selves as being irresponsible agents. On this branch of his subject (as in his view of the relation of insanity and intemperance) Dr. Bagnell is widely at variance with the conclusions of advanced sociologists. In fact the author's thinking and reasoning are deplorably unscientific. It is only necessary to compare his position on intemperance and crime with that of Dr. R. Frith Quinton, an eminent English authority, as stated in a recent number of the British Journal of Inebriety. Dr. Quinton declares that so far is it from being the case that inebriety is a form of real criminality, it would be more correct to say that few inebriates are really criminals, and still fewer active criminals are inebriates. Inebriety, in fact, which invariably means inefficiency, is without doubt the most useless kind of equipment for those who cultivate the crime habit and practice in the higher branches of professional crime-that is to say, in the worst and most intractable form of criminality with which society is at present called upon to deal. Those persons, then, who are known to us and to the law as criminal inebriates are, for the most part, criminals only in a modified sense.

On the subject of prohibition, Dr. Bagnell makes some admissions which really impart a degree of value to his book. We find ourselves in perfect agreement with the following conclusions, which will doubtless receive wider attention and approval than any other portion of Dr. Bagnell's book: (The italics are ours)

"To enact a State-wide prohibitory law where universal licenses have prevailed, in the very nature of things, cannot succeed, for there will be many places in the State where the sentiment is strongly against it, and this is a government of the majority. It has been universally true that the larger unit has not been able to force unwelcome legislation upon the smaller unit; so in every State where prohibition has been tried the cities or counties where there was an adverse majority have failed to enforce the law.“

* * * * * * *

"This is a government of the majority and a law to be effective must not only command the assent of the majority at the time of its enactment, but must continue to do so."

* * * * * * * *

"There have been instances where in a tremendous emotional excitement a State has been carried for prohibition when that did not represent the average conviction of the people, and the uet result has not been the best.”

"However anxious the State may be to promote morality, or however beneficial to the aims of the State morality on the part of

its citizens may be, and however much the State may seek to improve conditions of life with a view to the better moral development of the citizens, it may not coerce the individual into personal habits of morality."

It would seem that the light of reason is reaching other places heretofore supposed to be in hopeless darkness. E. H. Cherrington, associate editor of the American Issue, the National Organ of the Anti-Saloon League, and editor and compiler of the Year Book of the League, says that there are too many State statutes for the regulation of the liquor traffic. He admits that unless these laws are backed up by strong public sentiment, they are useless. Mr. Cherrington adds that the campaigns that have been waged in some places for State-wide Prohibition have done the cause of temperance harm, and he cites Alabama as an illustration. Mr. Cherrington is evidently coming to see and agree with the many other thinkers and writers who have written and spoken on the local option and prohibition question, that men cannot be made good by law; that it is a question the individual must decide for himself.

PROHIBITION AND "MOONSHINE."

During the past year the press has devoted much attention to the subject of illicit distilling, an industry that is always boomed by prohibitory laws.

Royal E. Cabell, United States Commissioner of Internal Revenue, states that two thousand of the 2,900 illicit stills raided by the Government last year were in supposedly "dry" States. He named especially Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Oklahoma as the prohibition States in which the government agents raided almost two thousand illicit distilleries.

Speaking before a convention of wholesale liquor dealers in Philadelphia lately, the Commissioner said:

"It is with regret that I tell you that while certain States have passed prohibition legislation, the local authorities seem to make little effort to enforce it. The Internal Revenue Department was formed to collect money, but because of the attitude of these authorities, frequently we have been compelled to step in and do police duty in the enforcement of local statutes.

"As illicit distilleries greatly outnumber the licensed places in the country, it is to your interest to co-operate with the government in the collection of its license fee. The man who does not pay a license has a great advantage over you, and when there are a large

F

number of these men, their competition makes it difficult for honest dealers to make a profit that rightfully belongs to them."

The Columbia State, published at the Capital of South Carolina, says that of 2,471 illicit distilleries in the United States, 2,246 were unearthed last year in five Southern States-Georgia, 902; in North Carolina, 420; in Alabama, 249; in South Carolina, 375; in Tennessee, 300; and that in South Carolina alone there were 125 more illicit stills discovered than in forty-two other States and territories combined.

The State intimates that the great number of "moonshine" stills is a direct result of local option and State-wide prohibition that has prevailed in the South during the last few years.

In this connection it should be noted that the liquor interests perpetrate fewer revenue frauds against the Government than any other taxed class of business, according to Commissioner Cabell. The Commissioner stated this as a fact in explaining that new instructions concerning distillery inspections had been sent out merely as a precaution.

"WORKING" THE GOVERNMENT.

A "special" to the New York Times from Washington, D. C., points out how the resources of the Federal Government are utilized for the prohibition cause without consulting the people. The writer says:

"On Feb. 2, last, Mr. Hobson rose in the House and delivered a speech on prohibition. Some time previously, however, Mr. Hobson had had the speech on prohibition printed as a public document and it was read throughout the country long before he delivered it in the House. Also, he had a corps of thirty girls installed in the offices in the House office building preparing to send out the speech.

These thirty girls were busy for fifteen weeks, their average wage of $8 a week being paid by the Prohibition Campaign Committee, presumably, and in that time they sent out a total of 1,200,000 copies of the speech, all of which were franked through the mail.

The Pittsburgh Post has the following pointed remarks on Mr. Hobson as an advertiser, and especially looking to his use of the Congressional franking privilege to advance his peculiar ideas. Says the Post:

Richmond Pearson Hobson, Congressman from Alabama, is a firm believer in the efficacy of advertising; he knows the value of

printer's ink and never underestimates the advantage of publicity. But the former naval hero has one fault that is just a mite more pronounced than several of his other faults, with which the country is familiar, and that is a desire to have the Government finance his campaign of intelligence. For this reason he cannot be enumerated in the list of Democratic economists who are laboring so faithfully to reduce expenses and safeguard the public treasury.

It is well known that Mr. Hobson is a war alarmist of the first order, and as an advocate of the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of liquor he can go to greater extremes than any orthodox member of that party, in which he does not claim membership. This is demonstrated forcibly by his attempt to have the Government provide him with 1,500,000 franked envelopes for the free distribution of one of his speeches. To carry out this scheme would have entailed an expense of about $1,200, for which the gentleman, with an audacity that is unparalleled in Congress, gave the order without even an inquiry as to its legality. No doubt the man who would not consider it extravagant to ask for a lump sum of $100,000,000 for the navy, considers a little thing like $1,200 too insignificant to be even mentioned!

One of the rules of Congress accords to members a reasonable number of free envelopes for the distribution of their speeches, and as they require no postage, the pecuniary saving to themselves is considerable; but Mr. Hobson is evidently laboring under the impression that the House contingent fund is set aside for his individual use.

A KANSAS BLUE TOWN.

We are in the habit of looking with amused tolerance on the blue laws of old colonial days in this country, and we don't take the history books too seriously on the subject. Something has to happen now and then to remind us that human nature is essentially the same from age to age. Too many of us would be glad to take in hand and regulate the lives of others, if we could!

An instance in point is afforded by the town of Iola, in Kansas. There, says the Paducah (Ky.) Democrat, the "lid" has recently been placed on the use of tobacco. Everybody detected in the act of smoking or chewing the weed is promptly arrested and fined. The sufferings of those whose systems have become habituated to the narcotic may be imagined. And their appeals to the doctors for prescriptions restoring to them their accustomed solace are in vain. ful.

Of course, too much indulgence in the cigar or pipe is harmBut so is too much indulgence in cucumbers and ice-cream! If Iola keeps on in the path it has taken, the genial Kentucky editor thinks it will soon be prohibiting striped bands on straw hats and trousers that turn up at the bottom. From that point it is but a step to the enthusiasm for the right which, in the dark age of America, caused Massachusetts to banish Roger Williams because

he was a Baptist and hanged old women on the assumption that they were witches.

MR. WILSON QUOTES SCRIPTURE.

Quoting the Scriptures, Hon. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture, recently commented on the action of the Presbyterian General Assembly in striking his name from the list of delegates to the Pan-Presbyterian Council, to be held in Aberdeen, Scotland, because of his participation last summer in the Brewers' Congress at Chicago.

"And when the sons of men came together before the Lord, Satan came also," said Secretary Wilson. "This passage seems to apply to this case, for I have learned from very dependable sources on the inside that there has been a whole lot of politics behind the attack on me from certain quarters because I, as Secretary of Agriculture, attended a brewers' conference. It will all die out as soon as the next election is over.

The Secretary expressed the opinion that Job, the much afflicted, would have made a fine Secretary of Agriculture. Job, he said, knew a lot about farming and mules and horses.

THE PRESIDENT:-The next in order will be the report of the Labor Committee. Mr. Schram, do you wish to speak on that?

THE PRESIDENT:-Will you kindly take the platform, as I think it is a very important report and should be carefully listened

to.

Mr. Schram thereupon came to the platform and delivered the Report of the Labor Committee as follows:

REPORT OF THE LABOR COMMITTEE. GENTLEMEN:-Your Labor Committee herewith submits its report for the year just elapsed.

First in importance stand the efforts of your Committee to consummate a Workmen's Compensation and Old Age Pension Plan for the employees in the breweries of this country. After