A curious position came about in Ohio, one of the great industrial states. It did not adopt prohibition, which forbids the manufacture and sale of liquor; but in 1851 it abandoned licensing, which had been in force since 1792 and incorporated a provision in the constitution declaring that no license should thereafter be granted in the state. The position then was that retail sale without a license was illegal and that no license could be granted. This singular state of things was changed in 1866 by the "Dow Law," which authorized a tax on the trade and rendered it legal without expressly sanctioning or licensing it. There was therefore no licenses and no licensing machinery, but the traffic was taxed and conditions imposed. In effect the Dow Law amounted to repeal of prohibition and its replacement by the freest possible form of licensing. In Iowa, which early adopted a prohibitory law, still nominally in force, a law, known as the "mulct law" was passed in 1894 for taxing the trade and practically legalizing it under conditions. The story of the forty years struggle in this state between the prohibition agitation and the natural appetites of mankind is exceedingly instructive; it is an extraordinary revelation of political intrigue and tortuous proceedings, and an impressive warning against the folly of trying to coerce the personal habits of a large section of the population against their will. It ended in a sort of compromise, in which the coercive principle is preserved in one law and personal liberty vindicated by another contradictory one. The result may be satisfactory, but it might be attained in a less expensive manner. What suffers is the principle of law itself, which is brought into disrepute. State prohibition, abandoned by the populous New England and central states, has in recent years found a home in more remote regions. In 1907 it was in force in five state--Maine, Kansas, North Dakota, Georgia and Oklahoma; in January, 1909, it came into operation in Alabama, Mississippi, and North Carolina; and in July, 1909, in Tennessee.

LOCAL PROHIBITION

The limited form of prohibition known as local veto is much more extensively applied. It is an older plan than state prohibi

tion, having been adopted by the legislature of Indiana in 1832. Georgia followed in the next year, and then other states took it up for several years until the rise of state prohibition in 'the middle of the century caused it to fall into neglect for a time. But the states which adopted and then abandoned general prohibition fell back on the local form, and a great many others have also adopted it. In 1907 it was in force in over 30 states, including all the most populous and important, with one or two exceptions. But the extent to which it is applied varies very widely and is constantly changing, as different places take it up and drop it again. Some alternate in an almost regular manner every two or three years, or even every year; and periodical oscillations of a general character occur in favor of the plan or against it as the result of organized agitation followed by reaction. The wide discrepancies between the practice of different states are shown by some statistics collected in 1907, when the movement was running favorably to the adoption of no license. In Tennessee the whole state was under prohibition. with the exception of 5 municipalities: Arkansas, 56 out of 75 counties; Florida, 35 out of 46 counties; Mississippi, 56 out of 77 counties; North Carolina, 70 out of 97 counties; Vermont, 3 out of 6 cities and 208 out of 241 towns. These appear to be the most prohibitive states, and they are all of a rural character. At the other end of the scale were Pennsylvania with I county and a few towns ("Town" in America is generally equivalent to "Village" in England); Michigan, I county and a few towns; California, parts of 8 or 10 counties. New York had 308 out of 933 towns; Ohio, 480 towns out of 768; Massachusetts, 19 out of 33 cities and 249 out of 321 towns. At the end of 1909 a strong reaction against the prohibition policy set in, notably in Massachusetts.

There is no more uniformity in the mode of procedure than in the extent of application. At least five methods are distinguished. In the most complete and regular form a vote is taken every year in all localities whether there shall be licenses or not in the ensuing year and is decided by a bare majority. A second method of applying the general vote is to take it at any time, but not oftener than once in four years, on the demand of one-tenth of the electorate. A third plan is to apply this principle locally and put the question

to the vote, when demanded, in any locality. A fourth and entirely different system is to invest the local authorities with power to decide whether there shall be licenses or not; and a fifth is to give residents power to prevent licenses or not; by means of protest or petition. The first two methods are those most widely in force, but the third plan of taking a local vote by itself is adopted in some important states, including New York, Ohio, Illinois. Opinions differ widely with regard to the success of local veto, but all the independent observers agree that it is more successful than state prohibition, and the preference accorded to it by so many states after prolonged experience proves that public opinion broadly endorses that view. Its advantage lies in its adaptability to local circumstances and local opinion.

It prevails mainly in rural districts and small towns; in the larger towns it is best tolerated where they are in close proximity to "safety valves" or licensed areas in which liquor can be obtained; the large cities do not adopt it. On the other hand, it has some serious disadvantages. The perpetually renewed struggle between the advocates and opponents of prohibition is a constant cause of social and political strife; and the alternate shutting up and opening of public houses in many places makes continuity of administration impossible, prevents the executive from getting the traffic properly in hand, upsets the habits of the people, demoralizes the trade and stands in the way of steady improvement.

PREFACE TO A PROHIBITION TRACT

(Don Marquis in the New York Evening Sun)

Nation-wide Prohibition, when it comes . . . and the little book to which this is a preface proves that it is on the way . . . will be a grand good thing.

It will bring back the romance into drinking.

*

At present there is no thrill of adventure to be had from walking into a barroom and ordering a drink; there is as much to be got out of going into the post office and buying a stamp.

It is true that the barroom has its attractions; there is the pleasurable physical glow, suffusing the human innards, that comes from the drink itself; there is the mental excitement and there is the psychic stimulation. But these attractive things are often balanced by depression; and the attraction of sociability down in the licensed saloon is balanced by the certainty that one will meet bores there; barroom bores whom one must suffer or go to some trouble to dodge. The barroom, as at present constituted, has almost as many drawbacks as recommendations.

*

But when Prohibition comes, and barrooms are abolished, and one must seek out a blind pig, drinking will assume a different and a more winsome aspect. In addition to the pleasure of drinking there will be the zest of disobeying the law, defying the constituted authorities, flouting the will of the majority.

*

Men who drink now merely from habit will find a new thrill in it when it is forbidden.

Something that is as dull as duty to them will suddenly become a delight once more through being surrounded with difficulties and

hazards. Prohibition will bind with a new warp of color the drab woof of alcoholism.

Especially to boys and young men who are not now drinkers will liquor appeal when once it has been outlawed.

The adolescent male of the human species dwells amidst perpetual mental and spiritual excitements, not able from moment to moment to determine whether he would rather be a picturesque criminal or a religious hero.

The thing he does not want to be is the thing which he perceives the majority of his commonplace elders, whose instinct for protective coloring has made them neutral and negative, have become.

The youth seeks for a gleam of poetry in existence; he hunts for glamour; he craves initiation into mysteries, Eleusinian or any other. He likes anything in the nature of a secret meeting, anything with a conspiratorial look about it; the blind pig will furnish him with just enough of the tang and flavor of adventure to capture him; he will conquer his natural antipathy to the villainous liquors served in such places and learn to drink them even if they burn holes in his neck going down.

*

And is it not desirable that the young man, during the formative period of his life . . . (how could we get along without that phrase "During the formative period of his life"?) . . . should enjoy the moral advantages to be derived from association of older men who have steadfastly refused to conform to the laws and conventions which the majorities seek to impose?

This is a question for the moralists; we throw it out for them to grapple with; we can't answer it.

*

The friendships that will spring up among those who meet each other in blind pigs will be much closer than among those who meet in ordinary licensed saloons. They will be like a little band of brothers. The sense that they are all outlaws together will induct them into an intenser spiritual intimacy each one with all the others.