Emigration from Germany will reach new heights this year. The New York Herald estimates, on basis of reports received from its correspondents at Berlin and Munich, that at least 150,000 persons will leave Germany and come to America during the period from March to December, 1867. When we consider that conditions in Germany are unstable, that another war will be waged as soon as the necessary preparations have been completed, and that compulsory military service will cause every able bodied man who is not kept at home by uncontrollable circumstances to seek a new and quiet home in the Western Hemisphere, where the principles of liberty, justice and equality have been firmly and permanently established, the estimate of the New York Herald does not seem too high in the least. And this greater immigration quota not only increases our national wealth by adding substantially to our man power, but also greatly augments our supply of gold and silver, since the people who are persuaded to leave their mother country because of reasons previously 2mentioned usually belong to the class of property owners.

Therefore, the American people should give these immigrants every possible consideration. The Germans who come to the United States seek more than material gain; they are bent on attaining freedom of action, freedom of thought, and freedom of conscience. While they are seeking economic independence, they wish to have freedom of movement, and especially they want to be unhampered in their enjoyment of harmless pleasures. The German nation is a thinking nation, an enlightened nation, and it cannot be convinced that nature and the gifts of nature have not been created for the satisfaction and pleasure of human beings. Although they were oppressed in the old country, they were never prevented from pursuing innocent pleasures, either at home or in company, and nobody ever dictated to them regarding what they should or should not eat or drink.

Germans are sober people. Their national drinks are of a light and harmless nature. Drunkards are an exception to the rule. Thus a German immigrant 3would be surprised to find that efforts are being made in this country, where he sought freedom, to prohibit the use of beer, wine, and even distilled liquor.

And yet, just at this time, when many immigrants are expected, bigotry, hypocrisy, and rumors of temperance are rife. Nobody will object to the organization of temperance societies, and nobody will attempt to prevent the members of those societies from promising to abstain from beer, wine, hard cider, and whisky. Anyone is privileged to establish or join such a society, just as everyone has the right to drink water. Indeed, we advise everybody who cannot use the gifts of nature in a moderate and humane way, and who, like a wild animals, must continue to drink after taking the first few sips, to Join one of the many temperance societies immediately, to vow complete abstinence from alcoholic liquors, and thus to save whatever human dignity he may still possess. Nor do we object when these advocates of moderateness proselytize through lectures, pamphlets, and books, in their endeavor to reform drunkards. As long as they do one more than try to convince people, 4they are within their constitutional rights; but as soon as they attempt to control the legislative body of the state, and to create moderation through punitive laws, they exceed their rights.

This opinion seems to be gaining adherents. 'Tis true, the legislatures of some states, for instance, New York, Pennsylvania, a few of the New England States, either one or the other Western States (Iowa or Kansas) are still laboring under the delusion of ignorance and are trying to reform drunkards by legislation; however, the Anglo-American press is beginning to take a decisive stand against the fanaticism and bigotry of temperance agitators. The New York Herald says in an article on German immigration:

"We do not intend to permit anyone to interfere with the harmless amusements and entertainments to which the Germans are accustomed, and which were not prohibited even by the oppressors in their native country. We are very determined in this matter, since there is a marked tendency in the legislatures of some states towards pharisaism which would work a severe hardship on 5our German fellow citizens. When we consider their sobriety and their diligence, their preference for outdoor amusements, and the beneficial effect of their example upon other nationalities, we must protest against any restriction which would cause them to dislike our institutions and urge them to remain away from our shores."

This last argument, pointing as it does to the danger of material loss emanating from fanaticism, is very well taken. When the bigots and adherents of temperance in Iowa, Kansas, and other states which depend upon immigration for their development, find that Germans avoid them and settle elsewhere, they will soon have a change of heart. Here in Illinois temperance is an antiquated idea, and in Chicago, especially, there is as much freedom in regard to the consumption of liquor as there is anywhere in Germany. The German element has gained so much political influence in the Prairie State, and the Anglo-American press of that city is so strongly opposed to temperance fanatics, that nobody would think of trying to increase the virtue of moderateness through prohibition or punitive laws. In an article published 6in last Sunday's issue of the Chicago Tribune, and reprinted on Monday, that newspaper proves how foolish and unenforceable all temperance laws are. Of course, the Tribune, too, is ready to do everything it can to promote sobriety and prevent crimes that are caused by intemperance.

"But" says the Tribune, "when the law essays to regulate the private life of people, and trys to dictate what they shall, or shall not, eat or drink, to what church a citizen must go, and how often he must attend services, etc., then the law becomes tyrannical, violates the feelings of everybody, and engenders an opposition which is directed not only against liquor dealers."

The Tribune concludes the article thus: "Such a law was proposed in our state legislature as long as twelve years ago, before the experiment was made in other places; and it failed then. Any attempt to revive it, after it has been condemned by the experience of twenty years, would be just as practical as it would to warm up the old theory of the Know-nothings, to introduce the old blue laws in the state of Connecticut, or to place the 7old law against witchcraft once more upon the statutes of Massachusetts."

The Chicago Times, once a Copperhead paper, but now an organ of progressive Democrats, expresses a similar opinion, and is surprised that any appreciable number of intelligent people who claim the ability to rule themselves--and that includes the ability to think for themselves--could possibly revive the "old humbug that was advocated and tried by the Massachusetts School".