respectively, 35 and 39 per cent. of the population in the "dry" area. Michigan has 22.4 per cent. foreign born and 27 per cent. under nolicense; California with 24.7 per cent. foreign born has only brought 25 per cent. of the population under no license. One may instance, lastly, that it was the native-born population which overthrew prohibition in Vermont and New Hampshire, after long years of trial. No, it is not, as the author would like one to imply, the superior moral sense of the native born which impels them to vote for prohibition. The fact that "the Southland should be in the forefront of the battle for the abolition of the individual and political domination and demoralization of the rum traffic" is not significant from the point of view of the nativity of the population. That the South has proved so receptive to prohibition may be ascribed to these general causes: Fear of excesses among the colored population, the greed of certain elements in the trade, clever manipulation for political purposes, abetted by the organization of the Anti-Saloon League which naturally finds ingress easier among a native population not so sharply divided on religious lines. It may be added that in earlier years the control of the liquor traffic through wise and effective legislation had almost wholly been wanting in the South. STATE-WIDE PROHIBITION The silence of the author upon the subject of effectiveness of prohibition may be due to the curious doctrine held by many of his sympathizers that it is better to have prohibitive laws that are persistently and brazenly violated, do not diminish drunkenness nor any evil arising from intemperance, but are attended by endless corruption, than to hold the traffic in check by sane and therefore enforceable regulation. He apologizes for the non-enforcement in Maine, but hardly explains it by saying that "the reason why the prohibition vote dwindled almost to a point (in 1911) was the persistent non-enforcement of the law, by the officers in authority, and the political opposition to any officer who should try to do his duty." Ordinarily one should reason that such conditions would call out every prohibition vote, especially after a State-wide campaign. The truth is, of course, that, habituated to an extraordinary double moral vision, people in Maine wink at open and continuous violations of the law, yet vote for its retention. The author is hopeful of a better observance of the constitution and statutes of Maine through the impeachment and removal of sheriffs who have neglected their duties, sheriffs who for the greater part would never have been elected except for voters who cling to prohibition. Ordinary observers are inclined to believe that the present drastic enforcement in Maine foreshadows, if persisted in, the eventual repeal of prohibition. If the conditions of nonenforcement in this State need to be apologized for, so do those of every prohibition State. It is not cheerful to note that the Collector of Internal Revenue again and again feels constrained to refer to the abnormal growth of illicit distilling in the South since the enactment of State prohibition. While it is maintained one is hardly warranted in pinning one's faith to the Webb-Kenyon bill to prevent shipment of liquor into "dry" territory from other States, whether it be held valid or not. Explanation of "setbacks to the cause" are not illuminating and in part suppress the truth, so long as nothing is said of the failure of prohibition as a deterrent to its acceptance by other States. "SUNDAY OPENING" IN NEW YORK In the platform of the Fusionists adopted at their recent convention for the purpose of selecting a mayoralty candidate, we read of their demand for home rule, which has direct reference to Sunday opening. Our author says "the liquor traffic has made imperious and insistent demand for Sunday opening." In New York City the past year, as in about every every other year for the last twenty, the same demand for legalized Sunday opening was made. It is conceded, however, "that some well-meaning people" have shared the same view. Is it not the truth that a large body of citizens who are eager to free the city of New York from police graft and other disorders have favored Sunday opening, and that they have gone directly to the Legislature for this purpose? The writer slurs over this inconvenient fact and characterizes the efforts of eminent fellow citizens as "blind," and as "provoking the American conscience to anger." Although it is well known that the sentiment of New York City is overwhelmingly in favor of a limited Sunday opening, and would soon obtain it under a decent measure of home rule, we are calmly informed that “there was no call for a Sunday opening in New York; that most of the great cities of the country enforce the Sunday closing measures," etc. Fourteen of the great cities are conceded as being lax in the enforcement of the Sunday closing law. Of twenty-five others it is said that the law is well observed, and in evidence reference is made to letters from the mayors of these cities, who naturally would be the last persons in the world to admit openly that they fail of their sworn duty. Nothing is said about the well-known fact that in cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh the strict closing of legalized places has given rise to an enormous illicit traffic, or the fact that in several other cities mentioned, it has been impossible to close the ordinary saloon on Sunday by opening so-called second-class hotels and other safety valves to the public. Some well-meaning persons are convinced that a policy of annihilation is really a hindrance to true temperance; that it blocks the passage of wise restrictive legislation for the control of the liquor traffic; that it seeks to coerce by threats and to convince by untruths as in this article, thereby alienating those who are genuinely concerned about sobriety; and that by preaching the outworn creed that a people can be made sober by act of legislature and the strong arm behind it, drunkenness is not diminished, but the traffic is driven into more obscure and perhaps more dangerous forms. No other proof of the last statement is needed than the claims made by the author concerning the proportion of population now living under prohibition of some form, which he asserts to be “a fraction over one-half of the population." Unquestionably, the nominal no-license population has increased by leaps and bounds; but at the same time there has been no diminution in the output or consumption of liquors. One is therefore forced to accept one of two conclusions: Either the alleged gains for temperance represent paper values very largely, or the population living under license must year by year have become more drinkridden so that now they are the least temperate people in the world. The discriminating reader may choose for himself. For his guidance let him consult the figures published by the United States Internal Revenue Office for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 1913. They show an increased production of whiskey, vinous liquors and beer. This phenomenon is interpreted thus in the terse language of the headlines in two widely known journals: "The more 'dry' area, the more liquor sold."-"More prohibition, more drinking." Under ordinary circumstances the growth in the manufacture of beer would have outstripped that of distilled liquor. But the last mentioned by its smaller bulk is the better adopted for illegal selling, and the increased demand for it is thus to be charged to prohibition. While the production of intoxicants has increased, there has been a marked falling off in the number of liquor sellers, as shown by the diminution of receipts from the special tax imposed upon them. This is but a seeming paradox. Even in license territory a reduction in places of distribution will be found compatible with increased consumption. No doubt we shall learn that fewer dealers have of late dared to pay the special United States tax in the prohibition areas. But therein lies small consolation for anyone, least of all for the author. Granting his contention that prohibition laws were never more widely extended, more carefully enforced or apparently better upheld by public opinion than now, the allsignificant though disquieting rejoinder is: The statistics of internal revenue show the consequences. SANE LITTLE SWITZERLAND. Her Handling of Liquor Problem a Lesson to America. N° TO savage insistence fastens the social problems of Switzerland on the attention of citizens or visitors. The public and private life of the country proceeds in calmness and unconcern. Some traveling Americans have called the happy people of that little land sluggish and stupid, but really they are only supremely satisfied. Of course, Switzerland has produced no geniuses, but outside of Schiller's play it has produced none unforgivably vicious. So it is that the liquor problem is not a matter of concern to anyone between Geneva and St. Moritz, or Basil and Lugano. There are no extensive or intensive slums in Switzerland; certainly none worthy enough for its iniquity to be pointed out to visitors. Of course, the area of the country is small, but there are plenty of towns and the absence of bad quarters can scarcely be attributed to lack of population. On a territory of considerably smaller area than Pennsylvania's, we have a dozen cities of more than 50,000 inhabitants each. The oldest of them, St. Gallen, was a city of advanced civilization when Charlemagne mounted the throne, while the babies of the list were middle-aged before Columbus set sail. Yet the worst phenomena of metropolitan wickedness have not arisen; not in the liquor problem nor in any other. The saloons are beyond the reach of police graft. They are not levied upon by politicians nor do they appear in politics except as a question to be dealt with in the interest of the commonwealth. There are cases of intemperance, of course, both in drink and in utterance against it, but drunkenness as a public phenomenon, or uprisings against it, are unknown. So there was no outside incentive to my conducting a research on this particular subject during my recent visit to the country. I think my first suggestion in this direction arose from the perusal of a circular spread broadcast by the Boston & Maine Railroad. The State from which the New England line derives part of its name was thrust before my attention as "The Switzerland of the |