against those names.

We summoned some of

those men here. One of them came. Now, I would by no means intimate that their motives, whatever they might have been, or whatever they may now appear, are the motives of all the parties concerned here. On the contrary, I distinctly recognize that many petitioners for a license law do not probably concur with them in the views they entertain, or in the ends they seek.

But, gentlemen of the Committee, I submit this consideration: Is it likely that these gentlemen have forgotten the instincts of their business? Is it likely that they are asking for the same thing that other petitioners are asking for here, with the expectation put forth by other petitioners, that it will circumscribe, limit, restrict their business? I trust to the instincts of business men, and especially of that class of business men, for the answer to such questions. When we sought to introduce these facts, you remember with what eloquence and learning the able leading counsel in favor of a license law protested against their introduction, declaring, perhaps unwittingly, that it was an attempt to "smut" his case. smut" his case. I have but a single

remark, gentlemen, to make upon that charge.

There are two classes of causes in this world that

cannot be smutted. The one class of causes includes those that are inherently and thoroughly good; the other class includes those that are inherently and thoroughly bad. (Applause.) To which of the classes this cause belongs, I leave the Committee to judge.

The issue before you, gentlemen, is a plain one. It is the prohibition of the sale of liquors as a beverage, or the authorization of their sale by law. Between these two things we

You, gentlemen, are to choose.

are to choose.

You are not

permitted, I submit, respectfully, under the circumstances of the case, to assume that a license law can restrain the traffic more than prohibition. That proposition is absurd on the face of it. Therefore it is a question touching the removal of the social evils of the community. And I think you will observe, gentlemen, that the issue involves still another fundamental proposition, namely, the utility of alcoholic beverages; for ere they were aware of it, the learned counsel, borne over by the instincts of their cause, from their assumed to their true position, found themselves attempting to prove that total abstinence is not a good, and that alcoholic beverages, moderately indulged in,

a good. Unconsciously they flowed over

into that channel, and by an instinct as true as that of the liquor-dealers themselves, they summoned here gentlemen who, as they know, love the wine cup. High dignitaries, now or formerly, men of eminent gravity, clergymen in metropolitan pulpits, the Romish priests, whose habits are well known, and other parties, were summoned here to express their opinion that prohibition is a failure. Hence the issue here is really fundamental. You are asked to pronounce, by a change of the law, that teetotalism is a vice-at least, an error. are asked to pronounce, by the enactment of a license law, that indulgence, if it be moderate, in alcoholic beverages, is a good.

You

Now, gentlemen, this is scarcely a problematical question. Survey the field. You have observation and experience on both hands. You have on the one hand a pretty uniform state of facts, showing that abstinence tends to every personal and social good. On the other hand, you have a pretty uniform state of facts, showing that indulgence tends, by a law of its own-a law ordained, gentlemen, by high Heaven-a law that no Legislature in Massachusetts or elsewhere can annul-by a nearly universal law-to immoderation and inebriety. You are asked, therefore, to plant the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts on those principles out of which the social evils always resulting from the sale of intoxicating beverages, as such, have flowed. Now look at the man who is the subject of such indulgence. Conceive what a man is, as he stands erect in the image of his God, with the powers that ally him to high Heaven; with a breadth of understanding, an acuteness of reasoning, and a depth of grateful and reverent emotions that make him acquainted with the attributes of Deity and with the joy of angels. See that man tippling, day after day; see him beclouding his intellect, blunting his sensibilities, casting down his powers of self-control, hardening his heart, becoming indifferent to public sentiment, and family interests and welfare, and by and by staggering and reeling and falling in the by-ways or in the highways of life. Look into that man's home! Mark the anxiety written on the face of his bosom companion, whom, in the fresh love of his earlier years, at the altar of God, with uplifted hand toward Heaven, he swore reverently, I would believe, to cherish and protect, so long as they both should live! See him now, a demon, dealing the blow of brutality upon that companion, beggaring his family, ruining his home, blasting the prospects of his children, prostrating and destroying every

earthly interest, physical, intellectual and moral! It is to plant the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on principles which, embodied in laws, have uniformly tended to these results, that you are now asked to grant a license law.

The decrease of productive power is a fact everywhere referred to by writers upon the influence of intoxicating drinks. Says Dr. Carpenter, in his work on "The Use and Abuse of Alcoholic Liquors":

"The following statement of the result of a whole year's experiment at brick-making, made by two sets of men, the one working on the abstinent,' the other on the 'moderate' system, is given by a gentleman of Uxbridge, England : 'Out of upwards of 23,000,000 of bricks made in 1841 by the largest maker in the neighborhood, the average per man made by the beer-drinkers in the season was 760,269; whilst the average for the teetotalers was 795,400, which is 35,131 in favor of the latter. The highest number made by a beer'drinker was 880,000; the highest number made by a teetotaler was 890,000; leaving 10,000 in favor of the teetotaler. The lowest number made by a beer-drinker was 659,500; the lowest number by a teetotaler was 746,000; leaving 87,000 in favor of the teetotaler. Satisfactory as this account appears, I believe it would have been much more so, if the teetotalers could have obtained the whole gang of abstainers, as they were very frequently hindered by the drinking of some of the gang; and when the order is thus broken, the work cannot go on."