Chapter III: Preface: To the Seventh Volume (2)

In communicating this Act of the Conference to the Government
of the United States, the Italian Ambassador at Washington
wrote August 9, 1905: "The final act of the conference was
signed by the delegates under reservation of the approval of
their respective governments, nor could it be otherwise. After
this approval the convention, which constitutes the essential
part of the act, shall, if approved (as the King’s Government
does not doubt it will be), assume the character of an
obligation on the part of the nations which shall have adhered
to it through the signature of plenipotentiaries appointed for
the purpose."

On March 27, 1906, he was able to announce that "the States
which were represented at the Conference of last year at Rome
… have now all sanctioned by the signature of their
plenipotentiaries the Convention drafted at that Conference."
As appears from a copy transmitted, the Convention had been
signed by the plenipotentiaries of forty nations, including
twelve American republics besides the United States. To this
gratifying announcement the Ambassador from Italy added the
following:

"His Majesty the King at the council of January 28 last signed
a decree, a few copies of which I have the honor to inclose,
by which a royal commission is established, and whose precise
duty is to carry into effect, as soon as it becomes operative,
the convention which will soon be referred to the several
contracting governments for ratification."

At the second general meeting of the Institute at Rome,
December 12, 1909, more than 100 foreign delegates were
present.

"His Majesty the King, desiring again to prove how much he has
at heart the contemplated international institute, has ordered
that the net income of the royal domains of Tombelo and
Coltano, amounting yearly to 300,000 lire, shall be turned
over to the above-mentioned royal commission from the 1st of
July next until the day when, the international institute of
agriculture being legally constituted, the administration and
usufruct of the said domains shall, in accordance with the
announcement made to the international conference at its
session of June 6, 1905, be transferred to the institute
itself.

"In obedience to His Majesty’s interest, the royal commission
has decided to apply the sum graciously placed at its disposal
for the aforesaid period to the construction of a palace,
where the international institute will have its headquarters,
and which will therefore be solely due to the munificence of
the sovereign. The new building that is to stand on the
village Umberto I., near the Porta Pinciana, and will cover
10,000 square meters of public property, will, it is fully
expected, be completed about the end of next year, which is
the time when the permanent committee of the institute will
likely be convened at Rome. This munificent act of His Majesty
the King, whereby the erection of quarters worthy of the
international institute of agriculture is provided for, thus
begins the execution of the convention of June 7, 1905."

{9}

Transmitting to the American Ambassador at Rome the
President’s ratification of the Convention, on the 11th of
July, 1906, Secretary Root made known that Congress had
appropriated $4800 as the quota of the United States to the
support of the International Institute of Agriculture for the
fiscal year 1907, and $8000 for the travelling expenses of the
delegates to be appointed to the grand assembly of the
Institute, and for the salary of one member of the permanent
committee; and to this he added: "In pursuance of the
authority thus conferred, Mr. David Lubin, of Sacramento,
California, has been selected to represent this Government on
the permanent committee, it being understood that he is
willing to serve without salary."

_Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United
States, 1905 and 1906_

AGUINALDO Y FAMY, Emilio.

See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901.

AHMED RIZA.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1909 (JANUARY-MAY).

ALASKA: A. D. 1903.
Settlement of the boundary question.
Dissatisfaction in Canada dissipated by better knowledge
of the facts.

The Alaska boundary question (see in Volume VI. of this work,
under ALASKA BOUNDARY QUESTION) was brought to a settlement in
1903 by an arrangement which submitted it to a Commission of
six, three representing the United States and three acting for
Great Britain and Canada. The American Commissioners were the
Honorable Elihu Root, Secretary of War, and senators Henry C.
Lodge and George Turner, of Massachusetts and the State of
Washington respectively. The British and Canadian members were
the Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Alverstone, Sir Louis
Jette, of Quebec, and A. B. Aylesworth, of Toronto, Ontario.
The Commission, meeting in London, arrived at its decision in
October, signing, on the 20th, an agreement on all the
questions submitted. "By this award," said President
Roosevelt, in his subsequent Message to Congress, "the right
of the United States to the control of a continuous strip or
border of the mainland shore, skirting all the tide-water
inlets and sinuosities of the coast, is confirmed; the
entrance to Portland Canal (concerning which legitimate doubt
appeared) is defined as passing by Tongass Inlet and to the
northwestward of Wales and Pearse islands: a line is drawn
from the head of Portland Canal to the fifty-sixth degree of
north latitude: and the interior border line of the strip is
fixed by lines connecting certain mountain summits lying
between Portland Canal and Mount St. Elias and running along
the crest of the divide separating the coast slope from the
inland watershed, at the only part of the frontier where the
drainage ridge approaches the coast within the distance of ten
marine leagues stipulated by the treaty as the extreme width
of the strip around the heads of Lynn Canal and its branches.
While the line so traced follows the provisional demarcation
of 1878 at the crossing of the Stikine River, and that of 1899
at the summits of the White and Chilkoot passes, it runs much
farther inland from the Klehine than the temporary line of the
later _modus vivendi_, and leaves the entire mining
district of the Porcupine River and Glacier Creek within the
jurisdiction of the United States. The result is satisfactory
in every way. It is of great material advantage to our people
in the Far Northwest. It has removed from the field of
discussion and possible danger a question liable to become
more acutely accentuated with each passing year. Finally it
has furnished a signal proof of the fairness and good will
with which two friendly nations can approach and determine
issues involving national sovereignty, and by their nature
incapable of submission to a third power for adjudication."

_Message of President Roosevelt,
December 7, 1903._

In Canada the feeling was very different from that expressed
by President Roosevelt. There, the dissatisfaction was
intense. The two Canadian Commissioners had opposed the award,
while Lord Alverstone cast his vote with the three Americans,
which provoked the accusation that his decision had been
given, at the instigation of the British Government, not
judicially, but diplomatically, for the pleasing of the United
States, at the sacrifice of Canadian interests and rights. The
groundlessness of such defamatory suspicions became plain when
Lord Alverstone made public the reasons for his vote. A recent
historian of Canada ends his account of the matter with the
following remarks:

"In vain did students and experts declare that they had felt
before the tribunal met that Canada had, in very many
respects, a weak case. It was pointed out that some of the
Canadian surveys gave the line as the Americans claimed it,
that Americans had by long occupation got a hold upon and a
right of possession to various ports and sections, and that
against this occupancy there had been no British protest
whatever. Finally one distinguished citizen reminded the
Canadians that if they had been allowed to select one man as
sole arbitrator they would have been glad to accept Lord
Alverstone. Lord Alverstone was really the one arbitrator and
judge. Had he decided against the Americans, the case would
have been deadlocked for years. In time Canadians came to a
more sober and reasonable attitude on the subject. They came
to see that Lord Alverstone could not have been prejudiced and
that his decision was really the only one that was fair and
unbiased. Some came also to see that the American case was
much the stronger, and that in this light the decision was a
just one. But they were not and are not ready to believe that
the whole scheme was anything but one contrived at Washington
to get the contest settled to the advantage of the Americans."

_F. B. Tracy,
Tercentenary History of Canada,
Volume 3, page 1044
(Macmillan Co., New York, 1908)._

A full account of the arbitration with the correspondence
preceding it, and the opinions written by the arbitrators
severally, is given in the British Parliamentary

_Papers by Command
(United States, Number 1, 1904), Cd. 1877._

ALASKA: A. D. 1906.
Convention to provide for final establishment
of the boundary line.

Final proceedings for establishing the boundary line of Alaska
were provided for in a Convention between the United States
and Great Britain, signed April 21, 1906. The need and object
of the Convention were set forth in its preamble as follows:

{10}

"Whereas by a treaty between the United States of America and
His Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, for the cession of
the Russian possessions in North America to the United States,
concluded March 30, 1867, the most northerly part of the
boundary line between the said Russian possessions and those
of His Britannic Majesty, as established by the prior
convention between Russia and Great Britain, of February 28/16
[sic] 1825, is defined as following the 141st degree of
longitude west from Greenwich, beginning at the point of
intersection of the said 141st degree of west longitude with a
certain line drawn parallel with the coast, and thence
continuing from the said point of intersection, upon the said
meridian of the 141st degree in its prolongation as far as the
Frozen Ocean.

"And whereas, the location of said meridian of the 141st
degree of west longitude between the terminal points thereof
defined in said treaty is dependent upon the scientific
ascertainment of convenient points along the said meridian and
the survey of the country intermediate between such points,
involving no question of interpretation of the aforesaid
treaties but merely the determination of such points and their
connecting lines by the ordinary processes of observation and
survey conducted by competent astronomers, engineers and
surveyors;

"And whereas such determination has not hitherto been made by
a joint survey as is requisite in order to give complete
effect to said treaties."

To make such determination it was agreed that each Government
should "appoint one Commissioner, with whom may be associated
such surveyors, astronomers and other assistants as each
Government may elect."

ALASKA: A. D. 1906.
Election of a delegate to Congress.

An Act to authorize the election of a Delegate to Congress
from the Territory of Alaska was approved by the President May
7, 1906.

ALASKA COAL FIELDS.

See (in this Volume)
CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES: UNITED STATES.

ALASKA-YUKON-PACIFIC EXPOSITION.

See (in this Volume)
SEATTLE: A. D. 1909.

ALBANIA: A. D. 1904.
Hostility to the Mürzsteg programme.

See (in this Volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1903-1904.

ALBERT, King of Belgium.

See (in this Volume)
BELGIUM; A. D. 1909 (DECEMBER).

ALBERT, Marcellin:
Leader of the winegrowers revolt in France.

See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (MAY-JULY).

ALBERTA:
Organized as a province of the Dominion of Canada.

See (in this Volume)
CANADA: A. D. 1905.

ALCOHOL PROBLEM.

ALCOHOL: Austria: A. D. 1903.
Resolution of the National Convention of the Social
Democratic Party against alcoholic drinks.

At a convention of the Social Democracy of the Austrian
Empire, held at Vienna, in November, 1903, Dr. Richard
Frohlich read an elaborate report against the use of
intoxicating liquors, concluding with an earnest appeal, in
these words; "We want to create a new social order: to give
the world a new face! To lay the foundations for the new
society is the task of political and industrial organization—
and there is no greater deterrent to the accomplishment of
that task than alcohol. In building the new mansion of the
future we think also of the men who are to dwell in it. Does
it not bring a blush of shame to our cheeks merely to imagine
that the men of the future society will be contented because
they are _intoxicated!_ Contentment in that new order
will arise from a sound brain and the satisfaction of the
rational desires which proceed from it. We have enough
retarding forces to contend with in our struggle for this
ideal of the future generation. One such force we are able
to-day to overcome if we will. That is alcoholism, the last
refuge of philistinism and stupid conservatism. If we really
want the new world, we must provide the new men to make it.
The program of total abstinence does not set new ideals for
us, but it gives us a new weapon, sharp and effective for the
conquest of our old ideals. The responsibility is upon us to
use this weapon. Let us do it!"

In response, the Convention adopted the following resolution:

"The convention of the party recognizes in alcohol a serious
detriment to the physical and mental power of the working man,
and a great hindrance to all efforts of organization in the
social democracy. Every means should be employed to remove the
evils which have come from it.

"The first aim in this struggle must be the economic
betterment of the proletariat. And that must be accomplished
by a clear teaching of the effects of alcohol, and by the
removal of the common toleration of drinking.

"The convention of the party, therefore, recommends that all
the party groups and brotherhoods lend their support to the
crusade against alcohol, and declares that the first step in
this direction must be the abolishment of compulsory drinking
in all of the meetings of the organization. Members of the
party who are converted to total abstinence are recommended to
form total abstinence clubs, to continue the propaganda and to
see to it that their members are true to the political and
economic duties of the party organization."

ALCOHOL: CANADA: A. D. 1906-1908.
The Canada Temperance Act.

Under what was known as the Scott Act, of 1878, the privilege
of local option had been given to counties and cities in
Canada, and had been brought into exercise by nine cities and
seventy-three counties, which prohibited the sale of
intoxicating liquors within their limits; but in most of these
the supporters of the law were gradually overcome and the
prohibition removed. In all the provinces except Quebec, a
referendum vote taken in 1898 showed majorities in favor of a
Dominion Prohibition Law; but the vote cast was so light and
the adverse majorities in cities was so large that the
government did not feel warranted in bringing forward a Bill.
In 1906, however, the demand for local option in the matter of
permitting alcoholic liquors to be sold had become strong
enough to extort from Parliament the desired legislation. As
amended in 1908, Part II. of this Canada Temperance Act (Part
I. having prescribed the proceedings for bringing Part II.
into force) provides that "from the day on which this Part
comes into force and takes effect in any county or city, and
for so long thereafter as, and while the same continues or is
in force therein, no person shall, except as in this Part
specially provided, by himself, his clerk, servant or agent,—
{11}
(a) expose or keep for sale, within such county or city, any
intoxicating liquor; or,
( b ) directly or indirectly on any pretense or upon any
device, within any such county or city, sell or barter, or, in
consideration of the purchase of any other property, give to
any other person any intoxicating liquor; or,
(c) send, ship, bring or carry or cause to be sent, shipped,
brought, or carried to or into any such county or city, any
intoxicating liquor; or,
(d) deliver to any consignee or other person, or store,
warehouse, or keep for delivery, any intoxicating liquor so
sent, shipped, brought or carried."

But these last two subsections are not to "apply to any
intoxicating liquor sent, shipped, brought or carried to any
person or persons for his or their personal or family use,
except it be so sent, shipped, brought or carried to be paid
for in such county or city to the person delivering the same,
his clerk, servant, or agent, or his master or principal, if
the person delivering it is himself a servant or agent."

To bring Part II. of the Act into force in any county or city,
not less than one-fourth of the total number of electors
therein must petition the Governor in Council for a poll of
votes on the question, and when the vote is taken there must
be an affirmative majority; failing which no similar petition
can be put to vote in the same community for three years.

On the 2d of May, 1909, the following announcement of the
operation of the law in the province of Ontario was made: "May
Day, 1909, will long be remembered by the advocates of local
option in Ontario. One hundred and forty-two bars passed out
of existence yesterday, and of the 807 municipalities in the
province 334 are now without a single license in force. The
Toronto commissioners have cut off 40 licenses, leaving only
110 in a city of nearly 400,000 people."

ALCOHOL:
Casual occurrences of saloon suppression, showing what goes
with it.

Communities in which the liquor traffic is ordinarily favored
are sometimes compelled by exigencies of circumstance to
suppress it temporarily, and are forced then to see how much
of crime and disorder goes with it. During the weeks in which
military authority cleared saloons from San Francisco, after
the calamity of 1906, every observer made note of the
conspicuous freedom of the city "from all kinds of violence
and crime," though the whole organization of life was upset.
One trustworthy journal reported conditions six months after
the calamity as follows: "During the two months and a half
after April 18 San Francisco was probably the most orderly
large city in the United States. Violence and crime were
practically unknown. During that time the saloons and liquor
stores of the city were closed tight. About the middle of July
the saloons were permitted to open again. This action of the
city government was accompanied by the expectation on the part
of many citizens of an outbreak of violence and disorder.
Clergymen, and it is said even the police, advised men and
women to carry firearms for their own protection. For the past
three months San Francisco has been living under a reign of m.
In eighty days eighty-three murders, robberies, and assaults
were registered on the police records. A despatch to
Ridgway’s, the new weekly periodical, reports the sale in San
Francisco during one week in October of over six thousand
revolvers."

When Stockholm, in the summer of 1909, was undergoing the
trials of the great general strike, and by general consent of
all concerned the sale of liquors was stopped, the same report
went out, that magistrates and police had little to do. And
that is the standing account of things from the Panama Canal
Zone, about which an English visitor, Sir Harry Johnston,
wrote in April, 1909:

"The whole of the canal zone (ten miles on either side of the
canal banks) is ‘teetotal,’ except in the actual towns of
Panama and Colon. No alcohol is sold by the Canal Commission
at its hotels or boarding-houses. And the general result of
these stern measures—the improvement in health and the absence
of crime—amply justifies this anti-alcohol policy. … There is
singularly little serious crime throughout the canal zone. One
has the sensation of being perfectly safe anywhere at any time
of day or night. Petty dishonesty among the lower classes is
common, especially at the railway stations, where one is
liable to lose small articles of baggage if they are left
unguarded. Panama in this respect is worse than the other
towns of the Isthmus, new or old. But there is no open shock
to any one’s prejudices or sentiments in the way of flagrant
immorality (as at New Orleans, for example)."

So easily can communities solve half, at least, of their most
troublesome problems, and cure half, at least, of their worst
social maladies, if they will!

ALCOHOL: ENGLAND: A. D. 1902 .
Passage of an amended licensing law.
A moderate reform.

A Licensing Bill, moderately in the interest of temperance
reform, was discussed and passed in Parliament during the
summer of 1902. It made publicans more strictly responsible
for drunkenness incurred on their premises; strengthened the
prohibition of liquor-selling to habitual drunkards; improved
measures for the suppression of public drunkenness; subjected
licenses to tradesmen for the sale of liquors off their
premises to the unqualified discretion of justices, and
facilitated the separation of husbands and wives from a
drunken mate.

ALCOHOL: A. D. 1904.
Passing of a new Licensing Bill, providing compensation for
the withdrawal of licenses on grounds of public policy.

An agitation in Great Britain which almost equalled for a time
that produced in the same period by Mr. Chamberlain’s campaign
for a preferential tariff was stirred up by a new Licensing
Bill, introduced as a Government measure on the 20th of April,
1904. The bill provided for compensation to be made, at the
expense of the liquor trade, for the taking of a license away
from any public house, on grounds of public policy, no matter
how briefly the license had been held. A fund for the
compensations was to be raised by assessment on all engaged in
the trade. Authority to refuse the renewal or transfer of
licenses on any ground other than ill conduct or character was
withdrawn from local magistrates and exercised by the courts
of quarter sessions (composed of the justices of the peace in
each county) only. When a public house was thought to be
superfluous by local magistrates they were required to report
the case to quarter sessions, where a hearing upon it would be
given.
{12}
If the Bench of quarter sessions decided to extinguish the
license, it must specify the grounds of its decision in
writing, and award a compensation, based on the estimated
difference between the value of the licensed premises and the
value of the same premises without a license. If no agreement
on this basis could be reached, the Inland Revenue
Commissioners should determine the sum.

The Bill was advocated in the interest of temperance, as being
calculated to reduce the number of public houses, and to raise
their character. Mr. Balfour upheld it as "a great temperance
measure." It should be the aim of Government, he argued, to
"encourage respectable persons to keep public houses, and with
that object they should make the trade secure." On the other
side it was opposed with exceeding bitterness as a measure
that had the backing and was in the interest of the brewers
and the whole liquor trade; that created vested interests in
the trade, rooting it to a new depth; that tended to add value
to the low class of public houses, and obstructed future
temperance reform. Repeated attempts to introduce a limit of
years after which the awarding of compensation for the
withdrawal of license would cease were defeated, and the Bill
passed both Houses in August, substantially as it came into
Parliament four months before.

ALCOHOL: A. D. 1907.
Drink in its relation to crime.
Testimony of judges.

"The following is from a newspaper report of a speech by Judge
Rentoul, delivered in the Guildhall, Cambridge, on the 15th of
October, 1907. He happened to be one of the judges of the
chief criminal courts of this country, and he said to them on
that platform that 90 per cent. of the cases that came to the
Central Criminal Court of England came directly through drink.
The late Lord Brampton, formerly Sir Henry Hawkins, perhaps
the greatest criminal judge during the past century, had also
put the figures at 90 per cent. Lord Coleridge, speaking at
one Assizes, said, ‘Every single case in my present list comes
from the use of strong drink.’ ‘If it were not,’ said his
Honour, ‘for alcohol, three fourths of our criminal courts
would be closed in this country and closed forever.’"

_H. A. Giles,
Opium and Alcohol in China
(Nineteenth Century, December, 1907)._

ALCOHOL: A. D. 1908.
Passage of a new Licensing Bill by the Commons and its
rejection by the Lords.

Nothing contributed more to the defeat of the Conservative
Ministry in the British Parliamentary elections of 1905 than
the moral repugnance of the country to the Licensing Bill of
1904 (described above); and the Liberal Government came to
power with no commission from the people more positive than
was in the demand for an amendment of that law. In 1908 it
brought into Parliament and passed through the House of
Commons a Bill which answered the demand, asserting the right
and the need and the power in Government to put limitations on
the granting of licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquors,
without treating them as vested interests under a sacred
guard. The limitation, in fact, was made definite and
mandatory by the first provision of the Bill, which declared;
"Licensing justices shall, in accordance with this Act, reduce
the number of on-licenses in their district so that at the end
of a period of fourteen years from the fifth day of April
nineteen hundred and nine the number of those licenses in any
rural parish or urban area in their district shall not exceed
the scale set out in the First Schedule to this Act as applied
to that parish or area under the provisions of that schedule."
The schedule referred to was as follows:

Persons per acre.

2 or less
Exceeding 2 but not exceeding 25
Exceeding 25 but not exceeding 50
Exceeding 50 but not exceeding 75
Exceeding 75 but not exceeding 100
Exceeding 100 but not exceeding 200
Exceeding 200

Number of on-licenses.

1 to 400 persons or part of 400
1 to 500 persons or part of 500
1 to 600 persons or part of 600
1 to 700 persons or part of 700
1 to 800 persons or part of 800
1 to 900 persons or part of 900
1 to 1,000 persons or part of 1,000

The Bill provided further for local option in the matter of
granting new licenses, permitting a majority of voters in any
licensing district to prohibit further grants; and introduced
other changes of law in the interest of temperance, but not
going to any extreme. When the measure went to the House of
Lords it suffered there the same fate that had been meted out
to the Education Bill of 1906. How serious an issue between
the Commons and the Lords was raised by that occurrence is
intimated in one passage of a speech made by the Liberal Prime
Minister, Mr. Asquith, in July, 1909. He was reviewing some of
the significant incidents of recent political history, and
when he came to the Licensing Bill there was more feeling in
his remarks than he had shown before. "That," he said, "was a
Bill, as you know, which was debated for weeks and for months
and passed through the House of Commons with sustained and
unexampled majorities. When it reached ‘another place,’ what
was its fate? It was rejected without even any pretence of
consideration of its details, it was rejected in pursuance of
a preconcerted party resolution, it was rejected with every
circumstance of contumely and contempt. I will not pause to
dwell upon, certainly not to praise, the provisions of the
Licensing Bill, which, I may say, was to some extent my own
handiwork. But in regard to its rejection I will say that it
has made two things—that rejection and the circumstances
preceding, following, and attending it have made two
things—abundantly plain. The first is that it has ruined the
prospects of any really effective temperance reform on
anything like a large and comprehensive scale during the
lifetime of the present Parliament. I will say next the
circumstances of that rejection have brought into greater
prominence than ever before the fact that our constitutional
system is not, or at least that it can be made not to be, the
embodiment, but the caricature of a representative and
responsible Government. And the question of the relations
between the two Houses of Parliament must be for us Liberals,
at any rate, as I described it at the time, the dominant issue
in our programme."

{13}

The requirement of the Act of 1904 that compensation should be
paid to every license-holder whose license was withdrawn for
public reasons, put so narrow a limit on the reductions made,
that the 138,011 licensed houses in England and Wales in 1904
had only been diminished by about 3000 in 1908; whereas the
country demanded a great cutting down of the excessive number.

ALCOHOL: A. D. 1908.
Provisions of The Children Act for the Protection of Children.

See (in this Volume)
CHILDREN, UNDER THE LAW: AS DEPENDENTS, &C.

ALCOHOL: A. D. 1909.
Taxation of the Liquor Trade proposed in the Budget.

See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1909 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

ALCOHOL: A. D. 1909.
The Decreased Consumption of Whiskey caused by increased tax.

Speaking in Parliament of the increased whiskey tax in his
Budget, on the 29th of October, some months after it had gone
into effect and its yield was being shown, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, Mr. Lloyd-George, acknowledged that he had
greatly overestimated the revenue it would produce. He said:
"The whole point was to what extent would an addition of a
halfpenny a glass deter a man from taking his usual share of
drink. I could no more estimate that than any other member of
the House. I made a very liberal allowance for decrease in
consumption, so liberal that nobody either in or out of the
House agreed with it. Many said it was absurd. … I assumed
that people who could afford it would not regard the halfpenny
at all; that they would buy exactly the same quantity of
whisky as before. The working classes I assumed would probably
purchase a smaller quantity. Supposing a man says, I spend 2s.
6d. on drink; he would not spend more; therefore he would
consume less.

"I made a rough calculation upon such information as I had how
that would affect the consumption of whisky as a whole, but I
find the change has gone beyond that, and my information now
is not merely that there are thousands of people who drink a
percentage which is, in proportion to the increase, less, but
some of them drop it altogether. Some of them are barely
drinking half what they were before. Altogether a most
extraordinary effect has been produced upon the habits of the
people. I am not here to apologize for that at all. In some
districts, I am told, the drinking of spirits has gone down by
70 percent, in Ireland, I think. I hear that there are
districts in Scotland where it has gone down 50 per cent. I
have a communication in regard to the whisky distillers of
Glasgow saying that the decrease in Glasgow during September
has been 36 per cent.

"People have not even been driven to the consumption of beer.
It is really almost unaccountable. People have not been driven
from one form of alcohol to another, but have been driven from
alcohol altogether. The fact is very extraordinary, and has
gone beyond anything I have anticipated. … Our anticipations
now are that the consumption of spirits, both of foreign and
home manufacture, will go down by something between 20 and 25
per cent. That means that a smaller quantity of spirits will
be consumed in this country during this year by eight or nine
million gallons.’’

ALCOHOL: A. D. 1909.
Organization of "The True Temperance Association."
Its aim and appeal.

Under the name of "The True Temperance Association," a London
organization headed by Lord Halsbury made the following appeal
to the English public, in May, 1909: "Let us take what is to
hand—the publichouse; the regulated refreshment house of the
people. Let us transform that out of its present condition of
a mere drink-shop into a house of general, reasonable, and
reputable entertainment—a place where there will be other
things to consume besides beer and whisky, and other forms of
recreation besides mere drink. We should imitate the model of
the Continental café and German _bierhaus;_ the White
City and other exhibitions have shown us that they would not
be exotics in this country; and those exhibitions with their
wonderful record of sobriety also show us that there is every
ground to expect that England, with transformed publichouses,
would be as sober, and withal as bright as are Continental
countries."

ALCOHOL: A. D. 1900:
England, United States, France, and Germany.
Comparative statement of the consumption of alcoholic drink.

"The consumption of alcoholic drink in the above countries,
per ten of population, was in the year 1900 as follows:

Drink-consumption per 10 of population.

Country. Beer, spirits, Beer. Spirits. Wine.
and wine.
Gallons. Gallons. Gallons. Gallons.
France 336 62 20 254
United Kingdom 332 317 11 4
Germany 309 275 19 15
United States 147 133 11 3

"Some years agone, the late P. G. Hamerton in his book
_French and English_ mentioned the increase of drinking
in France, and we see that French drink-consumption per head
is now greater than British consumption. The French drink more
spirits, more wine, and have a larger total consumption per
head than any of these three other nations.

"The most striking fact in the above statement is the low
drink-consumption per head in the United States. The American
total per head is less than one-half of the total consumption
per head in any of the three other countries. The superior
sobriety of the American workman as compared with the
Englishman has often been noticed, and observation in social
grades higher than that of the artizan tends to show that
American superiority in this respect is a general superiority
not confined to workmen only. The developed alertness and
prompt energy of the American may, it is quite likely, be due
in some part to this relative abstinence from alcoholic drink
which is now illustrated.

"Looking back over the fifteen years 1886-1900, for the
purpose of observing the increase or the decrease in
drink-consumption per head of population, the following
results have been obtained;—

Country. Average yearly drink-consumption,
per head of population, during

1886-1890. 1891-1895. 1890-1900.
Gallons. Gallons. Gallons.
France 26.5 31.5 32.3
United Kingdom. 29.4 31.1 33.1
Germany 24.4 26.6 29.9
United States 11.8 14.3 14.2

The drink-consumption per The drink-consumption per
head during 1886-1890 head during 1896-1900 was
being taken at 100
per cent. per cent.
France 100 122
United Kingdom. 100 113
Germany 100 123
United States 100 120

{14}

"In each country the drink-consumption per head of population
has increased since 1886-1890, and, with the exception of the
United States, there has been an increase during each
five-yearly period observed,

"Comparing the period 1896-1900 with the period 1886-1890, we
see that the percentage of increase per head of population in
drink-consumption was smaller in the United Kingdom than in
any of the three other countries. Germany and France have had
the largest relative increases per head of population.

"In the United States, the increase of 20 per cent in the
drink-consumption per head of population is due to an increase
in beer-drinking—the consumption per head of wine and of
spirits has declined."

_J. H. Schooling,
Drink: in England, the United States, France, and Germany
(Fortnightly Review, January, 1902)._

ALCOHOL: France: A. D. 1907.
Revolt of the Wine Growers of Southern France against wine
adulteration.

See (in this Volume )
FRANCE: A. D. 1907 (MAY-JULY).

ALCOHOL: Germany:
Temperance requisite in railway employees.

The dangers to the traveling public that are attendant on the
use of alcoholic stimulants by railway employees were
discussed very seriously not long since by a writer in the
_Deutsche Monatsschrift_. "The constantly growing demands
upon transit service for safety and speed," he observed, "call
for an increasingly higher efficiency of the personnel, not
only as regards prudence, judgment, decision, and
clearsightedness, but a sense of duty, all which qualities
are, it has been proved, vitiated by nothing so readily and to
such a degree as by indulgence in alcoholic drinks. The chief
danger, moreover, consists not so much in excessive drink
resulting in drunkenness, which is easily recognized, as in
the more moderate but habitual use of liquor, which is harder
to control, and the after-effects of heavy drinking.
Scientific investigation has established the fact that even a
moderate use of alcoholic beverages impairs the acuteness of
sight and hearing, including the power of distinguishing
colors. Most of the violations of discipline and duty in the
German transportation service are due to indulgence in drink,
besides leading to misery and want in the home."

The writer alludes to an association of German railway
officials started by himself, whose object it is to enlighten
the public regarding the worthlessness of alcoholic drinks as
a tonic and how they may be dispensed with as a means of
refreshment. This society, he states, has been most
encouragingly successful in its efforts. He adds the important
statement that the Prussian Government, owing to recent
serious accidents, has issued an order prohibiting all railway
employees from taking any beverage containing alcohol while on
duty.

ALCOHOL: A. D. 1902.
Resolution of Socialist Congress.
The subject in Prussian schools.

The German Socialist Congress, sitting at Munich in September,
1902, adopted a resolution which warned the working classes
against the dangers from immoderate indulgence in alcoholic
drinks, but declined to make total abstinence a condition of
party membership. In the previous March the Prussian minister
of education had given instructions to the school authorities
mm of the kingdom which aimed at the enlightening of the
people as to the deleterious effects, both physical and
economical, of an excessive use of alcoholic liquors. The same
subject had been agitated in the Prussian parliament, and
there was discussion of measures of more strict regulation of
public houses.

ALCOHOL:
International Congress on Alcoholism.

For twenty-four years an International Congress on Alcoholism
has held biennial meetings in different European cities,
beginning at Antwerp in 1885, steadily demonstrating a growth
of opposition—especially of scientific opposition—even in
Continental Europe, to the use of alcoholic liquors. The
meeting of 1905 was at Budapest; that of 1907 at Stockholm;
that of 1909 at London. The delegates to the latter numbered
about 1300, coming from nearly every European country, and
from the United States, Canada, and South Africa. Of the
strong character of the discussions at the London meeting the
New York _Evening Post_ said after its adjournment:

"Men and women from every country, representing varying
conditions of society, offered evidence tending to show, by
actual figures of loss, the bad effects of drinking. From the
standpoint of education, science, medicine, society,
economics, efficiency, and law, the speakers all reached the
same conclusion, bringing strong testimony in support.
Efficiency was the keynote of papers representing public
service on the part of the post office, the railroad, the
navy, and the army of Great Britain."

An interesting figure at the Congress, it was said by an
American newspaper correspondent, was Judge William J.
Pollard, of St. Louis, who went as a representative of the
United States Government, and who was known widely as the
originator of the pledge instead of prison method of dealing
with drunkards. When he spoke on that subject he was given a
double allowance of time, on the motion of a delegate from
France, and, although under the constitution of the congress
no resolution could be put, a declaration in favor of the plan
was signed by practically every delegate in the hall. The
declaration reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned members and delegates attending the
International Congress on Alcoholism assembled in Loudon,
July, 1909, desire to record our gratification at the
recognition in statute law by Great Britain, Vermont, United
States of America, and Victoria (Australia) of the principle
of reforming drunkards by the probation on pledge method,
commonly known as the Pollard plan. The possibilities of this
wise and beneficent policy are so great that we desire to
commend its adoption throughout the world."

"Judge Pollard’s plan, established in the Saint Louis police
court nine years ago, consists in giving the drunkards a
chance of reform. Instead of sentencing them to prison or
fining them, Judge Pollard requires persons charged before him
with drunkenness to take the pledge. If they do so he suspends
sentence on them, and if the pledge is kept for a certain
period they hear no more about the matter. If it is broken the
fine or sentence is enforced."

One of the results of the Congress was the organization of a
"World’s Prohibition Confederation," "to better amalgamate the
forces in various countries working along their respective
lines towards the one common aim of the total suppression of
the liquor traffic."

{15}

Two sessions were held and the Conference finally decided by
unanimous vote upon the following outline of the purposes and
methods of the new Confederation:

"(1) Name—
The name of this association shall be 'The International
Prohibition Confederation (Confederation Prohibitioniste
Internationale—Internationaler Verbaud fuer Alkoholverbot).'

"(2) Object—
(a) To amalgamate the forces in various countries working
along their respective lines towards the one common aim of the
total suppression of the liquor traffic,

(b) To obtain notes of progress, information, and news from
all parts of the world, and send such information to all
organizations joining the Confederation and other applicants.

"(3) Membership—
The membership shall consist of representatives of temperance
organizations in all countries approving of the objects and
such officers as may be elected by the Confederation.

"(4) Finances—
The financial support shall be gained from such contributions
as the various affiliated societies and individual associate
members may subscribe."

ALCOHOL: New Zealand: A. D. 1896-1908.
Twelve years of Local Option.
Increasing majorities against the liquor traffic.
The vote of women.

Under the operation of a local option law since 1896, New
Zealand has been steadily narrowing the liquor traffic, with
what seems to be a fair prospect of extinguishing it entirely.
The law provides for the taking of a vote in each
parliamentary electoral district once in three years on three
propositions, as follows:

"1. That the number of licensed houses existing in the
district shall continue.

"2. That the number shall be reduced.

"3. That no licenses whatever shall be granted.

"Electors may vote for one of these proposals or for two of
them. The prohibitionists strike out the top line, and thus
vote for a reduction of the number of licenses, and also for
total prohibition in their district. Those who oppose
prohibition usually strike out the second and third lines, so
as to vote for the continuance of existing licensed houses;
while there are others, again, who strike out the first and
third issues, with a view simply to a reduction in the number
of licensed houses. An absolute majority of the votes carries
reduction; but it requires a three-fifths majority to carry
'no-license.' If reduction is carried the licensing committee
must then reduce the publicans’ licenses in the district by
not less than 5 per cent. or more than 25 per cent, of the
total number existing."

The local option vote has now been taken five times, with a
slow but steady increase of majorities given against the
liquor traffic, either to restrict or to end it,—as the
following table shows:

Continuance. Reduction. No-license. Valid votes.
1896 139,500 94,500 98,300 259,800
1899 142,400 107,700 118,500 281,800
1902 148,400 132,200 151,500 318,800
1905 182,800 151,000 198,700 396,400
1908 186,300 161,800 209,100 410,100

The figures here entered of the vote in 1908 are not official,
but are said to be close to accuracy.

The New Zealand correspondent of the London Times, from whose
report the above is taken, adds these particulars: "The result
of the local option poll taken in December, 1905, was to carry
'no license' in three new districts and reduction in four
districts. In 36 of the other districts a majority of the
votes polled was for ‘no license,’ though the three-fifths
majority necessary to carry the proposal was not obtained. The
results of the recent poll were very striking. In six new
districts ‘no-license ’ was carried, and in some others
‘no-license’ and ‘reduction’ were only lost by narrow margins.
The rapid advance made by the ‘no license’ party is certainly
remarkable.

"While the proportion of votes cast for continuance is
steadily declining, the proportion for ‘no-license’ is
increasing at an accelerated rate. Already there is a bare
majority of the total votes in favour of prohibition; while if
we had national instead of local option the chances are that
in a comparatively short period the necessary three-fifths
majority to secure total prohibition in the country might be
obtained. There are now indications that the ‘no-license’
party will make a bold bid, not only for a bare majority vote
on the no-license issue, but also for national option. In this
event they will alienate the sympathies of the great majority
of the moderates who now vote with them, so that the
‘no-license’ cause may receive, at least, a temporary check.

"Three important suggestions have been made to save the
trade—viz., reform from within, State control, and
municipalization. Judging from past experience, the first idea
seems hopeless. The trade has had its lessons, but has not
taken sufficient heed. State control will scarcely be
tolerated, since most people realize that the liquor trade in
the hands of a Government might be a dangerous political
engine, besides which there would always be the temptation
ever present to a Government to use it for revenue purposes.
Without very necessary reform from within, therefore, the only
chance for the liquor trade would seem to lie in the direction
of municipalization. Under municipal control, with the
abolition of the open bar in favour of the cafe system, with
better liquor, and with a thorough system of inspection and
analysis, the liquor trade in New Zealand might obtain a new
lease of life. Under the present system there is every
indication that its doom is sealed."

The importance of the vote of women, on this question
especially, appears in the following statements: "In 1902,
138,565 women, or 74.52 per cent. of those on the rolls,
voted; in 1905, 175,046, or 82.23 per cent. of those on the
rolls, voted. The proportion of females to males voting at
successive general elections also shows a gradual increase
from 69.57 per cent. in 1893 to 78.99 in 1905. Then there is
the gradual increase in the proportion of females to males in
the population of a young country to be considered. At the
foundation of the colonies the males, naturally, largely
outnumbered the females; but eventually the sexes will become
more nearly equal in number. Thus, while in 1871 the
proportion of females to males in the colony was only 70.52,
in 1906 it was 88.65. Furthermore, women are taking a keener
interest than ever in politics. They are beginning to
appreciate the franchise and to exercise it intelligently in
ever-increasing numbers."

{16}

The warning and alarming effect of the local option vote of
December, 1908, on the New Zealand liquor dealers was made
apparent by their action taken soon after, as reported in the
following Press despatch from Wellington, January 18, 1909:

"As a result of the large 'moderate' vote cast at the recent
poll on the question of total prohibition or reduction of
facilities for obtaining drink, it was unanimously resolved
to-day, at a meeting of the Auckland Brewers and Licensed
Victuallers’ Association, representing all the wholesale and
nearly every member of the retail trade, to abolish barmaids,
to abolish private bars, and to raise the age-limit of youths
who may be supplied with liquor from 18 to 20. No woman will
be supplied with liquor for consumption on the premises unless
she is boarding in the house.

"In an interview, the Mayor of Auckland, who is himself a
brewer, stated that since the trade has to ask the public
every three years for the continuance of its existence, it is
necessary for it to be conducted on lines approved by the
public at large."

ALCOHOL: United States: A. D. 1904-1909.
The progress of State, County, and Town Prohibition in the
five years.

The following exhibit of the status of state and local
prohibition in every State of the United States, on the 1st of
November, 1909, compared with the same in 1904, is reproduced,
with permission, from the latest leaflet published at the time
of this writing (January 1, 1910) by the Associated
Prohibition Press, located at 92 La Salle Street, Chicago:

"The record at Prohibition National Headquarters, Chicago,
shows that during the past four years the amount of
Prohibition territory has been doubled and 20,000,000 people
added to those living in Prohibition cities, counties and
states, making an aggregate of over 40,000,000 now by their
own choice in saloon-free districts.

"The figures below show that nearly two-thirds of the
territory and nearly one-half of the people are under
Prohibition protection:

"17,000,000 people in the South under Prohibition in 1904.

"25,000,000 people in the South under Prohibition in 1909.

"There are to-day 375 Prohibition cities in the United States,
having a population of over 5,000 each, with a total
population of more than three million and a half.

"In 1904 there were scarcely 100 Prohibition cities of 5,000
or over; there are now 90 Prohibition cities of 10,000 or
over. There are fifty-five industrial centers in fourteen
different states of 20,000 population and over, with an
aggregate of 2,000,000 population, now under Prohibition law.

"The Prohibition party is organized and at work in practically
every state in the Union.

"In 1904 the National Liquor League of the United States was
organized at Cincinnati, January 7th and 8th, to put the 'lid'
on the apparent beginnings of a Prohibition renaissance. Five
years of the 'National Liquor League of the United States' has
resulted in 20,000,000 people being added to the Prohibition
population of the country; 250 new Prohibition cities; 6 new
Prohibition states, hundreds of new Prohibition counties, and
thousands of new Prohibition towns and villages in all the
rest of the country.

"One of the most striking contrasts between 1904 and 1909 is
seen in the transformation which has been wrought in the
attitude of the daily and secular press towards the
Prohibition question. Since 1904 leading daily papers in all
parts of the country have begun to exclude liquor advertising
from their columns.

"The daily press of America is to-day giving ten times more
attention to and far more friendly treatment of the
Prohibition issue than was the case in 1904.

"On November 1st, 1909, the record of state and local
Prohibition territory in the United States, at National
Prohibition Headquarters, was as follows:

The Situation by States.

State. 1904. November 1, 1909.

Alabama 20 Prohibition State Prohibition;
counties. enforcement legislation
11 Dispensary. enacted by Legislature,
35 License. August, 1909.
Data shows business prospers,
crime decreasing.
Popular vote on Constitutional
Prohibition November 29, 1909.

Arizona No Prohibition New county Prohibition law bare
territory. two-thirds requirement.
Two-thirds Four-fifths of Territory "dry"
majority required. in 12 months is prediction.

Arkansas 44 Prohibition 57 Prohibition counties.
counties. State certain in next
29 License. Legislature.
2 Partially
license.

California 175 Prohibition 250 "dry" towns.
towns. Sentiment rapidly growing
for State Prohibition.

Colorado Few Prohibition towns. 100 towns "dry."
No local-option law. Stricter law enforcement.
Prohibition sentiment growing.

Connecticut Half of State Large increase in no-license
local Prohibition. vote. Legislature passed
several important restrictive
measures.

Delaware Few small Two-thirds of State Prohibition.
Prohibition towns.

{17}

District of
Columbia Apathy dominant. New high license law.
Sentiment for Prohibition
organizing.
Stricter enforcement.

Florida 30 Prohibition 35 counties "dry."
counties. Popular vote State
Prohibition November, 1910.

Georgia 104 Prohibition State Prohibition.
counties out Supporting sentiment grows.
of 134. Atlanta elects law-enforcement
Large cities Mayor. Crime largely decreasing.
all license.

Idaho No Prohibition County law passed.
territory. Seven vote "dry."
"Wide-open" State. State Prohibition campaign on.

Illinois 8 Prohibition 36 "dry" counties.
counties. 2500 "dry" towns.
500 Prohibition 23 "dry" cities.
towns. No license fight on in Chicago.
"Wide open" Sunday.

Indiana 140 Prohibition 70 Counties "dry."
townships. "Net Prohibition majority 67,025.
Three-fourths of the
State population under Prohibition.
Sentiment for State Prohibition
very active;
1,780,839 or 65 per cent of
State population in "dry"
territory;
32 "dry" cities (5,000 and over).

Iowa 25 License counties. Campaign for State Prohibition
Lax enforcement developing great enthusiasm.
of law.

Kansas STATE PROHIBITION. Legislature passed 1909
Lax enforcement. important additions to
Law enforcement State law.
crusade at Kansas The sale of alcohol in any
City, Kan., form absolutely prohibited.
a "fizzle." Strict enforcement the rule.

Kentucky 47 Prohibition 96 Prohibition counties;
counties. 1,541,613 or 66 per cent of
Legislature defeated total population in "dry"
very moderate territory.
local option bill. State Prohibition campaign
launched in earnest.

Louisiana 20 Prohibition Prohibition sentiment grows.
parishes out of 54. Local Prohibition proves
notable success in
33 "dry" parishes.

Maine STATE PROHIBITION. Move for resubmission
Lax enforcement. emphatically defeated
by State Legislature.
Sentiment for law enforcement
growing steadily.