"Moreover, when it is remembered that a large part of whatever recent drunkenness there may have been in Scandinavia has been caused by the use of fermented drinks, which has increased there, as it has to a much greater degree in the United States and elsewhere in the world, and over which the companies have no control, it becomes clear that the failure of the system cannot be proved by these allegations of increased arrests or increasing drunkenness.

"The testimony of students of actual conditions in Scandinavia is that the increase of drunkenness has been due to the increase of consumption of fermented liquors, and to causes over which the companies now have no control."

Mr. Berner, e. g., whom the objectors to the system quote as to the increase of drunkenness, is a strong advocate of the system and believes the increase to be due to a too limited control of the company over brandy sales.

PER CAPITA DECREASE.

Dr. E. R. L. Gould says on this point, in the Forum, March, 1894: "Will this new system of liquor traffic reduce inebriety? Its opponents have not hesitated to answer in the negative, and in justification point to the statistics of Sweden, which show that in recent years there has been an increase in the number of convictions for drunkenness. This is true, but during the same time there has been an immense decrease in the per capita consumption of spirits. Are we, therefore, to infer that decreasing consumption means additional drunkenness? Furthermore, during this period, prohibition has been introduced into almost all of the country districts of Sweden. Singularly enough, the ratio of increase in drunkenness in the country has been greater than in the cities and towns. Does it, therefore, follow that a prohibitory regime is favorable to the increase of drunkenness? The truth of the matter is that no reliable inference as to the efficacy of a system of control can be gathered from the study of these statistics. The number of persous who touch liquor at all might fall one-half, but if old topers continue to drink, as they will, there will still be practically the same number of 'drunks' as before. Again, legal regulations, activity of the police, and even the employment of patrol wagons, are important factors, though usually quite neglected. The true explanation, as regards Norway and Sweden, is quite simple. While the consumption of spirits has been environed with difficulties, beer-drinking has been, one might almost say, encouraged. Hence, the consumption of malt liquors has risen to colossal figures, in comparing recent with previous years. Simultaneously the beer has been strengthened and cheapened. The companies refuse to sell further portions to a customer giving evidence of intoxication, but the vender of beer will supply as much as his client wishes.

"The folly of making so sharp a distinction in the control of spirituous and malt beverages is evident. As compared with the period before the Gothenburg system went into effect in Scandinavia, the decrease in drunkenness is enormous. Progress continued in the right direction until beer commenced to be generally sold. The Swedish Government, on the 20th of last June, took the first step in recognition of this view by limiting the free sale of malt beverages to a minimum of 10 liters at one time.'

As for the objection that some Prohibitionists in Norway, and almost all elsewhere, have condemned the system, it is answered that in Norway most of the temperance believers do indorse the system, while in other countries the system is rapidly growing in favor, even among strong Prohibitionists.

. POLITICS DIVORCED FROM LIQUOR.

As for the fear of the liquor interest in politics, Mr. J. G. Thorp, Jr., says:

"What puts liquor into politics? Does any one question that it is the enormous profit than can be made of it? Or can any one successfully dispute the proposition that in so far as private profits can be taken out of the business, to that extent at least liquor will be taken out of politics? Does any intelligent man question that the saloon, as it now exists, is not only a source of moral degredation to individuals, but a center of political corruption also? If the saloon, as a rendezvous of political heelers and the worst features of the machine in politics, can be done away with, can any one doubt that much of liquor will be taken out of politics? That all this can be done at once no one contends; and that the establishment of this system will bring against it all the forces of the liquor organizations in attempts to overthrow it and to corrupt and control those called upon to administer it in the public interest, there can be no doubt. Such is the teaching of its history in Scandinavia, a history which is already repeating itself here in the attempt of the liquor organizations to defeat the Norwegian bill; but the same is true of prohibition and of all proposed forms of legislative control, except that the liquor attack will be more bitter upon the company system since it has more to fear from it. This opposition has been withstood in Scandinavia. Shall we admit that we have less public virtue and power to overcome these forces of evil? I think not."

Of the danger of making the traffic respectable and of the communities getting profits from it, the defenders do not deny the danger, but argue that the system of private profit is incalculably worse; that to sell without profits (the Nationalization plan, q. v.) would be to increase intemperance by lowering the cost of drink, and that until the traffic can be prohibited, it is well that it should be made to pay the cost of enforcing laws, etc.

To the objection that the system will delay the adoption of prohibition, Dr. Gould says:

"Undeniably strong evidence of the efficiency of the Scandinavian method of controlling the liquor traffic is that no single community that has ever tried it has afterward abandoned it. An attempt has been made by unfriendly critics to turn this argument into an admission that the system, once introduced, cannot be gotten rid of or replaced by anything better. This is a gross perversion of facts. The system remains because communities have found it such a vast improvement on the old individual licensing plan. Publicly expressed approval of leading temperance reformers, indeed of all intelligent classes, as has been already shown, amply proves our contention. It is certainly an open question whether local prohibition under a local option system, as we understand it, would do better in any of the larger communities of Scandinavia, given existing views and contemporary social conditions; but the new law of Norway--which for the first time in Scandinavia gives adults over 25 years of age, including women, the right to vote directly on the question of license-will soon answer the hypothetical objection raised."

RESULTS.

The best answer, however, to the objections is what the system has accomplished in Norway:

(1) It has reduced the number of places licensed to sell spirits in the cities from one for every 591 inhabitants to one for every 1413. In

THE GOTHENBURG OR

the country districts only 25 license places remain, or one to about 8000 inhabitants.

(2) It has been the main factor in reducing the consumption of spirits one-half.

(3) It has driven out the saloon as the center of the ward heeler and the political machine and the approach to every form of vice.

(4) It has crushed the ruinous credit system.

(5) It has reduced the hours of sale to a point not approached elsewhere.

(6) It has surrounded the sale by the best restrictions and regulations which good men can devise.

(7) It has driven the retail seller of spirits for private gain out of Norway.

Concurrently with all this, accomplished in the larger centers of population where liquor is sold,

(8) Prohibition has prevailed generally in the country districts, and a temperance sentiment has been developed which, unhindered by powerful liquor lobbies using private profits to prevent restrictive legislation, could secure the passage last July of a law creating a local option system as complete as that possessed by us, which gives, as Massachusetts does not, to every man and woman of 25 years of age or over, the right to vote, not as here on the issue of No-License or license for private gain, but on the issue of No-License or license under the company system.

(9) No country in the world can show more advanced temperance thought, such extraordinary progress, or so remarkable a record in temperance legislation.-From "The Encyclopedia of Social Reforms," by William D. P. Bliss. Funk & Wagnalls Co., Publishers, New York City.

High License.

High license may he defined as a license to sell liquors granted at what is regarded as high rates, and intended thereby to reduce the number and improve the character of the places licensed. Many advocates of the high license program claim that the term has a wider meaning, and also covers accessory restrictions of all kinds-that it is merely a convenient generic name for all "improved" license acts. High license provisions are invariably accompanied by certain restrictions or prohibitions governing the manner of sales; but such restrictions and prohibitions are incidental to all license laws, and the high license idea derives its special significance not from the restrictive principle proper-i. e., the principle of absolutely prohibiting sales to certain persons during certain hours and in certain places-but from the tax or revenue principle-i. e.. the principle of taxing the traffic as for the present at least a necessary evil "-taxing it to the maximum attainable point, and drawing from it for the public funds the maximum amount of revenue. The high-license plan was not urged with any activity in the early years of the temperance agitation in the United States.

HISTORY.

The high license movement, as a feature of the temperance agitation, came into existence at about the same time that the constitutional prohibition idea attained prominence. Preparation for it had been made by a gradual raising of the license rates in many States. Upto 1880, however, a rate of $200 per year was considered high. The high license crusade dates from the enactment of the Nebraska Slocumb" law in February, 1881. It fixed minimum annual fees of $500 for saloons in all towns having less than 10,000 population, and $1,000 in those containing more than 10,000 inhabitants, and established numerous restrictions of a very rigid nature. The enactment of the Downing law of Missouri followed in March, 1883, fixing the yearly license charges at $50 to $200 for State purposes, and $500 to $800 for county purposes-a minimum of $550 and a maximum of $1,000. In the same year (in June) the Illinois Legislature passed the Harper law, under which minimum rates of $500 for the sale of all kinds of liquors and $150 for the sale of malt liquors only were fixed. Since then many of the other license States have required the saloon-keepers to pay relatively large sums-notably Massachusetts, where the minimum license rate for the ordinary saloon selling all kinds of liquors for consumption on and off the premises is now $1,300 per year; Minnesota, where the minimum rates are $500 for towns and $1,000 for cities; Pennsylvania, where the uniform rate for each city is $500; the

new State of Montana, where $500 is charged in towns having 3,500 inhabitants or more; the Territory of Utah, where the minimum charge is $600 and the maximum $1,200, and several Southern States, like Arkansas, Texas and West Virginia, where the aggregate fees exacted range from $500 upward.

The first high license legislation undeniably originated with thoroughly radical temperance men, believers in the principles of Prohibition, who honestly thought they were making a serious attack upon the traffic. The framers of the Nebraska act were John B. Finch, H. W. Hardy, and other temperance leaders equally earnest. The Missouri law was passed as a compromise measure, to defeat the prohibitory bill pressed by John A. Brooks and his aggressive followers; but it was looked upon by many as an important step in the direction of prohibition. It was several years before the high license program was regarded with decided suspicion by the prohibitionists; but by 1886 a general distrust was felt, and ever since then active hostility has been manifested. Opposition to high license is now as much a part of the prohibition creed as opposition to the saloon itself.

ARGUMENT FOR HIGH LICENSE.

or

The arguments in favor of high license are various. Its supporters claim, first, that in the present state of society, especially in the larger cities, it reduces drinking and the number of saloons far more than prohibition or any other system now possible, the drinking of wine and intoxicants being, as most adherents of high license hold, not a sin per se, like prostitution, but only an evil when carried to excess; if an evil in its beginnings simply so because it leads the drinker or other drinkers to go ou to drinking in excess; it is argued that it is not immoral to license drinking, if this be the best way to promote temperance. This the adherents of high license claim. They say that in the present state of the community, especially in our large cities, with our numerous foreign inhabitants, who are accustomed to the use of wine and beer, and who consider them innocent as water, it is not possible to sustain a prohibitory law, and therefore that in practice prohibition here means approximately free rum. They point out that in places the liquor interest has worked with prohibitionists to enact a prohibitory law, knowing that such a law could not be enforced. They point out that Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut have all tried prohibition and given it up, it being claimed that prohibition increased the number of saloons and amount of drinking.

Dr. Ernest H. Crosby says:

"The Metropolitan Excise Law, which was passed by the Legislature of New York on April 14, 1866, affords an excellent example of increased' revenue produced by increased fees. At this time there were 9,720 saloons in New York and Brooklyn, less than one-fourth of them being in the latter city. . . Under the new law the Metropolitan Board of Health fixed the licenses at $250 and $100. At the expiration of eleven months there were only 6,779 licensed places in the metropolitan district, of which 5,203 were in New York and 1,476 in Brooklyn. In New York the sum of $993,379 was collected in license fees, and in Brooklyn