Last summer I made a tour through the State of West Virginia, speaking every night for a month in all parts of the State, especially in the interest of this Hepburn bill; and I have done the same in several other States, and Dr. Crafts, superintendent of the Reform Bureau, in his addresses all over the country this past year, has also spoken in behalf of this bill.

A MODEL ANTI C. O. D. LIQUOR LAW.

When on my trip through West Virginia last summer I found that the temperance people of that State everywhere were sorely grieved at the failure of the last Congress to pass this bill. In anticipation that the last Congress would pass this bill the temperance people of West Virginia, pressed for and secured the passage of a strong anti C. O. D. liquor law to forbid any person, firm, or corporation of that State shipping liquor C. O. D. to any illegal liquor dealer in any no-license territory in that State. It is a model law, a similar law to which ought to be passed by every State in the Union. The Hepburn interstate liquor law will be of value only to those States which back it up by some such State legislation.

This law is very liberal. It effects only illegal liquor dealers. It specifically provides that liquor may be shipped into any no-license town or county of that State to a private individual" who has in good faith ordered the same for nis personal use;" but if the same individual in a no-license town or county of that State was receiving one hundred or more jugs of whisky every week by express or freight, then any honest court would doubtless hold that the railroad or express company delivering it and the person receiving it were evidently violating the law, and would impose penalty accordingly.

If a town or county votes out the liquor traffic, the State should assume that the people of that town or county want what they voted for, and hence should protect the will of the majority of the people by providing that so far as the State is concerned the traffic in that town or county shall cease, and so the State should provide that when any subdivision of its territory votes out the saloons no railroad or express company or individual should be allowed to send liquor to anyone in that no-license territory which was evidently intended for sale.

WEAKNESS OF THE PRESENT INTERSTATE COMMERCE LAW.

But now, under protection of the interstate commerce law, liquor dealers outside West Virginia can do what liquor dealers in the State can not do. The liquor dealers and the common carriers in the State are forbidden to ship liquor to illegal dealers in no-license towns and counties of that State, but outside liquor dealers and common carriers can ship liquor in the original packages into any part of the State, whether license or no license, for according to the interpretation of our present interstate commerce law by the United States Supreme Court, liquor dealers in one State can ship liquor in the original packages into another State, and such liquor does not become subject to the law of the State into which it is shipped until after it is delivered to the consignee; which simply means that it can not be seized or molested by the local officers until after it is delivered to the consignee; and this helps to nullify the prohibitory and no-license laws of many States.

It was this unfair discrimination against liquor dealers of their own State which caused prominent men of West Virginia to say to me when on my trip through that State last summer that had they not been assured that the Hepburn bill would pass in the last Congress, the last West Virginia legislature would not have passed their present anti C. O. D. liquor law. It is therefore the very evident duty of the National Congress to back up the action of the State legislatures in all such matters. In many places in no-license territory, the shipping in of liquor from outside of the State, has practically nullified the will of the majority of the people.

A bill to remedy this evil was first brought from Iowa by Mr. Silas Wilson, and was introduced in the House by Congressman Hepburn, of Iowa, and passed that branch of Congress on January 27, 1903, but it proved too late in the session to get it through the Senate. This was a bill in the right direction, but still it had some serious defects which might have jeopardized its constitutionality. But it has now been improved in the present Hepburn-Dolliver bill. The Reform Bureau has been trying to arouse a great interest in this measure, urging the friends of this bill everywhere to appeal to their Senators and Congressmen at once in its behalf.

ORIGINAL PACKAGE NUISANCE IN NEBRASKA.

When on a long tour through the West last year I met a minister from Nebraska who told me that several years ago the people had voted out and driven out the saloons from every town in his county. But the outside rumsellers, under protection of the interstate commerce law, began to ship in liquor in the original packages to illegal liquor dealers in such large quantities that finally the temperance people, realizing their helplessness, became discouraged and disgusted, and so voted back the saloons all over the county, simply because the United States Government, instead of siding with the great majority of the people of that county against the lawbreakers, practically sided with the local illegal liquor dealers and outlaws against the expressed will of the majority of the people. It is the duty of the National Government to back up rather than to break down State laws.

66

EXPRESS OFFICE BECOMES THE TOWN RUM SHOP.

In many no-license places in many States, under the present interstate commerce laws, the local express company's agent becomes the illegal liquor dealer of the town. When liquor is sold by the express agent it is usually done as follows: The soliciting agent of the wholesale liquor firm goes to the express agent and gets the names of all the old bums in town and consigns to each of them C. O. D. one or more bottles of liquor in the original package." The bum knows that there is always a package of liquor at the express office for him which he can get at any time he wants it, and often liquor is consigned to fictitious names, and such liquor can be taken out by anyone who will pay the C. O. D. charges and sign the fictitious name to whom it is sent. The agent of the liquor firm arranges this with the express agent, who gets a certain per cent of all liquor thus delivered. I have found these conditions in several States.

THE MAIN POINT OF THIS HEPBURN-DOLLIVER BILL.

I say it is a grievous wrong, a burning shame, an unpardonable outrage, that the United States Government should make it so very difficult for a State to enforce her own laws. Now, if this Hepburn bill passes, for which we plead, it will greatly simplify the problem of prohibition in Maine. The main point of this Hepburn bill is that liquor shipped from one State to another shall become subject to local authority as soon as it passes the State line, which would mean that the sheriff of Cumberland County, Me., or his deputies, would not have to wait until a load of liquor was delivered, but liquor evidently intended for sale could be seized in the freight car or freight office, or in the express office, or on the express wagon, and confiscated.

SEIZING LIQUOR "IN TRANSIT."

When I was at Skowhegan, Me., last fall, I called on Sheriff Lang. the Democratic sheriff of Somerset County, who is enforcing prohibition so grandly in that county. He said to me: "Mr. Miller, I hope that The Reform Bureau will press the Hepburn

interstate liquor bill before Congress with all possible haste. We greatly need it in the enforcement of the prohibitory law of this State, as under the present laws we are not allowed to seize liquor 'in transit.' I have a lawsuit on my hands now for seizing in transit a big consignment of liquor evidently intended for sale. I ought not to have seized it till after it was delivered to the consignee; but then it is usually so much harder to find and seize liquor after it gets into the hands of the consignee; that is, the illegal liquor dealer. I hope your Bureau will rush the Hepburn bill." I received the same earnest appeal in substance from prohibition sheriffs and temperance workers all over the State when on my tour there last fall. Rev. Herbert N. Pringle, secretary of the Maine Civic League, said to me that this bill was so important to the State of Maine that he would come to Washington and speak at the hearing, if possible.

WHY MINISTERS SHOULD FAVOR THIS BILL.

The opponents of this bill brought on several German ministers from New York and elsewhere to testify at this hearing, who denounced prohibition and advocated beer drinking. We are ashamed of the ministerial profession when we find any representative of it marshaled on the side of the illegal rumseller. Every minister of the Gospel in the United States ought to favor the Hepburn-Dolliver bill, and from wide travel and observation I believe that nine-tenths of them do favor it.

Many of these same Germans who oppose this bill come from New York, where they are making a great cry for home rule as to opening the saloons on Sunday. This Hepburn bill is distinctly a home-rule bill, a bill to let the different States manage the liquor traffic as they please. Why should the Germans demand home rule for New York and oppose home-rule for Iowa or Maine? If they are really honest in their cry for home-rule in New York, why do they oppose the Hepburn-Dolliver bill, which will give home-rule to every State in the Union on the liquor question?

The general interest being manifested in this measure by its friends and foes can be seen by the many news items being sent out over the country from Washington concerning it. Here is a sample of such news items:

66

More brewers, agents of distillers, and wholesalers of wines and liquors are arriving in Washington to urge the defeat of the Hepburn bill, which aims to give States with local option and prohibition laws complete jurisdiction over wines and liquors shipped from other States, regardless of whether they are shipped in original packages or in bulk. The brewers and liquor men are thoroughly alarmed. They are ascertaining from Senators that the temperance societies of the country are flooding them with letters, telegrams, and petitions which urge the immediate passage of the bill."

SOLICITING SALES FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE.

Sometimes the arrangement between the wholesaler and the express agent is made by mail. Another method employed for violating the law is this: A wholesale liquor dealer in one State will ship to one of his agents in some prohibition territory in another State a large number of original packages of liquor-beer, wine, and whiskey— and send a different bill of lading for each to his agent, who will canvass the town, explain the superior quality of the different kinds of liquor consigned to him, and sell the bills of lading to whoever desires the whiskey, saying that he does not dare to take this liquor from the freight office and deliver it to them lest he be arrested for selling liquor, but that they can take the bill of lading and get the package which the bill of lading calls for, and no officer would seize the liquor when in their possession, knowing that they wanted it for their own use. By this method business is drummed up and people are encouraged to buy who would not otherwise have gone to the trouble to order liquor, and the will of the majority of the people is broken down.

RUM SELLING EXPRESS AGENT AT WASHINGTON, PA.

Probably the worst case of this kind which I have found anywhere in my travels was at Washington, Pa.,—a no-license town of about 25,000 population—where one of the local express companies has great quantities of liquor all the time in its office. There were boxes of liquor piled higher than a man's head, and there were shelves all around the office with hundreds of bottles, or “original packages," waiting for the consignee to get dry, or for the pocket peddler to call for it. The express company had a team to deliver other goods, but there did not seem to be any effort being made to find the owners or consignees of the great quantity of liquor on hand and deliver the same. It seemed to be a mutual understanding with the express agent—the town rumseller-and his patrons that the liquor was not to be delivered, but "to be called for" as needed. One of the most prominent and wealthy men of that city complained bitterly of the scandalous work of that express agent, and asked if something could not be done to stop it. I went into that express office two or three times and exam⚫ined conditions, and boldly charged the express agent with violating the law, but he insisted that he was living within the limits of the law. But if Congress will pass this Hepburn-Dolliver bill, and Pennsylvania will back it up with some good State law like the West Virginia anti C. O. D. law, that express agent, and others like him in no-license towns in that State, will have to go out of the rum business, or go to jail.

ORIGINAL PACKAGE NUISANCE IN MAINE.

When on a lecture tour" way down East," in the State of Maine, last fall, I saw there the great need for the passage of this bill. As I have said, the present interstate liquor law protects liquor “in transit," or until it is delivered to the consignee. When at Portland, Me., they told me of the difficulties met with by the late Sheriff Samuel F. Pearson in his noble and heroic efforts to enforce the prohibitory law in Portland and Cumberland County. I was told that sometimes wholesale liquor dealers in Boston and other places outside of the State of Maine would ship a large quantity of liquor in the original packages to some illegal liquor dealer in Portland. The express company would load up a wagon full of this liquor and start out to deliver it to the consignee, and two of Sheriff Pearson's deputies would follow the express team, determined to seize the liquor the moment it was delivered to the the illegal rumseller.

But as soon as the express company's driver saw that he was being followed by two deputies, he would whip up his horse and rush down one street, up another, across another, and through an alley, etc., trying to get away from the deputies. If he succeeded, he delivered his liquor to the low dive keeper. But sometimes, after being followed by the deputies for several hours and found no opportunity to secretly deliver his goods, the driver would take his load of liquor back to the express office and unload it, and wait until 2 o'clock in the morning, or some other unseemly hour, when, under cover of darkness, he would load up his liquor again and quietly steal away and deliver it to the consignee, the proprietor of the "low dive," the speak easy," the "blind tiger," or whatever other name you may call the illegal rum shop.

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE LIQUOR PROBLEM.
Lodge Amendment to Legislative and Executive Appropriation Bill,
March 2, 1895.

The Commissioner of Labor is hereby authorized to make an investigation relating to the economic aspects of the liquor problem and to report the results thereof to Congress: provided, however, that such investigation shall be carried out under the regular appropriations made for the Department of Labor.

A STUDY IN LOCAL PROHIBITION.

From Rev. O. R. Miller's Speech, Hearing on Hepburn Bill, Judiciary Committee, March 1-4, 1904.

Results of License and No-License in Two New York Villages.

Delhi, N. Y. January 7, 1899.—I have been spending the day in this village, which is one of the most interesting and beautiful in the State, and have been studying a contrast that is presented between this and the neighboring village, Walton, something less than 20 miles down the Delaware. Some twenty-five or thirty years ago the village of Walton adopted no-license, which policy has been generally followed by the village and the township ever since, the law being better enforced year by year, and expecially well during the last ten years. Shortly after the adoption of no-license in Walton, Delhi, in 1874, adopted no-license, but after a year or two abandoned the policy, and has nearly always voted license since. At the time of the adoption of no-license by Walton it was confidently predicted that it would prove the ruin of the village, and many business. men of Delhi supported license on the ground that the business interests of the village demanded it.

In Walton there have been one or two short periods of license, and in Delhi similar periods of no-license, while at times at Walton the enforcement of the law has been slack; but the two villages and the townships stand as examples of the comparative results of the two policies followed for a considerable term of years.

Before giving results in detail I ought to indicate the comparative advantages possessed by the two villages. Walton, situated on the main line of the Ontario and Western Railroad, has better railroad facilities than Delhi, which is situated on a branch road; but this is more than counterbalanced by the fact that Delhi is the base of supplies and the shipping centre of five or six surrounding townships that constitute one of the richest dairy regions in the whole country. Delhi, too, has had the advantage of being the home of a large number of wealthy and influential families, is the county seat, and consequently the place of residence of well-paid county officials, and the court centre to which comes, almost monthly, a small army of attorneys, witnesses, and jurors, all of whom pay tribute to the business of the village. Delhi is also a summer resort of considerable popularity, and annually receives thousands of dollars from that source.

The difference in the type of population, so far as the two places differ, is in Delhi's favor, her inhabitants being very largely of sturdy Scotch descent. The two villages have been rivals, and, as far as I can discover, Walton's one real advantage has been freedom from the legalized liquor traffic. The outcome of their rivalry is as follows:

POPULATION.

Delhi: (License) In 1870, 1223; in 1880, 1384; in 1890, 1564; in 1897, 1932. Walton: (No License) In 1970, 866; in 1880, 1389; in 1890, 2290; in 1897, 3084. In 27 years, gain in population of liccnse village, 57.9 per cent.; gain in no-license village, 256.1 per cent.

Outside the villages, the population of this whole section of the State is decreasing; but in the 20 years from the census of 1870 to that of 1890 the rural population of Walton township (not the village), which was under no-license during nearly the whole period, decreased only 4.5 per cent, while in Delhi township, under license nearly al the time, the decrease was 20. 7 per cent.

BUSINESS PROSPERITY.

Twenty years ago Walton was noted for its lack of business enterprise, and a good deal of the business that is usually considered local "went out of town," while Delhi was the centre of a large trade. To-day according to the reports of the commercial agencies,