we can with our end of it. Why should you go on and protect it with your end?

The CHAIRMAN. If I understand you correctly, you said you do not know of any law that could be passed that would prevent a man sending for liquor for his own use, and you do not think that such a law should be passed, and yet, as I said when Mr. Littlefield was outand so he did not hear it-you are speaking against the bill, because the gentlemen here the other day said that is what they wanted, the very thing you say you would not be in favor of.

Mr. CALDERHEAD. I am not responsible for anyone else's opinion; I am only stating my own.

Mr. PALMER. I have not heard anybody before who said he was not opposed to the personal privilege. Everybody but Mr. Calderhead seems to think the bill we reported last year was a bad bill; the brewers and distillers don't want that and the temperance people don't want it.

Mr. CALDERHEAD. I did not see it, and I am not discussing that. Mr. PALMER. That is the one that had the personal-privilege clause in it, to enable a man to secure liquor for his own use. Nobody seems to be in favor of that.

Mr. CALDERHEAD. I think anybody in the United States has the right to buy any commodity any place, except where the State jurisdiction prohibits it, and in this case I don't know any reason why Congress should go on assisting the men who desire to violate the law. I would like to examine this second clause a little further before I say how much I would add to it. I think the section in some way or other ought to limit it to the carrying and sale of intoxicating liquors. I would not like very well to have that section apply to the purchase of a suit of clothes in Chicago.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. It could not do any harm where you were doing a legitimate business.

Mr. CALDERHEAD. I have said much more than I intended to when I came in, and I thank you for the opportunity.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. REEDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS.

Mr. REEDER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I was rather amused when the gentleman from Pittsburg was talking in regard to the Germans and their descendants. I am a German, descended from a German family, and was born in Pennsylvania. When I heard his sentiments I was glad that it was my good fortune to have been moved away from Pennsylvania early in my history. I have resided in Kansas for over a third of a century.

A great injustice is being done to the rural population of Kansas. We have a saloon in every town, kept there contrary to local law, and that saloon is run in this way:

A man comes in from Missouri, or some other State, sent by some liquor house, who makes out a fictitious list of names, and he has a hundred jugs of whisky sent in by express to those names. Then the boys of that town, if they can be educated up to it, will go to the express office, pay the sight draft, take the whisky and get drunk. The Government of the United States thus has a saloon established in

every town in Kansas, against the will of our people as expressed in their State constitution and laws, and I belong to that class of Germans who believe that when the people of a community or State determine they will enact a certain law that the Government should not step in and assist in disobeying that law. I am no lawyer, but I know that this committee can frame a bill, if they so desire, and can pass it through Congress, that will put these beverages under the ban of the law of the State when they come within that State.

Personally I do not wish to put myself in a position, nor I do not wish the State to, that will prevent any citizen of that State who desires to ship any beverage into the State for their own use, and I believe if you should pass a law the effect of which would be, as some of you have said, to deprive the individual of this right, that there would be no law passed by the State that would prevent a man from sending for liquors for his personal use.

Mr. STERLING. Why don't you prosecute them under your State law then?

Mr. REEDER. I do not understand whether that law can be enforced or not. I see Mr. Calderhead thinks it could be at one time, but I can say that it is not enforced, and we have a pretty fair set of lawyers in Kansas. A good lawyer gave up the task a week or two ago in Topeka after trying it for some time. He is in favor of prohibition and in favor of enforcing the law, but he found that it was simply impossible. I believe every one of you will agree we have a right to make a law and have it obeyed, and that the least the United States could and should do would be not to give aid in having it disobeyed. I believe I have seen a hundred jugs in an express office addressed to names of parties that never existed, and any boy can go there and get it by simply paying for it.

Mr. SMITH. Are they sent C. O. D.?

Mr. REEDER. Yes; but to fictitious persons. Some men utterly irresponsible, probably not capable of getting any other job, and men who are, if you will excuse the expression, certainly a very measly looking set of fellows, are sent out to sell this whisky.

The CHAIRMAN. You say those men come from Missouri?

Mr. REEDER. A good many come from Missouri, because it is the nearest State where intoxicants can be had legally.

Mr. LITTLEFIELD. That is the nearest place to come from?

Mr. REEDER. Yes, sir. I am quite sure of these intoxicants come from St. Louis or from farther east; I am not acquainted with the source of supply.

Mr. SMITH. I have no doubt you will find some Kentuckians there. Mr. DE ARMOND. Do your lawyers and judges believe they can not prosecute these men successfully under the present law?

Mr. REEDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DE ARMOND. This committee believes unanimously, I think, that they are all wrong; that if these parties who are violating the law were properly prosecuted by attorneys who knew the law and before judges who would do their duty and before honest juries, that convictions could be obtained; I do not believe there is any question about that. Everyone of those sales is a sale right there and nowhere else. Mr. REEDER. I am saying that we do not control these sales. Why do these men come here now and try to prevent having this kind of a law passed? It is because they fear we will control it and carry out

the law. We do not control it now. You say, What effect would it have upon these fifteen places that Mr. Calderhead spoke of? Probably no particular effect, but it will have an effect upon forty-nine out of every fifty settlements in Kansas; forty-nine out of every fifty communities are suffering on account of the nonpassage of this bill, and you know it can do no harm to pass it-unless it does harm to this illegal traffic in whisky-and if that is true why not pass it?

I am no lawyer, but the members of this committee can formulate a law that will relieve us of this difficulty, and it is a deplorable difficulty to all citizens of Kansas who desire to have the laws enforced. Mr. BRANTLEY. Do you think we ought to pass a law that if it did no harm to anything else would do violence to the Constitution?

Mr. REEDER. No, sir; I do not think you need to pass any such law. In my judgment you can pass a law that would remedy this difficulty and not do any violence to the Constitution.

Mr. PARKER. I asked Mr. Calderhead whether a law that would put C. O. D. deliveries under State control would not meet all difficulties. What is your opinion about that?

Mr. REEDER. I can not say; I am not a lawyer. I think I would be a poor judicial adviser to the Judiciary Committee of the House, but still I insist that you gentlemen can formulate a law that will meet the difficulty and come within the Constitution.

Mr. PARKER. You can tell me this. The only difficulty is with C. O. D. deliveries, is it not?

Mr. SMITH. You are stating your grievances. I think, of course, the committee can formulate a law that will reach that condition of affairs; I have no doubt about that.

Mr. REEDER. In 49 out of 50 cases this law will remedy the condidition, and our lawyers think they can not remedy it by a State law. I hope you will frame a law that will permit us to carry out our own prohibition laws in Kansas. Simply permit the Government to get out of the whisky business in Kansas.

Mr. BRANTLEY. You do not appear here in favor of any particular bill?

Mr. REEDER. No, sir.

Mr. BRANTLEY. What you want is a remedy?

Mr. REEDER. Yes. I do believe you ought to permit a bill of this kind to come before the House and be voted on. The gentleman from Wisconsin spoke about public sentiment compelling men to vote on certain things. I believe that public sentiment should be worked up just as high as it can be in favor of everything that is right, because public sentiment does control us, it controls me; I do not see why it should not, and I do not see why any set of people should not formulate public opinion in any direction.

Mr. PALMER. You mean in the direction you think is right?
Mr. REEDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. PALMER. But if a set of people go to work to formulate public opinion in a way you think is wrong, how then?

Mr. REEDER. I do not believe people differ very much as to this prohibition question in Kansas as to what is right.

Mr. SMITH. Yes; they are differing very widely on this proposition. Mr. REEDER. I will tell you public opinion in some things is made up by the interest of the people the men represent.

Mr. PALMER. Altogether.

Mr. REEDER. If I had several large breweries in my district the chances are I would not be here, if I had the same opinion I have now; I know I would not. They are not sending men to Congress from Kansas that do not believe in prohibition. We have a community where a sentiment against the sale of intoxicants is strongly intrenched. That sentiment seems prevalent in the South also, but my judgment is they have developed as good a set of laws on the subject as we have. Our law is all right, if the United States will only permit us to carry it out.

Mr. De ARMOND. I presume that as a matter of fact these antiliquor laws are enforced better in the South than anywhere else in the States. Take Georgia, take Texas; you will find their laws enforced. Mr. REEDER. That may be; I only get information from Columbia, S. C., where I looked the matter over personally. I thought they were making a failure of their law at the time I was there, but I realize there is a wonderful good sentiment on the temperance question in the South, and I suspect in many places it is well enforced, and I am glad of it. I believe if we can make this nation a temperate nation we have made a great stride toward perpetuating it.

Mr. TIRRELL. Do they have open saloons in Leavenworth?
Mr. REEDER. Yes.

Mr. TIRRELL. Then there will be no necessity of C. O. D. shipments there.

Mr. REEDER. No, sir; it is wonderful how they can disobey the Constitution and the laws there, but they do. In the rural districts the laws are quite generally obeyed. I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak to you on a subject of great importance in my judgment.

STATEMENT OF HON. JUSTIN D. BOWERSOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS.

Mr. BOWERSOCK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I shall not detain you long. I want to speak only of my town and more particularly of my interest in some such bill as is proposed. I can not speak to you as a lawyer, but I think I do know something about conditions in Kansas and about the question of temperance. My town is one of from twelve to fifteen thousand inhabitants, the location of the State university, and also of the Government Indian school. At the latter there are from 600 to 800 young Indian boys and girls, a school supported by the people of the United States. We make appropriations here annually for that Indian school. For more than twenty-five years there has not been an open saloon in this town of Lawrence, which is 40 miles west of the Missouri River, west of Kansas City.

There have been "joints" there, and there is more or less drinking. What I believe can be largely prevented by some such legislation as is proposed is this condition particularly: Young students club together, raise a certain amount of money, telegraph or telephone to Kansas City, Mo., for beer or liquor to be sent to Lawrence C. O. D., and when it comes there they take it from the express office with the usual results. I think you fully with myself are interested in preventing the sale or the use of liquor by these young people of our State, some 1,500 students in the university, and 700 or 800 Indians

at Haskell Institute, because these Indians get "off the reservation" at times and are taken back to school under the influence of liquor.

It is a too common thing in my town, more particularly late in the week, Friday or Saturday night, for these young men to carry this liquor from the express office to their rooms or to their clubs and have their carousal. We have "joints," so called, in Lawrence-that is, a place where men in violation of the law can get liquor in this way through the express company C. O. D. packages, and secretly, it may be, dispose of it to parties who will go to them for the purpose of purchasing it-parties usually in whom they have confidence, whom they will believe will not expose them to the law.

The officers in my town are endeavoring to enforce prohibition, and except along the lines I have indicated they succeed. I believe there are young men going to school in Lawrence, perhaps hundreds of them, who have never seen an open saloon in the State of Kansas. Many of them go outside of the State, of course, and see places where liquor is sold, and it has seemed to me-it does seem to me-that some such legislation as is proposed will help the people in my State to better enforce temperance there than is possible under conditions as they exist at this time.

Mr. SMITH of Kentucky. The chief trouble is in the C. O. D. business; that is the source of the great trouble there, is it not?

Mr. BOWERSOCK. As a rule these young men or older men would not go to Kansas City, buy liquor and pay for it, and take it or have it sent to Lawrence. They can readily get supplied C. O. D., and do; not only the young men, of course, but others. And the evil in my town may be greater because we have young men from all parts of the State, and hence the greater need of a safeguard.

Mr. DINWIDDIE. I want to introduce Dr. Howard H. Russell, an attorney at law, chairman of our national headquarters committee. Mr. Russell is from New York.

STATEMENT OF DR. HOWARD H. RUSSELL.

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, our legislative superintendent of our antisaloon league is to present the legal argument in closing our case before you, and so I will not take time upon that point. What I wish to urge especially is with reference to the general proposition, and with reference also to the objection which we have among the officers of our antisaloon league and our workers throughout the country to the introduction of any amendment to the Littlefield bill as it is now pending before the committee. I suppose that all understand that in the States we have come to a point now where the principle of local option in dealing with the liquor question is a generally accepted principle on the part of the people of the whole country, both from the standpoint of citizenship and also from the standpoint of the courts.

There are thirty-eight States in the Union where local option in some form is provided for; there are sixteen States in which they can vote by counties whether they will have saloons among them or not; in the rest of the States, either by municipality or by wards or by resident districts, the people can deal with this question and settle it for themselves as to whether they will have liquor selling as a beverage