and swerve human purpose. And I should not be doing justice, gentlemen, though I would gladly pass the point, if I failed to observe, that among the foremost, the most earnest, the most persistent men, who are asking for the removal, substantially, of the present law, and the engrafting thereon, or the substitution therefor, of a license law, stringent or otherwise, are the men who for fifteen long years have been defying the law, trampling its provisions under foot, defying the authority of the Commonwealth, continuing a business confessedly fraught with evils untold, and who now seek, not by the weight of their names alone, but by the free use of their resources, to secure future indulgence. I ask you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee, to lay that fact over against the allegation which is made the leading feature of this effort, that it is to secure something more stringent, more restrictive, than the existing prohibitory law. Is it likely, is it likely, I ask, that a class of men, in the very pursuit of their business, defying law for fifteen years, are now putting forth their efforts, and using the fruits of former enterprise, to restrict their business as it has never yet been restricted?

In the "Boston Herald" of April 20, 1866—not one year ago—may be found a report of a liquor

dealers' meeting held on the previous afternoon at the Parker House in this city. It appears to have been a meeting called by a committee appointed at a previous meeting, held the week before, to consider what could be done for the relief of the liquor interests in the emergency that was soon to be upon them. This committee was chosen to weigh gravely that question, and it appears that they consulted counsel, and called a meeting to submit their report. The substance of their report was, that they had no plan to propose. No, gentlemen of the committee, they had reached the end of their resources. The Liquor Dealers' Association was broken down; the large dealers refused to continue to pay the bills and fines of the smaller dealers; they were rent asunder; their legal advisers told them they had nothing to recommend to them, and the meeting was called to hear the report. At that meeting, Mr. C. A. Richards, whom we put upon the stand here

Mr. CHILD. I would like to interrupt the speaker to inquire how far this argument and investigation are to proceed upon evidence that has not been introduced?

Mr. MINER. I was about to say, that this had not been introduced.

Mr. CHILD. I would like to know how far the

discussion is to proceed upon evidence that, during six weeks, has not been brought before this Committee. I think such evidence should not be introduced; I think it can have no legitimate tendency to enlighten the Committee, but rather to mislead. The CHAIRMAN, (Senator Morse.) The Committee are of opinion that they cannot put restrictions upon the argument. It will be open to comment by the other side.

Mr. CHILD. I only want to know whether we are to argue upon the facts in evidence, or upon matters outside.

Mr. JEWELL. I think Dr. Miner should be permitted to say whatever he thinks proper, whatever may be thought of its relevancy or irrelevancy.

Mr. CHILD. That being conceded we acquiesce. Mr. MINER. I wish to say that Mr. C. A. Richards-a well-known gentleman of this city, and a man who I have no reason to suppose is other than a respectable citizen of Boston, in the usual acceptation of the term, who was not allowed to testify upon the point to which I now refer, and one other that follows, for reasons in regard to which I have no complaint to make, for they are patent and wellknown to the community-Mr. Richards said, at that meeting, as reported in the "Boston Herald":

"That when he left the room after the last meeting, with the duties of a committee man urged on him, no man carried with him a more earnest desire than himself, or than had since been evinced by his associates on the committee, to do what they could to extend any aid to their brethern in the trade in the emergency now upon them. He said they had canvassed the subject from beginning to end, and found themselves where they began. The call for this meeting, Mr. Richards said, alluded to some 'important matters for immediate consideration,' to be placed before the assembly. The chief consideration' was, that the advice of the meeting might be obtained on some plan of action outside of their business. As individuals, the speaker said, they could do nothing to change the law which was offensive, unless they could bring a pressure upon the Legislature. How that could be done, the committee desired to know. The committee had discussed the plan of holding a public meeting in Faneuil Hall, and had concluded that such a course would not be of any effect, as it was not to liquor-dealers and hotelkeepers that the public looked for a change.

"The speaker said that he had consulted with some of our merchants and editors, who said the idea of repressing the sumptuary laws was good, but it would not do to let the effort emanate from liquor-dealers as liquor-dealers. It will be done; avoid impulsive efforts; be quiet; press forward in your work in a quiet way; consult and talk with your neighbors, but do not press on with your speeches. Such, the speaker said, was the advice given the committee. The question

was, should such language be their guide?"

There were other speakers on the occasion, who uttered various sentiments, suiting them

selves. Some thought it especially expedient to close the hotels, which they judged would bring the public to terms at once. Mr. R. H. Waters said "that a petition was circulating among the dry goods and other merchants, looking to a meeting in Faneuil Hall, with this object in view; but he said it must not appear that the meeting was held by the liquor-dealers, for the moment the liquor element was introduced, the influence was lost." "Mr. John Glancy obtained the floor, and said, among other things, that the liquor interest in Boston represented from ninety to one hundred millions of dollars, which he considered a power capable of doing almost anything, if rightly directed." I make no comment upon this report of the "Boston Herald" of a liquor-sellers' meeting. Whether or not that plan is here being literally carried out, I leave the gentlemen of the Committee to judge.

There was one other point of evidence which we sought to introduce, but were not permitted. It was the fact, which had come to our knowledge from entirely reliable sources, that certain gentlemen, whose names were given us, had subscribed large sums of money each to carry forward this license effort-these men being liquor-dealers. We have their names; we have the sums set