the war by vast numbers of our citizens to be unjust, oppressive, and unchristian. So it was practically annulled by inadequate and hostile legislation, or by refusal to enforce such laws as were enacted. If popular sentiment is behind prohibition, it will at once develop in statute law; if it is not, constitutional enactment will be a dead letter.

Many of our people protest against the failure of others to observe properly the Sabbath day. In deference to this sentiment, would it be wise and useful to put into the Constitution the following provision: “Violation of the Lord's day is prohibited. The General Court shall enact suitable legislation to enforce the provisions of this article." Does any one believe that such an amendment would lead to a better observance of the Sabbath, or accomplish anything else than to make what are now violations of statute law violations of constitutional law, and bring the Constitution into disrespect? In case of a popular sentiment hostile to constitutional prohibition, why may not the General Court, sustained by such sentiment, say that "suitable legislation to enforce such prohibition" is a statute with very mild penalties, and with no provisions specially enacted for enforcement. The Legislature is the judge of what is "suitable legislation." Is not its power practically the same with or without constitutional prohibition?

As prohibition, then, if necessary or desirable, must, to be effective, ultimately rest upon legislation, is it not desirable to try it first by legislation, and see whether or not it is a success?

It is true that it has been tried in this Commonwealth under statute law, and has utterly failed and broken down under a hostile sentiment. Is constitutional prohibition, resting for its entire force upon

statute law, likely to be more successful? Its advocates must go further, and put into the organic law, not only prohibition, but the entire details of a law to enforce it. In this way only can it be independent of legislation, and until so independent there is no advance over statute prohibition.

I have tried thus far to look at the matter from the standpoint of the advocates of prohibition. It is not necessary, but only frank, that I should say that I do not believe that general prohibition is the best mode of dealing with the liquor problem. Overlooking the difference in the circumstances, needs, and public opinion of different localities, there is always danger that such prohibition may be in name only, but in fact freedom from all restrictions, plenty of law, with free and untaxed rum. The present local option and high license law, with its severe restrictive features, seems to me much better and more successful, and in the agitation of the Yes and No question in every locality each year to do much for the proper education of the people in the principles of temperance and morality. I am inclined to think that the ultimate solution of the problem lies rather in the field of religion than of law, rather in persuasion than in force. In this field our present law is each year doing a great and successful work. It is, therefore, not only unnecessary, but inexpedient to put into organic law legislation which must be entirely inoperative unless enforced by other legislation, and sustained and demanded by a strong public sentiment.

G'

ADDRESS

AT ATLANTA, GEORGIA, FEB. 13, 1890.

LADLY I find myself to-night in the land of the sunny South, and under the charm of its warmhearted hospitality. I come without office or title, yet bearing, I am sure, from the old Bay State greeting and good wishes to a younger of the thirteen sisters, who, joined in sympathy and friendship in days of peril and oppression, now in time of peace, independence, and liberty are united as parts of a great republic, joint-heirs of its glorious heritage, and equal factors in achieving its grand destiny. Your cordial welcome tells me that here I am at home; and as at the old homestead the family long scattered sometimes meet, and around its hallowed hearthstone bind more closely the tenderest ties of life, and then with renewed strength and love share each other's burdens, duties, and blessings, so may we to-night, meeting as fellowcountrymen, pledge anew our love to a common country, and sharing in her glory, consider the duties and perils that confront her. In this spirit there is no South, no North, nor East, nor West; no burden upon one that is not felt by all, the prosperity of each is the sacred duty of all.

If in speaking of the present there is mingled with it necessarily something of the past, and recalling the latter brings sorrow with it, let us remember that Massachusetts and Georgia both have had their days of sunshine and of darkness, and then comfort ourselves

with those lines, written in the little chapel in the Tyrol, that to our greatest poet in his hour of suffering seemed to be the footprint of an angel: "Look not mournfully into the past, it comes not back again. Wisely improve the present. It is thine. Go forth to meet the future without fear and with a manly heart.” The past of sectional discord and fraternal strife comes never back again, and for the rest,

"No fears to beat away, no strife to heal.

The past unsighed for, and the future sure."

Mr. President, I speak to-night for a younger generation that, loyal to all that has been, yet dwells not in the past, but in a progressive spirit steps forward to meet the "new occasions and the new duties," unhampered by prejudices that obstruct, and impatient of the spirit that would "attempt the Future's portal with the Past's blood-rusted key." I take for my subject this sentiment: A new South, a new North, a country reunited in love and loyalty, ready and anxious to meet the duties of to-day. It is a patriotic theme, suggested by the words of one whose fervent patriotism made the Nation listen, bound hearts together that were estranged, and earned for his memory the noble tribute of a country in sorrow for his loss. He

"Climbed the sunlit heights,

And from all dissonance

Struck one clear chord

That seemed to reach the ears of God."

I know the sorrow that pervades this meeting; I feel the thought in every mind. A friend, a leader, statesman, and patriot has gone. He loved the South, but spoke for all. With matchless eloquence and the manly

1 The reference is to Henry W. Grady.

frankness of a noble soul, he proclaimed the undying loyalty of seventy million people to our common country, to all her institutions, and to all her laws; and then he asked forbearance, sympathy, and aid while the new South adjusted the past to the present, and solved momentous problems, vital to her, vital to all, and gave his life in the discharge of this patriotic duty.

Unbounded hospitality and cordial greetings cannot, shall not, repress those thoughts that permit me to share in your sorrow, and pay to his memory my humble tribute of respect and love:

"Statesman, yet friend to truth! Of soul sincere,

In action faithful, and in honor clear;

Who broke no promise, served no private end,
Who gained no title, and who lost no friend;

Ennobled by himself, by all approved,

Praised, wept, and honored by the land he loved."

North and South mingle their tears at his loss, gather inspiration from his life, and join hearts and hands in worthily perpetuating his memory. To me has been given the sad yet pleasant duty of bringing here from the Young Men's Democratic Club of Massachusetts its contribution to his monument as its tribute to his memory. His patriotic purpose, political convictions, and progressive spirit represented as truly the six hundred young, progressive Democrats of that club as it did his own beloved State of Georgia. As his loss was national, so were his life and the lesson of his life. "Though dead, he speaketh." From his new-made grave, God grant to-night I may catch the inspiration of his teaching.

Mr. President, war settled, as only war could, an irrepressible conflict between institutions that could