For a long while this important question divided and
agitated the Canadian people. The religious authorities,
knowing the evil and crimes that resulted from the sale
of intoxicating liquor to the Indians, made strenuous
efforts to secure the most severe restriction if not the
prohibition of the deadly traffic. They spoke in the name
of public morality and national honour, of humanity and
divine love. The civil authorities, more interested in
the financial and political advantages than in the question
of principle, favoured toleration and even authorization
of the trade. Hence the conflicts and misunderstandings
which have enlivened, or rather saddened, the pages of
Canadian history.

It is to be regretted that the intendant Talon sided with
the supporters of free traffic in brandy. We have said
that at first he wavered. The rulings of the Sovereign
Council in 1667 seem to show it. But his earnest desire
for the prosperity of the colony--the development of her
trade, the increase of her population, the improvement
of her finances--his ambition for the economic progress
of New France, misled him and perverted his judgment.
This is the only excuse that can be offered for the
greatest error of his life. For he must be held responsible
for the ordinance passed by the Sovereign Council on
November 10, 1668. This ordinance, after setting forth
that in order to protect the Indians against the curse
of drunkenness it was better to have recourse to freedom
than to leave them a prey to the wily devices of