77 o THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



earlier, on " removing want and poverty " through. " the repressing 

 of waste and excess by sumptuary laws." The definition has never 

 changed down to our day. (Cf. Webster, Worcester, and others.) 

 So Skeat's Etymological Dictionary — "relating to expenses (L.). 

 It is rather Englished from Latin, sumptuarius, belonging to ex- 

 penses, than borrowed from the French. Formed from crude 

 form of sumptus, expense, cost " [so "sumptuous"]. It is there- 

 fore simply evidence of lack of discrimination to call any law a 

 sumptuary one whose object is not the prevention of cost, ex- 

 pense, and waste. One might as correctly pronounce the procla- 

 mations in the colony of New York against any but the Dutch 

 Reformed worship (1656, 1662), or those of Virginia against 

 absence from the Episcopal service (1623, 1652), or those of Mary- 

 land against blasphemy and denying the Trinity, and using 

 anything in public worship save the Book of Common Prayer 

 (1649, 1700), sumptuary laws as those of to-day against the 

 traffic in intoxicating beverages. They have nothing in common. 

 The colony of Maryland provided that "every ordinary keeper 

 that shall demand or take above 10 lbs. of tobacco for a gallon of 

 small beer, 20 lbs. of tobacco for a gallon of strong beer, 4 lbs. for 

 a lodging, 12 lbs. for a peck of Indian corn or oats, 6 lbs. for a 

 night's grass for a horse, 10 lbs. for a night's hay or straw, shall 

 forfeit for every such offense 500 lbs. of tobacco." It would be an 

 unnecessary blunder to assert that this had nothing to do with 

 restraining what was deemed undue cost of living and traveling. 

 But Maryland enacted the same year (1699) that "No inhabitant 

 of this Province shall sell without license any cider, quince 

 drink, or other strong liquor, to be drunk in his or her house, 

 upon penalty of 1,000 lbs. of tobacco for every conviction." Is 

 the reason and principle of this the same with the reason and 

 principle of measures adopted to keep down prices, such as sev- 

 eral colonies adopted — e. g., that just cited, restraining innkeepers 

 from overcharges ? Both are prohibitory. But is the restraint 

 of unlicensed liquor-selling fitted to lower the prices of intoxicat- 

 ing drinks, or — other things being equal — does the cost of a license 

 to sell tend to raise prices ? If, then, this latter Maryland law could 

 not have been sumptuary, has not the free sale of intoxicants 

 been repressed, whether by license or prohibition, for other reasons 

 r- viz., those of public policy— that is to say, the duty of "every 

 independent State " to have " a regard for the welfare of society " ? 

 But this is just what Dr. Hammond takes it upon himself to say 

 has not influenced the legislation of certain great commonwealths, 

 East and West, forbidding the sale and manufacture of alcoholic 

 beverages. Is it quite sure that he knows their ends and motives 

 better than they know them themselves ? 



The point will be made still clearer — if this is possible — by 



