pay a $1,000 license? Why do you not shut up all the butchers' shops until the butchers can pay $1,000 or $500? Why do you not stop these thread-and-needle stores and the small dry-goods establishments, except that a man pay $500 or $1,000 ? "Oh." you say, "that is different." How is it different? "Well," you say, "the sale of bread and meat and clothes does no damage, while the sale of whisky does damage. Ah, my brother, you have surrendered the whole subject! If rum selling is right, let all have the right; and if it is wrong, $500 or $1,000 are only a bribe to Government to give to a few men a privilege which it denies to the great masses of the people. Why do you not carry out this idea of licensing only those who can pay a large license?-give them all the privilege.'

Hence more attractive. Their music is more delightfully bewitching, and their games more varied and enticing. High license, if it has any perceivable effect upon the liquor traffic, has a tendency to make it more respectable, and consequently increases rather than diminishes man's inclination to drink. There is no necessity to consume time and space in the discussion of the effects of low license and medium license; the principle is precisely the same.

There is no small number of people who are, or profess to be of opinion that the best way to prevent drunkenness is to take the bridle off of the "critter" and turn him loose upon society. They speak of the good old days of our unsophisticated ancestors when our fathers and our grandfathers took their corn and their barley to the still-house, the grain in one end of their homespun sacks and a big rock or log chain in the other to make them balance across their saddles, had it ground up and distilled into whisky, which was so good, pure, and free from adulteration that it never made any one drunk, though he poured it down by the gallon. That these good old men, every one of whom took a bee line for the pearly gates just as soon as the spirit left him, always kept an oldfashioned decanter "dearer to their hearts than the old oaken bucket which hung in the well," which "dear old decanter" was kept full of pure, unadulterated corn or rye whisky, and that all the family drank to their heart's content, and none of them "flickered." Ah, those good old days that we read about when every body was honest, when every body was moral, when every body was righteous, and belonged to the church, and when nobody talked about his neighbor.

When there were no drunkards, no thieves, no murderers, no traitors to their country. What if those saintly personages were to come down from their lofty seats beyond the starry hosts and behold for a moment the moral depravity of their degenerate sons and grandsons who are moving heed