each particular district left to determine for itself this problem. But I do not wish to impose upon others any notion of my own. I wish simply to urge this one proposition: That the great city of New York has the right to live out its own life, so long as it does not violate the rights, impair the welfare and injure the prosperity of the rest of the state by its action. We shall suffer from the erroneous decision of this question, however it is decided, and we alone. We shall profit from the right decision of the question, and practically we alone. Therefore, we ought to have the decision of it. We ought to decide whether we will have any saloons or whether we will have Sunday saloons. More important is the question whether this great metropolis shall have the right to its own ideals, to its own conceptions, to its own standards and to its own life.

SUNDAY OPENING BY STATUTE.

BY WILLIAM TRAVERS JERome.

The views that I have come to advocate are not the views that I wish to advocate. They have been forced upon me against my most earnest conviction. No one has been more deeply impressed with the evils which result from intemperance. I would be willing -if it were possible-to see every saloon closed in the city of New York, and closed for all time. But when one does not sit in the quiet of his study, but is brought face to face with the deadly reality of what laws mean in their actual administration, he is not infrequently led to views that he never would have adopted by any mere a priori reflection.

It is scarcely necessary to go into the evils which exist under the present law. The fact that there are 2,167 "hotels" in the city of New York, a very large proportion of which-probably over 80 per cent.—are nothing but houses of assignation; the fact that probably 250,000 inhabitants, at least, go to the saloons and solicit a violation of the law; the fact that probably 7,000 saloons are open every Sunday in this city in defiance of law, and that there are probably from 125,000 to 150,000 people—if you include the women and children—who are dependent upon the retail liquor traffic for their livelihood, on these saloons which violate the law; the fact that during the past four years from $700,000 to $800,000 has been paid to debauch the police force and as blackmail; when these facts— which are susceptible of proof beyond refutation-are considered, it is not necessary to add that the present condition of affairs in regard to the liquor law is absolutely intolerable and must be remedied. It is the part of wise men, therefore, to look for a remedy.

Sunday Closing Attempted.

What is the crux of this question? What is it that keeps the liquor business in politics, debauches our public service and degrades those engaged in the industry as they are degraded in

no other nation in the world? I am satisfied that it is an unenforceable law.

But in what does the unenforceability consist? At one time I could not see the answer. I had read, in the writings of those who were supposed to be learned in political philosophy and in the law, that certain classes of laws could not be enforced unless they had public sentiment back of them. I did not believe it. There came a time, however, when Mr. Roosevelt was president of the police board, when Mr. Goff was presiding in Part I. of General Sessions, and when I was in Special Sessions-when we had all the machinery of this community at our disposal. We came together to discuss the problem, and Mr. Goff thought, and Mr. Roosevelt thought, and I thought that there was a positive duty enjoined upon us to enforce the law, and that the reason it could not be enforced was because the authorities upon whom the responsibility of enforcement devolved did not proceed ruthlessly to enforce it. We proceeded to do so.

The saloons were paying $5 a month for the privilege of opening on Sunday when we began our crusade. I sent a woman to the penitentiary (a widow woman with a family dependent upon her) for three months because she sold a glass of beer on Sunday, which instance shows how ruthlessly the law was enforced. But I am satisfied, after careful investigation, that the only result of our joint effort was that during Mr. Roosevelt's administration, the liquor dealers paid for selling on Sunday $10 a month instead of $5. When the reform administration of Mayor Strong was turned out of office, the tariff went back to the old schedule. During the administration of Van Wyck, the saloons paid $5,000 for certain additional privileges to the brewery interests, and the net income to the police was between $700,000 and $800,000 for the privilege extended to the liquor dealers of selling on Sunday.

Why the Law Cannot be Enforced.

After very careful thought, I have reached this conclusion— that the great bulk of the penal statutes are not enforced because of the penalty annexed to them. The law in regard to larceny is enforced because there is no considerable body of people in this community who do not yield willing obedience to that law. The great mass of the people obey that law, not because they expect to be sent to prison if they do not, but because that law commends itself to

them because they regard the commission of the act of larceny as an immoral act. There is no considerable body in this community to-day who would either commit larceny or solicit others to commit it. Therefore, the comparatively sporadic cases of larceny can be well dealt with.

My experience has led me to believe-supported by the statements of profound thinkers, such as Judge Holmes, of Massachusetts, who develops the same idea in his classical lectures on the Common Law-that wherever there is a considerable body in a community which not only does not yield willing obedience to the law, but which will not yield any obedience, the law prohibiting them from doing that act and from inciting others not only will not be obeyed but cannot be enforced. The law which prohibits the sale of liquor on Sunday in the city of New York is such a law, and cannot generally and absolutely be enforced, for the reason that there are at least 250,000 people in this community who not only do not yield willing obedience to that law, but will yield no obedience to it, and will incite others to violate it.

Law and Morals.

Now, if this proposition is sound, the part of wisdom is not to say that these men must be made to obey that law. It is no argument to say that the thing which they wish to do is a gross immorality. It is not for the criminal law to effect moral reformations in the community. The criminal law often times can assist in moral reformation, but moral reformation, whether it be in regard to liquor or the social evil or gambling, must be effected by moral

means.

I do not contend that the opening of saloons during limited hours on Sunday would bring about a perfect state. The opening of saloons on Sunday would bring evils-very serious evils-evils that I do not for one moment attempt to minimize. But it is a question between evils, it is a question whether the evils which would result from opening the saloons during limited hours on Sunday, in accordance with law, would not be less than the evils of having them open the whole Sunday, in contravention of law.

Political Aspects.

The question is a deadly practical one. You have a law which you cannot enforce. I know no man who can speak from his personal experience who is prepared to say that a law closing saloons

on Sunday in New York can be enforced, or who is prepared to say that as long as an unenforceable law of this kind exists, we can be free from the evil of blackma.. We may shift it from the captain to the wardman, from the wardman to the patrolman, or in a variety of ways, but, as long as an unenforceable law exists, that law will be used for the extortion of blackmail, the debauching of the police and the keeping of the saloon in politics. The chief of police, if he be not honest, can control the politics of the saloonkeepers. The moment a reform administration tries to enforce the law, that moment it will go out of power; and if a reform administration does not try to enforce the law, how shall an administration which is supposed to be founded upon its purity keep its own selfrespect or the respect of the community?

How shall a man take an oath of office that he will uphold the constitution and the laws of this state and then not endeavor to enforce a law that he knows is violated every Sunday in at least 7,000 places? Liberal enforcement is rot. Liberal enforcement of a penal statute is non-enforcement of a penal statute. And I should prefer the public official who would come out and say, "I have taken an oath of office to uphold these laws, and I am going to violate that oath of office, and leave it to you to justify me," to a public official who would come out and talk to me about liberal enforcement and the extreme of the law being the extreme of injustice. When it comes to a public official individually, as it came to Mr. Roosevelt, that he either must resign his office or continue it under burdens, the honest course is to take it with the burdens and execute the duties of office whether they bring one into disrepute or not. Mr. Roosevelt probably did not approve of the law, but he had taken an oath that he would support that law, and he tried honestly to enforce it. He succeeded gloriously in turning out the Strong administration at the end of its term. That is what will happen in 1903 if this law remains unrepealed. This administration must either violate its oath of office, or attempt to enforce this law, and if it makes an honest effort to enforce the law, it will go out of office. And there will come back a Tammany administration which will not enforce it, taking blackmail for not closing the saloons.

The Proper Remedy.

There is only one thing to be done: to have the saloons