Its pledge is two-fold: (1) To drink no intoxicating liquor as a beverage. (2) To try and get ten others to join the League. We consider that a compliance with the first pledge simply gives the person a start, while adherence to the second means an aggressive movement towards the saloon's destruction.

The membership cannot be definitely stated. It was over 4,000 prior to Jan. 1, 1890. As a large proportion of its members are commercial travelers, it is difficult to keep track of their movements. Upon the basis of 4,000 members, if each one should keep both pledges, the number would very soon swell to 40,000. But traveling men are exposed to special temptations, and too many fall by the wayside.

As to methods, the League depends largely upon personal solicitation, always, however, insisting upon two things -abstinence and work. All kinds of temperance activity are encouraged, whether on the score of health or economy, philanthropy or morality, religion or politics. Some of the members do platform work, others furnish money for the distribution of literature, and all are expected to be supplied with our pledgecards for use at any time or place. Clubs have been organized in many of the leading cities. Merchants, clerks, commercial travelers, manufacturers, lawyers and ministers have identified themselves with the movement. A large number have taken the double pledge, and been redeemed from the drink slavery, and sleepy church-members have been awakened to see that they cannot be consistent Christians unless they "lend a hand" toward the obliteration of the alcohol

cember, 1606, in the 4th year of James I. (Bishop's 1st Book of the Law, Sections 50 to57.) The common law of England blended together the usages and customs of the nations and clans that successively conquered and inhabited the island of Great Britain, or parts of it. (2 Wait's A. & D., 278.) The earliest decisions made by the Courts of England simply reflected the state of civilization and enlightenment then existing there. These decisions became "precedents" or "authority" for subsequent decisions upon the principles involved, and under the rule known as stare decisis the Courts of modern times have followed these early decisions, even in cases where they were contrary to their own notions of right and justice, rather than introduce the element of uncertainty in the law by overruling them and establishing a rule in accord with the advance made in civilization. Hence it has become necessary with every advance made by society in civilization and enlightenment to change by statutory enactment some old rule of the common law. This is well illustrated by the legislation of modern times on the rights and disabilities of married women. The old common law status of married women has been completely revolutionized by this legislation.

The selling of intoxicating liquors was looked upon as a lawful means of livelihood by the English people centuries ago when the question first came before the English Courts, and hence unless the place where the intoxicating liquors were sold was conducted in a disorderly manner no offence was adjudged to have been committed (Bishop on Crim. Law, Vol. I, Sec. 1113; 2 Kent Com., 12th ed., p. 597 in note; Cooley on Torts, 2d ed., sidepage 605, top p. 718; 4 Comyns Digest, p. 822; Faulkner's Case, 1 Saunders's Rep., 249; Stevens v. Watson, 1 Salkeld's Rep., p. 45; King v. Marriot, 4 Modern Rep., 144; Rex v. Inyes, 2 Showers's Rep., 468.) In the case of Commonwealth v. McDonough (13 Allen [Mass.] Rep., 581), decided in 1866, a Boston saloon-keeper was indicted for the illegal sale and illegal keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors to the great injury and common nuisance of the citizens of the Commonwealth." After the indictment the statute was repealed under which the indictment had been obtained, and so the

66

prosecution endeavored to secure a conviction on the ground that the keeping of a saloon was contrary to the common law. The case was carried up to the highest Court in the State and ably argued. In deciding the case the Supreme Court said:

"It is further contended that the offence set forth in the complaint was a nuisance at common law, and may be punished as such, if it is held that the statute penalty is repealed. No authority is cited in favor of this position, and those which we have examined are opposed to it. In 1 Bishop Crim. Law. Sec. 1,047, it is said that, aside from statutory provisions, a crime is not committed by selling intoxicating liquors. Merchants have always dealt in wines and other liquors in large quantities, without being subject to prosecution at common law. Inn-keeping was a lawful trade. open to every subject

without license at common law. If he should

corrupt wines or victuals an action lay against him. He might recover the price of wines sold by him by action of debt. (Bac. Ab. Inns 8 Co., 147.) So it was lawful to keep an alehouse. (1 Russell on Crimes, 298 in note [2d ed.) In the argument for the Commonwealth, such places as the defendant is charged with keeping are classed with brothels and gaming-houses, and it is argued that they are all equally nuisances. But it was not so at common law. Broth els and gaming-houses were held to be nuisances under all circumstances, but ale-houses were not. unless they became disorderly, and in such cases they were held to be nuisances on account of the disorderly conduct in them, whether the keeper were licensed or not. As it is not alleged that the defendant kept a disorderly house, he cannot be held guilty of an offence at common law."

License laws were first enacted in 1552 by the British Parliament in the fifth and sixth years of Edward VI. (1 Russell on Crimes, 2d ed., p. 298, note.) License laws continued to exist in England at the time our ancestors departed for America in 1606, but the provisions for granting a license were so locally inapplicable to the American colonies that they have never been held to be in force here by any Court in any reported case.

From the foregoing it will be seen that the common law of the United States on the subject of liquor-selling simply reflects the views entertained on the subject by a half-civilized people ages ago, and that the views of the enlightened people of the United States on the subject can be found only in Constitutional and statutory law. As great changes have taken place in public opinion with the advance of civilization in relation to slavery, polygamy, lotteries and other things now

universally regarded as evils but once considered lawful and right, so it is not surprising that public sentiment has also changed in reference to liquor-selling.

SAMUEL W. PACKARD.

Communion Wine. The importance of the inquiry whether Jesus appointed intoxicating or unfermented wine for the communion service has interested in every age of the Christian Church able leaders who have regarded it a test question as to the purity of Christian morality. While all the leading writers of the first five Christian centuries recognized that the wines made, drank and used at the Passover and Last Supper by Christ were the fresh "fruit" of the vine, the difficulty of obtaining such wines in Africa and Northern Europe led no less than twenty fathers of the first five centuries, and, later, men like Photius of the Greek Church in the 9th Century, Aquinas of the Roman Church in the 13th Century, and Bingham of the English Church early in the 18th Century to an exhaustive study of methods of preparing unintoxicating wines, and to review the discussions and decisions of successive Christian Councils on communion wine as all-important in Christian morals. Its growing moral bearings, recognized in all branches of the Christian Church, has led on to the exhaustive research which now permits demonstrative conclusions. As the prior question whether Nazarites were to be excluded from the Passover or to be required to violate their pledge of abstinence is settled by the connected records of Numbers, 6th to 18th chapters, so Luke's connection, as a Greek physician acquainted with wines, of John's abstinence (1:15), of popular comment on it (7:33, 34) and the "fruit of the vine" used at both the Passover and communion observance (22:18, comp. Matt. 26: 29, and Mark 14:25), is a necessary guide to an exhaustive and therefore conclusive decision as to the wine appointed for the Lord's Supper. With this prior consideration in view, the successive steps in research are the following: (1) Christ as a "conforming Jew” must, as to the wine of the Passover, have strictly followed the Mosaic statute and the historic precedent which from the days of Moses to the present time has

ruled the character of wine used in He brew rites. (See PASSOVER WINE.) (2) The word "wine" is not used in the account of the Supper given by three evangelists; but the term fruit of the vine is applied by Luke to the cup of the Passover (22:18), and by Matthew (26:29) and Mark (14:25) to the same cup used at the Communion. (3) At no age, in no land and among no people, as among the Romans under their Republic, especially for two centuries before Christ, was the method of preserving wines free from intoxicating ferment so studied and practiced; while no class of men were so true to moral virtue as were the Roman Centurions mentioned in the lives of Christ and of his Apostles; a fact noted by Matthew as a reproof to his countrymen (8:10; 27: 54), and especially repeated by Luke, who wrote for cultured Greeks (7:2, 4, 5, 9; 23:47; Acts 10:1, 2, 7, 34, 35; 21:32; 22:25, 26; 23:27; 27: 1, 3, 43; 28:16). (4) The fact that from the time of his making "fresh wine," Greek "kalon" (John 2: 10) for a wedding, to his rejection of wine on the cross, Jesus drank only the unintoxicating fresh product of the grape, confirms not only the former facts stated, but the added fact that the wine of Christ's Supper was the fresh product of the grape. (5) The allusions of Paul, the first to give a written account of the Lord's Supper (1. Cor. 11: 20-26), have by the ablest Christian scholars, from the 2d to the 19th Centuries, been declared to have been conformed to Christ's example, for these reasons: First, Corinth furnished then, and the Greek Isles now export, preserved unfermented wine; Second, The term "wine" is not used by Paul, as it was not by Christ; Third, The beverage in "the cup" is supposed to be familiar. The Greek verb "methuo," found seven times (Matt. 24:49; John 2:10; Acts 2:15; 1 Cor. 11:21; 1 Thess. 5:7; Rev. 17:2, 6), means surfeit," not drunken, as does the noun "methusma" in the Greek translation of Hos. 4.11; the contrast in 1 Cor. 11:21 being with "hungry," and clearly relating to food, not to articles of drink.

The facts as to the New Testament record relating to "communion wine" are confirmed in each age succeeding the day of Christ and his Apostles. Clement in Egypt in the 2d Century alludes

to the Christian "Enkratites" or total abstainers; who, living in lower Egypt, had no vines; and who, citing the fact that in 1 Cor. 11 Paul does not mention wine but only "the cup," used water at the Lord's Supper. He mentions Greek sects as the Pythagorians, who drank no wine, but cites David's pure beverages, the fresh product of the grape; he declares that the cup of the Lord's Supper is the "blood of the grape-cluster," and, stating that the wine Christ made at the wedding was the same, he repeats Christ's words thus: "This is my blood, the blood of the vine," as alluding to John 15: 1, in the figures "I am the vine, and ye are the branches." Origen, in the opening of the 3d Century, alludes to three kinds of wine: the ordinary intoxicating wine, the wine diluted with water, and the "sweet nectar" of Homer and of the Greeks, which he declares is Christ's appointment. Cyprian, at Carthage in Northern Africa, in the middle of the 3d Century, cites Melchisedech, quoted by Christ and Paul as well as David (Psa. 110: 1,4; Matt. 22: 44; Heb. 5:6; 6:20; 7: 17, 21) as prefiguring his sacrifice, and so his memorial Supper (Gen. 14:18); and, quoting Gen. 49:11, he asks, "When here the blood of the grape is mentioned, what else than the wine of the cup of the Lord's blood is set forth?" He cites David's beverage of fresh grape juice in his shepherd life (Psa. 23:5), and the wine made fresh and declared "the best" (optimum in Latin) as that used at the Supper. Zeno, at Verona in Northern Italy, in the 3d Century, states that the cup of the Lord's Supper was fresh "grape-juice" (mustum); he declares that it was the simple beverage of Melchisedech, Abraham, Joseph and Jesus in Palestine, and also like the Grecian "gleukos" referred to Acts 2:13. Chrysostom, court-preacher at Constantinople at the close of the 4th Century, condemning the custom of winedrinking meets the objection that it was appointed for the Lord's Supper; and declares that Christ, foreseeing this perversion, was careful in selecting the terms, "I will drink no more of the fruit of this, the vine." Jerome, who spent 30 years in Palestine at the close of the 4th and the opening of the 5th Century, that he might see, in the land where Jesus lived, and verify every fact in his history,

says of the wine of the Supper, citing Christ's words "The fruit of the vine,' that it was fresh from the noble vine (Gen. 49:11), and like the "tirosh" of Hos. 2:8, 9, 22. Augustine, going from Rome as a gospel herald to Carthage early in the 5th Century, meeting the difficulty of providing fresh wine for the Lord's Supper and the perversion made of Christ's appointment, alludes to Virgil's mention in his Georgics of the simple country provision of "milk, honey and must." He cites the "tirosh" blessed by Isaac, as Christ's beverage; and he declares that the cup of the Lord's table is what a little child may drink.

In successive ages since these early Christian leaders saw how vital the question whether Jesus was behind the Greek and Roman patriots of his day in guarding his followers from perversion of his example and appointment, profound and conscientious scholars in every branch of the Christian Church, in lands where the vine and its richest fruits were not, as in Palestine, native to the clime, have reviewed all this testimony. Thus, Photius, a leader in the separation between the Greek and Roman Churches in the middle of the 9th Century, in maintaining the custom of the Eastern Church, which administers the cup even to children, comments as a native Greek on Christ's words as to "new wine" and "the fruit of the vine" as taught in all former and subsequent ages. Aquinas, born in Italy but spending his early life in France and Western Germany, is called to remonstrate against the wine sometimes used; and retraces at great length the Old and New Testament history, showing that Christ used in his Supper fresh" wine of the vine;" urging that"True wine can be carried to those countries where there are no wines, as much as is sufficient for the sacrament," and stating that where grapes of inferior quality grow, as on the Rhine, "This sacrament can be observed with must," since "must has already the character of wine."

In the differences that arose between the Protestant Episcopal Church and the various dissenting churches in the close of the 17th and the opening of the 18th Centuries, a thorough and exhaustive review of former authorities was made by Poole, as a scholarly and uncontroversial

dissenter, and by Bingham of the Established Church of England; both reaching like conclusions. The earnest spirit of Whitefield and Wesley reviewed a little later the call for a return to a pure, unintoxicating wine for the Lord's Supper: and in the early part of the 19th Century Adam Clarke wrought conclusions of former scholars into his commentary. At the era of its publication, many conscientious Christian leaders, who from the era of Whitefield's first visit had longed and labored in New England for a return to Christ's pure appointment, found in Moses Stuart an intelligent advocate, though his declining age forbade exhaustive research. In 1829, John N. Barbour of Boston imported from the Grecian Isles, in bottles, pure wines, which when analyzed by the eminent Dr. John A. Warren were found free from alcohol. The progress of the popular demand by reformed inebriates, like Gough, and by students like Lees of England and Nott and others in the United States, has steadily confirmed the truth taught by Christ, and has promoted the "grace" which his example and his appointment have inspired. The special confirmation which the monuments of Egypt have given as to the early method of preparing and preserving unfermented wine, and the reopening of Palestine for the repetition of the studies of Jerome, and, yet more, the revival in Italy aud Spain, as well as in California, of ancient methods, has facilitated the return to the use of unfermented wine at the Lord's Supper specially sought in Great Britain and America by reformed inebriates. G. W. SAMSON.

Compensation.-One of the most perplexing questions arising after the Prohibition movement was fairly inaugurated was, Should liquor-manufacturers and sellers be reimbursed for their losses when their traffic is forbidden and their business establishments are closed? In the United States it was not until forty years of Prohibitory legislation had elapsed that the question was definitely disposed of by the Court of last resort. Meanwhile decisions for and against the principle of compensation were made by minor Courts; but by common consent the question was held in abeyance everywhere in the country throughout this