the assessed valuation of the property of Kansas, real, personal and railroad, aggregated $160,891,689; in 1885 it aggregated $248,845,276. In 1880 we had only 3,104 miles of railway; we have now 5,117 miles. In 1880 we had 5,315 school houses; in 1885 we had 6,673. In 1880 we expended $1,818,336 for the support of our common schools; in 1885 we expended $2,977,763. In 1880 we had only 357 newspapers and 2,514 churches; in 1885 we had 581 newspapers and 3,976 churches."

This speech contains other valuable statistics proving to a moral certainty that prohibition does prohibit, the assertions of whisky advocates to the contrary notwithstanding, and prohibition is working out a great moral and social reform in the State of Kansas.

As an evidence of the efficacy of the law, I quote as follows from the late message of Governor Martin, delivered to the Legislature during the present year, 1887:

A great reform has certainly been accomplished in Kansas. Intemperance is steadily and surely decreasing. In thousands of homes where want and wretchedness and suffering were once familiar guests, plenty, happiness and contentment now abide. Thousands of wives and children are better clothed and fed than they were when the saloons absorbed all the earnings of husbands and fathers. The marvelous material growth of the State during the past six years has been accompanied by the equally marvelous moral progress, and it can be fairly and truthfully asserted that in no portion of the civilized world can a million and a half of people be found who are more temperate than the people of Kansas.

There is not a town, city or neighborhood in the State in which an illegal traffic in liquors can be carried on for a single week if the local officers discharge the duties plainly enjoined upon them by law with zeal and fidelity. Provide the necessary laws to compel local officers to discharge their sworn duties, and to remove them when they neglect or refuse to do so, and there will be no need to make any changes in our statutes. On the other hand, no matter what amendments are made nor what provisions are added to the present laws,

they will be ineffectual so long as the municipal authorities or cities or counties can nullify or disregard them without fear of removal or punishment.

The public sentiment of Kansas is overwhelmingly against the liquor traffic. Thousands of men, who a few years ago opposed prohibition, or doubted whether it was the best method of dealing with the liquor traffic, have seen and frankly acknowledge its beneficent results and its practical success. The temptations with which the open saloon allured the youth of the land to disgrace and destruction; the appetite for liquor bred and matured within its walls by the treating custom; the vice, crime, poverty, suffering and sorrow of which it is always the fruitful source, all these evil results of the open saloon have been abolished in nearly every city and town in Kansas.

There is not an observing man in the State who does not know that a great reform has been accomplished in Kansas by prohibition. There is not a truthful man in the State who will not frankly acknowledge this fact, no matter what his opinions touching the policy of prohibition may have been; and I firmly believe that if the amendments to the law that I have suggested are made, and if authority is provided for compelling local officers to discharge the duties required of them by law, within three months there will not be an open saloon in Kansas, and the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage will be practically abolished."

In 1881 Governor Martin was opposed to the law because he did not think "it would work." The prohibitory laws of Kansas have recently been amended in important particulars, and it is said that it is now practically impossible to engage in the illegal sale of liquor in that State without detection and severe punishment.

OHIO.

NO LICENSE CAN BE GRANTED BUT THE STATE MAY LEGISLATE UPON EVILS RESULTING FROM THE TRAFFIC.

In Ohio as in every other State of the Union, and in every civilized country the liquor traffic has been regarded as a proper subject of legislation. Unrestrained and unregulated it has been considered a dangerous business. In a period of six hundred years there have been four hundred laws enacted on this subject in England by the British Parliament.

In all the States and Territories of the United States more legislation has been had upon this than upon all other occupations.

From the adoption of the first constitution of Ohio in 1802 down to 1852, the legislature of the State was continually trying to mitigate the evils connected with this traffic, by a judicious and well-regulated license system. Every person who proposed to engage in the business was required to prove a good moral character, and be well qualified for the work; he must keep a quiet and orderly house and procure a license, paying a stipulated sum for the privilege. He was also required to prove by persons residing in the vicinity that a grogshop was necessary in the locality. Year after year new and more stringent conditions were added. Judges of the courts were required to grant licenses to sell drinks to suitable persons in proper localities within their jurisdiction. Courts were more or less strict in the exercise of their power as they were favorable or unfavorable to the business. It created no little public excitement and comment when Judge Fishback, of Clermont, turned away all applicants for a license.

He claimed that, while the law was imperative, that he should grant licenses to persons of good moral character in suitable places, it did not define what localities were suitable, but left that to the sacred discretion of the courts, and he was clearly of the opinion that there was no suitable place for such a nefarious business in his jurisdiction, and while he occupied the bench he would not entertain any ap plication for a license. In 1851 a convention was called to form a new constitution. The friends of temperance throughout the State petitioned to the convention to put a no-license clause in the new constitution. Fears were entertained that such a clause would result in a rejection by the people of the instrument. By strong and persistent pressure and personal appeals the convention consented to submit to the people a schedule which it adopted by a majority of the voters in a separate ballot; it should be section 18, of article 16 of the Constitution. The schedule submitted read as follows: "No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be granted in the State, but the General Assembly may by law provide against the evils resulting therefrom." A most exciting canvass followed. The friends of temperance, believing that a great point in favor of their reform would be gained by taking away the legal sanction of a license, marshaled their forces to secure the insertion of the above clause in the organic law of the State. The result was its adoption by a majority of 8000, greater than was given for the Constitution itself.

From that date to the present no commission has ever been given by any court, or city, or town council to any person to make drunkards. The liquor traffic has not had any legal sanction. The caustic, but just, criticism upon the license system by the immortal Cowper has not been applicable to Ohio since the year 1852. More than one hundred years ago in his inimitable verse he said:

"The ten thousand casks, forever dribling out their base contents Touched by the Midas finger of the State,

Bleed gold for parliament to vote away.
Drink and be mad then, 'tis your country bids;
Gloriously obey the important call;

Her cause demands the assistance of your throats;
Ye all can swallow, and she asks no more."

"To provide against the evils resulting from the traffic" as authorized by the new constitution, the General Assembly in 1854 passed a law which in some rural districts was attended with beneficial results, and which, if it had been enforced throughout the State, would have been as effective as any prohibitory law anywhere. Among its provisions were the following, briefly stated: No liquor should be sold to be drunk on the premises where sold. None should be sold to minors or persons intoxicated or who were in the habit of getting intoxicated. All places where sold contrary to the provisions of the law were declared to be nuisances, which should be shut up and abated and the keeper fined and imprisoned. In 1859 amendments were made providing for the punishment of the drunkard, and additional penalties against selling liquor to drunkards.

In 1870 the law was still further amended by authorizing a wife or child, or other person injured in person or property, or means of support, to sue and recover exemplary damages from any person who sold liquor to any one in the habit of becoming intoxicated. This law-called the Adair law-authorized a wife or minor child to sue in their own name. Judgments were made lien upon the premises where the liquor was obtained.

As a general and almost universal rule the courts were not inclined to enforce the law. Occasionally heavy exemplary damages were recovered by a wife or child, but the criminal provisions of the law were a dead letter. It was generally