The Province of Legislation in the Suppression of 
Intemperance. 
A 1ST ESSAY 
BEAD BEFOBE 
THE AMERICAN SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, 
AT 
SARATOGA, N.Y., SEPTEMBER 8, 1881, 
\ 
By F. W. BIRD. 
“The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited: he must not make 
himself a nuisance to other people.” — M '*^'*^'■4^.. 
BOSTON: 
FRANKLIN PRESS: RAND, AVERY, & VO. 
1881. Tlie Province of Legislation in the Suppression of 
Intemperance. 
AN ESSAY 
READ BEFORE 
THE AIEBICAN SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, 
AT 
SARATOGA, N.Y., SEPTEMBER 8, 1881, 
V 
By F. W. BIRD. 
“The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited: he must not make 
himself a nuisance to other people.” — Mill on Liberty. . 
BOSTON: 
FRANKLIN TRESS: RAND, AVERY, & CO. 
1881. ESSAY. 
I have been requested by your Association to prepare an 
essay upon “The Unrestricted Traffic in Intoxicating Drinks.” 
I would prefer to state the question in this form: The 
province of legislation in limiting the sale of intoxicating 
drinks and the evils of intemperance. I shall not attempt to 
describe the sufferings of our entire community from this 
national curse. Seven hundred millions of dollars, it has 
been stated, are worse than wasted every year for intoxi- 
cating drinks. How many thousands of valuable lives, the 
revelations of the great day alone can tell. The drunkard’s 
grave! where lie buried a father’s hopes, a sister’s love, a 
mother’s tears and prayers. Who can count their number? 
Who can measure the aggregate of misery they cover ? 
But these do not measure the extent of the woes of intem- 
perance. Add the ruined health, the blighted lives of the 
thousands upon thousands who die of diseases caused and 
aggravated by moderate drinking, to which the doctors give 
respectable names. Add other thousand victims of medical 
prescriptions, as fatal to their victims in the White House as 
in the hovel, and we have an aggregate of woe appalling in 
its magnitude. If a foreign foe should invade the land, and 
take the lives of a tithe of the victims of intemperance, the 
whole people would arise to repel, or, once and forever, to 
crush, the common enemy. 
This national appetite, which grows by what it feeds on, 
like the behemoth of Job, 
“ Who sinks a river, and who thirsts again,” 
threatens, more than all other agencies, the defeat of our 
experiment of self-government. Lovers of the race, not 
blinded by self-interest or appetite, cannot differ as to the 
evils of intemperance. Unfortunately there exist wide differ- 
ences as to the remedy. 4 
I think we underrate the climatic influences which seem 
to necessitate the use of alcoholic stimulants. This, at least, 
is certain, that, during all the historic period, peoples living 
above certain parallels of latitude have indulged in the ex- 
cessive use of intoxicating drinks. Any discussion which 
ignores this fact omits an important element of the great 
argument. 
Another mistake of the advocates of legislation in the 
interest of temperance is found in the belief that statute law, 
not backed by an intelligent and earnest public opinion, can 
prove an effectual remedy for a great social evil. The 
stream cannot rise higher than its fountain ; and while, as is 
the fact in regard to all prohibitory legislation, a majority of 
votes, from various considerations, are brought to enact pro- 
hibitory statutes, the constituencies are not in favor of the 
enforcement of the law. Take our Commonwealth of Mas- 
sachusetts, where this law has had a longer and fairer trial 
than in any other community. In 1852 a prohibitory law, 
satisfactory to its friends, was enacted. I think no one, well 
acquainted with the public opinion of Massachusetts, will 
claim that a majority of our people had full faith in its accom- 
plishing the results which its special friends expected; but, 
aware of the failure which had attended all previous legisla- 
tion, a large majority of the people were glad to give the 
experiment a fair trial, and were sincerely desirous that it 
should succeed. From year to year amendments were made, 
to correct defects in the machinery of its execution, until it 
became as perfect, for its avowed purpose, as legal ingenuity 
could make it. Then it was repealed. Largely because it 
was found that it did not prohibit the sale; largely, also, 
because it did not diminish the evils of intemperance; mainly, 
because a majority of the voters were not in favor of en- 
forcing a law which declared to be a crime the sale of an 
article which they themselves occasionally moderately used. 
The law was repealed in 1868. For sixteen years the friends 
of prohibition had the entire control of the legislation neces- 
sary to give it efficiency. The decisions of the courts pointed 
out defects, which the Legislature never failed to remedy; 
and the repeal grew out of the conviction that the law had 
failed, — that prohibition did not prohibit; especially that 
the law did not diminish the amount or the evils of intern- 5 
perance ; and a new experiment, prompted by the same desire 
to limit the evils of intemperance which had inspired the 
prohibitory law, produced the license law of 1868. 
The license law of 1868 was repealed in 1869, and a pro- 
hibitory law enacted in its place. In 1875 this was in turn 
repealed, and the present license law was passed. This too 
has failed. Indeed, its repeal passed the House to its third 
reading, at the last session, by a good working majority; and 
it was referred to the Committee on Bills in the Third Read- 
ing. In the mean time the Republican politicians became 
alarmed at the prospect of meeting this disturbing question 
in the fall campaign, threatening the election of a Demo- 
cratic governor. Whereupon the committee having the bill 
in charge, made the extraordinary discovery that the Act was 
unconstitutional because of the proviso referring it to the 
people; and the bill was rejected and the party saved! 
Unreservedly admitting the right to pass prohibitory laws, 
I place opposition on the ground of the impossibility of their 
enforcement; beyond this, it may fairly be questioned 
whether enforcement so barren of results is desirable. An 
appetite so universal as the craving for stimulants cannot be 
controlled by arbitrary enactments; and, when reliance is 
placed upon these, self-discipline, which is the only parent of 
virtue, public or personal, fails to be practised. 
It has always seemed to me that legislation in the interests 
of temperance begins at the wrong end. Whether in the 
form of regulation or prohibition, all the laws upon our 
statute-books are aimed at the sale of intoxicating drinks: — 
the real evil is the use of such drinks, and the universality 
of the use is attested by the fact of the consumption of 
8700,000,000 worth annually in our country. While our 
people indulge in the use of this enormous amount, intoxi- 
cating drinks will be sold, law or no law. 
Regulation in the form of license laws has proved equally 
inoperative. At the start, this kind of legislation encounters 
the objection which lies against all laws which grant special 
privileges to favored individuals or classes. If the sale of 
intoxicating drinks is a good thing, tending to the public 
welfare, one man has as good a right to sell them as another: 
if it is a bad thing, tending to the public injury, no man 
ought to be allowed to sell them. Always under “ stringent” 6 
laws, when the policy is to allow the sale by those who will 
sell only to “proper” persons, the large class to whom licenses 
are refused unite with the opponents of the system of li- 
cense, and sooner or later the law is modified in favor of 
more free licenses or of prohibition. 
History, it is said, repeats itself. Legislation upon this 
subject illustrates emphatically the truth of this saying. I 
have taken some pains to collate from the statute-books of 
Massachusetts, as Colony, Province, and Commonwealth, a 
sketch of the legislation of two hundred and fifty years upon 
this subject. I think it must be admitted that no community 
could afford a better field for the trial of this experiment. 
From the landing of the Pilgrims to this day, a large ma- 
jority of our people have been intelligently and earnestly in 
favor of all legislative measures promising to restrain and 
limit the evils of intemperance. These efforts, taking every 
form of regulation, every form of restriction to the extreme 
of prohibition, have failed,—the failure being proved and 
admitted by the frequent changes of legislation which, in the 
best judgment of the community, were considered necessary 
by the failure of preceding methods. At the risk of pro- 
longing this essay beyond reasonable bounds, I here present 
sketches of this legislation as concise as is consistent with a 
full understanding of the case. 
PLYMOUTH RECORDS. 
April 2, 1633. —John Holmes censured for drunkenness, to sit 
in the stocks, and amerced in twenty shillings fine. 
June 2,1633. — It was enacted, that the person in whose house 
any were found, or suffered to drink, drunk, be left to the arbitrary 
fine and punishment of the Governor and Council, according to 
the nature and circumstance of the same. 
March 2, 1635-36. It was ordered that none be suffered to 
retail wine or strong water, and suffer the same to be drunk in 
their houses, except it be at some inn or victualling-house, and 
there only to strangers at their first coming, not exceeding the 
value of twopence a person, and that no beer be sold in any such 
place to exceed twopence the Winchester quart. 
Oct. 5, 1636. —By the jury, Thomas Savery was found guilty 
of drunkenness, and thought meet he should be whipped. 
Jan. 5, 1635-36. — At this time Joseph Bidle was found guilty 
of being drunk by the jury, and was amerced fort}' shillings. 7 
Oct. 2,1637.—Mr. Stephen Hopkins, first presentment (for 
suffering men to drink in his house upon the Lord’s Day, before the 
meeting be ended, and also upon the Lord’s Day, both before and 
after the meetings, servants and others to drink more than for or- 
dinary refreshing), is respited until the next court, that the testi- 
mony of John Barnes be had therein. 
The same person was also presented for suffering servants and 
others to sit drinking in his house (contrary to the orders of this 
Court) and to play shovel-board, and such like misdemeanors, is 
therefor fined fort}' shillings. 
Jan. 2, 1637-38. — Mr. Hopkins is presented for suffering 
drinking in his house, as old Palmer, James Cole, and William 
Reynolds. 
Mr. Hopkins is presented for selling beer for two- 
pence the quart, not worth one penny a quart. 
Also for selling wine at such excessive rates, to the oppressing 
and impoverishing of the colony. 
Oct. 23, 1638-39. — Matthew Sutherland, being proved to be 
drunken, was set in the stocks. 
March 5, 1638-39. —John Holmes, the messenger, presented 
for sitting up in the night, or all the night, drinking inordinately 
at John Emerson’s house. 
March 3, 1639-40. — Francis Sprague of Duxbury, for draw- 
ing and retailing wine at Duxbury, contrary to the express order 
of this Court, is fined by the Bench twenty shillings sterling. 
Sept. 1, 1640. — Mr. Tast of Scituate, for drawing wine without 
license, is fined five shillings. 
Francis Sprague of Duxbury, for the like, five shillings. 
June 5, 1644. — Anthony Thatcher licensed to draw wine at 
Yarmouth ; Henry Cobb, at Plymouth ; William Barker, at Taun- 
ton ; William Newland, at Sandwich; Edmund Elderden, at 
Scituate. 
July 7, 1646.—Francis Sprague of Duxbury is licensed to 
keep an ordinary, and draw wine at Duxbury. Others, also, at 
divers places. 
June 20, 1654. — It is ordered, That if any person or persons 
drink themselves drunk, for the first default (they shall pay) five 
shillings ; for the second, ten shillings ; and for the third, shall be 
set in the stocks. 
Whereas there hath been great abuse, by trading wines, and 
other strong liquors, with the Indians, whereby they drink them- 
selves drunk, and, in their drunkenness, commit much horrid 
wickedness, as murdering their nearest relations, etc., as by sad 
and woeful experience is made manifest; — 8 
It is therefore ordered, That no person or persons whatsoever, 
from this time, trade any strong liquors, directly or indirectly, to 
the Indians within this jurisdiction, upon penalty of the forfeiture 
of the double value of the goods so traded for their first default; 
and fourfold for the second default; and for the third default, if an 
inhabitant, to lose the privilege of trading with the Indians for the 
future ; and, if a stranger, to forfeit ten pounds sterling for the 
first default; twenty pounds sterling for the second ; one half to 
the person informing, the other half to public uses. 
1657. — Liberty is granted to Edward Bangs to draw and sell 
wines and strong waters at Eastham, provided it be for the refresh- 
ment of the English, and not be sold to the Indians. 
March 2, 1657-58. —John Barnes, for his frequent abusing of 
himself in drunkenness, after former punishment and admonition, 
is fined five pounds: and in case any shall entertain him in their 
house in a way of drinking shall be fined the sum of twenty shil- 
lings ; and if any of the town of Ptymouth shall be found drinking 
in his company, every such to pay two shillings sixpence. 
Oct. 2, 1658.—Thomas Lucas for being taken in drink, it 
being the second time he hath been convicted of this crime, he is, 
according to the order of the Court, fined ten shillings ; and for his 
retailing strong liquors, himself confessing it, he is fined five shil- 
lings to the country’s use. 
March I, 1658-59. — William Bassett, jun., is licensed by the 
Court to sell wine and strong waters at Sandwich for the refresh- 
ment of travellers, . . . but the said Bassett is not to permit any 
of the town to stay drinking at his house; also, John Richards 
and John Barnes at Plymouth on the same condition. 
Oct. 6, 1659. —John Barnes was disfranchised for his frequent 
and abominable drunkenness. 
Oct. 2,1660. — Several persons fined for being drunk second 
and third times. 
Jane 10, 1661. — Ordinary keepers at Plymouth prohibited 
selling to John Barnes, under penalty of fifty shillings. 
March 3, 1662-63. — Several persons fined twenty-five shillings 
each for selling liquor to the Indians. 
March 1,1663-64. — At this Court Thomas Lucas was publicly 
whipped for being drunk the third time. He was sentenced formerly 
for being drunk the third time ; nevertheless the execution thereof 
was respected (sic, probably respited) until he should be found 
drunk again, which accordingly was witnessed against him, and so 
the said punishment was inflicted on him as aforesaid. 
June 9, 1665. — An account of liquors brought into the town 
of Eastham. 9 
July 5,1670.—Edward Sturgis, sen., is allowed to keep an ordi- 
nary at Yarmouth, and required to keep good order in his house in 
that respect, that rude fellows be not found nor suffered there to 
misdemean themselves. 
John Woodcock is allowed by the Court to keep an ordinary at 
the Ten Mile River (so called), which is in the way from Rehoboth 
to the bay, and likewise enjoined to keep good order, that no un- 
ruliness or ribaldry be permitted there. 
Other similar licenses about that time. 
June 5, 1671.—For the prevention of great abuse by the ex- 
cessive drinking of liquors in ordinaries, this Court doth order that 
every ordinary keeper in this government shall be hereby empow- 
ered and required, that in case any person or persons do not attend 
order, but carry themselves by being importunately 
desirous of drink when denied, and do not leave the house when 
required, such ordinary keeper shall return their names to the next 
Court, that so they may be prosecuted according to the nature of 
the offence ; and in case any ordinar}7 keeper shall neglect so to 
do, he shall be fined five shillings for every default. 
It is further ordered by this Court, that some two or three 
men be appointed in every town of this jurisdiction to have the 
inspection of the ordinaries, or in any places suspected, to take 
notice of such abuses as may arise in reference to the premises or 
otherwise, and make report thereof to the Court. 
June 1, 1675. — Thomas Lewis, for being distempered with 
drink, it being so often, and that he hath borne several particular 
punishments gradually, and cannot be reclaimed, it was ordered 
concerning him, that all that sell drink be strictly ordered and 
prohibited to let him have none. 
Oct. 30, 1678. — Francis Combe is licensed by the Court to 
keep an ordinary at his house in Middleborough for entertainment 
of strangers, and is allowed to draw and sell beer, wine, and liquors 
there, for the entertainment and refreshment of travellers, and is 
hereby required to keep good orders in his house, that there arise 
no just cause of blame by his negligence in that behalf. 
March 8, 1678-79. — Whereas David Turner, Joseph Studley, 
and Peter Worthylake are complained of for their abusive frequent- 
ing the ordinaries in Scituate, spending their time there, and ex- 
pending their estates, so as they are become very poor, these are 
therefore to require all such ordinary-keepers as are in Scituate to 
take effectual course that the said persons be not entertained so 
frequently and unnecessarily, contrary to the laws of this govern- 
ment, in their houses, nor any other like them, as such ordinary- 
keepers will answer it at their peril. 10 
June 5, 1684. — This Court grants liberty unto Isaac Howland 
to keep an ordinary at Middleborough, and to be provided with such 
necessaries for that purpose as are requisite, as lodging and vic- 
tuals for men, and fodder for horses ; and that he keep good orders 
in his house, that he incur no just blame by his negligence. 
Similar licenses granted elsewhere. 
Oct. 27, 1685. — The Court have granted liberty to Thomas 
Leonard, and Shadrack Wilsborn of Taunton, to sell strong liquors 
by the gallon, so that they are careful not to sell to such as will 
abuse the same. 
June, 1686.—The Court hath granted liberty to Margaret Muffee 
of Scituate to retail strong liquors in the town of Scituate afore- 
said, to such as buy it and carry it out of door, or from her house 
and not drink it there, and likewise that she shall not sell liquors 
by less quantities than one gallon, and be careful whom she sells 
it to. 
Oct. 2, 1689.—Ordered by this Court that whosoever shall 
inform against any person for retailing any strong drink without 
license, and prosecute his said information to effect such informer, 
shall have one moiety or half the fine that such retailer shall be, 
according to law, sentenced to pay. And if any shall inform 
and prosecute as aforesaid against any innkeeper for the breach of 
any law of this colony that concerns innholders, he shall likewise 
have half the fine. 
Vec. 25,1689.—Whereas divers acts and orders have been 
lately made by the General Court prohibiting any person from sell- 
ing by retail any kind of strong drink without license, it is now, 
therefore, further ordered, and by this Court declared, that who- 
soever shall, without license, sell and deliver a less quantity, at 
one time, to any person or persons, than five gallons of wine, 
brandy, rum, or strong liquors, or less than a quarter-cask of cider, 
every such seller is by law deemed, judged, and accounted a re- 
tailer, and as such to be proceeded against as the law directs. 
MASSACHUSETTS BAY RECORDS. 
The first entry in the Records of Massachusetts Bay was as fol- 
lows, dated Sept. 3, 1633: “Robert Coles is fined ten shillings, 
and enjoyned to stand with a white sheet of paper on his back, 
whereon ‘ a drunkard ’ shall be written in great letters, and to stand 
therewith so long as the Court thinks meet, for abusing himself 
shamefulty with drink.” 
And on the same date, fines and labor of various kinds were 
established as the penalty for drunkenness. 11 
Nov. 20, 1637. — It was ordered by the Court that “Keepers 
of inns or common victuallers’ houses should not sell, or have in 
their houses, any wine or strong waters, nor any beer or other drink, 
other than such as may and shall be sold for one penny the quart 
at most, and shall not brew their own beer, but buy of common 
brewers.” And that “ Common brewers shall not sell to any inn 
or common victualler any beer or drink of stronger size than such 
as may and shall be afforded at the rate of eight shillings per 
barrel.” And also that “ No single man shall lodge or remain in 
any inn or common victualler’s longer than for their necessary 
occasions.” 
May 22, 1639.—It was ordered that “Those who are per- 
mitted to retail wines and strong water should not sell any to 
be drunk in their houses.” 
Sept. 4, 1639. — It was ordered that “Drinking healths be 
forbidden under penalty of twelve shillings fine.” 
Oct. 18, 1648. —It was ordered that “ If any person who is by 
this Court allowed to sell wine or beer shall from this time forward 
conceal in his house any person that shall be found drunken, and 
shall not forthwith procure a constable whereby such drunken person 
may be brought before some magistrate, to the end he may receive 
condign punishment, ... he shall forfeit to the use of the country 
five pounds for every such default.” 
Jan. 18, 1645.—It was provided that “Public houses be 
granted (licensed) by the Court.” 
That “ the price of beer be fixed at two-cents a quart.” 
The “penalty for drunkenness” was fixed for “the seller at 
five shillings for such offence ; ” for “ every person found drunk, 
ten shillings;” for “ every excessive drinking, three shillings;” 
for “sitting idle and continuing drinking over half an hour, two 
shillings and sixpence ; ” for “ excessive drinking, — above half a 
pint of wine for each person, — second offence, double fine ; third 
offence, treble fine, or, if unable to pay, twenty stripes; ” for “ ex- 
cessive drinking, three hours in the stocks;” and for “fourth 
offence, imprisonment.” 
May 14,1645. —It was provided, that, in order to keep a public 
house, be a common victualler, vintner, taverner, etc., a license 
should be had of the Quarter Court in the shii'e where the applicant 
dwells. 
A fine of twenty shillings per week was imposed for unlicensed 
persons selling. 
A penalty of five shillings for continuing tippling above the 
space of half an hour. Excessive drinking was defined to be 
when more than half a pint of wine is allowed at one time, for one 
person to drink. 12 
Second offence of drunkenness was made liable to double fine, 
and third offence to treble fine, or, if unable to pay, the offender 
was to receive ten stripes, or be set in the stocks three hours. 
For fourth offence, to be imprisoned until he give two good sureties 
for good behavior. 
It was also provided that no laborer should be forced to receive 
pa}-ment in wine. 
Nov. 4, 1646. —The following law was passed : — 
“ Forasmuch as drunkenness is a vice to be abhorred of all na- 
tions, especially of those who hold out and profess the gospel of 
Christ Jesus, and seeing any strict law against the sin will not 
prevail, unless the cause be taken away, 
“ It is therefore ordered by this Court, — 
“1. That no merchant, company, or any other person whatsoever 
shall, after the first day of the first month, sell any wine under a 
quarter-cask, neither by quart, gallon, or any other measure, but 
only to such taverns as are licensed by the Court to retail wine, or 
any one whom the Court may license to sell per the gallon ; and 
whosoever shall transgress this order shall pa}7 ten shillings to the 
treasury of the county, to be levied by distress on his goods and 
chattels: and where there is no estate found, such delinquent 
against this order to be imprisoned during the Court’s pleasure. 
“ 2. That no taverner be licensed to sell wine but shall first pay 
a fine to the treasury, and a yearly rent for his said license also. 
“ 3. That the constables have power from time to time, not only 
to enter into and search the taverns for any disorder that may be 
found to punish according to law, either the taverner that suffer- 
eth misdemeanor in his house, or any other offenders there; as 
also to search any house suspected to sell contrary to the order; 
also any taverner or other person that shall inform against any 
transgression of the order shall have half of the fine for his en- 
couragement : this to be of force to the end of the next Court of 
Elections, and no longer, unless the Court otherwise order. 
“ It is ordered and enacted that no person or persons having 
license to keep a common house of entertainment shall suffer any 
person or persons at unreasonable times to drink or tipple in their 
houses upon pain to forfeit for every fine for each person so tip- 
pling five shillings ; and it is declared to be unreasonable times 
an}7 time after nine of the clock. 
“ This law doth not intend, nevertheless, to hinder the entertain- 
ment of seafaring men, or land travellers, in the night season, 
when they come first ashore, or from their journey, in such houses 
for their necessary refreshment, or when they prepare for their 
voyage or journey next day earl}7, so that there be no disorder 13 
amongst them ; and every person that shall be found so tippling, 
he shall forfeit for every such offence five shillings, and for default 
of payment to be imprisoned till he shall pay it, or be set in the 
stocks an hour or more, not exceeding three hours, as the season 
will permit, on a market-day ; nor shall any person or persons sell 
any strong water, wine, or beer, in their own houses, to any stran- 
ger or neighbor to drink, as those that have license to keep houses 
of common entertainment may do, upon pain to forfeit every time 
for each offence ten shillings ; and if any such private person be 
not able or be unwilling to pay his fine, the constable, by warrant 
from the magistrates, shall set such a person in the stocks an hour 
or more, not exceeding three hours, as the season will permit; nor 
shall any person or persons not licensed sell wines by retail, which 
is intended any measure less than a quarter-cask, to any persons or 
families, upon pain of forfeiting for ever}’ time so selling wine ten 
shillings ; nor shall any merchant, company, owner, keeper of 
wines, or other person, that hath the government of them, suffer 
any person or persons to drink to excess, or drunkenness, in their 
wine-cellars, ships, other vessels, or places where wines do lie, on 
pain to forfeit for each person drinking to excess or drunkenness 
ten shillings : the offences against this law are to be heard and 
determined according to the law made against drunkenness the 
13th of the third month, 1645, by any one magistrate, who shall 
hereby have power, by warrant, to send for parties and witness, 
and to examine the said witnesses upon oath, and the parties with- 
out oath, concerning any offence against the law, or the said law 
of drunkenness; and if any party voluntarily confess his offence 
against any breach of these laws, his oath shall be taken, and be 
a sufficient witness against any other offending at the same time ; 
and the penalties forfeited on this law to be in such sort levied and 
disposed as is appointed in the said law against drunkenness. And 
be it further enacted, that if any person that keepeth, or shall here- 
after keep, a common house for entertainment, shall be lawfully 
convicted the third time for any offence against any branch of the 
law against drunkenness, or this law, then every person so con- 
victed shall, for the space of three years next ensuing the said 
conviction, be disabled to keep any such house of common enter- 
tainment, or sell beer, wine, or the like, and shall be discharged 
for the said offence by warrant from any one of the magistrates, 
unless the Court shall see cause to continue them, at their discre- 
tion.” 
Nov. 13, 1644. — The following record is made : — 
“ The Court, apprehending that it is not fit to deprive the In- 
dians of any lawful comfort which God alloweth to all men by use 14 
of wine, do order that it shall be lawful for all such as are, or shall 
be, allowed license to retail wines, to sell also to the Indians so 
much as may be fit for their needful use or refreshing.” 
Oct. 18, 1648. — It was provided that “Licensed sellers by 
two persons chosen by themselves (one for Boston and one for 
Charlestown) might search places suspected of being places where 
wine is sold by unlicensed persons, and arrest persons drinking, as 
witnesses before the magistrate.” 
Oct. 17, 1654. — “ Tippling, or sitting drinking wine or beer,” 
was forbidden under a penalty for first offence of twenty shillings ; 
second offence, five pounds ; third offence, twenty pounds bond 
for good behavior, or imprisonment.” A penalty was also pro- 
vided “ for the seller of twenty pounds, and forfeiture of license.” 
Dec. 31, 1661. — Selling liquor was forbidden less than a quar- 
ter of a cask delivered at one and the same time. 
Oct. 12, 1670. — Selectmen were enjoined to take special care 
and notice of, and forbid, tippling. If any person disobeys, to be 
fined five shillings or be set in the stocks. 
July 4, 1684.—It was provided that licensed persons com- 
plaining of and convicting unlicensed persons should have half of 
the fine. 
In 1692-93 may be found the following preamble to a law passed 
that year: — 
And “ Forasmuch as the ancient, true, and principal use of inns, 
taverns, ale-houses, victualling-houses, and other houses of com- 
mon entertainment is for receipt, relief, and lodging of travellers 
and strangers, and the refreshment of persons upon lawful busi- 
ness, or for the necessary supply of the wants of such poor per- 
sons as are not able by greater quantities to make their provision 
of victuals, and are not intended for entertainment and harboring 
lewd or idle people to spend or consume their time there ; therefore, 
to prevent the mischiefs and great disorders happening daily' by 
the abuse of such houses, it is further enacted,” etc. (The act 
forbids the use or keeping of cards, dice, and other implements 
of gaming.) 
Byr an earlier section of the same law, the fine for unlicensed 
selling is made for the first offence forty' shillings, one-half to the 
informant and one-half to the use of the poor of the town; for 
second offence, forty shillings and sureties for good behavior. 
By the law of 1694-95, retailers are to sell no other sorts of 
drink than what they are licensed to, nor to suffer persons to drink 
in their houses. 
Officers were to inspect public houses, and to present such as 
sell without license. A penalty' was established for officers receiv- 
ing any bribe. 15 
Selectmen were to cause reputed drunkards to be posted up, and 
a penalty imposed on keepers of public houses giving them enter- 
tainment. 
By the law of 1695-96, keepers of unlicensed houses, if detected 
and convicted, and unable to satisfy the fine imposed by law, and 
cannot be punished by imprisonment without wrong to their fam- 
ilies, are to be openly whipped not less than ten nor more than 
fifteen stripes. Officers were empowered to enter unlicensed houses 
of any person suspected of selling without license, having been 
once convicted thereof, and to search for strong drink, and to seize 
and secure the same, and the liquor to be forfeited (except such as 
may be adjudged necessary for the use of the family), one moiety 
to go to the party that seized and informed of the same, and one 
moiety to the poor of the town. 
1698, 1st session, chap. 10, provides that licensed persons shall 
suffer no apprentice, servant, or negro to sit drinking. 
Sect. 2. Neither shall an}’licensed person suffer any inhabitant 
of such town where he dwells, or coming thither from any other 
town, to sit drinking or tippling in his or her house, or any of the 
dependencies thereof, or to continue there above the space of one 
hour (other than travellers, persons upon business, or extraordi- 
nary occasions), on the penalty of ten shillings for each offence. 
Sect. 3 fines persons tippling or drinking, contrary to this 
Act, three shillings and fourpence, or they are to be set in the 
stocks not exceeding four hours’ time. 
Sect. 4 provides that licensed persons shall not suffer any 
person to drink to drunkenness or excess in his or her house, nor 
shall suffer any person as his or her guest to be or remain in such 
house, on the Lord’s Day (other than travellers, strangers, or such 
as come thither for necessary refreshment), on pain of forfeiting 
the sum of five shillings for every offence. 
Sect. 5 provides that all fines shall go, one moiety thereof to 
the use of the poor of the town, and one moiety to the informer. 
Sect. 6 provides that two sureties of five pounds each be fur- 
nished by the person licensed. 
Sect. 7 gives titliingmen power to inspect licensed houses, and 
to inform of misdemeanors and disorders. 
Sect. 12 provides that no more persons shall be licensed to 
keep public houses than what are necessary for refreshment of 
travellers, etc. 
1711-12, March. Chap. 6. Preamble to and Provisions of 
Law passed. —“ Whereas the laws, at several times established by 
the government of this Her Majesty’s province of the Massachu- 
setts Bay, and now in force, have made good and wholesome pro- 16 
vision for the regulation of inns, taverns, ale-houses, victuallers, 
and other houses for common entertainment, and retailers of strong 
liquors out of doors, and for preventing of tippling and drunken- 
ness, declaring that such licensed houses ought to be improved to 
the right end and uses for which they are designed ; namely, for 
the receiving, refreshment, and entertainment of travellers and 
strangers, and to serve the public occasions of the towns and 
places in which they are, and not to be nurses of vice and de- 
bauchery, as is too frequently practised by some, to the hurt of 
manj* persons by misspending their time and money in such houses, 
to the ruin of families.” 
Sect. 1 provides that the laws against drunkenness, profane- 
ness, and other immoralities, together with this Act, be solemnly 
read by the town-clerk in each town, at their anniversary town- 
meeting in March, from time to time. 
Sect. 2 directs all justices, sheriffs, grand jurors, tithingmen, 
constables, etc., to see said laws observed; “and the selectmen 
and other principal well-disposed persons in each town, desirous of 
a reformation, are hereby exhorted and directed to countenance' 
accompan}’, assist, and join with” said officers in endeavoring to 
discover and suppress all unlicensed houses, and vice, immorality, 
and profaneness. 
Sect. 3. A list of names of persons for license to be transmitted 
to the selectmen. 
Sect. 4. None to be originally licensed but upon the recom- 
mendation of the selectmen. Licenses not to be renewed until 
complaints be heard and judged of. 
Sect. 5. Licensed persons not suitably provided, to be deprived. 
Sect. 6. Town-dwellers prohibited drinking in public houses 
after nine at night. 
Sect. 10. Common drunkards to be posted up at retailers’. 
Sect. 12. Selectmen to appoint informers. 
1716-17,1st Session. — Some new provisions of law were added. 
Chap. 1. — Sect. 7. Penalty of £10 for selling without license, 
one-half to poor, one-half to informer. 
Sect. 8. Justices of the peace to examine on oath persons who 
resort to unlicensed houses, and to bind over such witnesses, and 
the persons suspected of selling, to the next general sessions of 
the peace. 
Sect. 9. Persons refusing to give evidence, to be subject to the 
same penalty as those convicted of selling without license. 
1721. Chap. 1. Preamble to Sect. 8. — “And notwithstanding 
the laws made against selling strong drink without license, many 
people, not regarding the penalties and forfeitures in said acts, do 17 
receive and entertain persons in their houses, and sell great quan- 
tities of spirits and other strong drink, by reason whereof great 
debaucheries are committed and kept secret, and such as take and 
pay for their licenses are injured thereby. Be it therefore enacted, 
“ Sect. 8. That whosoever, after the twenty-ninth day of June, 
1721, shall presume to sell brandy, rum, or other distilled spirits, 
wine, beer, cider, or perry, or any other strong drink, without license 
first had and obtained from the general sessions of the peace,” 
shall forfeit ten pounds — one-third to poor, one-third to commis- 
sioner (of excise), one-third to informant—and costs. Refusing 
or neglecting to pa}7, not exceeding twenty nor less than ten stripes, 
and stand committed in the common jail ten days, or pay costs. 
Sect. 9. Same as sect. 8 of 1716-17. 
Sect. 10. Same as sect. 9 of 1716-17. 
1726-27. — Sect. 8. Selling without license, penalty for £10, — 
one-third to poor, one-third to collector of excise, one-third to 
informant, — or, refusing to pay, to common jail for forty days at 
least. 
Sect. 9. Forbidden to sell by children or servant or any other 
member of the family. 
Sect. 10. Two credible persons who have bought strong drink, 
sufficient evidence to convict. 
Sect. 11. Suspected houses to be examined under the oath of 
persons resorting to unlicensed places. 
Sect. 11. Person refusing to give evidence, to be liable to same 
penalty as unlicensed dealer. 
1727. Chap. 1. — Substantial re-enactment of same law. 
1732-33.—Substantial re-enactment of same law. 
1740. Chap. 3. — Similar enactment. No substantial dif- 
ference. 
1742-43,1745-46, 1748-49, similar enactments to those previous, 
except addition in law of 1748-49, providing that after conviction 
of selling without license, the offender shall enter into bonds of 
twenty pounds for good behavior, or, refusing or neglecting, to be 
imprisoned until he shall comply. 
1751-52, 1752-53, 1753-54, 1754-55, similar enactments. 
1755-56, similar enactment with this addition: “Whereas, in 
order to elude the design of this act, some persons may join to- 
gether, and buy wine, rum, brandy, and other spirits distilled in 
quantities above twenty-five gallons, and afterwards divide the 
same among themselves in less quantities, be it therefore enacted, 
Sect. 8. That “Persons not licensed joining together in pur- 
chasing liquors and dividing the same, are liable to same forfeiture 
as for selling without license.” 18 
Sect. 9 also provides that liquors lent or delivered, on considera- 
tion of returning the same or like liquors, shall be deemed a sale, 
and liable to same penalty as absolute sale of the same. 
1755-56, seventh session, similar enactment to foregoing. 
1758-59 forbils selling to negroes, mulattoes, Indians, or child, 
or other person under the age of discretion. 
1760, Feb. 12, similar law. 
1761, Jan. 22, similar law. 
1762-74, similar law. 
Feb. 28, 1787.—Sect. 1 prohibits selling by retail, of a less 
quantity than twenty gallons, and that delivered and carried away 
at one time, under forfeiture of twenty pounds. 
Sect. 2. Licenses to be yearly renewed, and licensee to be 
approved by the selectmen. 
Licensee to be sworn to bear true faith and allegiance to the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 
No license to be renewed to person complained of under previous 
license. 
Sect. 3. Innholders and taverners at all times to be furnished 
with suitable provisions, etc., on pain of being deprived of their 
license. 
Sect. 5. Penalty of forty shillings for keeping implements of 
gaming. 
Sect. 6. Penalty of thirty shillings for suffering dancing or 
revelling. 
Sect. 7. Forfeiture of twenty shillings for suffering persons to 
drink to excess. 
Sect. 8. Penalt}' for second breach of this act twenty pounds, 
and two sufficient sureties for good order. For third offence, for- 
feiture of license, and no renewal for three years. 
Sect. 9. Failure to pay fine and costs, to be openly whipped not 
more than fifteen, nor less than ten, stripes, and stand committed 
until fine is paid. 
Sect. 10. Persons licensed shall be bound to the Common- 
wealth in two sureties not to break any of the laws made, etc. 
Sect. 15. Justices directed not to license more persons than 
are necessary for the public good. 
Sect. 16. Selectmen shall cause the names of common drunk- 
ards, etc., to be posted in the houses of taverners, and other licensed 
houses. Keepers to forfeit thirty shillings if they sell to such 
persons. 
Sect. 17. Selectmen shall forbid licensed persons to sell spirit- 
uous liquors to excessive drinkers, idlers, and inisspenders of time. 
Penalt}’ for, twenty shillings. 19 
Sect. 18. Innholders who shall trust or give credit for more 
than ten shillings to inhabitants of his town, or not more than five 
miles distant, shall lose such sums trusted, and all action for re- 
covery debarred. 
Sect. 19. Tithingmen to be chosen annually to inspect all 
licensed houses, and inform of all disorders. 
Sect. 20. Fines, one-half to county, and one-half to informer 
or prosecutor. 
June 22, 1789.—Whereas the manufacture of strong beer, 
ale, and other malt liquors, will promote the purposes of hus- 
bandry and commerce by encouraging the growth of such materials 
as are peculiarly congenial to our soil and climate, and by produ- 
cing a valuable article of exportation, and whereas the wholesome 
qualities of malt liquors greatly recommend them to general use, 
as an important means of preserving the health of the citizens 
of the Commonwealth, and of preventing the pernicious effects of 
spirituous liquors, 
Therefore be it enacted, etc., All brew-houses that produce a 
hundred barrels of beer annually, to be exempt from taxation or 
duties five j’ears. 
March 12, 1808. —If selectmen unreasonably neglect or refuse 
to give approbation to be an innholder or retailer, the Court of 
Sessions within the county may grant license. 
1819. Chap. 65. — Whenever selectmen have posted names of 
common drunkards, etc., and forbidden sale of liquor to them, 
any person purchasing for them shall pay the sum of ten dollars. 
Innholder, victualler, or retailer suffering any minor, tippler, 
common drunkard, or gambler to remain in his or her house, or 
shall furnish them with strong liquors, shall forfeit and pay a fine 
of ten dollars, and forfeit license, not to be renewed for three 
years. 
Feb. 21, 1820. Chap. 256. — Additional fee of four dollars to 
be paid by licensees for the use of the Commonwealth. 
1831. Chap. 136. — “Ten-gallon law,” so called. 
Sect. 1. Sale of liquor by person presuming to be a common 
victualler, etc. (by retail, or in a less quantity than ten gallons, 
and that delivered and carried away all at one time), unless duly 
licensed therefor according to law, forfeiture of thirty dollars. 
Sale of spirituous liquors by any person, penalty of ten dollars. 
Sect. 2. Presuming to be a common victualler, etc., and selling 
wine, beer, ale, cider, or any fermented liquors in less quantity 
than ten gallons, all carried away at one time, forfeit thirty dol- 
lars ; and for each offence, ten dollars. 
Excise for license under this section, one dollar: 20 
Sect. 3. Presuming to be a common seller of brandy, rum, and 
of wines, etc., by retail, or in a less quantity than ten gallons, all 
delivered and carried away at one time, without license, thirty 
dollars fine, and each offence, ten dollars. 
Excise for license, five dollars. 
Sect. 4. Presuming to be a common seller of wine, etc., same 
fine, and excise, one dollar. 
Sect. 5 forbids licensed common victuallers, etc., to retail any 
liquors “ except to be drunk or spent in or about his or her house, 
or part or dependencies of the same.” 
Also forbids licensed common retailers of brandy, rum, etc., to 
retail any distilled or fermented liquors to be drunk in his or her 
house or shop, etc., under penalty in each case of thirty dollars. 
Provided, nevertheless, that the mayor, etc., of the cityr of Bos- 
ton, and selectmen of towns, may license common retailers of 
beer, ale, and cider, to be drunk on premises, upon such terms 
and conditions as shall seem to them just and proper. 
Sect. 6. Selectmen to take oath to faithfully discharge their 
duties, etc. 
March 24, 1832. — Sect. 1. No person shall presume to be an 
innholder, or seller of wine, brand}', rum, or any other spirituous 
liquor, to be used and consumed in or about his or her premises, 
without license, as is herein provided, on pain of forfeiting the 
sum of one hundred dollars. Penalty for selling spirituous liquors, 
or any mixed liquors, part of which is spirituous, without license, 
etc., twenty dollars. 
Sect. 2. Retailers of wine, brandy, rum, etc., without license, 
in less quantity than ten gallons, delivered and carried away at 
one time, twenty dollars for each offence. 
Licensed retailers selling liquors to be drunk in his house, etc., 
penalty, twenty dollars. 
Sect. 3. Person presuming to be a common victualler or seller 
of wine, brandy, rum, etc., to be used and consumed about his 
premises without license, forfeits one hundred dollars, and twenty 
dollars for each offence. 
Sect. 4. Mayor and aldermen of Boston may license as many 
persons as, in their apprehension, the public good may require. 
Sect. 5. Penalty for keeping open shop on the Lord’s Day, or 
later hour than ten o’clock p.m., of any working da}’, ten dollars. 
Sect. 6. Mayor and alderman may license for Boston, county 
courts for counties. 
Sect. 7. Licenses to be yearly renewed. 
Sect. 8. May also license without fee. 
Sect. 9. Conditions of license, certificate of good moral char- 
acter. 21 
Sect. 10. Every licensed innholder shall be furnished with 
suitable provision for the refreshment and entertainment of stran- 
gers and travellers. 
Sect. 11. Dice, cards, billiards, and gaming implements, and 
use forbidden under penalty of ten dollars. 
Sect. 12. No innholder or common victualler shall permit any 
person to drink to excess in his place of business, under penalty 
of five dollars. 
Sect. 13. Giving credit for liquor to be drunk on his premises, 
shall lose and forfeit all sums so credited. 
Sect. 14. Mayor and selectmen shall forbid selling to persons 
drinking excessively or wasting time, under penalty of twenty dol- 
lars. 
Sect. 15. Fines and forfeitures, how to be collected. 
April 19, 1838. — Fifteen-gallon cans (so called), passed. 
Feb. 11, 1840.—Ditto, repealed. 
March 14,1844. — In all prosecutions for selling, the legal pre- 
sumption shall be that the defendant has not been licensed. 
1850. Chap. 232. —License law amended. 
Sect. 1. Striking out “ spirituous” wherever it occurs, and in- 
serting in place thereof “ intoxicating.” 
Sect. 2. The county commissioners in the several counties, 
upon the recommendation of the selectmen of the town in which 
such persons may reside, and the mayor and aldermen of the 
several cities, may authorize by license, for a period of time not 
exceeding one year, and revocable at their pleasure, as many per- 
sons as they shall think the public good may require, to sell, in the 
towns or cities where they reside, intoxicating liquors in a less 
quantity than twenty-eight gallons, and that delivered and carried 
away all at one time for mechanical and medicinal purposes only. 
Sect. 3. Penalty for selling contrary to law : third offence, one 
to ten hundred dollars recognizance, to be forfeited if he violate 
the law again. 
1852. — Chap. 322. —Prohibitory law, so called. 
1854. — Several amendatory acts passed. 
1868. Chap. 14. — License law passed. Prohibitory law re- 
pealed. 
Chap. 311. — Amendments to license law unimportant. 
Chap. 318. —Amendments to license law unimportant. 
Chap. 344. — Amendments to license law unimportant. 
1869. Chap. 191.—No licenses to be issued or have force or 
validity after 30th April. 
Chap. 415. —Prohibitory law re-enacted. 
Chap. 442. —Unimportant amendment. 22 
1870. Cliap. 389. — Amendments unimportant allowing 
manufacture and sale of malt liquors. 
Chap. 391. —Unimportant amendments. 
1875. Chap. 99.—License law passed. Prohibitory law re- 
pealed. 
Such are the results of legislation in Massachusetts for two 
hundred and fifty years. Such, too, have been the results in 
Maine, and, indeed, in other States where it may be admitted 
that the conditions for a successful trial of the experiment 
have been less favorable. I mean, the results have been not 
only failures to suppress the sale, but more conspicuously 
failures to suppress the use, of intoxicating drinks. Un- 
doubtedly, certainly in Massachusetts for the last fifty years, 
since the temperance agitation commenced, there has been a 
steady improvement in the drinking habits of the better por- 
tion of the community. I fear that, in the lowest classes, the 
change has been in the opposite direction. But this change, 
careful observation tends to prove, has been the result of an 
improved public opinion, and not due to any form of law, 
except so far as proposed legislation has led to public dis- 
cussion. What is the remedy ? 
Let it be borne in mind that the thing to be done is to 
suppress intemperance, not to stop rum-selling. It may be 
admitted that, so far as any system of license or prohibition 
diminishes the facilities for procuring intoxicating drinks, 
the use might thereby be diminished; but all experience, I 
think, clearly shows that legislation has not materially 
affected consumption. 
Noah did not buy the wine upon which he became 
“ drunken ” at a corner grocery; and from that day to this 
the means of intoxication have always been found when the 
appetite craved a stimulant. 
This craving creates the demand, and attempts arbitrarily 
to check the supply have never yet been successful. The 
problem is not of easy solution. 
“ To mend a world’s a vast design ; ” 
and in the case of an evil so pervading all classes of the com- 
munity, he is a rash man who claims that his prescription 
will prove a panacea for a disease which has so long defied 
the wisdom and philanthropy of modern times. Still, the 
task must not be abandoned as hopeless. 23 
First, Let the good cause be kept out of politics. 
Second, The community must be educated out of the error 
that alcohol is ever useful as food, as a stimulant, or for 
medical prescriptions, as restoratives of health and strength. 
These three topics would require volumes* for their discus- 
sion and enforcement, and can only be suggested now. 
Third, The social habits of the community, specially of the 
natural leaders of thought and public opinion, must be radi- 
cally changed. “ If meat make my brother to offend, I will 
eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother 
to offend.” 
Fourth, If legislation is to be invoked at all, it must deal 
directly with the drinking, and not with the sale. Intemper- 
ance is to be treated as a disease, over which the victim has 
no control, and as a practice injurious to the drunkard and 
dangerous to the community. As a disease, hospitals should 
be provided, just as for insanity ; as a habit, harmful to the 
individual and to the'community, restraint is just as legiti- 
mate and just as necessary as for robbery or burglary. The 
right of society to deprive dangerous persons of their liberty, 
of course cannot be denied. The methods of its exercise will 
readily be found when public opinion shall attack the evil- 
doers as well as accessories before the fact. We shall not re- 
store the whipping-post of our fathers. I am not sure that 
they were not wise in subjecting the drunkard to the disci- 
pline of the stocks. 
Fifth, I think that the province of legislation as to the 
unrestricted sale of intoxicating drinks has this extent, — to 
treat as nuisances places of sale which are dangerous to the 
community, and to abate them like other nuisances. This 
admits, of course, the right of regulation and prohibition; 
but it recognizes what all experience in the history of license 
and prohibitory laws proves, — the necessity of an intelligent 
and earnest public opinion to the enforcement and effective- 
ness of law. 
Sixth, A “ civil damage ” law, holding the seller liable for 
all damages resulting from the sale. “ If an ox gore a man 
or a woman that they die; . . . and if the ox were wont to 
push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to 
his owner, and he hath not kept him in, . . . the ox shall be 
stoned, and his owner shall be put to death ” (Exod. xxi. 24 
28, 29). From the day when Moses transmitted this “judg- 
ment ” to the children of Israel, this liability for knowingly 
injuring one’s neighbors, whether embodied in the lex talionis 
or in the deliberate enactments of civilized Christian peoples, 
has been recognized. Surely it may properly be applied to 
agencies, whether through principals or accessories, of so 
many*woes as result from the sale of intoxicating drinks. 
Seventh, After all, and above all, education, “ moral suasion,” 
must remain the effective means for the suppression of in- 
temperance. The history of the Washingtonian movement 
emphasizes this statement. That work showed greater results 
in reforming individuals and in diminishing the evils of in- 
temperance, than all other agencies before or since. Com- 
bining the efforts of all the earnest friends of temperance, it 
w~as rapidly forming the public opinion which is essential to 
all works of reform ; until, in an evil hour, legislation was 
invoked, — aimed primarily at the sale, and not at the use, of 
intoxicating drinks. The result was, that the sentiment of 
the friends of temperance was divided; education, especially 
of the young, was neglected. This great Cause allied itself 
with politics. Notorious drunkards became eligible candi- 
dates for the Legislature, if only they would vote for prohi- 
bition. Philanthropy was degraded by the alliance; and 
humanity, if not irreparably, has been very seriously injured 
in the house of its friends. 
I am well aware how very far short this discussion falls of 
what is due to your Association and to the subject. I am well 
aware, too, how unpopular, how odious is the advocacy of 
what is called “ free rum.” This general feeling has grown 
out of the prominence which has been mistakenly given to 
the sale of intoxicating drinks, rather than to the use; thus 
directing public attention to sellers as the authors of all the 
evils of intemperance. But I am profoundly impressed with 
the conviction that the efforts in this direction have failed : 
that they have not appreciably diminished the sale — hardly 
in the slightest degree the use — of intoxicating drinks; and 
that the time has fully come for the union of all good men 
and women in some more effective means for the suppression 
of intemperance, — the greatest menace to our experiment of 
self-government, and to all the hopes of philanthropy and 
humanity. APPENDIX. 
WniLE reading the foregoing essay at Saratoga, the time occu- 
pied being less than that taken by the other speakers, I interpo- 
lated from time to time a few remarks by way of illustration or 
amplification. So far as I can recall them, they were substantially 
as follows : — 
Imperfect on my part as this discussion has been, and incapable 
as I felt of doing justice to it, I welcomed the opportunity to 
present the subject in a light in which it had not been viewed by 
many earnest friends of restrictive legislation. For many years I 
have been denounced by extreme prohibitionists as a “ Rummy,” 
and by the liquor interests as their bitter opponent. Since m}r 
mother tried to impress upon m3’ mind in my boyhood that alcohol 
is a poison, and alwa}’s injurious, (alas that I did not make the 
lesson the rule of my life!) I have believed and do believe that 
alcoholic stimulants, taken in an}’ quantity, in any condition of 
the system, healthful or diseased, never do good, but are always 
hurtful. My conviction is, that, until the delusion that the good 
feeling following the use of stimulants proves that they impart 
strength is dispelled from the minds, both of the medical profession 
and of the community, no permanent and general improvement in 
the drinking habits of the people can be expected. “ Because sen- 
tence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the 
heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” Waiving 
the question of the special inspiration of the “ Preacher,” we must 
recognize a universal truth in this declaration. Unfortunatel}’, the 
artificial strength which follows the use of stimulants has led mil- 
lions into the path which leads to blighted hopes, ruined health, 
and a drunkard’s grave. 
The theory upon which prohibitory laws are founded is, that 
liquor-selling is a crime. The failure of such laws grows out of 
the lack of the belief on the part of the community in the truth 
of the theor}’. A conspicuous illustration of this want of harmony 
between theory and practice is furnished in certain recent trans- 
actions in the good town of Quincy in our State. At the last 
annual town-meeting the voters of the town, by a large majority, 26 
elected an active prohibitionist as a police officer, with special in- 
structions to enforce the restrictive provisions of the license laws. 
This gentleman proceeded, in earnestness and good faith, obeying 
the declared washes of the people and his own sincere conviction, 
to adopt such methods for detecting violations of these laws as are 
universally approved in regard to other criminal laws. His efforts 
were too successful; and, in the full tide of successful experiment, 
he was removed by the selectmen. Had the town of Quincy been 
infested by a gang of burglars, the precise methods which this 
officer adopted for the detection of violations of the license laws 
would have received the unanimous approval of the town. 
It is a common argument that the fees for licenses put money 
into the public treasury. To my mind this argument loses all its 
force when it is remembered that such legislation lends the sanc- 
tion of law to an injurious traffic. Again, wdien wre consider the 
woes which result from intemperance, to which, certainly, the sale 
must be admitted to contribute, all money received for the allow- 
ance of such a traffic must be regarded as the price of blood ; and 
I envy not the feelings of the father who is truthfully told by his 
son, “Father, I took my first degree in intemperance in the 
gilded saloon licensed by a law passed by your vote.” 
My remarks at Saratoga have met the criticism that I did not 
suggest any effective, practical remedy. My kind critic, will you 
please suggest one? The civilized world has invoked for two or 
three centuries all conceivable aid in this direction, by means of 
legislation ; and we are no nearer to a conclusion as to methods in 
which the best friends of temperance agree. Of the right of the 
community to protect itself against an evil of such magnitude, there 
can be no doubt. John Stuart Mill, in his work on “Liberty,” 
says, “ The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited : he 
must not make himself a nuisance to other people.” Just where 
and how this interference for the protection of society is to be 
exercised, is the problem which has taxed, and thus far baffled, the 
wisdom of statesmen and philanthropists. 
LEGISLATION IN RHODE ISLAND. 
While preparing the sketch of legislation in Massachusetts, I 
learned that Mr. Justice Stiness, of the Supreme Court of Rhode 
Island, read, before a committee of the Legislature of that State 
last winter, a paper containing a similar sketch of the legislation 
against strong drink by the State of Rhode Island and Providence 
Plantations. From Ihe year 1647, when the first General Assembly 
was held, to the present year, legislation upon this subject has 
shown, as in Massachusetts, the anxiety of the people to regulate 27 
the sale of intoxicating drinks, with the same experience of failure 
and frequent change. The s}"stem, for two centuries, was one of 
license under various forms, with the exception that in 1654 astrin- 
gent prohibitory law was passed, forbidding the sale of “ liquors ” 
to Indians. Whether this was intended to prohibit the sale of 
wines to Indians, does not appear. In our Plymouth Colony, in 
the same year, an act was passed, as will be seen by referring to 
the Plymouth records for that year, prohibiting the sale to Indians 
of any “strong liquors.” In the preamble, “ wines and other 
strong liquors” are put in the same category. (By the way, 
referring to the legislation of the Massachusetts Bay, we find that 
“ the Court, apprehending that it is not fit to deprive the Indians 
of any lawful comfort, which God allows to all men, by use of 
wines, do order that it shall be lawful ... to sell also to the 
so much as may be fit for their needful use or refresh- 
ing.”) I do not find that prohibitory laws, as applied to the 
Indians in Rhode Island and the Plymouth Colon}", had any marked 
effect of improving the drinking habits of Indians in those colonies 
over those of Massachusetts Bay. 
In 1852 a strict prohibitory law was passed in Rhode Island. In 
1853 amendments were passed, remedying some defects which had 
been found in the law of 1852. This law, with modifications from 
time to time in the direction of prohibition, was repealed in 1863, 
and a license system adopted in its stead. In 1874 the license laws 
were repealed, and a prohibitory law passed. In 1875 this was 
again repealed, and license laws again passed. With unimportant 
amendments from time to time, this is the system in Rhode Island 
to-day, — a record of earnest effort and uniform failure. Have we 
wandered over two and a half centuries of legislation 
“ To bring back but this message of despair ? ” 
There is no occasion for despair. The whole people are wiser 
and stronger than any portion of them; and when public atten- 
tion is aroused to the extent of the evil, and legislation, wisely 
directed, united with moral means, is invoked, effective remedies 
will be found.