HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, JANUARY 27, 1859.PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS.
Mr. NEBEKER, of Warren, presented the resolution of a late public meeting at West Lebanon, praying for the passage of Mr. Good-win's Temperance bill(the Senate bill similar to that of Mr. Nebeker)which was referred to the Committee on Temperance.
M. MURRAY presented the petition of Jacob and John Soffer, asking for indemnification for their ouster from title to a quarter section of land in Kosciusko county, which was referred to the Committee on Claims.
Mr. CARR presented the petition of sundry citizens, asking for John F. Wyly & Son further time to complete their Charleston and Jeffersonville road, which, on the motion of Mr. Davis, was referred to a select committee, which the Speaker makes to consist of Messrs. Carr, Davis, Bowman, Comstock and Sullivan.
Mr. COTTON presented the petition of Samuel W. Ritchey and others, for the establishment of an Agricultural College within five miles of the city of Indianapolis, which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. COLLIER presented the petition of Henry Winter, Alonzo Hubbard and others, printers of the State of Indiana, asking that "the various schemes, strategems and low bids, looking to a reduction in the price of the public printing," be "treated with merited contempt," and he moved that it be referred to the Committee on Rights and Privileges.
Mr. RITTER. There were quite a number of these petitions, and he thought, perhaps, it would be best to pile them up with the Committee on Rights and Privileges; which was agreed to.
Mr. SULLIVAN and Mr. SHULL presented similar petitions, which took the same direction.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone, presented the petition of Levi Raymond - for relief - which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, with instructions to inquire, &c.
Mr. MELLETT presented the petition of Caleb White and others, for a more stringent law against sheep killing and other dogs, which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Hall, of Grant, presented two temperance petitions, which were referred to the Temperance Committee.
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have been justinformed that the Senate insists on taking 600 copies of the Legislative Sentinel for that body alone, and that the Door keeper under our resolution is to take five hundred copies for the House of Representatives. That was not my understand ng when I voted for that resolution, and I move to suspend the order of business to enable me to move to reconsider the vote adopting that resolution.
Mr. DAVIS. This matter has been up two or three times, and there can be no room for misunderstanding as to its being a concurrent resolution. It was a resolution of this House. We can not, at this time prudently talk about acting again on these resolutions of the two Houses, passed more than a week since. We perfectly understood what we were doing.
Mr. SCOTT. That was not my understanding. The friends of the resolution understood that two hundred copies of the paper were to be taken by the Senate, and three hundred by the House. With that understating I voted for it. I never understood that the order of the Houses was to extend to $1,100.
Mr. RITTER. They worried us into the passage of this resolution, and it is nothing but right that we should now worry them a little in turn.
Mr. STANFIELD I suppose this question is settled - and that the House will be unwilling to sustain this motion. I am not resposible for the understanding of gentlemen, but I will say this: that unless the number of copies provided for in these resolutions are taken, the Reporters will be unable to make the reports the Legislature seem to desire. I am satisfied that it will be much better for the country and for us to have a clear, succinct and reliable statement published of what transpires in these halls something that will give the position taken by members upon the propositions and bills to come before the Legislature, and we have had an illustration of what these reports will be. We have taken the various newspapers as heretofore, and I think their publishers have not treated us fairly. I have no doubt that it was the clear understanding of the House and the publishers themselves, that those papers should employ reporters, and furnish reports of the proceedings of this session, similar to those of the Legislative Sentinel, but so soon as the contracts are made, we are bound by them, end the publishers refuse or neglect to make the reports we expected. Now, sir, how are we to obviate this difficulty? The Reporter [Mr. Drapier] is willing if this mode of compensation is provided for him, to make the reports we desire and publish them in this paper. The only compensation he gets for making and publishing these reports, is what he gets under this order, after paying for the printing in the newspaper and in the book form and I am assured by him that he will be entirely unable to furnish these reports in the manner proposed, unless the entire number subscribed for in both resolutions shall be taken. He says, and I rely upon him as a gentleman of intelligence and integrity, that the order for a less number will not be a sufficient compensation ? or his work. I hope, therefore, that the House will not suspend the rules, or if they do, that page: 88[View Page 88] the resolution, when taken up, will not be reconsidered.
Mr. GIFFORD. If this question is pressed, 1 shall insist upon a call of the House. I am satisfied that every member of this body who voted for this resolution, understood that five copies were to be taken by each member of this House. I have consulted with my colleague in the Senate, and he understands that the Senate are to take 600 copies, and we have agreed together that the whole number will be sufficient to supply every library in our county with a copy. I see my friend from Adams here, and several other members on this side of the House are absent, and I must insist on a call if gentlemen press this matter.
Mr. BOYD. In the discussion of this question of taking papers, as upon other questions, the country suffers more from too much than too little legislation. Had we understood ourselves at the start we should not have been put to so much trouble. In the beginning the proposition was to take two papers - the Journal and Sentinel. I voted for that. After that there were two others added. Then we got up the project of employing a Reporter and concluded to take none of the papers. Finally we concluded to take the papers upon the condition that the publishers should furnish Reporters for themselves. After that, when we came to consider the project of the Legislative Sentinel, I was favorable to taking that by individual members - not by the State. But the House decided otherwise; and I can not see how any one could misunderstand that resolution. The Reporter stated, by his friends here and elsewhere, that he could not get up the reports unless he had a thousand copies authorized. If gentlemen could not understand that, he is not to blame. I voted against that - being willing at the same time to take the work and pay for it out of my own pocket. But now, Mr. Speaker, since the order is passed, I see no necessity of consuming time in discussing that question, and so spending a larger amount of money than the reports would cost. I am opposed to reconsideration.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone, spoke at length against the resolution, giving his construction the same with that of Mr. Scott and the Doorkeeper, and proceeding to point out several inaccuracies in the proceedings of the extra session as they are reported in the Legislative Sentinel.
After further discussion by Mr. Gifford, Mr. Harney, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Mellett and Mr. Murray,
Mr. DOBBINS demanded the previous question, which was sustained, and under its force the question on suspending the order of business was taken and resulted - yeas 42, nays 48, as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Austin,Black, Boxley, Branham,Brotherton, Clark, Claypool,Collier, Comstock, Cotton,Davidson, Duvall, Fordyce, Hall of Grant, Hall of Rush, Hamilton, of Boone, Harrison, Hunter, Jeffries, Johnston, Jones, Kelly, Major, Mansfield, Mellett, Miller, Martin,Nebeker of Vermillion, Nebeker of Warren, Parks, Power, Ritter, Robinson, Rynerson, Scott, Sherman, Shields, Smith of Miami, Tebbs, Thompson of Elkhart, Whetzel, and Wild man - 42.
NAYS - Messrs. Blythe, Bowman, Carr, Cavins,Clayton, Clements, Davis, Dobbins, Dougherty, Durham, Early, Eastham, Edwards, Firestone, Gifford, Gregory, Griffin,Hancock, Harney, Hartley, Jordan, Kempf, Lawheaed, McLain, Massey, Merrifield, Murray, Nelson, Parrett, Prosser, Row, Shockley, Shull, Smith of Perry, Snyder, Stanley, Stanfield, Stiles, Sullivan, Thompson of Madison, Turpie, Usrey, Waterman, Wheeler, Whiteman, Wood and Mr. Speaker - 48.
So the order of business was not suspended.
Mr. PARKS presented the petition of H. B. Walbridge and others, on the subject of a more adequate remuneration for the services of "small officers in State cases;" which was referred to the Committee on County and Township Business.
Mr. MANSFIELD presented the petition"Of the Trustees of the town of Carlisle, asking that their acts in connection with the matter of the assessment of taxes for the erection of a school, house in said town may be legalized, which was referred to the Committee on Education.
Mr. EDWARDS presented the memorial of D. P. Hutchinson, relative to the protection and improvement of the breed of horned cattle which, after a discussion of its merits by Messrs. Comstock, Edwards and Murray, was referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. McLEAN presented a memorial in reference to the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace, asking that the same be extended to one hundred dollars in civil cases, and to all cases of small offenses, where the penalty does not exceed fifty dollars, so that there can be no appeal taken therefrom; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. THOMPSON, of Madison. What has become of the Senate bill which proposes to transfer the County of Madison to the 7th Judicial Circuit. I wish it to be brought forward as soon as possible, for our court comes on the fourth Monday in next month.
The SPEAKER. It has been referred to a select committee, of which Mr. Brotherton is chairman.
THE EDWARDS AND FIRESTONE CASE.
Mr. STANFIELD, from the Committee on Elections, read a unanimous report on the contested election case for the seat ot the Hon. James B. Firestone, a Representative for the counties of Huntington and Whitley, made by Isaac B. Barker, for Caleb W. Edwards, concluding with the expression of the opinion of the committee that James B. Firestone is the legally elected Representative for said counties, in this body.
The report was concurred in unanimously, and it was ordered to be placed on the files of the Clerk.
Mr. STILES, from the Judiciary Committee, returned his bill (57) relative to contests of foreign wills and testaments, with a recommendation that the same do pass, and proposing an amendment of the title, so as to read: An act supplemental to an act entitled an act prescribing who may make a will, what shall be devised, and regulating contests thereof, approved may 31, 1852
.The SPEAKER. The Chair having reconsidered the matter, will hold that neither a member nor a committee can propose the amendment of a title, till the bill has passed the third reading.
The report of the committee (with this exception) was now concurred in, and the bill was con- page: 89[View Page 89] considered as engrossed, and passed the third reading by yeas-80, nays 0.
On motion by Mr. STILES, the title was then amended to read as above. So the bill passed the House of Representatives.
Mr. MELLETT, from the Judiciary Committee, returned the bill (76) to prohibit Clerks and Deputy Clerks from practicing law, &c., and declaring it a misdemeanor to refuse to issue writs, &c., with an amendment by way of substitute for the 2nd section, to-wit:
SEC. 2. Judges of all the Courts of Record in this State, are hereby prohibited from practicing law in this State.'
SEC. 3. Repealing conflicting laws.
Mr. DOUGHERTY hoped the report, would not be concurred in. He was opposed to prohibiting Common Pleas Judges from practicing, because $800 a year was not an adequate salary. He was opposed that provision of the bill which prohibits Deputy Clerks from practicing law. It was particularly calculated to operate against young lawyers.
Mr. MELLETT. The duties of a judge and lawyer were not consistent with each other The Common Pleas Judge frequently had a partner, and such an arrangement could not be satisfactory to the people. The bill provides that a Deputy Clerk shall not practice in the Court in which he is an officer. The bill was eminently just in every particular.
Mr. PARRETT. The Judges of Common Pleas in his part of the State could not maintain themselves upon $800. But he would seek the remedy in a reorganization of that Court, which should give the judges an adequate salary. He moved to refer the bill to the Committee on the Organization of Courts.
Mr. DOBBINS concurred with Mr. Dougherty. He considered the bill conflicted with the constitutional provision authorizing every citizen of the State of good moral character to practice law.
Mr. PARRETT'S motion was agreed to.
Mr. MELLETT, from the same committee, also reported a bill, declaring it a misdemeanor for any Clerk of the Circuit or Common Pleas Courts to refuse to issue writs and summonses, defining penalty therefor, which was passed the first reading.
REMOVAL OF DEAD BODIES.
Mr. SCOTT, from the same committee, returned Mr. Hamilton, of Boone's, bill (17) to prevent the illegal removal of dead bodies, recommending indefinite postponement.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone, called for the reading of the bill. It was merely changing the offense from a misdemeanor to a felony. He hoped the House would not concur in the report.
Mr. GIFFORD. It was only necessary to enforce existing laws on this subject, to accomplish all that could be desired on this subject. A thousand dollars fine was an ample sanction for the law against this offense. What right could the Coroner have to give permission to enter the Potter's field? He preferred the existing law.
Mr. BAIRD thought the bill prescribed a punishment too severe to be executed. It were better policy to maintain a law that could be enforced.
Mr. RITTER. There was inequality against the medical profession, in that the State Library contained no work in medicine, whilst it is full of law books; yet the physician was vigorously prosecuted for malpractice in surgery, and surgery could not be understood without dissection - an act for which this bill proposes to send a man to the peniteniiary - to disfranchise him, &c. The present law was sufficiently stringent. There was a morbid sensibility and public feeling on this subject in many places.
Mr. HAMILTON, of Boone, was heard again in reply, and in defense of the bill.
Mr. KEMPF. The foundation of medical knowledge was Anatomy, and from Anatomy came surgery, a most important branch of the profession. No physician should be allowed to practice without a diploma. &c.
The report was concurred in, and the bill indefinitely postponed.
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Mr. DAVIS, from the Committee on the Judiciary, returned his bill (No. 1) for a Constitutional Convention, with amendments by way of substitute - prescribing that the question of calling said Convention, shall be submitted to the people on the day of April next; that if the expression be in the affirmative, the Governor shall issue his proclamation for the election of Delegates, (one from each Senatorial District) at the general election in October next - the said Convention to meet and be held in the Hall of the House of Representatives, on the day of November, 1859the Constitutional amendments of said Convention to be submitted for the confirmation of the people, by the next General Assembly.
Mr. DAVIS stated the general provisions of the bill. The whole was embraced in one question: Are we willing to submit this question to the people? It was just devolving power upon the people, where reposes all power in a Government like ours. It might be objected, that the Constitution provides for its amendment. If Constitutional provisions for its own amendment were binding, then we come still under the first Constitution. If the bill pass, there would not be cast in the county of Floyd 300 votes against the proposition.
The report was concurred in, and the amendment adopted.
Mr. CLEMENTS moved to lay the bill on the table and print 300 copies.
The motion was lost.
Mr. HUNTER proposed to amend, by striking out the words, "one from each Senatoriol District," and inserting these words: "one from each Congressional District, and two from the State at large;" and he spoke to this amendment - admitting the popular demand for a new Constitution - defending the amendment on the ground of economy, &c.
Mr. SHULL proposed to amend further, by striking out the words, "one for each Congressional District," and Inserting, "one from each Representative District."
Mr. DAVIS advocated the number, fifty. The former Convention was too large150. The bill does not provide for a reporter of speeches, as in page: 90[View Page 90]the former convention. The argument for the amendment of the gentleman from Monroe went too far and destroyed itself. It was approximating the one-man power. He was willing the people should act upon any question concerning their rights, and he was assured that a majority of the people of Indiana desired to get rid of the rickety Constitution under which we now live.
Mr. DOBBINS. Is the gentleman in favor of amending the present Constitution?
Mr. DAVIS. I am. I would strike the whole thing out if I could get a whack at it.
Mr. AUSTIN spoke against the proposed amendments.
[Mr. McLean, Mr. Colgrove, Mr. Collier, Mr. Wildman, Mr. Merrifield and Mr. Stanley had leave of absence till Monday.]
On motion by Mr. DAVIS the futher consideration of the bill and amendments was made the special order for to morrow, two o'clock.
On motion by Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. Blythe was added to the Select Committe on Colonization.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
The SPEAKER announced the special order, viz: the consideration of the several bills to regulate the traffic in intoxicating liquors; and the order was that the House be resolved into Committee of the Whole for this purpose.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
Mr. BAIRD (the order being suspended) introduced a bill (No. 134) to amend the first section of the act concerning real property and the alienation thereof, approved May 6, 1852:
Mr. EDWARDS introduced a bill (No. 135) dispensing with giving of bonds by any executor or executrix as a condition to granting letters testamentary in any case where the testator has declared the same may be done without the execution of bond:
Mr. BOYD introduced a bill (No. 136) for the protection of side-walks in towns ond villages, and for the preservation of shade-trees planting along the same:
Mr. COTTON introduced a bill (137) to amend the 24th section of the act concerning real property, and providing for the alienation thereof, and adding a section legalizing conveyance made by married women under twenty-one years:
Mr. BLYTHE (the House still under a suspession of the special order) introduced a bill (No. 138) declaratory of the meaning of the first section of the act describing who may make a will, the effect thereof; what may be devised, regulating their revocation; admission to probate and contest thereof, approved May 31, 1852, and to legalize all wills made by married women in pursuance of said act since the taking effect thereof:
Which bills were severally passed the first reading.
Mr. STILES and Mr. DAVIS desiring to introduce bills, the House refused further to suspend the special order.
THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
Mr. MANSFIELD, from the Select Committee on Temperance, returned his bill (29) to license, regulate and restrain the sale of spiritous, vinous, malt and intoxicating liquors, to punish drunkenness, prohibit the adulteration of liquors, &c., with an amendment by way of substitute, which was read, the report concurred and the amendment adopted.
On motion by Mr. EDWARDS, the bill amended was referred to the Committee of the Whole ; and thereupon the House resolved into Committee of the Whole - Mr. Edwards in the Chair - and the Chairman announced the consideration of the various temperance bills which had been referred to this committee.
Mr. DAVIS moved to report Mr. Mansfield's bill as amended and recommended its passage.
The CHAIRMAN then directed the reading of Mr. Harney's resolution of last week, making the order for the present consideration of "all bills on the subject of temperance before the House."
Mr. HUNTER proposed to amend Mr. Mansfield's amended bill, by substituting his bill (H R. 81) to prevent the retailing of intoxicating or malt liquors, &c.
Mr. MANSFIELD. The object of the amendment seemed to be to avoid giving license. An injudicious law might extend the evils we wish to suppress. The habit of strong drink was commensurate with history. Legislation could not abate it any more than it could change the nature of man. He distinguished between the moral and civil law; and considered the reasons for a licence law - a law, which he favored. The principal thing was to guard the rising generation against tippling. The increase of intemperance was attributable to an increase of population. There were other sources of danger under this head - he referred to opium eating.
Mr. COLLIER. Would the gentleman license opium-eating?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, if it could not be suppressed otherwise.
Mr. HUNTER could never consent to license an evil. He believed efficient checks could be thrown around the liquor traffic. He admitted, however, under the decisions of the Supreme Court, and the present Constitution, that this might be nearly impossible. He then described his bill - providing that the liquor shall not be drank on the premises. First, this made the evil to rest with the drinker and his family - and his wife would interpose a most wholesome restraint. It also makes the public appearance of an intoxicated man a misdemeanor. There was never a well behaved drunkard, nor a decent, well kept grocery. His bill proceeded on the admission that liquor was a benefit. The fourth section of the bill provides that where two or more persons shall file an affidavit that such a person is in the habit of drinking to excess and it jury, and serve notice thereof upon the trafficker - any trafficker selling to such person - the intoxicated person shall be a witness against his drencher, and the prosecuting attorney shall proceed against the liquor seller in such a case. These provisions, he considered, would effectually dry up the abuse of intoxicating liquors; and he showed that his bill was otherwise free from objection.
Mr. AUSTIN sustained the amendment of Mr. Hunter. It had been decided by the Supreme Court that this traffic is a legitimate business. page: 91[View Page 91]But it was conceded that we had the right to restrain the unlawful use of intoxicating liquors to say it shall not be used to destroy the happiness of society, it had been abundantly demonstrated, that intemperance induced lunacy; and then we were called upon to expend the public money to erect and maintain asylums to treat the lunacy and wretchedness thus induced. This was certainly a very unwise line of policy for a State to pursue. This traffic had cursed the fairest prospects of his own early life, in its mournful effects on the character of his own father. This bill would close up all its dens of iniquity, and be asked for its passage as a protection for his , own children. The bill was not all he could desire, but perhaps the best he could get.
Mr. GIFFORD could say that he was as anxious for the remedy of this evil as the gentleman from Wayne. But what was the remedy? Even the Temperance men in State Convention here a few days ago, could not agree on the remedy. He lived "in a town where the restriction against the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors was a condition in every conveyance of a town lot, and even that was a failure. It as the intemperate use of intoxicating drinks that we should combat. But this (Hunter) bill proposed to go back and make it popular to take your gin home and drink with your friends - the very thing which had been years ago successfully combatted by the temperance movement. He was disposed to favor the committee's bill - prescribing notice of twenty days before application for license, so that objection may be made, and it will thus become the interest of all the neighborhood, in this way, to provide against disorderly houses. He gave examples of ineffectual attempts to avoid a license law, which had fallen under his immediate observation.
Mr. MURRAY considered the merits of these two bills. Coming here, he had made up his mind, that under the ruling of the Supreme Court, a license law was the best; but since that, he had come to the conclusion that a better system was practicable. He thought Hunter's bill the best of these two. He had investigated them both in committee. But still, a license law was better than no law at all. He should vote for the most stringent temperance law he could get. The principles of the prohibitory law of 1855 were odious - in advance of the public sentiment. It destroyed what some regarded the rights of property." We were acting now with the advantage of experience. The committee's bill was the best license law he ever saw. But he would amend, fixing the lowest license at $40. Both bills aimed at the same thing - the suppression of the use of intoxicating drinks - the suppression of doggeries - objects which would be sustained by the people of the State of Indiana. The reason of his first determination was, that he understood the Supreme Court would not sustain any other than a license law. But he had been since informed that the Court would sustain the Hunter bill to break down the doggeries. That bill left the traffic open. But the liquor shall not be drank on the premises where sold, because that makes the business a nuisance. That bill also punishes the drunkard, which accorded with his temperance principles. It also enabled wives or next friends to serve process, and prohibit sales to their drinking husbands; and many of these provisions he was glad to find, were in the bill of the Temperance Committee - the select committee of nine on this subject. The only difference between them was, that Hunter's avoids the principle of license makes the traffic a nuisance. It was the moral aspect of the license question that was to be dreaded, &c.
Mr. THOMPSON, of Madison, made an ineffectual motion that the committee rise, and have leave to set again next Tuesday week.
Mr. MURRAY made an ineffectual motion to recommend the Hunter bill.
On motion by Mr. Speaker GORDON, the bill was considered by sections.
Mr. GRIFFIN proposed to amend the first section by striking out "one gallon," and inserting "one barrel," which was rejected.
Mr. USREY proposed to strike out "one gallon" and insert "one quart," which was also rejected.
Mr. AUSTIN proposed ineffectually to strike out the word "white" from the second section.
Mr. RITTER proposed ineffectually to strike out the words "of good character" from the third section.
Mr. MURRAY proposed ineffectually to add to section 3, these words: "and the bond shall be a lein on the real and personal property of every signer of the same, from the moment the same is filed with the auditor of the county, and the obligors shall prove by affidavit that they are possessed of sufficient property to secure the payment of said bond.
Mr. TURPIE proposed to strikeout the words "this privilege," and insert in lieu thereof the words, "said license," which was agreed to.
Mr. SCOTT proposed ineffectually to make the range from $1,000 to $5,000.
So the third section was agreed to.
Mr. POWER proposed to amend the 4th sec. so that the minimum of license shall be $50 instead of $20.
Mr. MURRAY proposed to make it $100.
Mr. THOMPSON, of Elkhart. Why now should license shirk this responsibility ? Look at the profits made in this traffic. He would like to see an adequate license. One hundred dollars was not too much. He would rather say $500. The profits on a single barrel of whisky would pay a license of $20. Why then throw this responsibility upon the County Commissioners?
Mr. POWER agreed with the gentleman from Elkhart, and spoke at length against the moral incongruity of a license law. He was at a loss which bill to vote for. He could not go with Mr. Murray for punishing the unfortunate inebriate.
Mr. HALL, of Rush, deprecated haste, and moved ineffectually that the committee rise.
Mr. HAMILTON,of Boone, submitted a statement of figures to show the profits on a barrel of whisky at retail, by way of argument, for the highest minimum rate of license.
Mr. AUSTIN. Would not the ruling of the Supreme Court allow the trafficker to fall back upon his right to sell, notwithstanding this proposed restraint?
page: 92[View Page 92]Mr. Speaker GORDON (in his seat.) Certainly not.
Mr. Murray's amendment was rejected, and Mr. Powers' was adopted.
Mr. MELLETT proposed to extend the maximum rate of license in the 4th section, from "$500" to "$1,000." He offered this as a compromise, and it gave to the County Commissioners a discretion not likely to be abused.
Mr. DAVIS doubted the propriety of the amendment already adopted to this resolution. There should be a latitude given - to accommo date the views and interests of large towns and the townships. But then you can not execute the law unless you bring the dealer under its operation. He had no fear about fixing the amount, but it was impracticable. The high figure of the gentleman from Henry, would render the law inoperative wherever it was attempted to be enforced.
Mr. Speaker GORDON. The Commissioners of the County would not fix the license at the maximum without good reason. He was in favor of allowing the people everywhere to fix their own institution in their own way. The argument of the gentleman was certainly as strong against him as for him.
Mr. DAVIS. Would the gentleman from Henry support the bill with his amendment.
Mr. MELLETT answered affirmatively. Then in his county they would be able to prohibit the traffic, and it would be as good a law as that of 1855.
The amendment was agreed to, and the Committee so recommended the adoption of section four.
Mr. Speaker GORDON proposed to amend section 7, by adding to the Sunday prohibition, clause, these words: "Nor upon the day of any State, county, township or municipal election in the town or city where the same shall be held," which was adopted.
Mr, LAWHEAD proposed to add to the 8th section, these words: "Every person who shall, by himself or agent, directly or indirectly, knowingly sell, barter or give away any intoxicating liquor to any person in the habit of being intoxicated, shall forfeit and pay a fine of not less than $5, nor more than $50."
Mr. MANSFIELD had considered that amendment and found it impracticable. How could the dealer know whether a man was in the habit of intoxication?
Mr. LAWHEAD. The liquor dealer knows frequenters of his house well enough to decide whether he is in the habit of being intoxicated or not.
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. GREGORY proposed to amend the 9th section by adding to the prohibition against sell ing less than a gallon, these words: "Shall be fined in any sum not less than $25, nor more than $100," which was adopted.
Under Mr. MURRAY'S motion to reconsider this vote -
Mr. STANFIELD regarded it as unjust and oppressive to exact so high a penalty for so small an offense.
Mr. Harney, Mr. Mellett and Mr. Stiles con curred with Mr. Stanfield. Five dollars was enough for selling a glass of liquor without license. It were better the execution of the law should be certain, than too severe.
The vote was reconsidered, and then the amendment was rejected.
Mr. GREGORY proposed to amend the provision against selling to minors, by fixing the penalty between $50 and $300, which was rejected.
Mr. Speaker GORDON made an ineffectual motion to strikeout that part of the 13th section, which gives the Circuit Court jurisdiction of these misdemeanors.
Mr. DOUGHERTY proposed to add to the 14th section these words: "Nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to prohibit the sale, in any quantity, by the manufacturer of wines and cider, manufactured from fruits grown by the manufacturer in this State," which was adopted; and so the 14th section was recommended to the House.
Mr. SCOTT proposed an additional section to the following effect, which was agreed to:
Sec. 16. It shall be the duty of the District Attorney, being informed of the violation of any of the provisions of this act, immediately to prosecute the person against whom complaint is made and upon his failure to do so, any other attorney at law, or citizen, may prosecute the same to a final decision.
Mr. MELLETT proposed an additional section declaring that an emergency exists, and that this act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication, which was also adopted.
On motion by Mr. MURRAY, the committee now arose, and the Chairman reported the bill as amended, recommending the adoption of the amendments, the passage of the bill, and that the committee be discharged from i s further consideration.
The report was concurred in, and the bill was ordered to be engrossed.
The House then, at 5:45 o'clock, adjourned.
