stand upon the same legal basis. If so, then two things, diametrically the opposite of each other, and upon which the law can not operate with the same effect, have the same legal basis.

There are many other opinions, in which the propositions of law announced, are as contradictory and antagonistic as those cited, but those cited serve to illustrate the state of mind in which the writer was left, after studying them.

He could not accept the estimate placed upon the saloon, by the courts, and then approve the declaration that it stands upon the same legal basis as the selling of corn, cotton, dry goods, groceries or hardware; nor accept the statement that the saloon may be entirely prohibited and, notwithstanding this fact, it does have the same legal standing as a pursuit that can not be prohibited entirely; nor the declaration that danger, disorder and immorality have the same respect in the law as safety, peace and morality, and, especially so, when a court, in a single opinion, both affirms and denies the proposition; nor the declaration that the saloon is a common right, and yet, at the same time, it is not the privilege of a citizen of the state or of the United States; nor the declaration that a saloon license is both a prohibition and a mere permit.

The writer reached the conclusion that the estimate placed upon the saloon, by the courts, was correct, and that, in view of that fact, the general principles of the law can be harmonized only on the theory that the saloon is inherently unlawful, because inherently lawless, and, being inherently lawless, because attended with danger and destructive

effects to the purposes of government, the lawmaking department can not lawfully legalize it. Having developed this hallucination and having thereby become a crank, the writer, for more than seven years, had been feeding his delusion by gathering authorities bearing thereon, hoping, sometime, to have the opportunity to submit the conclusion to the public.

In August, 1906, Hon. Enoch G. Hogate, Dean of the Law Department of the Indiana State University, requested the writer to select his own subject and deliver thereon, sometime during the year, an address to the law students of the university. The writer accepted, selected as his subject, “The Legal Status of the Liquor Traffic," and prepared the manuscript of the address in December, 1906.

Soon thereafter, there was filed in the Circuit Court of Boone County, on change of venue, from Marion, the case of Albert Soltau vs. Schuyler Young and William J. Trefz, which was an application for a retail saloon license.

In this case, the right of the legislature to authorize the licensing of the saloon, was the only issue, and this gave the writer the opportunity to officially declare his views on the question, which he did, in a written opinion, declaring the saloon license statute of Indiana to be unconstitutional.

Following the announcement of this opinion, the writer was, at once, deluged with telegrams and letters of congratulation, receiving more than two thousand of such letters. Letters came from every state and territory in the union, from Cuba,

Hawaii, the Philippine Islands, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, France and England.

The matter was given extensive notice in both the news and editorial columns of the newspapers. It was printed in full in many church, anti-saloon, Prohibition, Democratic and Republican papers and in a few law journals. It was ordered printed, as a public document, by the United States Senate, and was so printed as "Senate Document, No. 384." In all, it is conservatively estimated that, at least, one million copies of this opinion, have been printed and distributed in the United States.

The editorial comments were varied, some being complimentary in the superlative degree, while others were given to severe criticism, framed in a spirit of satire, ridicule, irony and acrimony. This was especially true of the editorials in the Indianapolis Star and the Indianapolis News, both of which went to the very verge, if not wholly to the point, of questioning the motives of the writer in rendering the opinion. However, it may not be amiss, to note that, in the issue in which the Star made its most bitter assault, it carried thirty-eight inches of liquor notices and advertisements, and, in the issue in which the News indulged in its most flagrant satire and ridicule, it carried forty-seven inches of such notices and advertisements.

Immediately after the announcement of the opinion, the writer was importuned to take the platform and discuss the question publicly. After hesitating for several weeks, he undertook the task, has discussed the question to one hundred and twenty-five different audiences, has visited thirty-eight states,

traveling about twenty thousand miles, and, it can be truthfully said that, almost without exception, the meetings were successful. The interest and the attendance were much beyond any one's most hopeful anticipation, indicative of the wide-spread and deep-seated antagonism to the saloon, which is now at high-tide throughout the whole country.

On every hand, the writer has been requested to discuss the subject in detail for publication, and a compliance with such requests is the only excuse offered for this publication.