and that this was one of the reasons why the movement was distrusted.

It is true that during many years total abstinence dominated these meetings to such an extent that nearly all those eminent reformers who originated the movement as a fight against the abuse of drink, withdrew from the organization. It is equally true, however, that of late the committees on organization have made strenuous efforts to correct the popular error to which Mr. Falcioni referred. In their invitations to the different governments stress is laid upon the fact that the advocates of the proper use of alcoholic beverages are admitted on equal terms with total-abstainers.

The government of the United States is probably the only one that ignored this very essential point. This regrettable exception is painfully conspicuous in the case of the Milan Congress, as will readily be admitted in view of the following facts:

The official American delegation was appointed by Secretary Bryan under and by virtue of an Act of Congress "providing for representation of the United States in the 14th International Congress against Alcoholism." Under a privileged resolution from the Committee on Rules, the House of Representatives on the 20th day of August, 1913, took up and passed this law, not without vigorous opposition, on the strength of the arguments advanced in its favor. In the course of a somewhat protracted discussion, Mr. Flood, of Virginia, the chief champion of the measure, laid particular stress upon this statement, viz.:

"The adherents to the moderate use of alcohol, or of total abstinence and prohibition, as well as those advocating various forms for regulating the traffic in alcoholics, are allowed equal rights in the Congress." (See Congressional Record, Aug. 26, 1913, page 4205.)

Surely if these words mean anything, it is that the lawmakers contemplated and intended a representation of the United States at Milan in which the various points of view enumerated by Mr. Flood should be more or less faithfully reflected.

In view of the quoted words of Mr. Flood and of the wellknown fact that in a very large majority of the States of the Union there are now in force license laws sanctioning the proper use of alcoholic stimulants, but regulating the traffic therein more or less restrictively with a view to lessening the evils of the excessive consumption of alcohol; and that, on the other hand, State-wide

prohibitory laws are in force in but a very small number of States, it was not unreasonable to expect that a delegation would be chosen composed in part of citizens who favor the proper use of stimulants and the regulation of the liquor traffic in any manner or form.

This reasonable expectation was doubtless entertained by all fair-minded men in view of the unmistakable spirit of the law as reflected in Mr. Flood's argument here quoted, and also the spirit of the invitation extended by the government of Italy-a country where, as will presently be shown, up to June of the present year even mildly restrictive license-laws, in the American sense, were wholly unknown.

To what extent this reasonable expectation was disappointed, may be inferred from the fact that in the delegation appointed there is not a single advocate of the proper use of stimulants, nor of anyone of the many regulative and restrictive systems now in force in at least four-fifths of the States of the Union. AntiSaloonists, Prohibitionists, and Total Abstainers constitute the official delegation of the United States.

It does not require an unusual degree of sagacity to predict what the report of such a delegation will be, and that Mr. Flood, if he really expected an impartial review of the proceedings, as his words clearly indicate, will be sadly disappointed.

In answer to a direct question by Mr. Gallagher as to whether a complete report of the proceedings would be printed by our government, Mr. Flood made this statement, viz: "No: not a complete stenographic report; but there is a report made by the delegates of this government to the Secretary of State, and the President transmits it to Congress; and that report is printed.” (See Congressional Record, Aug. 26, 1913, page 4,205.)

Thus, the report of this partisan delegation, whose members are known throughout the country either as prohibitionists or vigorous opponents of the regulative and restrictive license systems prevailing in four-fifths of the States, will become an official document, a fit companion to the garbled reports rendered by similar delegations to previous congresses.

ITALIAN TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT

Honest truth-seekers will regret the partisan character of this delegation all the more keenly, because the temperance movement in Italy offers many very instructive lessons.

It was really the only new feature of the Milan Congress. In all other respects the proceedings did not differ materially from those of previous meetings. Surely, nobody expected that anything new would be said on such subjects as the pathology of alcohol, degeneracy, alcoholism in the colonies, the treatment and cure of drunkards, the reduction of the number of saloons, educational measures, local option, prohibition, the Gothenburg system, and other similar subjects concerning which the average American reader is so completely surfeited with seemingly endless repetitions of the same statements that he can well afford to wait in patience the appearance of the stenographic report.

The Italian temperance movement may justly be termed a new feature for two reasons, viz: 1-because it is in itself an innovation, deemed impossible but a few years ago; and 2-because in a notable way, locally, it offers a new and particularly convincing proof of the serious error of those well-meaning but misguided people who, confusing use and abuse, fail to distinguish between drinker and drunkard, between the undeniable benefits of a sane and moderate indulgence of the universal human craving for stimulants and the vile excesses arising from temperamental defects, weakness of character, depraved tastes or morbid perversion of healthy instincts either or all of them intensified by adverse circumstances or by the pitfalls and temptations of corrupting surroundings, and not infrequently aggravated by unwise laws.

It is the sole object of this paper to place before the reader in a straightforward manner, and in the plainest possible terms, all those facts, emanating exclusively from official sources, which warrant these conclusions.

SIGNOR FALCIONI'S ADDRESS

In behalf of the Italian Government, Mr. Falcioni, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Department, delivered a graceful address of welcome, in which he greeted with a "fervido saluto" the men and women "who had gathered there from every country in the interests of a noble cause having for its supreme object the saving of mankind from a vice destructive alike of all ideality and of personal and social welfare." He then proceeded to enumerate the reasons why an Italian city had not before been selected as the meetingplace of such a congress.

The speech had not been printed before and for use of the

newspapers, as is usual on such occasions, and as a complete stenographic report could not be had as soon as seemed desirable, a typewritten copy of it was secured directly from the Secretary's Office, through the courtesy of a Roman editor-a courtesy, by the way, which is characteristic of the Italian people. Only this much need be said to establish the authenticity of the following extracts from said address.

Mr. Falcioni said: "The principal reason why an Italian city has never before been selected as the place of meeting for an international congress against alcoholism lies in the fact (from which we derive great comfort) that up to within a few years the proverbial sobriety of our labor classes acted like a dam against the spreading of alcoholism, and consequently the need of remedies was not so keenly felt. It must be admitted, however, that coevally with the advent and growth of general prosperity, alcoholism began to manifest itself and now gives rise to serious apprehensions."

In proof of this Mr. Falcioni compared the rate of deaths from chronic alcoholism reported during the three years 1887-1889 with the same death-rate during the year 1909, showing that within these twenty years the rate had increased from fourteen to fortyone for every million of the population. (The average prohibitionist, ever ready to parade blood-curdling statistics of his own making, will on reading these figures, probably mistrust his own eyes, or accuse the writer of falsification.)

Mr. Falcioni then continues: "It will thus be seen that while fortunately for us, the evil has not yet assumed alarming proportions, the rapidity of its diffusion is such as to impose upon us the duty of curbing it in some manner."

He then stated that the abuse of alcoholic beverages is not confined to the industrial workers of cities, but is also beginning to infect the rural districts where, as he puts it, "emigration, so characteristic of the Italian agricultural population, tends more and more to spread the evil." Leaving this aspect of the question, Mr. Falcioni proceeded to a consideration of other obstacles in the way of an energetic movement in line with the work of the Congress in these words: "It should be borne in mind that Italy is a rich wine-producing country and that, naturally enough, the ultimate outcome of your labors and discussions has often been contrasted with the supreme requirements and interests of national economy. In this connection a regrettable error arose which has retarded

energetic and decisive action; for it was not generally understood that your efforts are aimed exclusively against the deplorable abuses of alcoholic drink and their incalculable injury to the individual and to society."

At this point, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior, after having thus strongly emphasized the difference between legitimate and proper use and pernicious abuse, spoke briefly of the connection between inebriety and tuberculosis and drunkenness and crime, expressing the hope that the discussions of the Congress would lead to a better understanding of the prophylactic means required in the former and the preventive measures needed in the latter respect. He then said that it was a source of special gratification to him to be able to inform the foreign delegates that "with the law of the 19th of June, 1913, Italy has taken the first decisive measure against alcoholism."

For present purposes the foregoing extracts are amply sufficient. They confirm the well-known observation, recorded by all unbiased students of the drink question, that up to within a few years the Italian people occupied the very first rank among the nations noted for their sobriety, in spite of the fact that, France only excepted, Italy is the largest, and next to Greece, the oldest wine-producing and wine-consuming country in Europe.

PROSPERITY AND VITICULTURE

In the course of an address on the economic place of wine in Italy, Mr. Ottavi, who was selected by the Committee on Organization for this particular task, stated before the Congress that the average Italian vintage amounted to 48 millions of hectolitres annually, as compared with 50 millions of hectolitres produced in France. He did not enter into an analysis of the fluctuations in the quantities produced in different years, although these fluctuations are sometimes considerable. Thus, the official statistics for the year 1907 show a wine production of 50 millions of hectolitres in Italy and of 66 millions in France, exclusive of her African colonies.

Mr. Ottavi spoke at length on the great importance of viticulture, representing, as it does, one-fifth of the total agricultural produce of the country, and thus forming a very considerable part of the wealth of the nation. One of the most significant statements made by Mr. Ottavi, is the following: "In regions where the production of wine is abundant, the population increases and emi