that any person elected to any office shall forfeit same if it be proven that on the day of his election he offered to sell or give, or did so sell or give or distribute any intoxicating drink to any voter; and if any person did so offer or sell or distribute to any voter on election day, he forfeits $20 to $100. Engineers and railroad conductors intoxicated on duty, guilty of misdemeanor and liable to fine not exceeding $500.

In 1877 a still more stringent law was enacted, which is still in force. Bond $3500, conditioned that any restriction violated by either selling or giving, shall render liable to prosecution. Unlawful to permit any person to drink to intoxication on the premises, to sell or give to any person intoxicated, or to one in the habit of becoming so, or one of unsound mind, or under 21 years of age, or to sell or give to any one on Sunday. Any husband, wife, child, parent, or guardian may serve notice (written) on any person engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors, not to sell to the husband, wife, child, parent or ward, and thereafter the seller is liable for any damage to person, property or in means of support, and for exemplary damages, by reason of the intoxication of the person to whom sale was made in violation of such notice. The owner of place where liquor law is violated may be indicted for maintaining a public nuisance, and the place closed up. An officer with a warrant may break open any place where liquors are sold clandestinely, when necessary for the arrest or indentification of the person selling. County court cannot grant license in corporated towns without consent of Town Council.

For the past ten years drug stores have multiplied in some parts of the State, and in many instances become vile doggeries. The law governing them in the sale of liquor has therefore been getting more strict. The following, passed in 1883, now governs: Druggists can only sell alcoholic liquors for medicinal, mechanical or scientific purposes, and no sale to be made except upon written prescription of a practicing physician in good standing in his profession, and not of intemperate habits, specifying name of person and quantity to be furnished him, but no druggist who is himself a practicing physician can sell upon his own prescription. Upon two convictions the druggist loses license.

The Constitution of this State gives the legislature power to prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks within the State.

After 1860, and prior to 1872, this State was governed by the Republicans, and all Legislation was done by legislatures having Republican majorities. Since 1872 the legislation has been done by legislatures having Democratic mojorities, and the executives have been Democratic also.

With reference to the workings of the present and such liquor laws as we have heretofore had, would say: that the restrictions imposed under the license system seem to be worthless. When a person obtains a license to sell, he generally sells without molestation. The restrictions seem to contemplate that no sales are to be made to intoxicate, but reverse results prevail from the nature of the business. The liquor law has no tendency to decrease the evils of alcoholic drink, except in counties and towns where the temperance element is strong enough to withhold license. In fact, nearly all the prosecutions are for selling without license in places where the sale is prohibited by withholding license. Prosecutions by indictment and jury trial do not effect any good; delays are too great and perjury is too common. When the municipal authorities under their charter and ordinance take it in hand, illegal retailing can be in the main suppressed. Often, however, these authorities are in sympathy with the liquor interest and do not act, or acting it is done so irregularly as to render the proceedings defective.

The temperence people of this State have endeavored for the past five years to get the legislature to submit to a vote of the people, an amendment to the constitution forever prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage. The petitions to the legislature for this purpose have been numerous and signed by the best men of the State. It requires a two-thirds vote in each branch of the legislature to submit this question. It passed the lower House in 1883, but was defeated in the Senate by two votes. The people have elected men enough to the legislature to have accomplished their desire, but have been frequently betrayed through the influence brought to bear by the liquor interest. The minority party (the republicans) have generally supported the measure. It is the general feeling that if the people get an opportunity to vote, they will adopt prohibition, and for

this reason the liquor interest, while desiring to be rid of the question, yet dare not let it come to a vote. The democratic party during the present session of legislature exerted their influence against the measure. The republicans during the last campaign would have nothing to do with it. Had the legislature therefore, submitted it to vote and the people had declared for it, we should have had a law which neither party would have respected. There are thousands of voters in this State ready to join any party with the leading principle of prohibition engrafted in their platform. In more than two thirds of the counties, men are elected to the county court who will not grant license. Voters in this State are coming to believe more and more every day that there is no effectual way to be rid of the evil, except to banish the cause.

In this State "special legislation" prevails. There is a general "local option law," passed in 1874, under which a certain number of voters may present a petition to the judge of the county court, who thereupon issues an order for an election in the "county, city, town or district" described in the petition, to determine whether "spirituous, vinous or malt liquors" may be sold at retail in the locality indicated. It does not apply to manufacturers, wholesale dealers and drug gists, simply to "saloonkeepers," or as known in Kentucky "coffee-house keepers." This vote may be taken every two years and not oftener. It is not used generally. The difficulties in the way of "local option" when applied to a small extent of territory are too many and too great to justify its use except in extremity. If a man has nothing better than a hot iron with which to bore a hole through a board it is wise to use the iron. But an auger is better. When the question of the dram-shop is liable to be fought out every two years in a popular election, it is not surprising that earnest men hesitate to

enter the fight. Especially is this true in the South where the colored vote, which is notoriously unreliable on this question, is so large a factor. It serves a good purpose in affording opportunity for agitation, and in some instances an actual victory over the saloon is accomplished in the use of its provisions.

For several years, and especially in 1873, and subsequently, the Kentucky legislature has been familiar with bills whose title reads as follows, viz : "An act to prohibit the sale of ardent, vinous, malt, spirituous or intoxicating liquors, or the mixture thereof, in the County of Breathett," Jan. 31, 1873. Twenty-nine bills of similar import became laws in 1873, besides other laws authorizing a vote in certain localities. Some of these laws embraced a county, others a town or a precinct, or "near Harmony Church, in Garrard county." In the years 1878, 1882, and 1884, especially the latter, the number of these bills was increased, amounting to 86 in 1884. Among these are a few acts to repeal, indicating the presence of opposition forces. This fact and the kindred fact that a locality which is "no license" this year may be "license" the next if the tenure by which they hold prohibition is the general local option law of 1874, makes it very difficult to give reliable statistics of the prohibition territory of the State. This is true almost everywhere in the south, and must be as long as the local option method prevails. For it is an ever beginning, never ending battle until it is established in the public mind that it is a crime to assist in maintaining the system of alcoholism, and liquor selling and stealing stand in the same relation before the law. No one would think of putting to a popular vote the question of licensing a person to steal.

The present condition of the State as set forth by a committee of gentleman in Louisville in November, 1884, is as follows, viz:

"The following counties have adopted local option: Bullitt, Breckenridge, Hardin, Clay, Letcher, Bell, Cumberland, Ballard, Laurel, Martin, Pike, Wayne, Lewis, Perry, Owen, Hopkins, Breathett, Washington, Rock Castle, Jackson, Owsly, Knox, Whitly, Robertson, Magoffin, Harlan, Leslie, Bracken, Union. Outside of these counties 150 odd magisterial districts in other counties and 50 odd towns in other counties, have adopted local option, thus bringing under local option

influences nearly three-fourths of the voting population of the State. Four districts in this county adopted it at the last August election."

As an evidence of the practical working and effect of local option on the material prosperity and morals of the counties in which it has been adopted, we make this extract from a letter from the Elizabethtown News, August 1, 1884, in which the writer compares Hardin and Bullitt counties:

"About eleven years ago that county voted for local option law, and here is how she stands in comparison to Hardin county, according to the Auditor's report for the year 1883: Total property listed for taxation, $1,797,158; amount of revenue paid into the treasury, $8,750.27; amount drawn out of the treasury, $6,718.83; leaving in the treasury, $2,034.44Total property for Hardin county listed for taxation, $3,238,271 amount paid into the treasury, $15,642; amount drawn out of the treasury, $20,911.76, making a deficit of $5,269.76. Bullitt county, without her whisky, pays into the treasury $2,034.44 more than she draws out, while Hardin county, with her whisky, annually draws out $5,269.76 more than she pays in. Since the local option law took effect in Bullitt county, its wealth has increased and expenses diminished. In the year 1883 the prosecutions in Bullitt county cost the State $417.83, while the prosecutions in Hardin county for the same year cost the State $3,748.83, nearly nine times that of Bullitt county. The population of Hardin county is about double that of Bullitt county. Then, on that basis, the prosecutions in this county should have cost double that of Bullitt, which is $835.76. Now take that from the actual cost, $3,748.83, and we have $2,913.07, which whisky annually adds to the cost of our criminal court. The State receives $1,075 for license in Hardin county, and pays out $2,613.09 to collect it according to the above statistics. In the last ten years Hardin county with her whisky has had thirteen cases of homicide before her courts, while Bullitt county without her whisky has had but one, and that was sent there from Hardin on a change of venue."

Hardin county adopted local option by a large majority at the August election 1885.