posed that the national government should take over their police power. Possibly the Federal Government might undertake the duty of patrolling our international borders, and the enormous stretch of coast line to prevent the smuggling in of liquor, but the magnitude of this task is almost appalling. The task of supervising the home distillation so as to prevent the householder from trafficking in his own product would have to be met by the local authorities, and when it is recalled that in all prohibition elections the people in the large cities have registered their disapproval of prohibition, the police would constantly be confronted with the difficulty of compelling the people to submit to a law that is not supported by public sentiment, and which they regard as a species of tyranny. HOW TO OBTAIN A REMEDY National prohibition under our form of government could not be brought about as the result of the popular vote of the country at large, though this, we believe, would mean an overwhelming majority against it. It can only come through compulsion which may now be directed by sparsely inhabited rural States, against the far more populous and wealthy urban States. So far as can be reasoned from experience gathered through generations of experiments, backed by all the force there is in law, the abolition of the legalized traffic in alcoholic liquors would mean its replacement by an unregulated manufacture and sale so extensive and of such a character as not only to exclude the possibility of diminishing the actual drink evil, but certain to intensify its worst forms. We have cited these points to call attention to the enormous importance of the practical problems and difficulties involved in the stupendous question-national prohibition. The question for thoughtful men is how this industry may be so regulated that the evils incident to it shall gradually diminish, and intemperance be reduced until it becomes a negligible social factor? What suggestions can be made to stem the tide of national prohibition, which if continued, while it will not result, as has been proven, in bettering conditions, will spell ruin to present investments, and disaster to the cause of real temperance? While it can be easily established that some of the causes which have been suggested are exaggerated, and are not the sole fault of those in the business, this will not satisfy the public demand. Promises, advice to the trade, resolutions of condemnation, etc., will not suffice. A policy must be agreed to and acted upon. Mere temporary action will not do. It must be persistent, energetic, thorough and continuous. Any policy we may agree upon will find objectors in our ranks; reasons why it is impracticable will be urged; but we must overlook our immediate personal interests and the effect upon our business, in order to arrive at a possible solution which will ultimately result in permanency to our industry. I would therefore present for your serious consideration some suggestions which occur to me, which may be influential in stemming the growing sentiment in opposition to our industry, and to the saloon as a method of distribution of our product: 1. An energetic and active demand on local authorities to exercise greater discrimination in granting licenses, and in the prompt and efficient prosecution for repeated or wanton violation of law as distinguished from an honest mistake. 2. The advisability and practicability of a gradual decrease in the number of licensed stands, particularly with reference to the maintenance of several in the immediate vicinity of each other, and also of making all stands in the immediate vicinity of industrial plants, beer saloons only, where the men can get good hot food at a low price with their glass of beer, under comfortable surroundings. 3. We should commence an active and aggressive campaign in the interest of truth respecting our industry and its product. Much misunderstanding exists in the minds of the public as to what our product is; of its importance as a temperance beverage; of its health and strength producing qualities; of its purity; of the good effects of its temperate and moderate use; of the possibilities of its supplanting beverages of greater alcoholic content; of its influence in building up new energy in the human system. These, among other benefits, inherent in the proper use of our product, should be persistently brought to the public attention. It is my belief that the adoption and enforcement of the suggestions above referred to will, if persisted in, and honestly carried into effect, change public sentiment in respect to the beer industry. Such a campaign depends primarily upon the adoption of this constructive program. Assuming this, the question is one of large expense, because if such a campaign is inaugurated, it must be a continuing one; mere temporary or sporadic attempts will not produce results. We are not prepared to present a plan in detail because it must be worked out with reference to the co-operation of the State and local associations. The main question is to determine first our policy, and then develop the plan. VIGILANCE COMMITTEE REPORT Following is a review of elections, legislative events and other matters of interest to the trade in the several States: Alabama.-Richmond P. Hobson was defeated in the congressional primaries. The Supreme Court declared the liquor inspection ordinance of Birmingham invalid. Arizona.-A supreme court decision declared that the importation of liquors for personal use was no offense. There were two questions voted on in November. The complete vote for "Bone Dry" prohibition was: Arkansas.-At the November elections Arkansas voted to re tain State-wide prohibition; defeating local option. California.-Both prohibition amendments were defeated at the November elections. The complete vote on amendment No. 1 forbidding the sale or introduction of liquors after January 1st, 1920, was: No Majority against the amendment... 538,200 101,561 The complete vote on amendment No. 2, forbidding the sale of liquors in saloons, hotels, restaurants, clubs, or dance halls, after January 1st, 1918, was: No Majority against the amendment.... 505,783 461,039 44,744 (During the year, at local option elections, Bakersfield, Tracy, Sausalito, Paris and Imperial voted "wet," while Hanford, Clovis and Exeter voted "dry.") Colorado. An amendment authorizing the manufacture and sale of beer was defeated at the November election. The official count was: Against Majority against the amendment... 163,135 77,345 85,790 The vote of the city of Denver on this amendment was: Against 41,427 Majority against the amendment........... 18,889 Denver's special charter could not save its drinking places, as the State Supreme Court decided against them. It is not legal to have alcohol in any food or beverage in this State, not even in mince pie or plum pudding—so the Attorney General has ruled. The brewers of Colorado have united with the authorities in a strict enforcement of the prohibition law. Delaware.-Dover having voted out saloons and bars, the hotel. Richardson, which cost over $100,000, has been sold for $12,200. Florida.-The Prohibition candidate for Governor was elected in November by almost 5,000 majority. The Legislature was claimed by the "drys," and it was asserted that it would enact Statewide prohibition. Georgia Statutory.-The prohibition law of Georgia was declared to be constitutional by a ruling of the Federal Circuit Court, and the Georgia Court of Appeals decided that a judgment could not be had for the collection of a promissory note given for the purpose of liquor for illegal sale in the State. Not only are all alcoholic liquors barred from trade by the new Prohibition law, effective May 1, 1916, but all liquors manufactured from malt "whether alcoholic or not or whether intoxicating or not," are prohibited, as well as any made in imitation of or intended as substitutes for any alcoholic beverages. Idaho.-A Prohibition Constitutional Amendment was carried by the people at the November elections by the following vote: For 90,576 Majority in favor of the amendment....... 55,120 Illinois. The Supreme Court decided that the club house locker system of receiving and using liquors in an orderly way was lawful, and also that a city could not by ordinance prohibit the transportation of liquors into it. Little change is to be noted in public sentiment on the drink question. In the Senatorial and Congressional Districts, where male citizens only are allowed to vote, for Legislative and Congressional officers at primaries and elections, men, in almost every instance, voted majorities in favor of license and against prohibition. The male vote cast in 58 counties (exclusive of Cook Co.) in April, 1916, shows a majority of 30,303 in favor of license. The women's vote cast in the same 58 counties in April, 1916, shows a majority of 39,437 against license. The following voted wet: Arlington Heights, Ashkum, Arenzville, Bear Creek, Blairsville, Bloomington, Campus, Cardiff, Carlinsville, East Dubuque, Hennepin, Herrin, Lockport, Manlius, |