like some of old "they feared the people" too much to attempt its repeal. But policy of non-enforcement was open to them, to some extent; and in the cities and larger towns into which the vicious elements of society are more apt to drift, great laxity has existed.

"From that day to this, with occasional revivals, the principle of prohibition has been gradually moved towards the rear by the political managers, while the policy of prohibition has been retained, as a convenient instrumentality for retaining temperance votes, and securing liquor votes.

The rightful order has been thus reversed, and instead of putting temperance into politics, (which is so much needed,) they have put politics into temperance."

It is to this that is to be attributed the persistent continuance of an illicit traffic to some extent.

The legislature of 1882 by a vote of 91 to 30 in the House and 22 to 2 in the Senate submitted a Prohibitory Constitutional Amendment, which was voted on at the general election Sept. 8th, 1884, and it was ratified by a majority of 46,972.

The law has recently been amended and to show the nature and probable effects of the amendment, I quote the following from the Globe Democrat of recent date:

GETTING ALARMED.

The new Maine liquor law which went into effect yesterday is causing great alarm among vendors of liquors who have gloried in the fact that prohibition has not hitherto prohibited. Under the new law the payment of special taxes, or an indication or sign that liquor is sold or given away, is to be held as "prima facie evidence" that the parties are "common sellers of intoxicating liquors and the premises so kept by them common nuisances." When it is remembered that 1180 persons in Maine hold United States liquor licenses, it will be understood that just 1180 persons are trying to make up

their minds whether they had better quit selling or go on as before and trust to apathy in the enforcement of the new law.

And here is one from the Governor :

AUGUSTA, Maine, March 23.-The finances of the State were never more prosperous. Drink habit is fatal to prosperity in any community. Prohibition promotes morality every where. Nearly all crimes can be traced to rum, either directly or indirectly. The law is well enforced in the country towns. In some of the cities it is not quite so effective. It is hoped the new law will aid the enforcement there.

JOSEPH R. Bodwell.

IOWA.

STATE PROHIBITION SINCE JULY 4, 1884.

This new State has a brief but instructive prohibition history. It was admitted as a State Dec. 25, 1846. The fruits of the agitation which produced prohibitory and anti-license in almost all the northern states between 1845 and 1856, produced in 1855, a prohibitory law in Iowa, passed by the whig and republican legislature, and approved by Gov. Grimes.

"Its vitality was dependent upon adoption by the people at the ballot box. The people adopted it. The next legislature but one practically annulled it, without asking the people whether they would sanction this summary setting aside of their verdict as given at the polls. Every means was employed to secure re-enactment of the law, or else the re-submission of the subject to the people, but without avail. It was finally decided by some leading minds to ask Prohibitionists to withhold their suffrages from the various parties, and endeavor by show of strength to demonstrate the necessity of their vote to any party which desired to remain in power in the State.

To this end, and as a guaranty of good faith in their profession of desire to co-operate with the republicans as the dominant party whenever the temperance issue should be properly recognised, the temperance party steadily refused to nominate more than one candidate in any campaign, one name being sufficient to rally and show the strength of the movement, and to show the importance or unimportance of the prohibition

vote,

The temperance party was organized in 1875, and J. H. Lozier nominated as its first candidate for governor. He received but 1,397 votes, while Kirkwood, the Republican candidate, was elected by a majority of 30,179 votes. This looked somewhat like a failure, and the Republican party did not feel compelled to give to prohibition the demanded recognition. In 1877 the Republicans again ignored the issue, and nominated J. H. Gear, while Col. Jessup became the candidate for the prohibitory vote. He received 10,639 votes, being almost eight times as many as were cast for Lozier only two years before. Mr. Gear ran behind his ticket and was a minority governor, lacking 674 of a majority. All other names on the ticket were given strong majorities. This change was a very suggestive one, and Jessup's vote was not the occasion of so much hilarity among politician as was that of Lozier. One more such stride, or even a six-fold increase, would depose the Republican and put some other party in power, the position of the prohibitionists still being nice our cause, and we will merge our force with yours. The Republican convention of 1879 came on. It was desired to renominate J. H. Gear, and to elect him this time by a majority vote. The prohibitionists were on hand, and so far as those present could speak for the convention to assemble five days later, guaranties were given that no candidate would be nominated, provided the standing prayers of the prohibitory element were granted. There were just then no such impor

Recog

tant reconstruction problems unadjusted to specially hold Republican voters, as had been the case in each preceeding campaign, and the most sagacious politicians feared the result if they nominated Gear, an avowed opponent of the principle, and also failed to give favorable recognition of the issue in the action of the convention. As the result of the conference, the Republican convention did adopt a resolution which was referred to in the platform of two years later as making "provisions for submission of the so-called prohibitory amendment of the constitution of Iowa to a vote of the people." Was the "temperance party" dead, a failure, or abandoned as yet? It was tolerable active for a defunct body, as the largest convention in its history met the week after the Republican convention and held a vigorous session. Under the circumstances referred to, however, it was determined to put no candidate in the field, save that a small portion of the convention who would not vote for Gear under any circumstances, withdrew from the convention and nominated D. R. Dungan, who, as an independent, received 3,258 votes. The result of this union was that Gear, though running considerably behind his ticket, was elected by a majority of 23,828."

In accordance with the pledges made, the republican legislature of 1880-81 prepared a prohibitory amendment and passed it. By the provisions of the constitution it laid over for action by the legislature of 1881-82, thus giving the people an opportunity to elect a new legislature in full view of the pending amendment. The second and final legislative vote adopted the amendment by a vote of 65 to 24 in the house, and 35 to II in the senate. On the 27th of June, 1882, at a special election, there were cast for the amendment, 155,436 votes, and against it 125,677; majority, 29,759. This was hailed as a great and decisive victory, and it sufficiently proved the great underlying fact-the people want prohibition.

But the resources of the alcoholists were not exhausted. A test case was made, and upon its reaching the supreme court the amendment was declared invalid, owing to some alleged technicalities. A rehearing of the case resulted in a similar decision.

Great confusion resulted. As usual, the politicians only yielded a reluctant consent to the demand of the people. The opponents of prohibition were vigorous, and did their best to secure at the election Oct. 9, 1883, a legislature which would enact a license law. The democratic party espoused this side and openly advocated it. The republicans, in a rather vague and uncertain way, depending an the sentiment of the locality, advocated prohibition, if they said anything about it, some condemning, others strongly defending the principle. The party was in the dilemma a party must always be, in attempting to take on an issue not originally embraced in its creed. Still, the general result was favorable. The republicans carried the State, electing a majority which said: "The people want prohibition, and they shall have it." A strong and carefully prepared prohibitory statute was enacted, which went into effect July 4, 1884, and the Iowa Prohibitionists were at the end of their trouble-the first end.

In reply to a letter written by the Secretary of the central committee of the prohibition campaign of this State in regards to the workings of prohibition in Iowa the Governor says:

In eighty out of the ninety-nine counties of the state prohibition is enforced, and in the remaining nineteen counties it it is partly enforced; that no property has been depreciated by its enforcement, as saloons make room for better and more legitimate business; that the enforcement of the law has had no noticeable effect upon the population beyond causing the removal from the State of some incurable consumers. The effects of prohibition upon the general welfare and habits of the people, he says, are decidedly wholsome. The prohibi