Mr G. M. Dickson, in reply to questions put, said:

I am President of the Metropolitan Potice commission for the City of Wichita. In my opinion Prohibition has proved to be a most dismal failure so far as this city is concerned. The reason for this his been that almost unanimous public sentiment has been expressed against the law. There was an honest attempt to enforce it after its passage by the Legislature, but it utterly failed. I think is is impossible to enforce it. In this city a man can now get a drink with with as much impunity as in St. Louis, and only have to pay the same price. By our working under the present system a large saving in the matter of maintaining a police force is effected, and public safety and order is better provided for. If we have to look after bootle-leggers, and jug people who can gain no foothold under our present system, because no one need go behind holes and corners to get a drink, we require a larger force. This was the case when we endeavoured to enforce Prohibition. There was more trouble and more crime during the time we were endeavouring to carry the law into effect than has ever been the case since. Nearly double the number of police were requisite then with less satisfactory results. The crime sheets showed an increase of drunkenness, petty thefts, and quarrelsomeness. Doubtless much of this was traceable to the bad quality of the liquor illicitly obtained. The supply obtainable from men who were known as "bottle-leggers," was of the vilest quality and consisted chiefly of reduced alcohol, and a man who took but a small quantity of it would bring on delirwn tremens in its worst forms. Another feature is that the law engenders an antagonistic spirit in men who do not as a rule drink. It seems to be a prevading characteristic of the whole human race that the moment you say, "you shall not have a certain thing," to a man that particular article becomes at once the most coveted, and get it he will if any possibility exists. Then too with Prohibition as strictly enforced as possible, there is nothing that can prevent a man procuring a supply and surfeiting himself, whereas in the case of a restricted saloon business he would only take a single drink. If a jointkeeper in this city permitted drunken men on his premises, he would be forced to immediately close his place. Secondly, the joint keeper here instead of merely having little hole and corner bars of no value, have all expended large sums in adequately furnishing their saloons. We have saloons here that cost between 2000 and 3000 dollars for fittings, exclusive of the large stock of liquors and the loss of these, because all would be forfeited, would be a serious item. We compel them to close rigidly at midnight on Saturday, and to remain closed throughout Sunday This rule I believe is faithfully observed. In Wichita 1 think we have one of the best governed cities of its size in the United States. Our records show that we are pretty free from criminals. The report of our Commission for the year 1889, made to the Attorney-General, shows that during the year ended April 30th, 1890, there was a feeling existed that the County Attorney was not enforcing the law; and the Prohibitionists obtained the appointment of an Assistant Attorney-General (Mr. G. Coffin), who was appointed solely for the purpose of pushing matters to extremes in the enforcement of the law. Mr. Coffin was an out and out Prohibitionist; yet when the returns for the year were complete it was found that prosecutions had been instituted by the County Attorney numbering 115, and by the Assistant Attorney-General numbering 90, a a total of 205. The County Attorney secured 24 convictions, the Prohibitionist representative and council only 10. Ir is most difficult to obtain testimony regarding a liquor-selling case. Men whose word might be taken in the smallest particular aside from this, yet seem to attach no weight to their testimony and the truthful nature thereof in a case of this kind. For these reasons I am of opinion Prohibition cannot be successfully applied.

Returns respecting the sale of whisky (or other spirits) and beer by druggists in various centres. These figures are extracted from the Probate Judge's returns of receipts at $150c. per 100 sales made, an affidavit in each case being required of the purchaser, and such affidavits being lodged with the Judge monthly by the druggists. There is not a uniform method of recording these sales in the books of the office, but in all instances their correctness of figures is vouched page 29 for by the fact that the County Treasurer has to give receipts for the moneys paid him from this source, and a small arithmetical calculation yields the exact number of sales:

Topeka. Populatiion of County in 1892, as per Agricultural State Boards Report, shown to be 49,483)

Mouth.	No. of Draggists Licensed.	Sales Made.	Revenue.
April	29	6,310	$94	50c.
March	40	6,673	100	11
February	30	5,778	86	58
January	30	6,217	93	21
December. 1892	29	6,259	98	81
November 1892	29	7,218	108	23
October 1892	28	6,223	93	28
September 1892	29	6,863	102	23
August 1892	29	5,195	86	10
July 1892	29	4,968	74	47
June 1892	29	4,024	60	32
May 1892	29	4,467	66	98
		70.105	$1,060	15