hibition, showed a slight tendency towards license. Cities which

There is still great dissatisfaction with the conditions in prohibition territory because of the illegal sale of liquor by "blind tigers" and "boot-leggers." In several communities, citizens' movements have been organized to stamp out this evil, and have operated with varied success.

Kansas: From present indications the people of Kansas are soon to have an opportunity to vote if they will retain the prohibitory amendment to the State Constitution. Heretofore, the voters have been kept from a declaration on this question by inability to obtain a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Now,

however, the initiative is before the Legislature and report says that it will probably be adopted, and if so the question of constitutional prohibition will be sent to the voters for their decision.

Kentucky: The General Council of the City of Maysville, Ky., recently passed an ordinance raising the license fee from $500 to $1,000, limiting the number of saloons to ten and confining saloons to one street.

In Lexington, Ky., the City Council recently adopted an ordinance fixing the license fee at $500, providing penalties, including fine and suspension of license for first offense, a heavy fine and revocation of license for second offense for any violation of its provisions which include Sunday closing, and also provide that saloons must close on Sundays and daily between 12:30 P. M. and 4:30 A. M., during which hours there must be a clear view of the interior of the saloon from the outside.

In the City of Paducah, Ky., the General Council adopted an ordinance limiting the number of asloons to one to every 500 inhabitants.

An ordinance effective July 1st, 1913, limits the saloons in the City of Louisville to one to each 500 population, without summarily revoking the licenses now in effect.

The Kentucky Court of Appeals, decided on May 23, 1913, in the case of Cassidy, etc., v. Drake, "that a municipality may, by ordinance enacted under statutory authority, not only make it unlawful for one to sell intoxicating liquors on Sundays, election days, or holidays, but may restrict the sale to certain hours of the day time, or require saloons to be closed during the hours of the night; that a municipality may make it a condition in granting a liquor license, that it shall be revoked by the Mayor if the licensee shall be convicted of violating the ordinance by keeping his saloon open on Sunday, and that it was not necessary for the Mayor to give the licensee notice, or a hearing, before revoking the license; that a license to retail intoxicating liquors is not in the nature of a contract, and does not vest any property rights in the licensee."

ELECTIONS.

MUHLENBERG COUNTY.-This election was held on September 28th, 1912. The total vote cast was 3,835, of which the "drys" cast 3,011, and the "wets" 824, giving the "drys" a majority of 2,187.

No endeavor was made by the "wets" to carry this election, and is now being fought through the courts by the "wets." At this writing saloons remain open and will continue so, unless otherwise decided by the Court of Appeals.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY.-This election was held on September 30,1912, and resulted in the "drys" securing a majority of 905 out of the total of 2,450 votes cast in fifteen precincts. The “wets” made no fight, realizing that they could not win and are contesting the same on the grounds that the election was illegally called. Territory remains "wet" unless the case is lost in the Court of Appeals.

PULASKI COUNTY.-Returns complete from all precincts in this county show a majority of 2,305 for local option in this county on December 12,1912. The "wets" took no part in this election, but filed a petition contesting the election, alleging that the election was illegally called, in that a sufficient number of signers of the petition reduced the number below the required 25% in two precincts. This contention was upheld by the Circuit Court and sustained by the Court of Appeals on June 18, 1913, which declared the election null and void.

Maine. After the longest session since the Civil War, the Maine Legislature adjourned on April 13. The feature was the investigation of the charges of non-enforcement of the prohibitory liquor law, which were brought against five sheriffs and one county attorney,

Three sheriffs, John W. Ballou, of Bath, Sagadahoc county; Lewis W. Moulton, of West Baldwin, Cumberland county; and Wilbert W. Emerson, of Hampden, Penobscot county, were found guilty and were removed. Sheriff Jewett M. Lowe, Androscoggin county, resigned. The proceedings in the case of A. J. Tolman, of Rockland, Knox county, were held up because the sheriff was quarantined by the discovery of smallpox at the county jail. One of the last acts of the Legislature was the acquittal of William H. Hines, of Lewiston, attorney for Androscoggin county.

Prohibition is no longer a joke in Maine, in the view of the Pittsburg Dispatch. Governor Haines is doing his utmost to see that it prohibits. And the people of the State, who seem to be

almost equally divided on the issue, are considering it in a new light as a practical rather than an abstract question.

The cities are for repeal, the county for retention; that is, the majority in each, although there is a strong minority in both urban and rural districts. Yet it is admitted that Governor Haines has signed his own political death warrant by obeying his oath to enforce the laws of the State as he found them. The officials he has removed for failure to do their duty have carried their friends with them, and as they were active politicians their resentment has made the Governor's re-election practically impossible. But beyond this personal effect his course has challenged Maine to a square and honest pronouncement which cannot be evaded. The Dispatch believes that Maine will have to declare for effective prohibition or abandon the pretence of enforcing the law.

According to the Kennebec (Me.) Daily Journal, a strong advocate of prohibition, there were 20,099 criminal cases in the Superior and Supreme Judicial Courts of Maine in twelve years from 1899 to 1910. Of these cases, 13,704 were for violations of the liquor laws. Sentences were imposed in 6,298 of these liquor cases and 7,406 cases were non-prossed, mostly after being continued repeatedly or filed a long time. Cases were often nonprossed because the defendant's counsel represented that his client could not pay so many fines or that the imprisonment on all the cases would be too long. Liquor sellers correctly anticipated this customary leniency of the court and continued violating the law after officers made seizures at their saloons. The examination of many municipal and trial justice court dockets showed that 87 per cent. of the defendants in liquor cases appealed, but only 9 per cent. of the defendants in all other criminal cases. This anomaly is explained by the favorable settlement of cases in the higher courts by persons who have considerable money or political influence. This unnecessary congestion of liquor cases in the higher courts does great wrong to litigants in other cases which are delayed, and imposes a heavy tax on the citizens of each county.

Maryland: The Prohibition Party has taken the field against the Anti-Saloon League. A war of extermination, with the State of Maryland as the beginning of the conflict, is shortly to be waged between these two organizations. Eugene Chafin, who is considered the ablest speaker and campaigner among the Prohibitionists, is

to lead the forces under the Prohibition Party. He has selected Maryland as the beginning of his campaign. He purposes to challenge the State superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League to show cause why that organization should exist at all.

No saloon or hotel license will be issued in Baltimore city in the future to any person whose property or fixtures are owned by a brewery or to whom a brewery has advanced license money.

Massachusetts:-No new laws have been passed at the late session of the Legislature affecting the brewing industry. While many bills were introduced bearing on the liquor traffic, there were but two of any importance and the fight was centered upon these; namely, a bill to forbid the opening of licensed places until eight in the morning, known as the Daylight Bill, and a bill to repeal the Bar and Bottle law, so-called, which forbids the lincesee selling for consumption on the premises to also sell by the bottle.

The license interests attempted the repeal of this last bill, which was passed three years ago, and although making a good showing failed to secure the repeal.

No municipal ordinances affecting the conduct of saloons have been passed.

No important rulings have been rendered by the licensing authorities.

ELECTIONS.

In the matter of the license vote there have been practically no changes in the cities and towns voting licenses. Newburyport came into the license column after being for several years "dry.” The total vote of the State varies comparatively little on the question.

For the first time in a hundred years, distilled liquors and other traditional Harvard drinks are to be banished from commencement and class day spreads, from class reunions and from all the functions held in college buildings. The Harvard bursar's office has sent around instructions definitely forbidding any college man to allow the use of anything stronger than beer in his room, and forbidding him to give over the use of his room to even an old Harvard class, unless the class secretary furnishes a statement that there will be no famous "Harvard punch" nor any other distilled liquor served.