The Chief I think that the chief deleterious effect of the saloon in politics as far as my own city and state is concerned lies in the fact that such laws are placed on the statute books by state legislatures, mostly by men from up country who are controlled by the local preacher, who is the guide, philosopher and friend, as he should be, of the man who lives in the country, and a class of laws are placed on the statute book by those men that the city people will not tolerate. I am not drawing any definite conclusion as I said before, but what is the result of that? Your boss in your large city-we have Boss Cox in Cincinnati-and they have a boss in Cleveland and they have a boss in Columbus and in every city— knows perfectly well he has an engine in his hand that he wants to perfect to keep in power, his own machine. In Cincinnati we have sixteen hundred saloons. We have a law against Sunday selling. If a citizen should see a saloon closed on Sunday he would probably stop and wonder what was the matter. The people in Cincinnati, generally speaking, do not require the saloons shall be closed on Sunday, and there rarely would be any trouble if it were not for the fact that if at any time a saloonkeeper refuses to conform to the rules of the machine the boss very conveniently hauls that man over the coals. Of course the boss owns the police magistrate. He hauls the man up and points with pride to the statute on the book; and the man promptly coughs up, or at least he behaves himself for some time to come. That is the great difficulty so far as I am able to see, and so far as the saloon is concerned with politics in our own city. There is not time for me to go into this subject any more deeply, because it is a tremendous subject, and if I have only appealed to you, to those of you who are prohibitionists, or those of you who are on the fence, or those of you who are brewers or distillers to try and feel when you are coming to a conclusion on the subject that there are other respectable persons who disagree with you, I think I shall have done something. In conclusion I want to advert to one thing which I think I may safely say most students of the subject, even with their limited means, agree upon, and that is the system of licenses. We have a system in Ohio under which the state taxes the city on every saloon wherever it happens to find it. We have a constitution in Ohio which prohibits the licensing of saloons. That is a very curious story, but the supreme court has always The Ohio gotten around that by saying that the tax is not a license, it was a tax. Of course since the tax was raised from five hundred dollars to a thousand dollars a number of saloons have been put out of existence. But it does no good when it comes to the keeping out of business of the bad element (if you will agree there is any good element in the business). If we have some kind of a system of license which not only the brewers and distillers are calling for but also the temperance people in their desire to do something regarding the traffic, we should be very much better off. Now, it seems to me that half the difficulties that the licensing state has to deal with lies in its form of licensing authority or lies in the fact that the license must be renewed periodically. If you would only devise some system by which that license should give to the saloon-keeper a reward as well as a punishment, make it possible for him to look upon his business as an asset, make it so that at any time that saloon-keeper misbehaves he shall be tried once or fined, or imprisoned, if you please, tried another time and his license revoked perpetually, you might to some extent find a system by which you could regulate the traffic by making it more respectable, and if you get more respectable men selling liquor to those who desire to drink you would at least lessen the troubles we have to deal with. There are a great many other things I would like to say, gentlemen, but my time is up. THE CHAIRMAN: This completes the program for the morning. MR. HUGH F. Fox, New York: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen: I have been very highly complimented by being raised in the same class with our friend, Dr. Peters. He represents the untrustworthy class spoken of as the ministers. I represent the United States Brewers' Association. This discussion this morning is fairly baffling. There are a hundred points that have been raised to challenge discussion, and I trust at least this impression has been left with you that the question is a very great and difficult and complex question; that it needs very careful study, and that it is such a question as may well be given very much further consideration by the National Municipal League. And in two minutes I just want to say this, that it seems to me that the National Municipal League has a very serious responsibility in connection with this matter. Amid all the con Need for flicts of this question and all of the distortions and exaggerations and misstatements that have been made upon both sides, this much has been gained, that a separate inquiry has been started, that there is a determination to grapple with this question, that there are hundreds of thousands of people whose attention has been directed to it in this country now, and who are ready for leadership and who want information. I believe that the National Municipal League and similar bodies which represent students of government have the responsibility at this time of using constructively this great sentiment which has been started and this spirit of inquiry so that out of all this discussion some good may come and some progress may be made. I believe that it would be a splendid thing if the National Municipal League could establish some commission of investigation, such, for example as the Committee of Fifty to which reference has been made, or would spend time enough and would procure adequate ability really to study this question, not in an academic way, not by the questionnaire method, but study it personally by investigation and research and comparison, so that there might be a program that would be of some help to the whole people from the standpoint of government and from the standpoint of the community interest. As a law abiding brewer, Mr. Chairman, I am going to recognize the closing hours, and I just want to say in conclusion that I believe the interests of the brewer and the interests of all classes in the trade, the real interest, both as brewer and citizen, coincide with that of the community and that the best thing that can happen for the brewing trade is to have a permanent and stable condition of trade established by legislation which will give men of responsibility in the business an opportunity to feel that it is a business that they can profitably follow, and that it is not subject to the odium which is at present, either justly or unjustly, attached to it, and I only trust that in the proceedings of the conference Mr. Fisk's work in New Jersey will be enlarged on more fully, and that he will tell the League about the very able work he has done as Mayor of Plainfield in handling this. And I want to thank Professor Hatton for the ablest addition to this subject we have received since the reports were published. And I entirely agree with all his many contentions, and I think you will be interested to know that the United States Brewers' Association in feeling the need of enlightenment on this subject has recently secured the services of a group of people who have been preparing a bibliography of the subject. They have spent the summer visiting all the public libraries of this country and Europe and we hope that within three months to present a complete bibliography since 1893 in all languages which I think will be a pretty formidable document. Mr. James W. Houston, Pittsburgh, submitted the following remarks: Having been an active participant in every reform movement in Pittsburgh for the past twenty years; and having also studied the liquor problem in a practical way for the same period, I may perhaps claim to be qualified to speak on this subject. In the memorable reform movement in this city just before the enactment of the Brooks law, the problem of law-enforcement was presented in an acute form. The fifteen hundred saloons in Pittsburgh and Allegheny ignored the law against Sunday liquor selling. The mayor and the police officials refused to enforce the law. Public sentiment tolerated Sunday liquor selling as a necessary evil. A few courageous citizens appreciating the gravity of the situation and the growing menace of a spirit of lawlessness, formed an organization for Law Enforcement the enforcement of law. After warning, which was unheeded, a number of prosecutions were instituted. Encouraged by the sympathy and even the aid of the police officials, the saloons were defiant. The contest Intimidation was tried, even personal assault. The league was steadfast and determined. The campaign lasted a year during which 544 convictions for Sunday liquor selling were secured, and fines imposed waxed warm. aggregating $27,500. The victory was complete. The league continued operations for two years longer, but its chief work was gathering evidence for use in the license court. Sunday liquor selling was so thoroughly stamped out that this form of violation has been rare in Pittsburgh ever since. I have presented this concrete illustration to show the fallacy of the proposition that laws against the saloon cannot be enforced unless backed by public sentiment. It all depends on the man behind the law. Such laws can be as well enforced as other laws against crime. This has been demonstrated again and again in recent years. Roosevelt as police commissioner of New York enforced the law against Sunday liquor selling. Governor Folk compelled the enforcement of the same law in St. Louis. A still more notable instance is the recent effective enforcement of prohibition in Kansas City, Kan., by Assistant Attorney General Trickett, in the face of the protests of the business interests and of the opposition of the police officials. I am convinced that the failure to enforce laws against the saloon is chargeable to the subserviency or cowardice of executives and police officials. Such officials should be classed with the soldier in time of war who is guilty of cowardice in the presence of the enemy. They should be branded as cowards and punished with political death. No man should accept public office who is not resolved to perform his sworn duty even at the risk of his life. When the rulers of our cities are actuated by this spirit there will be no question about the enforcement of liquor laws. We are slowly learning that citizenship in time of peace demands as high patriotism, courage and sacrifice as in time of war. Instead of condoning lawlessness or compromising with it, we should seek to raise the standard of municipal service to this high level. Effect of Law There is another side to this question which is entirely overlooked by the advocates of compromise. The enforcement of law is educational. The practical demonstration that a law can be enforced and the marked betterment in the community resulting from such enforcement, create a favorable public sentiment. The converse is equally true: Non-enforcement of law debases public sentiment and this debasement is progressive even to the limit of moral paralysis. But this is not all. Contempt for one law begets contempt for law in general. The contagion of lawlessness spreads, producing a frightful increase of crime and a general feeling of insecurity. There are gratifying evidences that we are entering on a new era. The type of time-serving officials is passing. A new type of bold fearless officials is coming to the front. And now just a word with reference to the final solution of the liquor problem. We learn from history that the people in dealing with great evils invariably resort to compromise and regulation first in the vain effort to arrive at a settlement. Only after the demonstrated failure of such devices are the people driven to the only final solution. It was so with the slavery question; it was so with the lottery. It is so with the liquor problem. All sorts of regulations have been tried, low license, high license, greater restriction, state dispensary. All of these have been found unsatisfactory. Indications multiply that the people have wearied of experiments and have reached the conclusion that the final settlement of the liquor problem is the banishment of the saloon. Leaders of thought are apparently in harmony with this trend of sentiment. One of the most significant utterances indicating the change of attitude of this class is that of President Eliot of Harvard University. Referring to his being brought up to respect exact science and to keep an open mind on all questions, he says: "I suppose that is the reason why, as I have grown older and have seen more, I have changed my view about license and no-license. I feel that much has been proved showing that it is physically and mentally and morally for the advantage of a population as a whole to go without alcoholics as a rule. "What is the justification of interference with that (human) liberty? There are a good many questions concerning which we must ask that question-the justification for interference with liberty. I found that justification in the experience of Cambridge under a no-license system. It seemed to me that the collective good, by excluding saloons from Cambridge, justified the abridgement of the individual liberty, particularly when that liberty was a liberty to use for pleasure something that was unwholesome. "I have found in that fact that justification for interference with personal liberty to that extent-the exclusion of the saloon." This utterance of President Eliot based on the latest conclusions of science and on his own observation, is in marked contrast to the report of the Committee of Fifty some years ago, of which he was a member. The meeting then took a recess until two-thirty p.m. TUESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION. Tuesday, November 17, 1908, 2.45 p. m. The fourth session of the Conference was called to order in the Chamber of Commerce rooms by Horace E. Deming, Esq., chairman of the Executive Committee. THE CHAIRMAN: We will begin the afternoon session by some announcements by our secretary. Secretary Woodruff announced that Mr. Reynolds had been detained at Washington at a conference held by the President and would therefore not be present until later to read his paper; that Professor Fairlie had been delayed and would not be present to read his paper until tomorrow; that |