r- .-
VI
THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
▲NO
COMPENSATION:
A CHAPTER OF THE
PROHIBITION CONTROVERSY.
BY
WM.
BURGESS,
TORONTO.
: ri'.
-♦"••"-♦-
AVHY THE SUBJECT IS DISCUSSED WHO IS T(J PAY*?
COMPENSATION DEFINED.
THE LEGAL VIEW-
Special Sanction by License.
THE (QUESTION OF POLICY.
PllECEDENTS CONSIDERED.
License versus Right.
WHO IS TO BE COMPENSATED ?
The LiceuBed Victuallers' Claims.
Property Right in License.
Rejected Applicants' Claims.
The Grocers' Claims.' ^ • • '• ' '
Distillers' and Brcv/ors' 'Jir'in-.s' '
Tjbe Workman's '.''aims.
The Public Claim's ' •'•''■'■'■ ■> ^
The Com Laws — Railways — Cow-
keeping— Toll Gates— Post Offices
—Sunday Trains — Public Schools-
Irish Land Laws — British Slavery
Grant, &c., &c.
■ i HHE; MiMlAL'YIEW,
I, . Jnffueni3eK)f Jjad Jisws
' • • • • • • . •
* l"". " ^'^mpfetisiftion (.'Restitution.
PRICE 10 CENTS, OR $1.00 PER DOZEN.
SOCfETlES AXD THE TKAOE SCri'l.lED AT KKDl'CED KATES.
«i ^ <»»«
PUBLISHED AND SOLD BY THE
2S "TXTEIjX.X^ GhTOa:T ST; "'^T'EST, TOS^OI^n'0.
? 181.04
3 9)2
• ^ • » •
* * * * » »
« •
t •
• • • •
• -• •
,< ^^V'
THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
AND
COMPENSATION.
• •VI.'N.'V.'VW.'V.'V'V'V.'V.^'V.'V'V.A. VtW'V.VVWV
A FLAG 0^ truce has been raised. The conflict described by one of the
most distinguished brewers of England* as ** one development of the
war between heaven and hell " has extended over a period of more than
half a century. Strongly intrenched behind a wall of error, fashion,
custom, and license, the liquor party treated the temperance Reformers
with contempt and ridicule. In proportion as tl3 volunteer army
increased in numbers and power, they were met with organized opposi-
eion, and by vigorous defence measures, backed by enormous material
resources. For a quarter of a century the temperance party regarded
their forces as unequal to any close engagement with their powerful
-opponents.
But the tables are turned. Recent events prove that the hitherto
invincible liquor traflfic can be successfully assailed. The constitutional
battle of Maine, so signally triumphant, has been accompanied and
followed by equally significant victories elsewhere. Fort after fort
have been stormed and carried. In Canada, the Scott Act campaign
has resulted, up to the end of January, in 54 victories out of 65
battles, with a total majority of 37,497 votes in its favour. Routed
at the Battle of Halton — a Waterloo of their own choice — the courage
of the liquor party has evaporated, and they have beaten a hasty and
ignominious retreat. While the temperance army is still in the field,
making wonderful progress towards the citadel of defence, the enemy
have practically retired from the open field of battle, and are pleading
for terms. Their appeal for compensatiou is an acknowledgment of a
speedy dissolution of their forces. Regarded as an indication of the
progress of temperance sentiment, it is the most interesting and
• A remarkable article appeared in the North British Quarterhj Review about thirty
years ago, entitled " How to Stop Drunkenness." The writei "advocated permissive
prohibition by a vote of the electors, and remarked that "the struggle of tne school,
the library, and the church against the beerhc use and gin-palace is but one develop-
ment of the war between heaven and hell." It became known afterwards that the
author of the article was Mr. Charles Baxton, M.P., a leading member of the great
firm of Trumau, Hanbury, Boxtou, and Co., brewers, of London.
KonnkA
4 THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
encouraging circumstance of the movement. When one of two bellige
rents pleads for terms, the beginning of the end of war is at hand.
It has been truly said that the question of Compensation is not before
the public in any definite or practical shape. Its discussion, therefore,
would be premature, but for the fact that the liquor party are industri-
ously appealing to Members cf Parliament and other prominent citizens
with the cry of confiscation of vested interests, and are burking the
main question. The subject has already been raised in Parliament,
during the debate on Prof. Foster's prohibition motion in March, 1884.
Mr. Beaty, M.P. for Toronto, objected to the Dunkin Act and the Scott
Act because they did not provide compensation. He went so far as to
outline the possible cost of compensating the distillers, and it is signifi-
cant that he seemed to regard these as the only parties who should be
considered. The question is now before the Dominion Parliament.
Mr. Krantz, M.P., has given notice of the following i^otion to be con-
sidered in a committee of the whole House :
" Resolved, That it is expedient whenever Parliament decides that a law pro-
hibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for
beverage purposes should be enacted, that equitable provision should b'j made
for the compensation di brewers, distillers and maltsters, so far as respects the
diminution in value of the real property, premises and plant owned and used
by them in their busineas. "
It is obvious that the object of this motion is to commit Parliament
to a measure for compensating distillers before public opinion has been
expressed against it.
With a view to influence the Government, the liquor sellers' great
delegation to Ottawa on the 17th February proposes to represent that
the public are in favour of compensation as well as to other concessions,
and they are now presenting petitions to business men for signature
after the manner of highwaymen, "your money or your life."
A well-known manager of a Toronto loan company informs the writer
that he has this week (Feb. 14) been threatened with "boycotting " if
he did not sign the liquor sellers' petition. He was told that his name
would be published all over the Dominion, and persons wanting to do
business in his line would be warned against him. The impudent fellow
who was thus attempting to bully the public into a "free and indepen-
dent " expression of opinion is the eminent biblical authority and spirit
dealer who undertook, in a series of letters to the Olohe, to enlighten
the clergy as to their duty in reference to the Scott Act.
COMPENSATION DEFINED.
Compensation implies remuneration, reward, amends, or satisfaction
for services, debt, want, loss, or suffering. It would be difficult for any-
one to show on which of these grounds the makers and retailers of
intoxicating liquors can base an appeal. They have rendered no service
AND COMPENSATION. 5
to the country, nor placed the public under any obligation or indebted-
ness to them. It is too true that want, loss, an(l sufiering have attended
their business, to a greater degree than any other interests or evil in the
world. Mr. W. K Gladstone describes them as being greater than the
" combined evils of war, pestilence, and famine." But the liquor sellers
have not been the sufferers. They have
' ' Fattened with the rich result
Of all this riot. The ten thousand casks
For ever dribbling out their base contents,
Touched by the Midas tinger of the State,
Bleed gold." — Cowper.
while the whole community is placed under tax to meet the ravages of
the unholy business.
Nevertheless, the plea for remuneration, reward, or amends is so
subtle that not a few of our best citizens have been captured by ir,
before the first reason has been given or a single definite proposition of
surrender has been made. Even earnest, sincere, and distinguished
advocates of temperance have been moved to express sympathy with
the cry that personal selfish interests, however disastrous to the public
weal, should not be destroyed without reward or compensation.
THE LEGAL CONSIDERATION.
First, among the grounds upon which compensation to the liquor
interest is claimed, is the theory that the State, by licensing the sale of
intoxicating liquors, have thereby constituted it a legal business, and
ought not to change its policy without providing for the prospective
losses of those who have been encouraged to invest their time and
capital in it.
This proposition implies that the State must never make a change in
the public interest without providing for losses that might accrue to
certain persons under such change. It is the duty of the State to
foster the development of national resources, and to encourage the
investment of capital to that end. This principle involves the protec-
tion of trade interests, and, in the minds of many leading statesmen,
justifies the restriction of competition in order that home industries
may be protected. But suppose it should be deemed advantageous to
this country's interests, at some future time, to abandon the protective
policy, would it be necessary first to assume that every manufacturer
or merchant who has based his calculation of capital outlay, and future
profits upon the permanency of the N. P. must be compensated 1
During the Parliamentary debate on Prohibition in March, 1884, Mr.
Beaty said :
" The first objection we have to meet is the compensation to those who are
engaged iu the manufacture of this article in the country. I think it is only
fair and reasonable, that if legislation should take away from the distillers
6 THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC '
their occupation and business, they shoiil I be, tn a reasonable extent, com-
pensated fur the damages done to them by such legislation. That is the first
p) inciple in connection with these matters. "
The representative of Toront!) did not explain what he meant by com-
pensation as the " first principle " of legislation, designed for the public
good. As we shall show in another part of this pamphlet there is no
precedent in legislation for compensation in connection with the prohi-
bition or limitation of any business, although the name of those interests
which have been interfered with by law is legion.
It is late in the day to urge that no legal business ought to be
restrained or suppressed by law without providing for the financial loss
that may result to certain persons or interests.
All trades are legal unless specially prohibited. A soap factory, a
chemical manure works, or a cattle feeding establishment are legal, even
if situated in the midst of large and populous neighbourhoods, until the
law enacts the contrary. A dyeing house so situated that it pours a
constant stream of poison into the lake upon wliich hundreds of people
are dependent for th^ir daily drink is only illegal when the law so
declares it. If such trades could not be removed — if the Government
hiid no power to act in the interests of the general community without
first providing for the invested capital and the possible prospective
profits — there would be little hope at any time of securing the well-being
of the many against the personal desires, interests, or greed of a few.
Special Sanction by License.
But it is argued that the license system invests the liquor traffic
with special legal sanction, and if the State decides to withdraw that
sanction, it is bound in honour to provide for the losses involved.
Tliis argument proceeds from a mistaken idea as to the legal eifect of
Governmental legislation on the liquor traffic. Prohibition is applied
to all but a few. These feiv are permitted to sell on the basis of a
contract or license. Such contract does not invest the business with
extra legal force; it rather divests it of that legality which belongs
to all ordinary business. It is therefore only semi-legal, or, in other
words, it is lawful only under certain fixed contracts and condi-
tions. No person can legally sell spirits or beer unless he is in pos-
session of a special contract, or permit, empowering him to sell at cer-
tain defined times, in a certain specified place, under certain specified
conditions.
License not a Right.
Again, the liquor traffic does not exist by right. There is no la«^,
natural, moral, or statutory, declaring the right to sell intoxicants.
!No man can claim a license as a right, and no man holds a license
•other than as a privilege or permit. On the other hand, all legitimate
AND COMPENSATION. 7
trade is the right equally of every citizen. Anyone may become a
provision dealer, a dry goods merchant, or a dealer in boots, shoes, i r
clothing. Any person may open a restaurant or a hotel, and supply
the public with steak and potatoes, tea and coffee, bed and board,
without permission. No License Commission gives out restrictive
contracts to a [)rivileged few to sell bread or fruit. But to sell liquor it
is necessary to obtain a permit or privileged contract. Nor is a liquor
license a mere tax charged with a view to revenue. A dog tax, an
auction license, a pedlar's license, a cab license, are as rr.uch the right ni
one person as another, but a liquor license is sought for and obtained as
a favour, and never as a right. '* A privilege that the law bestows the
law can revoke, provided no agreement is broken, no promise violated,
no understanding set at naught." (See Appendix A.)
WHO IS TO BE COMPENSATED]
If a claim is to be set up on legal grounds, it would be well to con-
sider — Who is to be Compensated 1
The Licensed Victuallers' Claim.
On behalf of the hotel-saloonist it is urged that his interests are
seriously damaged by the enforcement of any prohibitory law which
deprives him of a renewal of his license. But it is answered, a liquor
license is granted /wr one year only, without any understanding or agree
ment as to a renewal of the privilege.
The very essence of every contract granted for the sale of liquor is
limitation of time, and as there is no legal claim to a renewal of that
contract, so there is no injustice done to any person in refusing to renew
a favour already enjoyed. An exhibition license is granted to a circus
proprietor, giving him permission to exhibit within the limits of a city
or town for a given number of days. If he desires the term of liis
permit or license to be extended, no injustice is done him if he is
refused, nor can he presume upon his obtaining a license next year oti
the ground that he held one this year. A change of municipal govern-
ment, or of policy, may have taken place, and the authorities may decide
that it is against the interests of the community to allow repeated
visits of circus exhibitions. A short time ago the Mitchell-Madden
pugilistic gang obtained a license from the Toronto officials to give " an
exhibition of science" in the Albert Hall. Public opinion was outraged^
and the Mayor issued an order that such licenses should not be granted
in future.
The case may be stated thus : — A lends B the sum of $1000 for one
year, and at the end of the year the loan is renewed for one year more
at the request of B. If A refuses to again renew the loan, no injustice
is done to B, no matter how disastrously the refusal may affect hift
8 THE LIQUOR TRAFriC
interests. It would be regarded as child's play, not to say base ingrati-
tude for past favours, if the recipient of the loan were to set up a cry of
compensation, on the ground that the renewal of the loan for the second
year establishes a claim to its renewal in future years.
Property Right in Licenbe.
But it is alleged that the liquor seller has a property right in his
license on the ground of expected renewals, since it has been customary
to renew licenses, provided the licensees have not been convicted of
any o£fences against the law. But the right to regard this custom
as a precedent in law has been repeatedly denied by the highest legal
authorities. At the Court of Queen's Bench, London, England, Mr.
Justice Lopes, in dealing with a case of appeal against a magistrate's
refusal to renew a license, cited a Law Text Book in which it was said :
" In all cases of transfers of licenses the discretion of the justices is
absolute."* Mr. Baron Pollock said '* he should be sorry to lay down
any rule which would limit the discretion of the justices, but he should
be still more sorry to give any ground for belief that a license was a kind
of property in the landlord." Commenting on this subject The Lav)
Times says : " We have been forced to the opinion that the interest of
licensed victuallers is an annual interest only." The Law Journal says :
" It is not arguable that licensed persons of any kind have a legal vested
interest in their licenses." Mr. Justice Field says : *' In every case in
every year there is a new license granted. You may call it renewal if
you like, but that does not make the license an old one. The legislature
does not call it a renewal, it calls it ' a grant by way of renewal.' The
legislature recognizes no vested right at all in any holder of a license.
It does not treat the interest as a vested one in any way."
No Claim EsTABLisiiiiD under past Prohibitoky and
Restrictive Laws.
' ' It is obvious that if any claim could have been made for compensating
persons on account of suspension or non-renewal of license, it would
have been established in a court of law long ago. The Provincial
Government of Ontario, by passing the Crooks Act, deprived 2,000 per-
sons of the privilege of liquor licenses. Municipalities have frequently
passed by-laws limiting the number of licenses, thereby prohibiting the
renewal of licenses to existing liquor dealers. By the Forbes Mackenzie
Act, in 1854 the British Government reduced the liquor traffic by one-
seventh. By virtue of his power as a landlord, the late Lord Claud
Hamilton, M.P., prohibited the sale of liquor in a territory of 81 square
* Licensing Justices ur M^igistrates act as License Commiiaioneri) in the United
Kingdom.
AND CT>MPENSATION. 9
miles in the county of Tyrone, Ireland, refusing to renew leases except
on that condition.
In numerous instances owners of property have totally exterminated
drink shops by refusing to grant or renew leases except under conditions
{>rohibiting the sale of liquor, and no consideration of compensation was
eyer involved.
The State of Maine has not only passed and maintained a prohibitory
law, but has embodied it in its Constitution. Kansas, New Hampshire,
and Vermont have also passed prohibitory laws. In none of these
cases have compensation been considered as a condition of such changes,
or even seriously debated, when the change has become law. (See
Appendix B.) An able writer remarks :
" In past centuries it was a received principle, acted upon unanimously,
suddenly, and without compensation to traders, to forbid exportation of food,
if food were scarce and inconveniently dear. For the same reason the con-
version of grain into malt was occasionally stopped, and however sudden the
prohibition, no compensation was given." — Alliance News, Eng.
Claims of Rfjected Applicants for Licenses.
If a claim for compensating persons for loss of privilege were allowed,
what must be said of those who have desired the privilege and have never
been favoured 1 There are many persons who have invested capital on
the strength of the custom of granting hotel licenses, and have been
refused. In many instances large premises have been erected and
adapted to the business of a saloon-hotel, and the value of the place has
been estimated upon the expectancy of obtaining a license. But the
refusal on the part of the License Commissioner has destroyed the
hopes of the speculator. Surely if a person who has had the privileged
opportunity to make money by selling liquor for, say five or ten years,
has any claim to consideration on account of the withdrawal of that
privilege, the claim would be still greater on the part of the man who
desired to enter the business, and invested capital in anticipation of it,
but was denied the privilege. Yet no one has ever thought of proposing
compensation in such a case.
' ■ The Grocers' Claims.
Again, if a plea is made on behalf of the licensed hotel-keeper, why
not for the grocer ? About a year ago the City Council of Toronto
referred the question of abolition of grocer's licenses to the electors.
A ballot vote was taken on Feb. 2 4th, 1884, and resulted in a majority
of 349 in favour of separating the sale of liquor from the sale of grocer-
ies or other commodities.* Recognising the action of the Toronto
* The numbers of votes recorded on the (ineation of separation of sale of liquor from
groceries were, For— 6565, Against — 5216.
10 THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
electors as in harmony with the public will of the country, the Provin-
cial Government of Ontario confirmed the vote by a clause in the
amended Crooks Act, ])Iacing it out of the power of the City Council
to repeal the by-law. Now if any plea can be offered for compensating
men for loss of privilege, surely the grocers of the city of Toronto, and
other places where similar votes have been taken, would be in a position
to make a good case. It may be observed here that they have at least
as good a right to sell liquor as an hotel-keeper. Their business is
j)eculiarly that of retailers of articles of general consumption. If it is
for the public good that the sale of liquor should be divorced from the
sale of tea, coffee, suj^ar, and spices, it is logically for the public good
that it should be abolished from the temporary homes of travellers —
men, women, and children. And if to withdraw the sale of liquor from
the hotel would be a source of temj)orary inconvenience and some loss
of [irofits, it is not less so to the family grocer, who can no longer make
liis store also the family wine and spirit depot. Yet no one has heard
the cry of confiscation of grocers' interests seriously raised, and certainly
the Licensed Victuallers' Association have not concerned themselves to
establish a plea for compensation on their behalf.
Distillers and Brewers' Claims.
On behalf of the distillers and brewers it is claimed that a special
claim to compensation can be made. It must be admitted that some,
even of our temperance friends, admit special circumstances in their case,
and are hesitating to commit themselves wholly to a radical scheme of
prohibition which does not include some money consideration for the
liquor manufacturers. It is argued that the capital of the brewer and
the distiller has been invested in good faith, in view of the acquiescence
of the law.
Mr. Beaty, M.P., speaking in the House of Commons, says : —
" Tliat is the first obstacle we have to meet — oompensation — and yet that
would not be a very great matter, beca\ise in Canada, at the present day,
there are only seven distilleries. Five of those do not amount to much as
to value or ])roduction. Two of them — the distillery at Toronto and the
distillery at Windsor — are very large concerns, and would represent at least,
I should imaj;ine, two-thirds of the whole value of the seven distilleries.
The whole value of the property included in this question of distillation
would, then, as was represented by one of the Inland Revenue officers, only
represent about ^5,000,000, and the Toronto distillery would represent about
a half of the whole. So the question of compensation would not be so
serious a question, involving only — the interest account being taken as the
only practical question — an expenditure to the country of about $100,000 or
$200,000 a year as the case might be,"
This is special pleading for the rich distiller with a vengeance. Mr.
Beaty ignores all other parties. His righteous soul is moved to sym-
pathy for the poor distillers with their five millions of dollars worth of
AND COMPENSATION. 11
property, and their further million of accumulated wealth. On what
principle or from what fund he would pension off the seven distillers,
at a cost of $100,000 or $200,000 a year, Mr. Beaty does not say. Nor
does he say why he singles out the distillers for such tender considera-
tion.
Mr. N. W. Hoyle's Vifavs.
A representative of the Toronto Crloha recently interviewed a. number
of representative men of the liquor interests and the temperance move-
ment respectively, and among the most conspicuous of the latter is Mr.
N. W. Hoyh^s, Vice-President of the C.E.T.S. in Toronto. His opinion
will command special notice, not only from the fact that he is a pro-
minent and mcst earnest advocate of the c. use of temperance, but also
as a lawyer of considerable practice he may be supposed to speak with
some knowledge of legal precedents. Speaking of compensation of the
liquor interests, he says :
*'I find it exceedingly hard to satisfy myself on that point as to what I
ought to think. I am convinced of one thing, however, — that there should
be compensation to those wlio lose directly by the chanL;e. If a man has
invested a large sum of money in buildings and api^ilianoes fir making li<[Uor
whde tho law allows him to do so, T cannot reconcile it with my idea of justice
that ho should have his property made valueless and no reparation given.
Apply it to my own business for instance. Some people say that lawyers are
a nuisance, and if they could havo their way our business would be abolished.
I d<m't tliink it would be fair for tbe public to take such a step against my
wish and without indemnifying me."
" On what principle should compenaaticm be paid in your opinion ? "
"I confess that at present 1 cannot define the princi[»lo. This is a very
complicated and difficult question."
" Should the people in the liquor business receive anything on account of
loss on prospective business ? "
" Yes, I think so. Suppose a man has been brought up at that business,
has worked at it all his life, has all his life made a comfoitable living out of
it, and knows no other. To take that business away must cause him great
loss. He cannot find another in which he can do so well, perhaps can't find
one at which he can even earn enough to give him the plainest living. That
fact would have to bo considered as an element of the compensation to be
granted."
It is perfectly clear that Mr. Hoyle has not given this subject his
attention. If he is to be blamed for expressing an opinion on the sub-
ject, it is on tli.e ground that he ought first to have well weij;hed the
matter before allowing his name, as a most earnest and devoted officer
of such a distinguished temperance organization, and as a lawyer, to be
quoted in its fivvour. The comparison he makes between his own pro-
fession and the bui^iness of a distiller or brewer is a compliment to them.
But it may serve to put the case strongly. It must even be admitted
that if the legal, or any other profession, were proved to be a prolific
12 THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
source of crime, a public danger, a menace and a burden to society, it
would be the province of the Government to outlaw such a profession,
and it would be its duty to do so at the earliest moment that public
support could be secured. But Mr. Hoyle's illustration is without
point, because the liquor traffic has always been under the ban of legal
restriction. Governments have been occupied for centuries in trying to
regulate and restrain it. The prohibition of the traffic has been a live
question for a generation. Every man engaged in the traffic, is so in
spite of the warnings of public opinion and the ominous handwriting on
the wall. (See Appendix E.). If the legal profession had been so inher-
ently bad that moral reformers for upwards of fifty years had felt them-
selves called upon to engage in a crusade of extermination ; if public senti-
ment had been so aroused that as far back as 1864 a permissive prohibitory
bill had been passed in the Dominion Parliament, and eight years ago
the same principle had been adopted in another and a stronger law
to suppress the legal profession ; if that profession had been condemned
by a resolution of the Canadian Parliament by a majority of 122 to 40 ;
—such men as Mr. Hoyle would as soon have thought of being in the
slave trade or the liquor business as entering or remaining in the pro-
fession. Mr. Hoyle might well say he found it difficult to define the
principle of compensation as applicable to the liquor traffic.
The Brewers Speak. • ^ ,% .v,
On behalf of the brewers, Mr. Cosgrave, of Toronto, being asked his
opinion as to compensation, said :
** I don't see how anybody can pretend that we would lose nothing through
the Scott Act or prohibition ; 1 don't see how anybody can say that that loss
comes from any other cause than the action of the public, and I don't see how
anybody can say, in that case, that our loss should not be made good. "
Mr. Cosgrave expends his strength in beating the air. No one pre-
tends that the brewers would lose nothing by prohibition. The very
genius and purpose of prohibition is to stop their business, and their
prospective gains will certainly be checked. Nor is it pretended that
prohibition will come " from any other cause than the action of the
public " — in fact this is its highest and best justification. Like the rest
of those engaged in the business, Mr. Cosgrave speaks of losses he has
never sustained, and says nothing of gains he has made. Mr. Davies
places his view of the matter as follows :
** What would you call compensation,? On what principle would you have
it distributed ? "
" I don't pretend to speak for others, but 1 think my own demand for
compensation would be conceded as fair and reasonable. I want to get back
the money 1 have in my business, that's all."
' ' You won't ask anything for the loss of prospective prohts ? "
AND COMPENSATION. 13
i<
No. Give me my capital and I r\m. satisfied. With the present harass-
mente and worries, there's no inducement to remain in our business. If ^^^
get our money back we arc quite content to leave the whole field to the whis-
key interest under the Scott Act."
Mr. Davies probably thinks this is a very magnanimous view of the
case. His outlay of capital has been for the public good, and the finan-
cial harvest he has reaped is also for the good of the community. (?) He
keeps out of view the true facts of the case. Originally the capital in-
vested in most of these establishments was about sufficient to run a
one-horse machine. A hired shanty served for the brewery, and one or
two men were sufficient for the occasion. But the brewing of lager and
whiskey is profitable, and when the present incumbents became heirs
to the concerns, it was found that a large amount of capital had been
created. Large premises were erected, new machinery employed, not
with capital invested, but with capital created by the profits of the business.
If Mr. Davies were taken at his word, seriously and literally, it might
not be acceptable to him. Suppose he hands over to the Government
all his assets on condition lat " he gets his money back," how much
would he have to draw? Probably a few hundred dollars would cover
the amount of the original capital invested.
The special claims urged on behalf of brewers and distillers are as
follows : (a) Their premises are generally built and fitted with costly
machinery, expressly adapted for the purpose, and the compulsory sale
of these assets would probably involve a considerable loss on their
original cost ; (6) The distiller and brewer are not subject to the con-
ditions of a retailer. They carry on the manufacture of intoxicating
drinks without any annual license or permit, and have, therefore, ex-
tended their operations aud investments, from time to time, without re-
gard to an annual contract which is liable to be withheld.
As we have seen, there is more fiction than fact about the investment
of capital in the erection of valuable buildings and machinery. In most
cases the original outlay was very small, and has been repaid many times
over by the large profits of the business. Not the original, but only
a portion of the accumulated capital acquired in the business would be affected
by prohibition. If the traffic were extinguished during the present year,
all past profits, all the stored up wealth, all the property belonging to
every distillery and brewery, would remain untouched. Of course it will
be said in reply that the buildings and plant would be comparatively
worthless, and the prospective interests would be destroyed. But our
contention is not that the extent of losses decides the question, or in any
way justify it. All that is here stated is, that the results of prohibition
upon the actual property and accumulated wealth of the distillers aud
brewers is enormously exaggerated. If it were shown that the destruc-
tion of every vestige of property, and the loss of every cent of profits,
were necessarily involved, it would still be true that the Government is
'not called upon to purchase property, or refund losses, in order to the
]»4 THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
removal of a business so disastrous to the public weal, and so opposed
to the public will. (See Appendix A.)
Then, secondly, it must be remembered that the distiller and brewer,
although not directly controlled by an annual license or permit, enter
their business and extend their operations well knowing that they must
depend chiefly upon the licensed liquor sellers for the sale of *^^eir com-
modities. The State has never entered into a contract with them to
sqpure their busicess. The interests of the manufacturer and the retailer
are bound up to^iether ; practically the saloonists are the agento of the
brewers and distillers. Whatever risks are involved in the license law
are appl'^^able to all parties concerned, and if the public will, for its own
weal, demand the prohibition of the manufacture of liquor, it must be
put upon the same basis as the prohibition of the sale.
The Claims of Employees.
There remains one other class whose claims are never put forward in
this cry of compensation. But if in justice or equity there is any class
who ought first to be heard, it is the workman. One of the principal
grounds upon which the cry has been raised on behalf of the liquor
vendors and manufacturers is, that prohibition deprives them of their
living ; but it is very strange that the only class of men engaged in the
business who would really feel the pinch in the event of a sudden
collapse of the traffic are never considered. Th« workman, whose only
capital is his labour, has more claim to consideration than all others put
together. But in truth it suits the purpose of rich capitalists to cry
aloud for themselves. As Mr. Davies says, " if he could sell out at a
valuation he would be satisfied," and his men, whose miserable wages*
prevent them having a dollar in reserve, would find themselves left out
in the cold. It is somewhat singular that on the very date whon the
above passages were written. The Palladiuni, the organ of the working
men and women of Canada, published an editorial on this question.
Attention was called to the article some days after, and we take the
following from it : , ^
" It is curious to note that whenever compensation is talked of for loss to
individuals through legal changes, it is always on the principle of * to him
that hath shall be given.' It is invariably the rich capitalist, landowner, or
sinecurist who is to be compensated. We never hear of any such measure
for the benefit of the poor man who has nothing but his labour. His means
of earning a livelihood may be taken away without anyone proposing to com-
pensate him. The big brewer or distiller thinks it a terrible injustice to stop
their trade unless they are paid, not merely for the actual value of the stock
on hand, but for the 'goodwill' of the business. But what of their eiiployds
— the large number of men who know no other trade than that of brewing or
distilling — who, instead of having a snug fortune to fall back on, will be
deprived of their means of living ? Who proposes to compensate them ?
* According to the Dominion census returns of 1881 the average wages paid ta
Irewers' men (adults) is $7.86 per week.
AND COMPENSATION. 15
" Unless compensation is to be an all-round affair, and to apply to the poor
lis well as the rich — the employ^ as well as the employer engaged in the
liquor traffic — the idea ought not to be entertained. In the shape in which
it is generally advocated, compensation would only add to the wealth of those
who have already grown rich by the manufacture and sale of intoxicants,
while passing by those who need it most."
It will be observed that no claim is made in the above for compensation
to the workman except on the principle that if it is to be admitted it
must be "an all-round affair, and to apply to the poor as well as the
rich " — a proposal which will commend itself to ail thinking people (ex-
cepting, of course, Mr. Beaty, M.P. for Toronto) as perfectly reasonable.
But working men, as a rule, do not advance propositions based upon
mere selfish or personal interests against the common weal. Their life's
experiences teach them that the good of the many is a reasonable
ground for the setting aside some of their personal ends and desires.
Their organizations have been called into existence, and (whatever may
have been the mistakes of Unionism), their trade societies have been
necessitated by that spirit of selfish interest which demands that the
rich shall be enriched, no matter who is impoverished.
Katepayers' Claims.
The general public is also interested in this question — Who is to be
compensated ? What of increased taxes, the result of the traffic ?
"What of property destroyed through its agency 1 What of accidents on
railways, on the water, and in the street occasioned by drink 1 What
•of property depreciated in value by the opening of liquor shops 1 (See
Appendix E.) What, again, would be the extent and amount of
claims of young children made orphans, of women made widows, and
of parents who mourn for the ruin of their children by drink, under the
licensiug system 1 The Convocation of Canterbury, representing the
clergy of thirty-two counties in England, in an exhaustive report on
intemperance in Great Britain, says that a careful estimate " places the
mighty sacrifice (of life) at fifty thousand persons every year — a number
thrice as great as that which perished on both sides upon the fatal field
of Waterloo."
WHO IS TO PAY COMPENSATION] \
This is probably the most difficult of all aspects of the compensation
cry. It is very easy to make demands upon an imaginary purse, but
when the practical question " Who is to pay ? " is put, people instinct-
ively shirk the responsibility. There is only one possible source, viz., the
national revenue fund. But the national purse belongs to the nation.
The owners of the money have in no way injured the liquor seller. He
has had only too much license to create interests, for his wealth always
16 THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
implies a corresponding poverty in many others. By far the greater
half of the people have never been consenting parties to the liquor
traffic. Heads count in a case like this. If a vote wore taken in
Canada, the United Kingdom, or the United States, and every man acd
woman, who has an interest in the state exchequer, were called to tie
ballot box, it would be found that an overwhelming majority of «he
whole are strongly opposed to the liquor shop.
But it is urged that as tlie State has profited by tJie business by sharing
its profits, the State ought to contribute to its losses iftliose losses are brought
about by State action.
This is probably the strongest argument that can be used in support
of the compensationist's views. Strong as it is, however, it completely
fails, because it is based upon false premises. The State has not profited
by the business. The liquor traffic has not contributed to the national
purse. On the contrary, it has been a perpetual drain upon the public
funds, and has only paid in a small percentage of the plunder.
Not one cent of revenue has ever been contributed to the national
purse by the liquor traffic. That which does not make wealth cannot
pay wealth. Whatever money has been received into the public
treasury through the liquor traffic has come from wealth-making sources,
i.e.., the farmer, manufacturer, mechanic, labourer, etc., etc. Of their
resources they have contributed millions to the liquor makers and
vendors, who have given no wealth, no utility, no comfort, no value for
the money. The London (Eng.) Times remarks :
«
" Publicans' profits represent luis-spent money. The publicans desire to
keep their trade, but do they really believe that their claims can be perman-
ently sustained ? They have everything against them except the vicious
propensities of nature To put the case in half a dozen words, the
profits in which the liquor sellers now claim a vested interest are realized, to
a vast extent, at the cost of popular degradation, vice, and misery ; and the
question is simply whether the legislation of a country is not justified in
placing with due consideration the welfare of the people above the gains of a
trade."
On the other hand, the owners of the public money have been
seriously injured by the liquor traffic Every man and woman who,
directly or indirectly, pays taxes is damaged by the drink-shop. Every
one of the millions of citizens who have an interest in the nations purse
have had their liberty, wealth, safety, and privileges curtailed by it.
Many have suffered the greatest deprivation through it. Some have
seen father, mother, brother, sister, home, life, honour, character — all
sacrificed on the altar of this licensed institution. Can the money which
belongs to all these be legitimately taken to pay out men who have
already grown rich with the fat results of their privileged business 1
Every true citizen regards the public funds as a trust more sacred
than private wealth. It is drained from the wealth-producing labour
of the country. It would be nothing short of plunder to take the
AND COMPENSATION. 17
price of the farmer's products, the mechanic's dollar, and the widow's
mite to pay out the men who have already made an enormous draft
upon the fruits of their labour and the national resources of the
country.
As the question comes to b« pressed home upon public attention, i^
may ue well to advise that it e considered from another standpoint. .
'. ■ '■ '
Those who Profit should Pay. "■'
The trade might create a fund, out of which its exiled members
could receive a pension. What can be more consistent with the nature
of the case, than that the favoured of the trade should provide for those
who are first deprived of the opportunity of making wealth by the sale
of liquor 1 This suggestion might find some acceptance but that the rapid
growth of public sentiment, as exhibited in Prohibition campaigns, indi-
cates that the favoured will be so few id the deposed so many, that the
fund would be comparatively very p lall.
But outside of the liquor dealers, ihere is a section of the public who
imagine that they have received some benefit from the liquor interests.
Suppose they subscribe to what is called in England, in reference to
Church rates, a " voluntary tax," — i.e., the account rendered to every
taxpayer in England contains an item which is printed in red ink —
" Church Rate, Voluntary/ " — and the taxpayer who has conscientious
objections to it is at liberty to cross it out, and deduct it from the
amount of the account. If a plan like this were adopted, those who
consider that the liquor men had rendered them good service could pay
the '• voluntary." It would be a curious study to observe the result of
such a plan. The enthusiastic advocacy of compensation would prob-
ably lead its advocates, /or conscience sake, to take up their pens in
the cause and strike out the item from the account.
THE QUESTION OF POLICY.
It has been said that it would be wise to consider a proposal to
abolish the manufacture as well as the sale of liquors, even at the
cost of a large sum out of the public funds. The argument is that the
immediate abolition of the traffic would be cheap at any price, and
even if the liquor men have no legal claim, yet if, for a money consider-
ation, their business was brought to a speedy termination, the end
would justify the means.
Replying to Mr. Beaty in the House of Commons, Mr. Jamieson,
M.P., a distinguished and warm friend of temperance, said :
"Although I do not admit the principle for a moment, that parties engaged
in the traffic are entitled to compensation, still I would be prepared, speak-
ing for myself, to admit the principle of compensation were a prohibitory law
framed and submitted to the coimtry, in order to put an end to contention
2
18 THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
ind agitation which might arise if compen&ation were not conceded. So f^r
as diBtiilers are concerned, it might be conceJod to give them componaation,
and also in a few other cases. But to apply the general principle of oompen-
sation in a prohibitory liquor law ceuld not be allowed for a moment, I ap-
prehend there are hon. members in this House who will rocellect when an
army of draymen furnished water for the supply of Ottawa. At present it is
supplied by the corporation tlirough the city water works. All those men
have been deprived of their employment, and if the principle of compensa-
tion were admitted, the Corporation of Ottawa ought to have compensated
all those men whose employment was taken away from them by the construc-
tion of those works, which are of such great importance to the city. But, as
I have said, 1 will be quite prepared to concede the principle of compensation
if we are able to get rid of the great evils in connection with the traffic in in-
toxicating liquors,"
It may be admitted that the country would be a gainer if the liquor
traffic could be immediately abolished by purchase. As a matter of
policy it might pay to invest a large sum of money, as the price for the
immediate closing of the liquor factories and stores. But no such pro-
position is before us. The liquor factors have never proposed to
surrender on any such terras, or indeed upon any terms whatever. If
such terms of compromise had been offered, public policy would lead to
the consideration of — not what would best serve the interests of the few
privileged liquor factors — but what would contribute best to the wel-
fare of the public generally. "Would the traffic be more effectively
suppressed by the force of a gradually adopted prohibitory act like the
Scott Act or other local option laws, until the community becomes
ripe for a general prohibitory law, or by the immediate disestablishment
of the traffic by purchase ?
The greatest — perhaps the only — argument that can be employed,
with any effect, against prohibition is that if the licensed traffic is sup-
pressed, there will remain * an illicit business which will produce drunk-
eness, without contributing by license fees, &c., to its cost. If this
argument is worth anything, it offers a strong objection to the purchase
of the traffic. The chances of a secret traffic will be greatly reduced by
the adoption of prohibition, concurrently with, and by the action of the
public will.
The policy of the Government, too, must harmonise with right, if the
nation is to be established in righteousness. To compromise with evil in
face of a righteous public demand, would be a step backward, and would
certainly end in disaster. No nation can afford to suppress an evil
within the walls of its own house, by offering, or accepting terms with
the evil doer. A few years ago, the Queen of Madagascar, grieved
and indignant at the havoc wrought among her people by strong drink,
prohibited its sale. Shortly after this edict had gone forth, a deputation
* Tbe advocates of the liquor interest say that illicit selling would be created by
prohibition. We do not admit this. Illicit selling is a child of license, much more than
A result of prohibition.
AND COM-r^ENSATION. Ifl^
of French rum-sellers waited upon the Queen, and urged their claims
to compensation. She listened patiently to all they had to say, and
then addressed them thus, " Go home and consalt among youiselves^
consider the wrong which you have done my people, and after you have
compensated them for the injury and ruin inflict<jd upon them, come
hack to me and we will talk of compensation." Such an answer would
be worthy of the greatest of all Queens, or of the Chief Magistrate of
any country in the world.
THE QUESTION OF PRECEDENTS.
We look through the history of Reforms in vain for an example of
compensation, which can be regarded as a precedent. By the action
of law interests have been disturbed in hundreds of instances, without
question of compensation being even raised. In truth, every change
involves the upsetting of somebody's plans, and the destruction of some
interests. (See Appendix D).
(1.) The Repeal of the Corn Laws in England was an interfer-
ence with the interests of the landed proprietors and large farmers.
The taxed loaf meant high priced corn, and large revenues f )r the Lord
of the manor, but Cobden and Bright waged a merciless war against
these, and Parliament repealed the Corn Laws, without entertaining
any question of compensation to the land-owners ; nor did they refer
the matter to the interested parties for their conbideration, with a view
to compromise or compensation. Mr. John Bright addressed a meeting on
the subject in 1848, and said :
"The time is now como when we must no longer look upon this infamous
law as a mistake on the part of the aristocracy and the land-owners — it was
no mistake of the law-makers, it was no accident, chance had nothing to do
with it, — it was a crime, a crime of the deepest dye against the rights of
industry, and against the well-being of the British people, and —
; j Not all that heralds rake from coffin'd clay,
Nor florid prose, nor honied lies of rhyme,
Can blazon evil deeds, or consecrate a crime. ,
To the landed aristocracy, to the monopolist, — we say, — we do not ask you to-
repeal the Corn-Law, and to loose your grasp from the subsistence of this-
most industrious and meritorious, and yet most trampled population. We
do not ask it from your sense of justice and from your love of right, for had
you possessed either the one or the other, this infamous law had never been
enacted, — but we appeal to what is more honest and more virtuous, we ap-
peal to the millions of our countrymen, who are awakened to the wrongs-
they have so long and so patiently endured, and to the consciousness that it
is you who have inflicted them, — we appeal to the honesty and intelligence
of the middle classes of this empire, in the full confidence that the hour is
at hand, when their united voices shall be heard above the roar of party, and
shall decree the immediate, and the utter, and everlasting extinction of that-
odious and inhuman and most unnatural law."
20 ' THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC •
If the necessary changes are made in the words we have put in italics,
the case against the liquor traffic is here most powerfully stated.
Strange anomaly, that the eloquent author of these words is quoted as
in favour of the compensation of a section of the community, who have
been permitted to make wealth a species of class legislation, so odious in
character and so calamitous in results,that the extremest of poverty, and
greatest of wrongs done under the Corn Laws of England, are but as a
drop to the ocean when compared with it.
2. By Acts of Parliament, Railways have been promoted, and
powers vested, by law, in Companies which disturb the interests of many
private individuals. Thus stage coaches are at once made valueless in
hundreds of instances. By the same agency, hotels, once of value at
certain places, became deserted in consequence of a new railway divert-
ing the traffic in another direction.
3. Local Improvements demand the demolition of certain old pre-
mises in which some one has run a paying business for years. But the
old building must go, and the tenant can mal^e no claim for compensa-
tion other than that involved in his lease. If this lease, like the liquor
sellers' license, is allowed to run out, that is the end of his claim.
4. Cow Keeping. — The extension of a city's limits or the increasing
population of a neighborhood demand the prohibition of cow-keeping
within certain limits. The new law is disastrous, perhaps ruinous to
some dairymen, but the public good must be supreme, and the law takes
effect without compensation.
5. Toll Gates. — Public interests demand the abolition of these. The
old toll-gate keeper has for years depended upon it for a living. He
complains that if the gate is abolished, he will be ruined, but the public
interests is embodied in law, and the law is inexorable.
Public sympathy may go with these people and in proportion to the
urgency of the case some voluntary assistance may be given, but all
recognise that law is for " the greatest good of the greatest number,"
and no claim is made upon the public purse.
6. SuNi AY Trains. — In some parts of Great Britain there is a strong
growing popular feeling in favour of prohibiting the running of railway
trains on Sundays. And in Canada, and some parts of the United States
and the United Kingdom, this prohibitory law is actually in operation.
If it were possible to establish a claim at law for compensation in case of
deprivation of past privileges, the railway companies would certainly
have made the claim. ' All that the liquor factors can plead in the direc-
tion of investment of capital under certain expectancies, past customs,
usages, &c., could be urged with much greater force by a railway com-
pany.
7. Post Offices. — The introduction of the postal system affected the
interests of certain private carriers, and the development of that system
still further infringed upon such business. The Canadian Government
now carry all newspapers free if sent from the office of the publisher to
subscribers. This is done in the interests of the community to aid in
AND COMPKNSATION. 21
the maintenance of a cheap free press, but in numerous instances it cuts
off the means through which men had obtained a living by the delivery
of papers. In the United Kingdom, the Government post office de-
partment has assumed the business of carrying parcels up to 7 lbs. weight,
but it gives no compensation to the numerous private carriers and pub-
lic companies which it undoubtedly injures.
8. Public Schools. — In the same way the establishment of public
schools injured the private schools, but no compensation was ever pro-
posed.
9. Irish Land Laws. — During the discussion of the Irinh Land Re-
form in the British House of Commons, some of the Irish landlords
raised the cry of compensation. The Kight Hon. Jos. Chamberlain,
M.P., a member of the Government, replying to this cry, said :
" I cannot conceive that they have any right to claim compensation for re-
striction and limitation of powers which they ought never to have been per-
mitted to enjoy. In our English legislation there are numberless precedents
in which legal rights have been found to be in conflict with public morality
and public interest, and have been restricted and limited ; and I am not aware
of any such cases in which compensation has been given to those who have
been thus treated."
Mr. Chamberlain's testimony that such cases have never been com-
pensated is illustrated by the liquor traffic itself. It has been subject to
many disturbances by law, so much so that Lord Beaconsfield spoke of
it as the •' harassed interests." We have seen how the traffic has been
affected by i he Forbes Mackenzie Act of Scotland, and by the Crook's
Act of Ontario, and we might cite a hundred other instances of legal
restriction and prohibition of certain privileges of the liquor factors, and
no compensation has ever been granted or claimed.
10. British Slavery Grant of £20,000,000. — The advocates of com-
pensation find their strongest argument in the fact that the British Go-
vernment voted twenty millions of pounds sterling, in connection with
the abolition of slavery in the West Indies. But it has never been
shown that there is any similarity between the abolition of the slave
trade in India and the prohibition of the manufacture and sale of in-
toxicating liquors.
In the first place the twenty million grant was voted by Parliament
as a compromise towards the settlement of a question in which the in-
terests of the claimants were in a remote colony. It is extremely pro-
bable, if not absolutely certain, that the Government would not have
made this compromise had they been dealing with interests within the
United Kingdom. As it was, there were not wanting strong dissentients
to the grant of money. It was felt to be an immoral principle, and dan-
gerous as a precedent to admit that the State cannot under any and all
circumstances, prohibit an evil and vicious business, when the public
good, safety or liberty is at stake. A very able writer on the subject of
S2 . ' THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
compensation, is quoted by Mr. Axel Onstafson in his new work. Ho
says:
" We deny the right to call it compensation, Mr. Secretary Stanley (after-
wards Earl of Derby), did no doubt call it compensation, but protest against
this word was instantly made by Daniel O'Connell, and n(jthing in the prev-
ious speeches and arguments justified the phrase. Parliament voted the
twenty millions as a liberal gift to prevent the Islands from going out of cul-
tivation through the inability of planters to pay wages ; so greit was the
extravagance and waste, so extensive were the mortgages. Trembling lest
insurrection should ravage and swallow up their wholri property, and con-
scious that the original kidnapping of Africans was illegal the planters ac-
cepted the ample gift, but no sooner had they got it than they called it
compensation."
Before the question of abolishing British slavery was brought to the
test, the Anti-Slavery Society of England and its followers constantly
said :
" We demand immediate emancipation of the slave as a right ; we deny
the doctrine of property in men ; and we claim freedom for the slave on
grounc's of religion, of justice and of humanity. When this is granted to-
him we will then entertain the question of compensaiion ; and if a case can
be made out of actual loss, %e shall be prepared to give it a fair considera-
tion."
Nor was the vote in parliament byany naeans unanimous on this ques-
tion. The party opposed was so powerful at one stage, that they almost
defeated the government, 151 voting for an amendment, against 15&
in favour of the government motion, and " 77 members of the House
voted against the compensation of twenty millions for a loss not proved,
or for the purchase of a benefit not obtained."* The party was led by
James Silk Buckingham, and supported by Daniel O'Connell, who de-
clared that the slaves were not property by right, but originally by
stealth.
Mr. Henry Brougham (afterwards Lord Brougham), addressing the
House of Commons, said :
"I trust, that at length the time ia come, when Parliament will no longer-
bear to be told that slave owners are the best law givers on slavery. Tell m©
not of rights — talk not of the property. In vain you tell me of laws that
sanction such a claim ! There is a law above all the enactments of human
codes — the same throughout the world, the same in all times. And by that
law unchangeable and eternal, while men despise fraud, loathe rapine, and
abhor blood, they shall reject with indignation the wild and guilty fantasy,
that man can hold property in man."
Thus it will be seen that the spirit of compromise which dictated the
policy of aboUtioa of slavery by purchase, was not accepted by every-
I — -*
♦Parliamentary Review, p. 556, 1883,
AND COMPENSATION. 23
one J nor was the theory of property in man generally admitted. Yet
it was on this theory that the vote was made. The Government with
its majority, ruled that slaves were property under the law of India.
The very essence of the abolition law involved the destruction of this
alleged property claim. Accordingly every slave was valued and the
price paid, in order that the goverraent might set them free. No
allowance was made for prospective losses. Slave ship owners were
not compensated for loss of business, or deterioration in the value of
their property. Slave traders were not considered. Slave catchers were
not paid off. Thousands of men were suddenly deprived of the means
of making money out of the abominable slave traffic, in its numerous
departments, and not one shilling of the twenty millions of pounds went
to solace them for losses. The money was the price of liberty. It was
the redemption payment for the freedom of 80,000 souls.
One other argument was employed in favor of the grant. It would
enable the planters to carry on their legitimate industry and save the
country from insurrection, famine and ruin.
Wiih these facts before us, where is the similarity of circumstances
upon which the liquor factors could found a claim on the ground of
precedent. There is indeed one similar circumstance. Tlie rum-seller is
the enslaver of his felUm-man. If he were also his legal owner and could
give us back the sober citizen, the depraved parent, the ruined soul ; if
he could name a price for the redemption of the men and women who
are now living in the thraldom of an appetite begotten and fostered at
the liquor sh(jp, the country might consider the matter, not however
for the sake of the liquor dealers — not as a compensation to them, but as
& price to be paid, just as we would pay a pirate whose hand is upon
our throats.
In the abolition of the slaves there was an actual confiscation of what
had become to be acknowledged property. The slave was legally — if
not rightfully — held, sold, mortgaged and willed away like any other
property. What the buildings, machinery, barrels, vats, drays, horses,
etc., were to the distiller and the brewer, these slaves were to their
owners. What the house, stables, furniture and bar-room fittings are
to the retailer of liquor, the slave was to his master. The British
Government could only abolish slavery by taking possession of all this
property, either by confiscation or purchase. For reasons stated, they
selected the latter.
But the prohibition of the liquor trafl&c can be effected without
touching one dollar's worth of property. The property of the makers
And vendors of intoxicants will remain intact. It is not needed as a
condition of prohibition, as the slaves were needed for emancipation.
All that it is demanded of the liquor interest is that the property shall
not be used for a purpose which is inimical to the interests of the public
generally. (See Appendix A).
24 ' THK LIQUOR TRAFFIC
THE MORAL VIEW.
It is the nature of a bad business that it stultifies conscience and be-
gets warped and twisted views of right and wrong. The liquor traffic
is a remarkable instance of this. Not only the liquor dealers them-
selves, but many good citizens who have no interest in the business,
have come to regard the liquor seller as an injured individual in the
event of his license not being renewed, especially when this is done by
a prohibitory law. The public are only just beginning to recognise the
fact that the injury has been against society in granting or renewing the
license at all.
Illustrations of the extent to which persons lose their sense of moral
integrity, by pursuing a vicious traffic, are numerous. No doubt, the
gallant highwayman of old regarded himself as a noble and generous
fellow when he handed back a purse to a distressed lady, or permitted
a decrepit old man to ride home in his own carriage after stripping him
of jewels and other valuables. And equally he felt himself to be an
injured citizen when the officer of the law restrained his liberty and
prevented him obtaining wealth by plunder and outrage.
In some European cities prostitution is licensed, and the public con-
science in regard to that vice is thereby degraded, while the licensees
themselves descend to a depth of moral stupor and depravity that is
perfectly frightful. Law and usage has blunted every particle of sense
of right in regard to that evil until they think, as many of the liquor
sellers think, that what the law allows the law makes right.
Dr. Parent Duchatelet, of Paris, illustrates the utter loss of moral
consciousness by some remarkable facts. In his work on " Les Dames
ou Maitresses de Maison," he quotes the following letters addressed to
the Prefect of Police who has the control of the license system of Paris.
A woman eighty years of age writes to the Prefect thus :
"Eighty years of age and the mother of a large family, I implore, M. le
Prefect, your help and protection. You, the father of the poor, the support
of the widow and orphan, the prop of the affiicted, the asylum of the wretch-
ed, you will surely not refuse my request. At such an advanced age,
and feelin? myself on the point of surrendering myself to God, and appear-
ing in the presence of my Creator, it is my duty to provide for the wants of
my children, and to hand down to them the means of livelihood."
The letter goes on to ask the Prefect to grant her daughter and grand-
daughter licences to keep maison de tolerance. Two others write for the
favour of a license in the following terms :
" M. le Prefect : — I have only you as a resource to lean, upon ; burdened
with a family of tender years, I implore you not to refuse me an honeafc
means of livelihood, and of bringing up my children. Deprive me not, M.
le Prefect, of a consolation of which an afflicted mother stands in so great
need."
AND COMPENSATION. 25
" M. le Prefect : — Mdlle. D has the honour to explain to you that
cruel reverses of fortune, that would have driven her to the final act of des-
pair, if she had not been sustained by a sentiment of religion from parting
with that which comes from above. Her grave and circumspect conduct, the
care she has taken of her father and mother, and that she lavishes on her
children, have won for her the esteem of the better class of people ; being
unable to bring herself to work, she desires to be authorised to receive at
her house six women," etc., etc.
As an illustration of the deadening influences of immoral laws upon
the community generally, a translation is given from L'Avetiir des
Femmes, of a certificate of character to a woman accused on a criminal
charge. The certificate is signed by twenty merchants of the neighbour-
hood where the woman lived, and says :
" We the undersigned proprietoires and merchants of the Boulevard de
Beleville, declare Madame Louise Joiy, dwelling in the Boulevard de la Cha-
pelle, has kept a Maison de Tolerahce since 1849, that many of us have known
her ever since that time, and that she has gained the esteem of each of us
through her morality and her goodness of heart. She is very charitable and
always ready to render a service whenever the opportunity presented itself.
We consider her a very respectable and honest woman, and a good mother of
a family. She is, moreover, much respected in her neighbourhood."
It may be urged that there is no comparison between the moral blind-
ness here exhibited, and that feeling which is expressed in similar peti-
tions and similar certificates in regard to liquor dealers. iTet, on exam-
ination, it will be found that it is the same in kind, if not in degree.
How often are we told that the character of tlie liquor seller is the
ground upon whicli he should be allowed to sell the poison which " bit-
eth like a serpent and stingeth like an adder." How often have License
Commissioners been bewildered by the number of applications which
have been made, piteously urging that the applicant will be ruined if
he do not receive a license. How often have merchants and even min-
isters signed petitions praying that men might be allowed a license to
sell liquor on the same grounds as the twenty merchants of the Boulevard
de Belleville presented on behalf of the brothel keeper.
There is a rapidly growing movement in France, headed by M. de
Pressense, D.D., Pere Hyacinth, and others, demanding the abolition of
licensed prostitution. It is probable that when that movement becomes
a sufficient power to effect legislation, the keepers of the licensed
brothels will ask for compensation precisely ou the grounds now raised
by the liquor traffic in this country. W^ill it ever be said that the Gov-
ernment of Canada has established a precedent for such a compromise
with iniquity 'I A writer in a Melbourne paper is asking this question
of the Australian people, and quotes Canada approvingly as not having
conceded such a proposal. (See Appendix C).
It is high time that the Government should rise above all toleration
of wrong doing, and recognise the principle laid down by the Right Hon«
26 THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
W. E. Gladstone, that it is the duty of Government " to make it easy to
do rit^ht and difficult to do wrong." ^
Prof. Kirk, of Edinburgh, has well said :
" It is impossible to insist too strongly on this inevitable truth in matters^
of trade. No soul in God's universe really needs a fraction which may not be
honestly come by. No being in that universe is really the better for that
which he gains by another's loss. It is for no man's injury but fc^r all men's-
welfare that this fundamental truth should be engraven in our souls. It is
one of the hinges on which true legislation and government turn that they
should distinguish dishonest and dishonourable contracts, as they should aim
to suppress all wrong and cultivate all goodness."
In conclusion, the present struggle for freedom from a licensed evil,,
can only end in the victory of right over wrong. As John Bright told
the publicans of Birmingham, ** in the end you are sure to he beaten,"
or as Goldwin Smith said when in the same city, " the ultimate issue of
the struggle is certain."
Let not those interested think that they can resist the popular demand
to the last, or fight it out to the bitter end, and then insult the people
by a cry of compensation. The public conscience is being awakened,
and the cry of CoMrENSATiON is gradually being answered by the cry of'
Eestitution. (See Appendix F). If a Dr. and Cr. statement be made,
•with compensation on one side and restitution on the other, not all the
accumulated wealth of the distillers, brewers, and liquor sellers will be
suflScient to pay oi e mille in the dollar of the balance which will stand
against them ; while the broken hearts, the blasted characters, the tens
of thousands of lost souls, will for ever stand as a condemnation of the-
traffic, which no human agency, no future good, can ever atone for.
APPENDIX.
A.
" When you take away the publican's license, do you touch his accumu-
lated capital ? Do you touch any of the enormous profits he has made ? Do
you touch any of his material in building, or in anything else ? Not that I
■can see. What you do is to say that he shall no longer use it in any particular
way, because that way of using it is found to be ruinous to public morality,
Kow, no man can have a natural right to use his property in such a way
— being an injury to others. You would be wrong in depriving him of his
property, but not in forbidding thit injurious use of it. Just as a man has
no right to use his firearms as to endanger the lives of his neighbours — and
you may very properly prohibit his doing so. Suppose he wore to say, * By
this prohibition you cut me of one source of iny revenue ' — for it is thus I
test their strength and efficiency — ' and I claim compensation.' You would
simply smile at his claim. You would say to him, ' It is your business to find
out some other way of using them ; but whether you do or not, whether you
<:<' a or not, you must not be allowed to endanger your neighbours' lives.' To
establish any such claim on grounds of natuiul right is utterly impossible.
All that he has a natural right to is there untouched, and he can have no
natural right to any use of it that is fatal or pernicious to others. It cannot
be too often repeated, as lucidly evident, that before you can establish a claim
to compensation, you must show that some right has been violated." — From
a paper read at a Temperance Conference at Bishop Auckland, by the Rev.
S. Edgah.
B.
I have not been able to see what claims to compensation disestablished
publicans can possibly have in law, equity, or common sense, near or remote.
In some of our States we have prohibition pure and simple, in many of them
local option, under which the liquor trade is forbidden over a region of country
many times larger than Great Britain. This policy of prohibition and of local
option has been mooted among us, more or less, for more than thirty years,
and has been in actual operation more than a quarter of a century ; but there
hait never been even a suggestion by any one that the trade thus summarily
suppressed had a claim to compensation." — Neal Dow, Portland, Maine.
28 APPENDIX.
c.
When we bring together the injury inflicted on adjacent property by
granting a license, the injury inflicted on the public by the exercise of the
license, and that all the gains made under license are made at the expense of
the public, there is not a single moral principle that would not pronounce it
an enormous crime taijAinst the public to take public money to compensate
the trade for being hindered from continuing this prodigious depro'lation on
public property. Nor do I think that anyone dispassionately 1 ig into
these definite points could well come to any other conclusion — ii conclusion
not generally reached only because few people will take the trouble to examine
with care the ground on which we stand. — From Foundation of Death, by
Axel Gustafson.
D.
But why this clamour about compensation in the interests of a class who,
to say the least of it, have no special claim to consideration ? Acts of Parlia-
ment have been passed authorizing the making of railways, by which carriers,
posting establishments, and omnibus proprietors have been displaced, and no
claim for compensation has been recognized, if indeed any such claim has ever
been raised. Candle-makers have been supplanted by gas companies under
the sanction of the Legislature ; these companies in their turn are in danger
of being supplanted by others formed for utilizing the electric light ; still
there is no one who has discovered in either case a valid ground for compen-
sation. By the establishment of free public libraries and reading rooms,
adventure libraries and reading rooms have been sacrificed without regard to
the interests of their owners. — The Drink Problem, by David Lewis, Esq.,
J. P., of Edinburgh.
E.
It may be true that men presume upon the renewal of the license, just as
they presume a volcano will not burst out again because it is now silent,
though it was silent before it b uried in ruins or shook to pieces whole cities,
with their living multitudes. If men choose to presume, they must in either
case take the consequences. It is a miserably poor ground for compensation,
that when a man has met a probability with his eyes wide open, the proba-
bility has become a reality. I grant that, forty years ago, a publican might
plead very I'airly, " We ought to have some notice of the withdrawal of this
privilege." But I submit that forty years is a very liberal notice. They had
that notice then, such notice as all wise men oViserve (in the signs of the
times), and it has been repeated incessantly ever nee, underlined, and in all
sorts of conspicuous colours. If they will not take it, that is their own look.
APPENDIX. " 29
out. With the agitation that has gone on for forty years ; with the actiial^
adoption of prohibition in almost innumerable places, and compensation never
thought of in a single instance ; with the rapidly growing conviction that come
it must ; with the admission of Governments that something of the kind is
absolutely essential — if the trade will not accept the notice, I see not how any
rational man can wish to compensate it for such enormous blindness or stupi-
dity. That is one of the advantages of the gradual progress of the question
— which is all that its advocates desire — that every man has due warning. —
Rbv. S. Edgar, iVeu? Zealand.
P.
Should the claim of the liciuor seller to compensation ever bo seriously
raised, we venture to predict that claims from another quarter will arise.
Who is to compensate those whose local taxation has been enormously
increased, and whose stay and support have been prematurely cut off by the
liquor traffic ? These are questions which one day have to be answered. —
From The Drink Problem, by David Lewis, Esq., J. P.
G.
They (the liquor dealers) have alarmed our political leaders to such an ex-
tent that they have attempted to placate this social Cerberus witli
the Sop of Compensation. What do you say ? You, whose an-
cestors have bled and died for principles on many a well- fought field.
Will you, after the noble example set you by the United States and Canada,
turn recreant and weakly barter away the right of the majority to rule for
the sake of sparing a little time and energy ] Have you the right, even if
you should be inclined, to place such a stumbling-block in the way of the
other colonies, and even in England, as your example would be, if you once
admitted the justice or expediency of this claim 1 And can you accurately
foresee to what dilemmas such a dangerous precedent would expose your
children ? Once admit the justice of this claim, and you could not consis-
tently refuse compensation to roadside houses whose trade you might de-
stroy by your railways ; and the owner of every tumble-down old rookery
and the conductor of every noxious trade would be claiming compensation.
— G.W. V. T., in Melbourne Temperance News.
H.
COMPENSATION TO THE PUBLICAN.
It is a complete mistake to suppose that temperance reformers desire to see
the slightest injustice done to those engaged in the liquor traffic. On the
-> ■>
-» i
50 "" APPENDIX.
contrary, they wish nothing but the fullest justice done to all concerned — bat
that will include the public as well as the publicans. They would not rob the
publican of a single pennyworth of his property, and do not even insist on his
closing his shop. As he delights to call himself a licensed victualler, they
would be glad to see him providing good victuals and harmless beverages for
his customers. All that they demand is that he shall cease to sell alcoholic
liquors, and that his claim to compensation for having to do so shall not be
granted until he proves it just. Sir Wilfrid Lawson stated exactly the atti-
tude of the temperance party to this question when he wrote, on the 6th of
July, 1880, in reply to a correspondent, as follows : — " I have never admitted
that a licensed drinkseller has any right to compensation after the expiration
of the period for which his license had been granted. I neither admit nor
deny the claim ; I wait to hear it fairly stated and argued. Mr. Gladstone
advocates equitable compensation, and I think that he is quite right. I do
not wish to do anything that is inequitable. But we shall have a good deal
to say as to what is the true meaning of equitable compensation before this
matter is settled." Mr. Gladstone himself has never admitted the publican's
claim to compensation. What he has said is this : — " Their fair claims to
compensation, if they can make good their case (there is much virtue in that
if!), ought to be considered. I am not prepared to say whether there is a
case for compensation, or whether there is not a case for compensation, be-
cause that must depend on particulars that are not now before us." And the
Marcjuis of Hartington, speaking of the brewers, says : — " They have no
claim to compen ation if, through legislation in the interests of the people,
legislation asked for by the people themselves, the consumption of intoxica-
ting liquors should be materially diminished. I acknowledge no such claim
as this, and I do not think that any such claim would be considered or en-
tertained by Parliament." It is true, Lord Hartington makes a distinction
between the claim of the brewers and that of the publicans ; but if the in-
terests and wishes of the people nullify the one claim, they equally nullify
the other. — Dk. McMurtry, at the Irish Temperance League Conference, Bel-
fast, Jan. 12, 1885.
Single copies of The Scott Act (Temperance Act of 1878), sent to any
address, for 10 cents — In quantities, at 60 cents per dozen. Address
Rose Publishing Co., 26 Wellington St., Toronto.
PamrBD by Hpnxbr, Rose & Co. Toronto.
t a
«o * • * • • • « • "
.•-•0 00 ft'ftO toco 06
. « S- O « 9 ° * » 00
'©"•O ,00 O -OOtO ft OftOfi