Thereupon the lecturer made answer that the papers had not reported him correctly. Here the matter might have dropped, and there was in fact an end of this particular phase of the question. The case, however, had made a stir and presently a representative of the teetotal party called at the office of the United States Brewing Association to collect information which was given him as a matter of course. Then came a proposition from the same party for a public discussion on the following extraordinary terms. Twelve propositions were to be advanced and supported by a practiced speaker on the teetotal side. The representative of the Newark Brewers was to have an opportunity to reply to each, and the other speaker was then to sum up and conclude the discussion. The brewers’ representative had only three days notice and naturally declined any such arrangement in which all the advantage was evidently assumed by the other side. The discussion also was to be confined to one evening, and a collection was to be taken up “to defray expenses.” The Newark Brewers’ Association, however, expressed their willingness to debate on fair terms and with one evening for each proposition, but this arrangement was declined. We have taken pains to procure the twelve propositions of the total abstinence club, and append them here chiefly in order to call attention to the fact that the greater part are especially treated in this book, while the others are touched incidentally or by direct inference. The propositions are as follows: No. 1.—The use of malt liquors is a direct cause of intemperance. No. 2.—The use of malt liquors tends to the use of stronger liquors. No. 3.—Malt liquors, if habitually used to any considerable extent, tend to cause ill-health. No. 4.—The claim that malt liquors are valuable as food is without foundation. No. 5.—As a medicine, malt liquors are of use only to those who do not ordinarily use them, and are dangerous because of their tendency to create habit. No. 6.—The theory that malt liquors can be substituted by consumers of alcoholic beverages for distilled liquors, to any important extent, is false. No. 7.—Beer in this country is far more evil in its effects than in Germany; but even there its bad effects, as used by the people, are obvious to every traveler who has no theory to maintain. No. 8.—The use of beer by the working classes has a direct relation to poverty. No. 9.—The use of malt liquors by the masses has a relation to crime, which, though differing in some respects from that of distilled liquors, is marked and alarming. No. 10.—Beer saloons and gardens, as a whole, are demoralizing in their effects on individuals, families, and especially on children. No. 11.—The great increase in the use of malt liquors and the increase in intemperance for the past fifteen years have been parallel, and are intimately connected.