there are no railway interests promoted by the saloons." This was a calm and decisive utterance.
The fourth remarked: "I would put the license up to $1,000 each—$5,000 would be better. Our great peril to trains and losses have come by drinking. There is nothing to be said in their favor every business man knows."
These gentlemen, in charge of more than $100,000,000 of property, and with nearly twenty thousand men on their pay-rolls, cannot be called fanatics, or of one idea, and employes in every branch of the service and rank may know the mind of their chief. What a spectacle it would be for gods and men to see one of them walking up to vote against a principle which means safety to railroad trains! Dividends on the investment, and mere comforts to the employes and their families, less temptation to thousands of young men, and good to every material interest, and a thousandfold more in the elevation of character.
Still in the faith of thirty thousand majority after reading Senator James F. WILSON's speech very strong and to the point. Right is right. Yours, J. B. GRINNELL.
(May 31, 1882.)
The following paragraph from Friday's Regisier furnishes excellent material for the temperance plank that will be needed in the Republican platform of the coming fall campaign in Iowa: "The the temperance people of Iowa know how to achieve what they want, and they have the power needed to achieve it. Their first step will be for statutory prohibition, and they will win that in the next Legislature. As to constitutional prohibition, that is also sure, although it may be a little more distant. Indeed they have that already, and all they need is a Supreme Court to recognize and enforce it, and that will take less than two years' time. A people or party who can have statutory prohibition within a year, have no reason to feel cast down.—(May 2, 1883.)
JUDGE HENDERSON'S CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY
ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITORY
AMENDMENT.
IT TOOK EFFECT JUNE 27, 1882-UNLAWFUL TO SELL
WINE OR BEER SINCE THEN.
District Court convened in regular session on Monday last, Judge H. C. Henderson on the bench. One of his first duties was his charge to the Grand Jury, in which, in treating of the Constitutional Prohibitory Amendment, as to when it took effect, etc., he uses the following language: