Prohibition is successful wherever it has been fairly tried. The Toronto Globe, some five years ago, sent a correspondent to Maine to investigate the result of the Maine law. His letters testified that although known drinkers could get liquor in some places, practically it had made drinking impossible to the great mass of the people, and that a generation was growing up in Maine who knew neither the sight nor taste nor smell of intoxicating beverages. The editor of the Toledo Blade (Petroleum V. Nasby) one year ago made personal investigation, with the same result. A member of the Standing Temperance Committee of the Presbyterian General Assembly, about the same time, sought for liquor on sale while on a visit to Maine and could find none. The following figures are repeated from their place in the article of the Rev. D. C. Babcock, in the Statesman, of February 5: "Kansas has a population of 1,000,000; Nebraska, of 453,000. Kansas, in 1884, paid $64,635.92, tax on spirits, and $27,672.43 on fermented liquors. Nebraska, during the same time, paid $1,364,850.38 on spirits, and $95,725.38 on fermented liquors. In Kansas the share of tax, for each man, woman and child, was 6½ cents on spirits, and 2¼ cents on fermented liquors. In Nebraska the share was $3.01 on spirits and 21 cents on fermented liquors. In Kansas the total tax on account of the grog-shop was 8¾ cents per head; in Nebraska it was $3.22 a head. Kansas is under prohibition. Nebraska is one of the highest of high license States." In other words, prohibition under all its disadvantages in Kansas has proved itself thirty-six times as effectual in restraining the traffic as high license has in Nebraska.—Christian Statesman.