I may be asked, “What do you suggest?” I would license gambling, and place it under such restrictions as would tend to lessen its abuse. I am willing, for practical purposes, to concede this much to the police power. If this policy may be claimed for the liquor traffic, why not for gambling also? Is gambling more injurious than intemperance? No, the victims of alcohol outnumber the unfortunate gamblers a thousand to one. The habitual use of intoxicants is necessarily and uniformly injurious to the individual. This is not true of gambling, as a pastime. The player may win. Some of the players must win. Whatever can be said against the prohibition of the liquor traffic, applies with greater force to gambling. If there are reasons why the sale of intoxicants may be licensed, by the state and municipal authorities, such reasons serve but to demand a like privilege for gambling. Briefly, the rule laid down by the Indiana Supreme Court as to the liquor traffic, in Beabe vs. State, is clearly applicable to games of chance as a business. This is obvious from the whole tenor of my discussion. If the state is not willing to take this step, then leave the matter to “local option.” Leave it to the municipal authorities, whether gambling is to be permitted or not, in a given locality. Let it be a question of policy and toleration, if you will. Regulations may be imposed, as with the saloon. Recognize the existence of gambling as a fixed fact, but interpose a surveillance for the prevention of fraud. As with the saloon, also, provide for the protection of those weaklings who are ever wards of the law: “minors, drunkards, lunatics and spendthrifts.” This policy now obtains generally on the continent of Europe, and to a certain extent in several of the United States: notably, Arkansas, Texas and California.