saloons and drug stores in the city of Portland to day." Portland is the chief city of the State of Maine. "This number," he added, "is run openly, and altogether there are 416 rum-sellers." And later Sheriff Pearson confessed, "We found in Portland 230 places paying for the Internal Revenue Tax receipt." Another effort at the enforcement of the law was made by Sheriff Pennell in 1903-5. The common and disreputable liquor shops were raided and shut up; but hotels and bottling establishments were given certain facilities, and even saloons, on payment of an irregular license fee and submission to supervision, were permitted to sell liquor. Sheriff Pennell made no concealment in his public speeches of the fact that he sanctioned illegality. "So long as I am Sheriff of this county (Portland) I will use the same discretionary powers in the enforcement of the liquor law as I do in the enforcement of any other law. You know the impossibility of enforcement or suppression. I feel," he concluded, "it is my duty to make the traffic as harmless as possible." In 1905 Senator Sturgis, backed by the Republican party, induced the State Legislature to pass an Act superseding the powers of the Sheriffs of the counties in their interpretation and application of the liquor law. A Commission took over the duty of administering the law. It drove Sheriff Pennell, who was nothing if not honest, into the camp of those who would repeal the law altogether rather than have the system of "pocket peddlers," "kitchen bars," and irregular "drinking clubs" revived. After nine months' experience of strict enforcement of the Sturgis Act— we quote again from Messrs. Rowntree and Sherwell—“the arrests for drunkenness in Portland amounted to 1,525, or 28 per 1,000 of the population, a ratio which is nearly three times as high as the ratio in Liverpool, and slightly more than three times as high as the ratio in London." Such a state of things in the chief city of a State which has for over sixty years by law prohibited the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor requires no comment.

LAST YEAR'S ELECTION

The result of the poll taken in Maine in 1911 on the question of the retention, or the repeal, of the Prohibition Law was first given as a majority of 26 for repeal in a total vote of 120,948, but as the result of a recount the Daily News, Bangor, Maine, of November 7, 1911, announced that there was a majority of 758 votes for the retention of prohibition.

Mr. Arthur Sherwell, M.P., whose earlier views on prohibition are quoted in the extract given above, dealing with the moral of the poll in the Daily Chronicle of November 18, 1911, wrote:

"The result of the vote from every point of view, and not least from the point of view of temperance, is eminently unsatisfactory, and it unquestionably creates a position of great difficulty and embarrassment for the authorities. A majority of 700 in a total poll of 120,000 is clearly not a sufficient mandate for a drastic law which previous experience has conclusively shown cannot be enforced successfully in the urban districts of the State. Prior to September the friends of the law, despite the difficulties of enforcement, could claim that it had behind it the authority of 70,783 State votes out of a total of 94,594 cast in 1884, when the law was last submitted to a Referendum of the people. Now, with the State voters evenly divided, and with the verdict of the so-called "cities" overwhelmingly given against the law, successful enforcement of prohibition on a State basis would appear to be hopeless.

"The law unquestionably is widely supported in the rural districts of the State, and there its enforcement will continue to be comparatively easy. The recent vote has, however, emphasized in a very remarkable way the hostile sentiment in the towns. There are altogether 20 so-called 'cities' in the State of Maine, most of them very small and only one with a population exceeding 30,000. Of these 20 'cities' 19 voted for repeal of the law and the remaining one gave a majority of 96 in favor of retaining the law. The total number of votes cast in the 20 'cities' was only 41,623, of which 27,053 were cast in favor of repeal and 14,570 against. The majority for repeal was therefore 12,483.

"The following are the figures for the six largest towns in the State:

They also

"These figures make it easy to understand why enforcement of the law has been so difficult hitherto in the towns. show how ill-advised is the attempt to coerce unwilling communities by means of a State law.”

Moderate Drinking.

Sir James Paget, M.D., LL.D., F.R.S., in an able contribution to the English Contemporary Review, some few years back, said, in treating of the question of moderate drinking:

"The evidence of the evil of intemperance is abundant, clear, and complete; we have the vast experience of life assurance offices, the records of the large hospitals, and the unanimous opinion of practitioners of medicine. Against moderation we have none of these. As for the opinions of the medical profession, they are, by a vast majority, in favor of moderation. The beliefs of reasonable people are doubtless, by a large majority, favorable to moderation rather than abstinence. The use of alcohol, and, generally speaking, its habitual moderate use, has been for many centuries the custom of civilized nations. We may safely say that there is a natural disposition amongst men to drink, a natural taste for alcoholic drinks, whether for their cheery influence or for any other reason. In the absence of any clear evidence to the contrary, there must be a presumption that such a natural taste had its purpose for good rather than for evil. My study makes me as sure as I would ever venture to be on any such question that there is not yet any evidence nearly sufficient to make it probable that a moderate habitual use of alcoholic drinks is generally, or even to many persons injurious, and that there are sufficient reasons for believing that such an habitual use is, on the whole, generally beneficial."

"ICELAND AND TEMPERANCE."

NDER this caption, the Christian Statesman of October, 1912, presents a greater amount of untruth than is often found

UND

in so small a space. To be sure, this publication does not put out the ludicrous misinformation as its own, but says, "a newspaper item informs us," and thereupon tells this rare tale:

"Iceland has no jails and no penitentiaries; there is no court and only one policeman. Not a drop of alcoholic liquor is produced on the island. The 78,000 people living there are total abstainers and will not permit liquor to be imported. The system of public schools is practically perfect; and this same newspaper item actually says that much of the improvement is due to the abolition of liquor traffic. And yet it is said that prohibition does not prohibit! It surely does prohibit there, and seems the best thing for the prosperity of the island."

It displays Here is the

Alas for the gullibility of the Christian Statesman! qualities quite out of keeping with its imposing title. truth in some detail. So far from being a race of total abstainers, the people of Iceland have been rather noted for intemperance. Indeed, thoroughly alarmed at the abuse of strong drink, the parliament of Iceland had been induced to frame a law forbidding the importation of spirits. It is not known that the law has gone into operation. In fact, immediately upon its adoption the French government interposed objection to the law as being unfriendly to French interests. There the matter hangs.

ance.

Mark that the law did not prohibit the importation of beer and wine. It struck merely at the use of spirits as a source of intemperNevertheless the Christian Statesman comments: "And yet it is said that pohibition does not prohibit." Probably this publication would not define prohibition as a condition under which the sale of beer and wine is permitted.

It is quite true that Iceland has an excellent system of public schools, and that illiteracy is practically unknown, but how establish any relation between this fact and a state of prohibition which does not exist?

Iceland has no penitentiary, in the American sense of the term, and little use for jails. It can hardly be said to have criminal courts and does not boast of many police officers. But this very unusual state of things distinguishes a people of strong proclivities for drink -indeed, so marked that the government takes steps to counteract them by permitting only importation of lighter berevages. In short, it is not because of prohibition that Iceland can be praised for her peaceful and enlightened conditions, for they exist in the absence of prohibition.

It is evident that some person with vivid imagination has been abroad and played upon the innocence of the Christian Statesman. But the editor of this publication is guilty of a flight of fancy as well when he infers that prohibition is effective over there, "and seems the best thing for the prosperity of the island." Is Iceland really prosperous and, if so, what relation is there between this fact and the dreams of prohibition?

Such is the stuff of which propaganda is made, and here is a brilliant example of that careless attitude toward facts which often characterizes the exponents of the doctrine that all good things flow from prohibition, even truthfulness. Seldom does one come across a more flagrant instance of statements manufactured with a design and without a semblance of warrant in fact.

There is, however, one circumstance connected with the alleged prohibition movement in Iceland of special interest—namely, that the French government objected to the law forbidding the importation of spirits. This, by the way, is pretty fair evidence that the Icelanders must have been good customers, otherwise the remonstrance would have lacked point. On another recent occasion the French government objected to a similar piece of legislation. The Finnish authorities had decided to prohibit the importation of spirits while permitting that of beer and wine, but the French government remonstrated so strongly that the Russian Czar refused to sanction the law. Having heard this remarkable story of the benefits of prohibition in Iceland, one must be prepared to hear an equally moving tale about Finland. The Christian Statesman is doubtless capable of supplying the necessary imagination.