Statement by Mr John Charlton, Justice of the Peace, for the City of Lawrence, made on May 27th, 1893.

[The American Justices are all salaried officals having a jurisdiction almost identical with that of a Resident Magistrate in New Zealand.]

I am one of two Justices of the Peace for this city, From an examination of my record book I find there have been 18 charges and convictions made before me for breaches of the Probation Statute since July 10th, 1889. In all of these the Act being mandatory, tines and sentences of imprisonment were recorded. The draft form of indictment is "For selling intoxicating liquors without having a permit, as required by law." The law, of course, allows the sale by druggists under certain circumstances. Every sale made contra to law is a count, and the penalty is 30 days' imprisonment, and a fine of not less than 100 dollars, with a maximum period of imprisonment of 90 days, and a fine of 500 dollars. From a lengthy and personal observation I am certain that in very few cities is the law rigidly enforced. The few instances are places having very small populations, but in none of the large cities is a person unable to obtain liquor, and this without the necessity to make the declaration before a druggist, as required by law. In the larger cities in Kansas licenses are granted in the shape of fines levied on the liquor sellers (or as they are better known here, the "joint-keepers,") and collected without any preliminary judiciary investigation by the civic authorities. Generally this collection is made by the police. The call made on the joint-keeper in this direction usually occurs monthly. In other instance, the joint-keeper comes up once a month, and voluntarily tender the fine, which goes to swell the city revenue. In relation to the use made of the tines inflicted for breaches of the law, that is fines arising from cases of liquor-selling investigated by the courts, part of these go to the informer, when recovered, but I do dot hesitate to assert that not more than three of the lines I have inflicted in the period mentioned were ever collected. The offenders are generally pardoned, and I know instances have occurred in which the order for page 19 [unclear: the] pardon has been procured by telegraph. In others, as the defendants have no money, they would only become a State burden if detained in prison, I have no doubt "joints" exist in this city, but it would be extremely difficult, it not an impossibility, to eradicate them. I am not a drinking man, in fact I am a temperance man, a member of a church, and have never been in a saloon in this city, but I do not doubt if I made an effort it would be possible to find quite a dozen different places where you could obtain liquor—places of the "joint" description, not druggists' stores. Pardons have to be granted by the Governor, and, as a rule, the persons convicted under the Act serve the whole, or major part of the term of imprisonment thus involved. We have no alternative period of imprisonment in the event of the tine not being paid. The County Commissioners cannot pardon, or I do not doubt even that portion of the sentences relating to imprisonment would have been remitted. The result of Prohibition has been to create a system of sending across the State line for liquor, which is delivered at the homes of the drinkers, and in many instances the homes of families are flooded with it. The express system is the means of transportation, and these companies do an enormous business in furnishing liquors. I have a son who is an express messenger on one of the railroads running into this State, and from him I learn that every time his train (once daily) enters the State the car of which he has charge carries an average of 800 packages of liquor to residents in the State where Prohibition is the law of the land. This, of course, is only one instance out of the many trains which daily enter the State. Three-fourths of the convictions made under the Act, in so far as my experience goes, are proven in evidence to have notice a propense as the originatory cause of the laying of the information; or else they are made just before an election fight to win party support. So far as the amount of whisky consumed is concerned, there does not, to the casual observer, seem to be a bit of difference. As I have said I have never entered a drinking saloon in my life, but my conscientious opinion based upon observations made is that so far as Kansas State is concerned Prohibition has not effected a reduction of ten per cent, in the drinking done in the State. Virtually, of course, the fining system I have described is a license, for while the joint-keepers pay monthly they are not interfered with. In Hayes City they have a system in vogue by which the liquor-sellers all own billiard-tables, and there a license for keeping a billiard saloon is fixed at 25 dollars a month. The right to keep a table implies the right to violate the law regarding Prohibition, for they are never interfered with. I give you my word of honor that so far as I have been able to judge, and there are few men who read the newspapers more than I do, there is not one-tenth of the editors and leading newspaper men in this State who are practical Prohibitionists.

Mr. W. A. Sells, President of the Metropolitan Police Commission, Topeka, replying to questions put, said:—

When the Prohibition Bill became law, and for two years afterwards, it was virtually a dead letter. Since then, however, I think we have been attempting to enforce it. Since its passage I should estimate that fully two-thirds of our litigation has arisen from efforts to enforce the law, but in my opinion it has proven an entire failure. I am a Temperance man but cannot help expressing this opinion. It is the most outrageous failure ever perpetrated on a people in the form of law giving, for whilst it prohibits it does not prevent. What it does is to drive away from the Skate, keep them from coming amongst us and increasing our settlement, a class of men who, were it not for Prohibition, would come in and develop our country, now they shuu us and settle elsewhere. An instance of this is that all German or English immigrants give us the go-by. No German will come here because he is a believer in, and wants his beer. Thus it is that a Prohibition State does not suit him, and he goes elsewhere, but no one will deny that Germans and English make good citizens and settlers. Our State has been badly run, for there has not been a fad or an "ism" that has not been eagerly seized upon by our people, and they have had to suffer for it afterwards. My observations made regarding the working of the law are not confined merely to an acquaintance with this city, as I have done a page 20 great deal, a very great amount of travelling throughout the States. As a result of Prohibition, for it has followed its introduction, property has decreased in value. I am a large holder of property here, and if I could to-day realise the money I have invested in it. I would gladly quit the let, and likewise the State. It is only my interest which I cannot quit at reasonable figures, that keeps me in it. The most reprehensible feature of the law is that it offers a direct premium to a man to perjure himself, that is if he is determined to have whiskey of beer, and cannot order in hulk from the wholesalers in Kansas City. What has been done in the immediate past, but in my opinion no thanks are due to the Prohibitory law, is to gain ground against the drink evil by moral suasion. Then too, the class of our residents is changed. The western rough element which accompanied early settle-ment has departed, not driven out by Prohibition, as some of its advocates would have you believe, but swept aside as in all new communities by the influx of a better class. I have no hesitation in asserting that the passing of the law arose from political motives, and not as the result of the change of opinion resulting from the agitation of the Prohibition party. Party politics demanded, in order that the Republican party should retain its power and control legislation, that there should be an alliance between the Republicans and the Prohibitionists. Why, the night the law was passed I know as a fact that many of the legislators who voted for it were drunk in the legislative building. If any body of men ever acted conscientously and endeavored to enforce the Act, it has been the Topeka Police Commission, bat I feel confident that even now liquor is being freely and constantly sold in direct violation to the law, and under no druggist's permit clock. The club system, too is most penicious, as anyone can readily understand. There will always be a certain number of men who, despite the law to the contrary, will have drink, men not necessarily drunkards, but often times just moderates. I cannot give any estimate of the average per year of convictions for drunkenness. I am of belief from personal observations that eight out of every ten visitors to a drug store after ten o'clock at night come simply to purchase liquors. I would not like to offer any estimate as to how many knowingly break the law. I do not hesitate to say that large quantities of liquor are acquired in drug stores without any declaration or affidavit being made. The Prohibition law has certainly been more rigidly observed here than anywhere else in the State.

Mr. F. R. Jones, druggist, of Kansas Avenue, Topeka, in reply to questions, said: I think the fact that we have no open saloons is the most desirable feature of the Prohibitory Statute. My honest conviction regarding the working of the system of sales by druggists is that not more than one in twenty-five purchasers who make affidavit as to the ailments they would alleviate or cure with the whisky they buy really require it for medicinal purposes. I feel confident four per cent, is not below the mark. There is probably no city in the world where Prohibition is more rigidly enforced than it is in Topeka. The principal drinking aids in this city are what are known as clubs. It is not necessary for them to register a club, and thus establish its identity and membership, but a number of men can jointly rent a place, and this need not be more than a single room. Then they order in what they please, and drink as much and as often as they like. There is, of course, the statement in order to keep outside the law, that every man has his own stock of liquors, and nobody buys or sells. I cannot estimate the probable number of these, but they are very numerous. They are neither more or less than places rented for the purpose of evading the law. The sales I have recorded during the month of May (to-day being the last day) are 232. That is hardly up to the average. There are quite two hundred cases of sales of whisky, and 1 never sell less than half-a-pint or more than a pint. You could fairly estimate that one-half would be half-pints, and the balance pints. I have known instances where as many as five hundred sales in a month have been registered by a druggist. I do not think Prohibition is so effectual in dealing with the curse of drink as is a high license system. My reason for saying this is, that the Prohibitory legislation has a bad effect upon the molality of a people when it leads men to wilfully perjure themselves. Further, it does not prevent the drinking, although it may, and I believe does, diminish it, but also does page 21 a high-license system, without degrading a man who will have a drink. I have had illustrations where men have gone from the State, before Prohibition was in force, and obtained work in a licensed district. They were sober men there, and, perhaps, did not enter a saloon (but I cannot say this of my own knowledge). Well, they returned here and found Prohibition, and the first thing they did was to obtain whisky and get drunk. Further, I think the Act has a bad effect upon young men, and it is "smart" to evade and break the law in such a case as this. They want to see and know something about it for themselves, and to do this they have to sink all that which is manly and honourable and resort to trickery to get an acquaintance with beer or whisky, whereas had you not forbidden them the possibilities are the ideas would never have entered their heads. It is a mistaken idea to think that by taking away the saloons you have removed the temptation or the possibilities of the creation of an appetite for strong drink. I base my remarks upon an acquaintance in two States—Maine and Kansas—with the working of Prohibition, and I have been here during a period of sixteen years. Prior to the introduction of Prohibition, we were as a city advancing rapidly. Since then we have been retrograding, and I consider you have to kill a town, make it a dead spot, take all the life-and-go-ahead-business energy out of it before you can enforce Prohibition. You can't find any such thing as Prohibition in any lively town full of business, and one that is making rapid forward strides. I am of opinion that if druggists had never had the right to sell liquor under the Act, if they had remained as druggists and drug stores alone, you would not have found more than sixty per cent, of the number there are now existent in the city. Take away the sale of liquor and the remainder could not exist.

(Transcript shown to Mr. Jones, and admitted to be correct; but he declined to sign it for business reasons.)

Mr. L. D. McKinley, M.D., stated in reply to questions:—I am a doctor of medicine, and proprietor of the Chesterfield Pharmacy. I have been in the drug store businesss in this city (Topeka) for five years. During that period I have taken particular pains to ask persons who have come into my drug store tor the purpose of buying whisky to declare, as required by the prohibitory law, what disease they desire to apply the whisky to. I am always very cautious to completely fill out the form. I have had instances in which men have said when I have demanded their signature to the affidavit, "Well, I don't like to sign that." My reply has been, "Well, that is the law, sir." Then they sometimes get pretty hot on the subject, and knowing their Republican tendencies, say, "I suppose you voted for the law, didn't you?" and the general reply is, "Yes, I did, but now I find I am mistaken." From observations made respecting the character of the men who come to buy whiskey, I honestly believe that not more than five per cent. really and truly obtain it as a medicine; in other words ninety-five per cent, of the whisky buyers knowingly perjure themselves. I have also had men say to me. "1 voted for this law because it was in our platform (meaning their party platform), but I have the most supreme contempt for it as a law." A drug store in this city is usually open from 7.30 a.m. until 11 p.m. I know of one drug store in the city that regularly remains open until midnight, and there are occasional cases to be found where they remain open even later; the first-mentioned hours are, however, the fair average. We have had drug stores opened in the city whose proprietors avowed that they would sell no liquor, but they quickly tired of this. One instance occurred in which the proprietor after running a strictly temperance drug store remarked to me that he would (having failed to make the thing pay, although a musical instrument establishment was joined into the concern) have to apply for a permit to sell, and he did so. If the law was to be now altered pro-venting drug storekeepers from selling as at present, 1 am of opinion that at present stores now existent would retire from what would be then a non-paying business. In order to get a permit I have first to obtain the signatures to a petition to the Probate Judge of twenty-five respectable women. With the application 1 pay a filing fee of five dollars. The judge fixes a day of hearing, and this has to be advertised thirty days before the sitting of the Court. If a permit is page 22 issued, I have to file a bond of a thousand dollars to protect the State against any ill doing on my part, and then upon payment of twenty-five dollars I get the United States license to sell. On the last day of every month I have to complete a return of all transactions in relation to sales or purchases of liquors, and of all stock in hand. For the affidavit forms I am charged by the County 75 cents per hundred, and when I file my return of sales and lodge the affidavit, there is a charge for filing of a dollar and a half for every hundred sales I have made. My sales range from 175 to 275 per month. I only sell a half-a-pint or a pint of whisky per time, or four bottles of beer if that is what is asked for. The price for that quantity of beer is a dollar. I do not object to your seeing my affidavit books for this month. They total up to the present 271 sales; of course we shall close the list when we shut up store to-night. I find on reference to my record of April sales that I sold 14 gallons, 3 pints of whiskey, and 432 dozen bottles of beer. That is a fair average month's sales. Of course it might vary a little according to the weather, as in hot weather there is more demand for beer, and in cold whisky is the "medicine" most sought after.

I have acquainted myself with the above transcript of notes of my statements made at an interview with Mr. H. Gilbert Stringer, and find them faithfully recorded therein.