



Produced by Barbara Tozier, Bill Tozier, Christine D. and
the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net









            THE SCRAP BOOK.

  Vol. I.    AUGUST, 1906.    No. 6.




THE TOMB OF NAPOLEON.

BY ROBERT G. INGERSOLL.


A little while ago I stood by the grave of the old Napoleon--a magnificent
tomb of gilt and gold, fit almost for a deity dead--and gazed upon the
sarcophagus of rare and nameless marble, where rest at last the ashes of
that restless man. I leaned over the balustrade and thought about the
career of the greatest soldier of the modern world.

I saw him walking upon the banks of the Seine contemplating suicide. I saw
him at Toulon. I saw him putting down the mob in the streets of Paris. I
saw him at the head of the army in Italy. I saw him crossing the bridge at
Lodi with the tricolor in his hand. I saw him in Egypt, in the shadow of
the Pyramids. I saw him conquer the Alps and mingle the eagles of France
with the eagles of the crags. I saw him at Marengo, at Ulm, and at
Austerlitz. I saw him in Russia, when the infantry of the snow and the
cavalry of the wild blast scattered his legions like winter's withered
leaves. I saw him at Leipsic in defeat and disaster--driven by a million
bayonets back upon Paris--clutched like a wild beast--banished to Elba. I
saw him escape and retake an empire by the force of his genius. I saw him
upon the frightful field of Waterloo, where chance and fate combined to
wreck the fortunes of their former king. And I saw him at St. Helena, with
his hands crossed behind him, gazing out upon the sad and solemn sea.

I thought of the widows and orphans he had made, of the tears that had
been shed for his glory, and of the only woman who ever loved him, pushed
from his heart by the cold hand of ambition. And I said I would rather
have been a French peasant and worn wooden shoes; I would rather have
lived in a hut with a vine growing over the door, and the grapes growing
purple in the amorous kisses of the autumn sun; I would rather have been
that poor peasant, with my wife by my side knitting as the day died out of
the sky, with my children upon my knees and their arms about me; I would
rather have been this man and gone down to the tongueless silence of the
dreamless dust, than to have been that imperial personation of force and
murder known as Napoleon the Great.




The Latest Viewpoints of Men Worth While

    President Roosevelt Calls Our Supreme Bench the Most
    Dignified and Powerful Court in the World--Professor Peabody
    Describes the German Kaiser as a Man of Peace--Chancellor
    MacCracken Discusses Teaching as a Profession for College
    Graduates--Ex-Secretary Herbert Denies that the Confederate
    Soldiers Were Rebels--With Other Notable Expressions of
    Opinion from Speakers Entitled to a Hearing.

_Compiled and edited for_ THE SCRAP BOOK.


WHAT THE SUPREME COURT STANDS FOR.

  The Members of Our Highest Tribunal
  Have to Be Not Only Jurists but
  Constructive Statesmen.

Justice Brown, of the Supreme Court of the United States, has retired from
active service. Before he laid aside the robes of his office a dinner was
given in his honor by the bar of the District of Columbia, and on this
occasion short speeches were delivered by several prominent men, including
President Roosevelt, who said:

    In all the world--and I think, gentlemen, you will acquit me
    of any disposition to needless flattery--there is no body of
    men of equal numbers that possesses the dignity and power
    combined that inhere in that court over which, Mr. Chief
    Justice, you preside. Owing to the peculiar construction of
    our government, the man who does his full duty on that court
    must of necessity be not only a great jurist, but a great
    constructive statesman.


    The Men and the Tradition.

    It has been our supreme good fortune as a nation that we
    have had on that court, from the beginning to the present
    day, men who have been able to carry on in worthy fashion
    the tradition which has thus made it incumbent upon the
    members of the court to combine in such fashion the
    qualities of the great jurist and of the constructive
    statesman.

    Mr. Justice, we Americans are sometimes accused of paying
    too much heed to mere material success, the success which is
    measured only by the acquisition of wealth. I do not think
    that the accusation is well founded.

    A great deal of notoriety attaches, and must attach, to any
    man who acquires a great fortune. If he acquires it well and
    uses it well, he is entitled to and should receive the same
    meed of credit that attaches to any other man who uses his
    talents for the public good.


    The Nation Sound at Bottom.

    But if you will turn to see those whom in the past the
    nation has delighted to honor, and those in the present whom
    it delights to honor, I think that you will all agree that
    this nation is sound at bottom in the bestowal of its
    admiration in the relative estimate it puts upon the
    different qualities of the men who achieve prominence by
    rendering service to the public.

    The names that stand out in our history in the past are the
    names of the men who have done good work for the body
    politic, and in the present the names of those whom this
    people really hold in highest honor are the names of the men
    who have done all that was in them in the best and most
    worthy fashion.

    In no way is it possible to deserve better of the republic
    than by rendering sane, honest, clear-sighted service on the
    bench, and, above all, on the highest bench of this
    country.

Men who fear for our democratic institutions too often forget the Supreme
Court. Macaulay evidently forgot it when he described our Constitution as
"all sail and no anchor."


THE GERMAN KAISER'S CAMPAIGN FOR AMITY.

  In His Farewell Audience to Professor
  Peabody, of Harvard, He Said:
  "We Must Stand Together."

Back from Berlin, where he occupied for a time a chair at the University,
under the existing arrangement for exchanges, Professor Peabody, of
Harvard, is aiming to straighten the American conceptions of Germany. The
Kaiser, he declares, is not a war-lord, but a man of peace, working in the
interest of civilization--a peace-lord, so to speak.

Speaking to a German audience in New York a few weeks ago, Professor
Peabody said:

    There seems to be a general idea abroad that the German
    Emperor is constantly looking about for somebody to fight.

    Nothing could be farther from the truth. Germany, by virtue
    of the commercial expansion it now is working for, is
    pledged to maintain the peace of the world, so far as her
    own honor will allow.

    The German Emperor, speaking at the opening of the
    Reichstag, said:

    "I consider it the most sacred duty imposed upon me by an
    all-wise Providence to preserve peace."

    The German Emperor has been misjudged as few characters have
    been in history when he has been described as a careless,
    heartless intriguer, always ready to strike a blow.

    I do not think I am betraying any confidence if I repeat to
    you a phrase which fell from the lips of the emperor at the
    very last audience with which his imperial majesty honored
    me. I was about to return to America. The emperor was
    speaking not as a statesman or a diplomatist, but as an
    idealist discussing the ideals of his life. At parting he
    said:

    "We must stand together."

    What could we do better here to-night than to repeat that
    phrase? I bring to you the confident assurance that in
    anything you do here to-night to bring about the negotiation
    of a stable treaty of arbitration with your old country you
    will have with you the solid common sense of the American
    people.

    We must stand together, and we must find a safe, solid, and
    ample ground on which to stand together. That ground is a
    program in which the deliberations of reason must supplant
    the folly of force.

    We should have reciprocity in the fullest meaning of the
    word. Not only commercial reciprocity, but a fair exchange
    of truth, of trade, and of treaties. We must have the open
    door, the open mind, and the open hand.

Truly, from Baron von Steuben, who lent his sword to Washington, to Carl
Schurz, who lately died after a life of patriotic devotion to his adopted
country, Germans have done much for America.


THE GENIAL SPORT OF GENEALOGISTS.

  Clambering Among the Branches of the
  Family Tree, One May Find
  Royal Ancestors.

A little harmless fun with the people who are engaged in a hunt for
ancestors is indulged in by that playful journal, the New York _Evening
Post_.

The point arises in connection with the expose of a man who professes to
be able to link every American with royalty, by the chain of a common
ancestry, asserting that thus "you and your family, relatives, or friends
will have rare facilities in securing business contracts from European
governments." The reflections aroused in the _Post_ by this offer of
unearned greatness are in part as follows:

    A fortune awaits the person who will thus bring genealogy
    home to the hearts of the common people and make the
    contemplation of a pedigree a source of daily happiness.

    We fear that J. Henry Lea, who has just published a
    hand-book entitled "Genealogical Research in England,
    Scotland, and Ireland," misses the point of view. He is a
    dryasdust, who is concerned about long, dull tables of the
    probate courts, lists of marriage licenses, and parish
    registers. He talks as if genealogy were a science--a notion
    that also troubles a recent writer in the London
    _Spectator_.

    But if genealogy is to appeal to the masses, it must be an
    art. Now, the strength of an art is not its grasp of facts,
    but its flight of imagination. In a science the rule is,
    abundant data and meager results; in an art, meager data and
    abundant results.

    Tell a scientific genealogist that your grandfather, a Welsh
    cobbler, arrived in the steerage in 1860, and what do you
    get? After three years and numerous fees for expenses, you
    learn that for two centuries the heads of the family had
    been mechanics or small tradesmen--a disgusting outcome.

    Tell an artistic genealogist the same thing, and in three
    weeks, for a stipulated sum, you have a neat picture of a
    tree, proving that you are a Tudor, and that the English
    Tudors got their start by marrying into your family. This is
    why we set art above groveling science.


TEACHING IS A VERY POPULAR PROFESSION.

  College Graduates in Increasing Proportion
  Are Taking It Up Instead
  of the Law and the Ministry.

College graduates in these times are found in all walks of life; but, of
course, there are more in the professions than in business--and more in
some professions than in others. Also there has been a change, during the
last twenty years, in the relative proportions of college men going into
different kinds of work.

Chancellor MacCracken, speaking at a commencement of New York University,
said:

    What change, if any, has there been in the choice of
    professions by college graduates in the last twenty years? I
    was recently asked this question by a New York editor, and
    was unable to answer him. I have since obtained this
    information from the advance sheets of the new alumni
    catalogue, issued to mark the seventy-fifth anniversary of
    the university.

    I have studied the record of ten classes of the College of
    Arts, from 1885 until 1894, inclusive; also, of the ten
    succeeding classes, from 1895 until 1904, inclusive. I find
    most satisfactory reports have been obtained respecting the
    occupation of these graduates. The chief results are as
    follows:


    Changes in Occupation.

    There are two kinds of occupation which enlisted graduates
    for the first decade and for the second in practically the
    same proportions.

    One is journalism, which enlisted two per cent in the first
    decade and two and a half per cent in the second, an
    increase of only one-half of one per cent.

    The other is business in varied forms, which enlisted
    sixteen and a half per cent of the college graduates in the
    former decade and sixteen per cent in the latter decade.

    On the other hand, three occupations show a decided falling
    off. The graduates who have become clergymen numbered twenty
    per cent in the first decade, but only seventeen per cent in
    the second, a decrease of three per cent.

    Those who entered the law were thirty-three per cent in the
    first decade and twenty-six per cent in the second, a
    decrease of seven per cent.

    Those who became physicians were sixteen and a half per cent
    in the first decade and fifteen and a half per cent in the
    second, a decrease of one per cent; being a total decrease
    in the recruits of these professions of eleven per cent.


    Teaching Monopolizes the Increase.

    Then comes the surprising fact that a single profession has
    monopolized the entire increase. The profession of teaching,
    which has twelve per cent in the ten classes first named,
    has increased to no less than twenty-three per cent in the
    ten classes down to the year before last.

    The striking fact respecting college graduates is that
    eleven per cent fewer of them go into law, medicine, and
    divinity, and this entire eleven per cent have gone into
    teaching.

    What is the explanation? I answer, first, the teaching
    profession has increased in dignity and reputation, and in
    no part of the world more than in the region where New York
    University finds its students.

    A second reason is that philanthropic spirits find in
    teaching to-day, compared with other professions, larger
    scope than ever before. Law is less altruistic as a
    profession and more commercial than a generation ago.
    Theology is waiting for new statements of what to teach and
    how to teach. Therefore, men who are inclined to teach turn
    to the common school, the high school, and the college to
    find scope for influencing others for good.

    As further explanation of the vast increase in the number of
    the teachers required for the higher positions, I can give
    exact figures for only the year 1905, compared with the year
    1900. In 1900 there were enrolled in the high schools of New
    York City 11,706 students; last year there were enrolled
    20,770 students; in other words, they have almost doubled in
    the space of five years.

Can sordid covetousness long be charged against a people whose youth
increasingly seek entrance into "the poorest-paid profession"?


MEN OF THE SOUTH WERE NEVER REBELS.

  Confederates and Federals Were Patriots
  Settling a Constitutional Question,
  Says Ex-Secretary Herbert.

In an oration over the graves of the Confederate dead in Arlington
Cemetery a few weeks ago, Hilary A. Herbert, former Secretary of the Navy,
gave force to the opinion that General Robert E. Lee, and those who fought
with him during the Civil War, though secessionists, were not "rebels." He
said:

    Was Robert E. Lee and were these dead comrades of ours
    traitors? With the great war in which they fought far away
    in the dim past, what we have a right to ask is, Were they,
    the history and Constitution of the United States
    considered, either technically or legally traitors?

    This may be purely an academic question. In one sense it is,
    because all admit that practically the union of these States
    is indissoluble; but in another sense it is not, because
    there are those in the North who are fond of repeating, even
    to this day, "The North was eternally right, and the South
    eternally wrong."

    This is declamation with which history will have nothing to
    do.

    Then, again, there are those in the South who say that if
    the South ever had the right to secede, it has, though it
    will never exercise it, that right to-day, because war
    never settles a principle. This too is declamation; it loses
    sight of history.


    War Has Settled Great Questions.

    Every international dispute about rights, about principles,
    that could not be adjusted by diplomacy, has been settled by
    war. Allegiances of people, forms of government, boundaries
    of kingdoms and republics, all these time out of mind have
    been submitted to the arbitrament of the sword, and the
    results--treaties, not voluntary, but enforced at the
    cannon's mouth--have been upheld by diplomats and
    parliaments and courts, by every tribunal that has authority
    to speak for law and order and the peace of the world.

    It does not lie in the mouth of him who believed in the
    right of a State in 1861 to secede, to deny now that the
    question was settled by the war, and no formal treaty was
    necessary as evidence of what all the world could see. We
    had the right as sovereign States to submit to the
    arbitrament of war. We did it, and, like others who have
    gone to war, we must abide the issue. So that now if a State
    should attempt to secede those who should cast their
    fortunes with it would be rebels.

    But not so in 1861. Then the right of a State to withdraw
    from the Union was an open question. Nothing better
    illustrates the situation at that time than this incident in
    the life of General Lee:


    General Lee's Rebuke.

    When the great war was over and defeat had come to the
    armies Lee had led, he was visiting the house of a friend in
    Richmond. With that love of children that always
    characterized him, the old hero took upon his knee a
    fair-haired boy. The proud mother, to please her guest,
    asked the child, "Who is General Lee?" Parrot-like the
    expected answer came, "The great Virginian who was a
    patriot, true to his native State." And then came the
    question, "Who is General Scott?" and the reply, "A
    Virginian who was a traitor to his country."

    Putting down the child and turning to the mother, the
    general said:

    "Madam, you should not teach your child such lessons. I will
    not listen to such talk. General Scott is not a traitor. He
    was true to his convictions of duty, as I was to mine."

    What General Lee here said and what even when the fires of
    the late war were still smoldering he would have the mothers
    of the South teach to their children was that he and
    General Scott were both right, because each believed himself
    to be right.

    And that is precisely what that noble son of New England,
    Charles Francis Adams, himself a gallant Union soldier, has
    more recently said in a public address--that the North and
    the South were both right, because each believed itself
    right. And such is to be the verdict of history. We were all
    patriots settling on the field of battle a constitutional
    question that could be settled in no other way. Public
    opinion is already moving, and moving rapidly, to the mark
    of that final verdict.

With the interment of Confederate dead at Arlington much bitterness
disappears. The comradeship of death is unassailable by the arguments of
the living.


PLACE IN PUBLIC LIFE ONLY FOR PICKED MEN.

  The Self-Made Have a Hard Time,
  Those Born Rich Are Mostly Useless,
  Says Speaker Cannon.

Somebody asked Speaker Cannon this question: "What would you say if a
young man of intelligence, education, and force, undecided as to what he
should adopt as a life career, should come to you for advice?"

Of his reply, as printed in the New York _World_, we quote the salient
passages, answering the further query as to the advisability of going into
politics:

    I should say yes to the young man of intelligence, culture,
    and efficiency, if these things were crossed with
    patriotism. In the main those who go into public life are
    picked men, and by just so much as they are picked men they
    are ahead of the average. This is a fact in spite of the
    oft-repeated assertion that the representatives of the
    people are only of average grade.

    If among a dozen young men, each of whom should decide to
    devote his life to the public service and should qualify and
    work hard and conscientiously for it, one--just one--should
    get himself into public life and sustain himself with credit
    to himself and benefit to the country, I should consider it
    a great return for the effort put forth.

    The man who has to make his own way, who is without a
    competency to start with, and who enters public life these
    days before he has saved enough to live independently of his
    income as a public man, has a hard time before him.


    Hard Time for the Poor Man.

    The young man who has never earned his living for himself,
    no matter what his advantages of circumstances or training,
    is sure to make many mistakes through ignorance of hard,
    practical life. Not personally having the same needs as the
    man of the people, he doesn't know what to do or how to do
    it.

    Young men who enjoy the advantages of special training and
    the opportunities that wealth gives may become especially
    qualified for public life; such opportunities and training
    are necessary to complete qualifications, but often they are
    not equal to them. That which may be had without effort is
    not often highly prized.

    But all young men of ability, whether favored by fortunes or
    not, owe it both to themselves and to the nation to give
    attention to public affairs, to keep themselves in touch
    with things, to be in constant preparation for public life
    if the opportunity or necessity comes to them.

    Everybody knows there is a large number of such young men in
    the great business and industrial centers who give no
    attention, or very little, to public affairs. The
    manufacturing, the commercial or financial operations, the
    contracting or transportation enterprises which they take up
    give them so much better financial returns than public life
    would yield that they lose sight altogether of the
    government, upon whose proper conduct their success in their
    various callings and enterprises depends--upon which, in
    fact, the very chance to enter these callings and carry on
    those enterprises rests, and whose demoralization would wipe
    out everybody's chances in life.

    Now, we can't prevent the evolution of such conditions in
    this or any other civilized country. But these people, thus
    completely absorbed in their callings and enterprises, whose
    standpoint of self-interest now prevents them from giving
    attention to public affairs, will surely be forced more and
    more to broaden their culture--thorough knowledge of public
    affairs is as necessary to truly broad culture as any other
    sort of knowledge--as well as their patriotism.


    Must Give More Than Money.

    I don't say that these people should give, give, give--it
    won't do for them to try to meet the situation merely by
    being charitable with their money. Giving only gratifies
    the giver. As a general rule, it pauperizes the people who
    receive. The multimillionaire of to-day must give more than
    his money. He must give some of his time, his attention, and
    his thought to other and more important things than personal
    money-getting.

    The human animal accomplishes only as he works under the
    pressure of necessity. The extensive development of the
    United States in the last half century has kept the people
    so busy in various industries, speculations, and
    enterprises, in order to do their part in this development,
    that many of them have neglected their duties as citizens,
    or perhaps I should say as co-sovereigns in the government
    of the great empire that has been built up by their efforts,
    in which all men are equal at the ballot-box.

    I myself am acquainted with many men who, merely because of
    lucky location, though only of respectable ability, have sat
    on the gateway of commerce, and, by simply levying toll,
    have accumulated great fortunes.

    In all their lives they have never got into touch with
    public life; they know little about public questions, and
    they give them no attention. These men, when pinched by the
    unwise action of the majority of their fellows, are able to
    do little except cover the latter with abuse.

    Sometimes, however, such men try to enter public life
    themselves. But then the people do not always acknowledge
    their fitness for public position. Sometimes they seek
    protection for their interests by improper methods instead
    of trying to contribute their share in building up a wise
    public sentiment.


    The Most Dangerous Men.

    It goes without saying that the most dangerous men in the
    republic are those who, by inheritance or otherwise, have
    vast fortunes, yielding great incomes, which enable them to
    command the services of those who have ability, but not
    conscience, and thus seek to control the average man--the
    man who lives by the sweat of his face--by playing upon his
    prejudices, his hopes, and his fears.

    Is there a remedy for this? An offset to such evil
    influences? Yes. A most efficient remedy. In the fulness of
    time the multitude will find out from some actual and
    painful experience that they have been misled. When, through
    being misled, they begin to suffer; when they begin to be
    oppressed they will seek to find new leadership and will
    apply the proper remedies through the ballot-box.

    Fortunately, in this republic there are plenty of men of
    culture, ability, and wisdom--themselves of the people--who
    cannot be bought or controlled by material considerations,
    and who are daily performing the duties of citizenship, from
    whom to select the required leaders not only among the rich
    and well-to-do, but also among those who live by their daily
    labor.


THEY WOULD KEEP THE PEACE-DOVE HOVERING.

  Plans to Establish an International Parliament
  for the Prevention of Conflicts
  in the Future.

The year after a great war is naturally a period for talk of permanent
peace. The dove still coos, the ravages of conflict are still apparent,
the folly of an appeal to arms is evident in economic conditions. And so,
this summer, there has been more than the usual attention to plans for the
prevention of war in the future. Indeed, the time does seem ripe for the
establishment of an international parliament.

Among the addresses at the recent session of the Lake Mohonk Conference
was one by Judge W.L. Penfield, who said concerning the plan upon which
peace advocates are now agreed:

    The institution of a parliament competent to legislate in
    the international sphere, as the United States Congress is
    within the Federal sphere, would undoubtedly present some
    most difficult political problems, yet it would hardly be
    more difficult for a body of jurists and statesmen to define
    the bounds of authority of the international parliament than
    it was for the framers of the Federal constitution to define
    and distribute the powers of the Federal government.

    Under existing political conditions the creation of an
    international parliament clothed with the power of direct
    legislation does not appear to be presently feasible. But it
    is the unexpected that happens, as, for example, who would
    have dared foretell five years ago the convocation of the
    Russian Duma?


    The Hague Conference as a Basis.

    The call of an international parliament cannot be set down
    as wholly improbable, and the way to that goal lies through
    the more frequent calls and assemblages of The Hague
    conference and by committing to it the task of codifying in
    the form of treaties the leading branches of international
    law. One of the subjects of its deliberations will be the
    reciprocal rights and duties of neutrals and belligerents.

    A more serious difficulty will arise in agreeing upon some
    criterion to determine when articles of dual utility, for
    war or peace, may be treated by a belligerent as absolutely
    contraband of war.

    There is the further question of the prize courts and of the
    arrest and seizure by a belligerent's cruisers of neutral
    ships and cargoes.

    We may expect that another and kindred question will come
    before the conference--the question of the immunity from
    capture at sea of all non-contraband private property,
    whether owned by the citizens or subjects of neutral or
    belligerent states.


    The Limits of Hospitality.

    Another important subject which is likely to attract the
    attention of the conference is the question of the
    privileges and the limits of hospitality, of temporary
    anchorage and asylum, and of the supply and repair of
    belligerent war-ships in neutral ports.

    It is understood that the subject which has been suggested
    for the consideration of the conference is the question of
    opening hostilities without previous declaration of war. It
    is extremely doubtful whether the conference will attempt to
    formulate any rule on so difficult a subject, and one so
    intimately connected with the necessities of strategy.

    There will be little objection, I imagine, to the view that
    no government ought to use force to compel another
    government to pay its public securities, its bonds, or other
    national obligations which foreigners have voluntarily
    purchased or subscribed to and taken.

    But it is nearly certain that there will be a division of
    opinion on the question whether any inflexible rule should
    be laid down with respect to cases of individual foreigners
    who have invested large sums of money in the development of
    the natural resources of a country, under contract with its
    government to do so, if the latter should then flagrantly
    violate the contract and despoil them of the fruits of their
    enterprises.

    The experience had with the practical workings of The Hague
    Tribunal suggests the desirability of certain amendments of
    the convention of July 29, 1899, such as that only
    disinterested arbitrators shall be eligible to seats on the
    tribunal; that the arbitration of questions of a judicial
    nature and of those concerning the interpretation and
    execution of treaties shall be compulsory; that the medieval
    idea that a sense of national honor, aside from the rights
    of self-defense, can justify resort to war in any case shall
    be abandoned, and, workable and in every way admirable as it
    now is--when we consider its substance and the circumstances
    of its formation--that the time is now ripe for the revision
    and recasting of the convention of July 29, 1899.

Whether an international parliament can prevent war without the assistance
of an international police is another story.


LIQUOR DEALERS COME OUT FOR TEMPERANCE.

  Rum-Sellers in Convention at Louisville
  Praise the Work of the Societies that
  Fight King Alcohol.

The National Liquor Dealers' Association, in annual convention at
Louisville, Kentucky, early in June, issued a startling address to the
public. These men, who are frequently thought to have no stronger desire
than that every person drink more than is good for him, actually commend
the work of the various temperance societies and urge that intoxication
should be considered a crime. They say:

    From time to time during the past seventy-five or one
    hundred years waves of public sentiment antagonistic to the
    manufacture and sale of wine and spirits and other alcoholic
    beverages have passed over this country, leaving in their
    train State, county, and municipal legislation of a more or
    less drastic character--legislation entirely out of sympathy
    with the spirit of American institutions; legislation that
    was bound to fail in its purpose in practically every
    instance, and this because the sentiment that compelled it
    was a sentiment engendered by agitation, and totally unripe
    for its enforcement.


    Prohibitory Laws Evaded.

    That prohibitory laws are all evaded is clearly shown by the
    fact that notwithstanding the adoption of prohibition by a
    number of States, and by innumerable counties, until at the
    present time it is unlawful to sell wines or spirits in more
    than one-half of the geographical limits of the United
    States, the demand for such beverages has increased in
    almost the same proportion as our population, from the
    legitimate trade, and in an enormously greater proportion