The story of a publican, given before the Royal Commission, is of interest, as showing how drink-sellers evaded the law. "I had two years' experience of the Scott Act at Port Huron, a town of 2000 inhabitants," said Mr. J. C. Miller. "I complied with the Scott Act at my hotel there for three months, but the receipts would not justify perpetuity. On the 12th July I made a drink called 'conundrum drink,' composed of water, lemons and whisky. This was supplemented by lager, called for the day 'blue ribbon beer'. The temperance men sent up two detectives from Kincardine, who were low characters, and would swear to anything. When they came to give evidence, I gave them forty dollars to clear me, and they did so. "Dr. McLeod (a Commissioner).--You paid them the money to perjure themselves? "Mr. Miller.--Well, I gave them forty dollars, and do not know whether they got liquor in my place or not. They were prepared to swear that they did, and they swore that they didn't. I then tried the experiment of keeping the liquor to give away, and it was entirely successful. Then I sold cider, and gave the liquor away. That was also successful; and after the temperance men sought several times to secure a conviction without success, they let me alone, and I sold freely until the Act was repealed." It must not be supposed that the temperance people were passive spectators of these attempts to defy the law. On the contrary, they were active in prosecuting. The number of prosecutions for breaches of the law in the six months ending in July, 1886, was 1005; for the six months ending in October, 1887, the number of prosecutions was 2845. The number of convictions in the first period was 541, and in the second period 1771. The electors of Ontario had enough of the law, and at the earliest possible opportunity the Act was repealed in every county in the province. Mr. F. S. Spence, the secretary of the Dominion Alliance, gave the following as the reasons why (in the opinion of prohibitionists) the law was repealed:-- "(1) Because the people were disappointed in finding that it did not give them a fuller measure of prohibition. "(2) Because of the hard feeling engendered among neighbours by the forcing of evidence. "(3) Because of the annoyance caused by the hotel-keepers closing their houses, and of the terrorism practised. "(4) Because of the inefficiency of the machinery for the enforcing of the Act. "(5) Because the vote for repeal was often brought on prematurely during a time of local irritation over the effects of the Act. "(6) Because of antagonistic personal influence."