and interest centered upon the next election. The contest was sharp, and the mayor and his six liquor colleagues were returned by a handsome majority. There was a fly in the ointment. At each of the caucuses a resolution had been introduced instructing the candidates, if elected, to enforce all laws of the State so far as they were required to do so by statute and official oaths. Objections to resolutions so worded could hardly be made, and a free-whisky government was elected on a prohibition platform. It was not elected by anything like a strict party vote. It was scarcely inaugurated before the demand for consistent action became louder than ever. The five or six men of peace on the executive committee had dropped out, and the others were united and plucky. They waited on the city fathers.

"Here is the law," said their chairman, opening a book that lay on the table. "It is violated thousands of times a day within gunshot of this council-chamber, and you know it. Here is the statute requiring you to enforce it, and making you liable to criminal prosecution if you don't. Here are the instructions under which you were elected, directing you to enforce all laws so far as your official duty extends. I myself heard you take your oaths to do so. Do you intend to keep them or to violate them?"

"This has been an-extraordinary-and-painfulinterview," said the mayor when the committee had withdrawn. "The-situation is-embarrassing-very -and-perhaps we had better-take counsel." The city solicitor was summoned.

"I don't believe in prohibition," he said; "I believe

in license, and know most of you do; but that's neither here nor there. The statute is plain as day. You have n't any choice in the matter."

"There'll be the devil to pay if we go for John Denman," remarked one of the aldermen.

"There'll be the devil to pay anyway," was the comforting reply. "You 're caught between the upper and nether millstones, and they'll grind you to powder."

"Looks-that-way," wailed the mayor.

"Yes; you've got the army blue on, and it 's only a question of being shot fighting or being shot trying to dodge."

"We-don't-want-to-dodge," groaned the mayor, "and-we-don't want to be-shot-either."

His fat chin fell upon his chest, and great beads of sweat stood on his brow. He seemed to shrink and dwindle bodily, as if his portly figure were much too conspicuous a target.

"Would-you-feel-hurt-if we should-call in other-counsel?" he inquired at last, piteously.

"Hurt! Should be delighted! It's for you to say whether to prosecute in behalf of the city, and if you say prosecute, I won't sacrifice my honor by shirking what the law puts on me; but I tell you, I don't hanker after any part of it."

He was dismissed, and Mr. Woods, Denman's professional adviser, was called in.

"Unfortunately," said Woods, "we have a sumptuary law, and its enforcement is primarily committed to you. In so unpleasant a matter, of course you don't wish to exceed your duty?"

"No," replied the mayor, promptly.

"But, as honest men, to do your duty, neither more nor less?"

"Y-yes,” said the mayor, unconsciously shaking his head.

"I'm sorry to have to differ from my learned young brother, your official counsel; but it's an old legal maxim that reason is the life of law, and even statutes must be construed and enforced according to common sense. The statute says you shall prosecute every person guilty, and so forth. Literally that means any person in the State. Have you the right to go from county to county prosecuting at the expense of Apsleigh? Even Dr. Bradford would n't claim it means what it says. What does it mean? It says you shall prosecute if you can obtain reasonable proof. In a sense I can take a trip around the world; in another I can't, for I can't afford the time and money. In a sense you can sacrifice your business and turn spies; as language is commonly used-and the law makes that the rule in construing statutes-you can't. It's no part of your duty. It is n't what you were elected to do."

"Mr. Woods," inquired an alderman,-he was a new member who had not been considered dangerous,"Mr. Woods, if men were murdered in this city as openly as liquor is sold, if the statute made it our duty to prosecute, and if we should fold our hands and say we can't get evidence, what do you suppose the community would do?"

"It 's against the law," replied Woods, "to drive faster than a walk over Denman Bridge. It is n't

three hours since I saw the chairman of this overrighteous committee violate that law. If there's no difference between little things and big, why don't you prosecute the Rev. Dr. Bradford ?"

"Is n't that a matter which the law leaves to our discretion? Does it say we shall prosecute? Have we taken any oath to do so?”

"Well, it's pretty much the same with the prohibitory law, in spite of the 'shall' and the oath. There's a statute authorizing city councils to regulate the sale of liquors and the places where they are sold. That cuts prohibition as soap cuts grease, does n't it? Amounts to a confession that it can't be enforced in cities, does n't it? You 've spoken of murder, Mr. Capen. What would you think of a statute making it a capital offense side by side with another authorizing city councils to regulate its commission and the hours and places in which it may be committed?"

"Which is the older," inquired Capen, "the prohibitory law or the law authorizing regulation?"

"I don't know."

"If the prohibitory law is the more recent, would n't it in effect repeal the other?"

"These ordinances exist in every city in the State," replied Woods, evading the question.

"Have n't been set up as defenses to liquor prosecutions, have they?" persisted Capen. "Whatever the law says city councils 'may' do, it says the mayor and aldermen 'shall' prosecute, does n't it? Puts that in our oath of office, does n't it? Makes us liable to criminal prosecution ourselves if we don't, does n't it?"

"Suppose it does? To be required to prosecute, you must have reasonable proof."

"That is n't what the statute says, Mr. Woods. It says 'can obtain.' Are n't liquors sold as openly in this city as groceries are?"

"What of it? Reasonable proof is proof that gives reasonable assurance of conviction. Men will leave the State before they 'll testify in liquor cases. They'll lie on the witness-stand when they 'd tell the truth about anything else if it cost them thousands of dollars. Grand juries won't indict, and petty juries won't convict, no matter how strong the evidence is." "As bad as that?"

"I don't call it bad. It 's just as it ought to be. When it was death to steal a shilling, when it was imprisonment and mutilation to tell the truth about men in office, English juries redeemed English humanity and English liberty by putting common justice and common sense before their oaths, and all the world honors them for it. Why not say what we all know? The prohibitory law is such a meddlesome and outrageous interference with personal liberty that it 's impossible to enforce it in a free country. It never was intended as anything but a sop to cranks. It was understood that they were to have the law, and the people the whisky. The Republican party has n't a vote to spare. If a few hundred cranks should refuse to vote the ticket without a law against kissing, members of the legislature would tumble over each other in their haste to pass the law, and boys and girls would kiss more than ever. Do you think those same members of the legislature, if they were on a jury,