In 1880 the population of the State was 996,096. We had been twenty-five years in attaining that population. To-day Kansas has not less than 1,500,000 inhabitants. In five years we have gained half a million. In 1880 only 55 towns and cities had a population exceeding 1,000, and six had each over 5,000. In 1885, 91 towns and cities each had over 1,000, and twelve had each over 5,000. In 1880 we had only 8,868,884 acres under cultivation; in 1885 we had 14,252,815 acres. In 1880 the farms of Kansas were valued at only $235,178,936, and the farm products for that year aggregated only $84,521,486; in 1885 the farms of the State were valued at $408,073,454, and the farm products of that year aggregated $143,577,018. In 1880 the live stock of Kansas was worth only $61,563,950; in 1885 it was worth $117,881,699. In 1880 the assessed valuation of the property of Kansas, real, personal and railroad, aggregated $160,891,689; in 1885 it aggregated $248,845,276. In 1880 we had only 3,104 miles of railway; we have now 5,117 miles. In 1880 we had 5,315 school houses; in 1885 we had 6,673. In 1880 we expended $1,818,336 for the support of our common schools; in 1885 we expended $2,977,763. In 1880 we had only 357 newspapers and 2,514 churches; in 1885 we had 581 newspapers and 3,976 churches. Do these figures prove the assertion of those “weeping Jeremiahs” who believed, or affected to believe, that the prosperity and growth of Kansas depended upon the saloons? Do they not, on the contrary, establish the fact that the growth of Kansas during the past six years—the six years of prohibition—has far exceeded any other period of the State’s marvelous development? DOES PROHIBITION PROHIBIT? Our opponents allege, again, that “prohibition does not prohibit;” that the saloons are simply transformed into drug stores, and keep on selling liquor as before; and that drinking and drunkenness have really increased since the prohibition law went into effect. If these assertions are true, what have they to complain of? If prohibition does not prohibit, why do the men who want to open saloons, and make a living by making their fellow-men drunk, oppose prohibition? If a saloon can be so easily transformed into a drug store, why don’t all the saloon-keepers adopt that course? If drinking and drunkenness have increased, why are those who profit by drinking and drunkenness, and all their allies and supporters, so bitterly opposed to prohibition?