In 1896 we note the first statutes against lynching.  In 1897 local option prevails in Texas, and the blue laws of Connecticut are abolished to the extent that recreation on Sundays is no longer prohibited.  Local option and anti-lynching laws continue during the next two or three years, and by 1900 twenty-four States have pure-food laws, which, however, are ineffective because they impose no sufficient penalty.  In 1903, in consequence of the assassination of President McKinley, Washington and Wisconsin make the advocating anarchy a felony.  Twenty-one more States pass pure-food laws, and nearly all the States have gone over to local option from State-wide prohibition, to which latter principle only three States now adhere.  In 1904 Mississippi and Virginia adopt more stringent laws against vagrancy, and 1905 is the year of active legislation on the indeterminate sentence, juvenile courts, parole and probation, with two more statutes against mobs and lynching.  In 1907 the States are busied with the attempt to enforce their prohibition regulations against the interstate commerce jurisdiction of the Federal government.  Solicitation of interstate orders for liquor is forbidden in Mississippi, and it is provided that shipments sent C.O.D. are not to be moved one hundred feet or given away; also, that the mere possession of an internal revenue receipt from the United States government is prima facie evidence of an offence against the State law.  Statutes of this kind led to renewed conflict between State and Federal authority.  Virginia adopts the statute against giving tips or any commissions; see p. 244 above.  In 1908 we find more parole and probation laws, two prohibition and three local-option laws, and four new pure-food statutes.

Coming to matters of court procedure, in 1890 one State provides that there should never be called more than six witnesses for each side in any criminal case, which oddly reminds one of early English trials by compurgation; but is, of course, quite unconstitutional in this country.  In 1893 Connecticut adopts a statute that honorably discharged soldiers and sailors addicted to drink are to be “treated” free at the State hospital.  The definition of the word “treated” seems ambiguous, but in any event it is a pleasing reminder of Bishop Berkeley’s remark that he would “rather see England free than England sober.”  Some States provide for a jury of eight in criminal cases and for a verdict of three-quarters in civil cases—­a statute of questionable constitutionality.  Very generally throughout the twenty years studied by us, the States have adopted stricter rules for the admission of attorneys at law to practise at the bar.