nient season....We ask a Legislature that will enact such a law, a Governor who will approve, and magistrates and other officers who will enforce it."

Myron H. Clark was nominated for Governor by acclamation, and Henry J. Raymond, editor of the New York Times, was nominated for Lieutenant-Governor on that platform, and both having accepted the nomination, were subsequently nominated by the Angelica Republican convention.

The vote in the State was as follows: Clark, 156,804, Seymour, 156,495; Ullman, 122,282; Bronson, 35,850; Clark's plurality, 309. Thus, the State was carried for Prohibition when the Governor received only 17 more than one-third of the total votes cast. The same issues prevailed in the election of the Legislature, which was composed as follows: Senate: Whigs, 22; Democrats, 10. Assembly: Whigs, 82; Democrats, 41; Main Law Independents, 3.

The bill vetoed by Governor Seymor was repassed April 9th, 1855, and was made to take effect July 4th of that year. The court held that the act violated the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of his property without due process of law. As the act applied to liquors owned or possessed at the time it took effect, it virtually deprived the owners of their property. The section which provided for the trial of accused persons before a Court of Special Sessions was also held invalid, as it deprived them of the right of the trial by jury.

Under this decision, all that was requisite to bring the law under the Constitution was to grant trial by jury, and make it apply only to liquors made or purchased after it took effect; but, instead of doing this, the Legislature elected in the following November passed a license law.

That Legislature was constituted as follows; Senate: Republicans, 16; Americans, 11; Democrats, 4; Temperance, 1. Assembly: Republicans, 81; Americans, 8; Democrats, 31; Americans and Democrats, 8. Thus, we find that, whereas the State two years before had been carried for prohibition, the Republican party having elected its candidate for Governor, John A. King, by a plurality of 65,424, and having a majority in the Senate, with the one Temperance Senator, of two votes, and in the Assembly a majority of 37 votes, we find that, instead of maintaining what had been

gained by making prohibition a leading question, that Republican Legislature, the first in this State, restored the licence policy to the State, and thus adopted license as the Republican plan of dealing with the liquor traffic. From 1854 until the organization of the prohibition party in 1869, no reference was made in any State platform in this State to the question of prohibition. Since that time, that party, in its annual conventions, has virtually adopted the platform on which Mr. Clark was elected, "a legislature to enact, a governor to sign, and officers to enforce prohibitory legislation." Three years later, in 1872, the sixteenth resolution of the Republican national platform was declared by its author to have been adopted with the understanding that its object was to condemn prohibitory and Sunday legislation. This resolution was endorsed by the Republican convention of this State. In 1876, four years after the Republicans in their national platform had committed their party to oppose prohibition, the Democratic National Convention adopted a resolution opposing all sumptuary laws, and that position has been reaffirmed in all subsequent National Conventions. The party, in its several State Conventions in this State has endorsed this action.

In no State convention of any party, in this State, except the Prohibition, has there been, since 1854, any resolution adopted condemning the license policy.

In the Richfield Springs Republican State Convention of 1883, the following resolution was adopted:

"We believe in the wisdom of the people in deciding all questions pertaining to the public welfare, and would accede to the desire of a large body of our citizens to submit to the voters of the State, Constitutional Amendment in regard to the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors."

This resolution in no way defined the policy of the party on the question, further than to declare a willingness to allow the people an opportunity to decide by a vote on "a Constitutional Amendment in regard to the manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks," what the subsequent legislative policy of the State should be, no matter what party should be intrusted with this legislation.

From a letter dated Little Valley, N. Y., October 2, 1884,

and signed Charles Z. Lincoln, the following extracts are made:

* * * *

"I had the honor to represent the Second District of Cattaraugus county in the Republican State Convention of 1883, held at Richfield Springs. One object I had in attending that Convention was to see what could be done toward committing the party, in some degree at least, to the cause of Prohibition; not that I expected the party could be unqualifiedly committed to prohibition as a principle of immediate party action, as that was too much to hope at the outset. At the election the preceding year the Prohibitionists polled about 26,000 votes. This showed such a growth of the prohibition sentiment throughout the State as to demand some attention. * ** * After conversing with delegates from different parts of the State, 1epresenting various shades of opinion on this question, I prepared and introduced a resolution favoring the submission to the people of a Prohibitory Constitutional Amendment. The substance of it was embodied in a plank of the platform, and the party became thereby pledged to give the people an opportunity, at the polls, to express their opinion on the subject of Constitutional Prohibition.

61

Under this pledge the Republicans elected 70 members of the Assembly, and the Democrats 53. Mr. Olin, of Broome, was elected by the joint votes of the Republicans and Prohibitionists, and became the champion of the Constitutional Amendment, which was defeated by the following vote: ayes, 63 nays, 9 Democrats voting for the Amendment and 17 Republicans against it; among the latter being Mr. Roosevelt, the recognized leader of the Republican majority. Thus, with 9 Democrats voting against this party platform for submission, the Republicans, with 17 majority in the Assembly, failed to redeem their party pledge to allow the people to decide what the future policy of the State should be on this question. Thus closes the last chapter of the history of prohibition in this State, which shows the Democratic party unalterably opposed to prohibition, the Republican party responsible for the present license policy of the State, and guilty of breaking a party pledge in order to deny the people the privilege of changing that policy and restoring prohibition, which was made the State policy by being made a party issue in 1854, so that the prohibition party was left the only party in

the State which favors prohibition either as a party or State policy.

In a letter dated December 27th, 1884, written by ex-Governor Myron H. Clark, to the writer of this article, he says: "Prohibition was one of the leading questions which led to my election as Governor."

That election was, as already stated, secured by 156,804 votes in a total of 469,432 votes, which would require about 400,000 votes in this State at the present time to have prohibition as strong, relatively, as it was when Mr. Clark was clected Governor on that distinctive issue, and we leave it for the people to decide how soon, under the policy of non-partisan action, which has restored license and has maintained it, prohibition can be secured in this State ?

MARYLAND.

LICENSE GRANTED WITHOUT REGARD TO QUALIFICATIONS OR CHARACTER ON PAYMENT OF TAX REQUIRED BY LAW.

HON. WM. DANIEL.

The act of 1780, chapter 24, empowered the County Courts in session, to grant licenses to keep ordinaries to such persons as they shall think fit, being persons of good repute, to keep ordinaries in such, and as many places, within their respective counties, for the ease and convenience of the inhabitants, travelers and strangers, as to them may seem proper.

2.

derly.

Power was given the courts to suspend them if disor

3. They were required with two sufficient sureties, "to keep good rules and order, and not suffer loose, idle or dissolute persons, to tipple, game, or commit any disorder, or other irregularity in said ordinary."

They were prohibited from selling to apprentices or slaves. And, by the 11th section, al! persons were prohibited from selling, except merchants, but what they sold could not be drank in the stores.

Nor could the keeper of the ordinary, at a horse race, sell after sunset.

Now it is manifest from the legislation, that the license system was established solely for the purpose of regulating the sale of liquors, and for confining the right to sell to such number of persons, who kept inns, as would, in the judgment of the Court, be sufficient for the accommodation of the public. I. The Courts were to grant the licenses.

2.

were

The persons, to whom this privilege was granted, w to be persons of "good repute.

3. They were required to enter into recognizance, "to keep good rules and order, and not suffer loose, idle or disorderly persons to tipple, game, or commit disorder."

In the year 1825 the legislature removed the restriction imposed by the original laws, which only granted licenses to persons of good repute, and in such numbers as were required for the public, and under the other restrictions named.

By the act of 1826, the power of the judges to grant licenses was taken uway, and the county clerks were directed to grant licenses to ordinary keepers, upon their entering into recognizance before justice of the peace that they would comply with the provisions of the several laws of this State, relative to ordinary keepers.

Now even this restriction as much diminished as it was, as compared with the old law, was still some restriction, as it requires them to keep orderly houses.

It removes, however, all supervision as to the character of the men to whom license was given; and as to the numbers to whom given.

Then came the act of 1827, chapter 117, which required the clerks to grant licenses to sell liquors in such quantities, less than a pint to all keepers of ordinaries, grog-shop, victualing and oyster houses, who pay the licenses, the only exception being, that the grand jury should signify to the court, their opinion that a license ought not to be granted to any indiviuals, named in the list of applicants therefor, required to be laid before them; the clerk could not grant the same without the special direction of the court.

Next came the act of 1858, chapter 414, which was intended as a revenue measure alone, the only requirements for the granting of licenses being that in the case of ordinaries (such