eenth place, summing all these objections together, I charge the city of Boston, in respect to Massachusetts criminal law, with standing in the attitude of an arrant nullifier, as much so as South Carolina herself touching the United States law. All these points are substantially conceded by gentlemen who have been on the stand.

The Hon. Mr. Gaffield, a member of the Board of Aldermen, declared, in answer to a cross-question, that there had been, he was well aware, no effort to execute the law.

That is my first answer to the charge that the law has not been executed.

II. My second answer is that the law is executed. The Constabulary are reporting good work. The annual statement of the department speaks well for it. Let it be granted that it is, to some extent, rose-colored. I think, gentlemen, if any one of us were made chief Constable, and charged with the work of reducing liquor-selling into subordination to law, in a city like Boston, whose authorities, with nearly four hundred policemen at command, had steadily declared, for fifteen years, that the work was impracticable, and with thirty men had accomplished what Major Jones has done,

we should be inclined to look upon our achievements on the bright side. But it must not be forgotten that the places reported closed may be opened again, for which the Constable himself is not responsible.

Mr. CHILD. Have they ever been entirely closed, so that there were no sales made?

Mr. MINER. If the nearly one thousand men who have notified the authorities that they have stopped the sale since this hearing began, have not kept their word, I leave the question of their integrity to the learned counsel on the other side. We are talking about the respectability of the business, about respectable dealers in liquor. And when they prove that these men, at the rate of 639 per month, who have sent up their names, saying that they have discontinued their business, do not keep their pledges, I summon you to report a bill a thousand times more emphatic than has yet been asked for against these liquor-sellers. I say nothing about the character of these men. I do not know them much; and the side on which I do know them, is probably their worst side; at all events it is bad enough. I leave them. They send in their names and places of business, pledging discontinuance, and if they falsify, I leave them

4

and their friends to settle the question of their integrity between themselves.

But I was saying that the law is executed. I cannot forbear to call your attention to several of the witnesses who have appeared here. The prosecuting attorneys in the several districts, summoned here by the counsel for the petitioners for a license, have generally testified against them. They have testified that the law is extensively executed to the suppression of the traffic; and that on the whole the prospect for its execution throughout the Commonwealth, including Boston, is very good. District-Attorney Gillette says that in some towns in Berkshire County it is suppressed to a very considerable extent, but that in Hampden it is not so much so. Judge Marston, of Barnstable, testified that the law had had great effect upon the traffic. Sheriff Bearseley declared that he knew of no places in the district where liquors can be had. Hon. O. R. Clark, of Winchester, testified that he knew of no open places of sale in his town; and the same is true of other towns of his acquaintance. Even in the neighborhood of his place of business in Boston, the traffic has very much diminished. Mayor Frost, of Chelsea, testified that there was no open sale, so far as he knew, in Chelsea. The

Selectmen of Dorchester testify that there is no open sale in that town. Mr. Upham, their chairman, states that the present board, their opinions being well known, were re-elected for the fourth term by a very large majority. We have the testimony of Judge Ladd, of Cambridge, that the law has had a visible effect upon the traffic in that city. Judge Mellen testifies most emphatically in favor of prohibition, and against license; and says that he is an ingenious man who can engraft the one upon the other, and make them work together. Mayor Currier, of Newburyport, testified that the traffic was very much checked in that city.

Mayor Usher, of Lynn, declares that there is no open sale in Lynn. Judge Dewey, of Milford, testifies that there is no open sale in Milford; and that he himself had changed his views in regard to the law, and now favors the present law. Rev. Dr. Seelye, of Easthampton, says that not a glass of alcoholic beverages can be obtained in his place. President Hopkins, of Williams College, stated that the repeal of the prohibitory law would be a great calamity upon the people. Hon. Oliver Ames, a large manufacturer, of Easton, says that there is no open sale of liquor in his town, and that his men are sober and industrious. Judge

Marston says that the law can be executed in Barnstable County and in Boston. Judge Sanger says that there is no difficulty in executing the law; that this is the strongest law that can be made. The seizure clause, he declared, gives it great power; and the traffic in Boston is very much restrained and reduced. He says that prominent dealers are daily coming to him and saying that, if this law is sustained, they must quit their business. I will not quote the assurances of numerous private gentlemen, who have testified here. The Chief of Police, Mr. Kurtz, at the beginning of the year, reports 1,515 places of sale where, in 1860, there were 2,229 places reported, showing a reduction in the number of places of over 700, notwithstanding the growth of population during the past six or seven years. Major Jones reports, at the same date, that he can find but 690 places of sale; and many of these have now discontinued.

III. My third answer to the objection that the law cannot be executed, is, that the petitioners propose to keep the present law to execute it upon the unlicensed. Their doctrine is that it cannot be executed now, because the liquor-sellers