The alliance sought to influence public opinion to pro hibit the sale of intoxicating beverages, on the ground that the sale of iatoxicating liquors was detrimental to the best interests of the community. The question at issue now was not whether it was right or wrong to take a glass of liquor : that could be discussed at other times • but the question was, Was it in the interests of the well-being of the community to have therein an open sale of intoxicating liquors ? As show ing that the drink traffic did not pay the com munity, the speaker said that it was universally recognised by every civilised community that the sale of intoxicating liquor was a danger to the community. In proof of this he would put m evidence this fact: that there was no civilised community in the world which would permit tree, unrestricted, unregulated sale of intoxi cating liquors. From this they must come to the conclusion that they were dealing with a trade that was admittedly dangerous: and it was dangerous because it dealt with an article the use of which was dangerous. The direct immediate, inevitable, and invariable results of the introduction of the liquor trade into aiiy _ community was the development therein to a greater or lesser degree of crime, pauperism, of disease and insanity Thee were not wild statements, but propositions of universal acceptance a-3 proved by the restric tions imposed on the trade. The speaker then dealt at length with the economic aspect of the liquor trade, contending that the sale of intoxi cating liquors certainly did not pay the com munity, but that all experience and testimony showed that the sale of intoxicating liquor interfered with and endangered the production ot wealth in the community. 