plementary to an act prescribing who may make a will? what may be devised, &c. ]
Mr. HEFFREN offered a substitute for the resolution [the joint resolution on this subject introduced by him during the extra session and laid on the table.]
Mr. GOODING moved to by the substitute on the table.
The motion was rejected - yeas 17, nays 18.
On a motion to lay the original resolution on the table, the yeas and nays were demanded, and being ordered and taken, resulted - yeas 25, nays 15 - as follows:
YEASMessrs. Beeson, Bennett, Blair, Bobbs, Brown, Carnahan, Conner, Craven, Cuver, Fisk, Green, Hargrove, Heffren, Hendry, Hill, Kinley, Line, Lomax, McClure, March, Slack, Steele, Stevens, Tarkington and Thompson - 23.
NAYS - Messrs. Cobb, Gooding, Hamilton, Jennings, Johnston, Jones, Miller, Murray, Odell, Robinson, Shoemaker, Studabaker, Wallace, Weir and Wilson - 13.
Mr. BLAIR, when his name was called, said there were some things in the resolution which he approved, but for,the purpose of getting at the legitimate business before us, he would vote "aye."
Mr. CARNAHAN explained. The condition of the State of Indiana was more important to him than that of Kansas, and that we may get clear of this question, he would vote "aye."
Mr. HEFFREN (in explanation) was opposed to the resolution simply from the fact that it repudiates the provision in the English bill which requires that, Kansas shall have 93,430 inhabitants before it can be admitted into the Union. He would not vote for the taking in of any State until it shall have a sufficient population to entitle it to a Representative in Congress.
Mr. MILLER, explained he had not examined the resolution, and should vote "no," because he was not sufficiency informed to vote otherwise.
Mr. SLACK, (in explanation) said: With many of the sentiments in the resolution, in the abstract, he concurred; but believing, as he did, that they were introduced here for buncombe, that speeches on it were intended for buncombe, that the whole thing was for buncombe, and that we have business that might be more profitably attended to than this, he should vote for laying the resolution on the table.
Mr. STEELE explained. The Senator who last spoke made his speech precisely and tittered his sentimtents - he therefore voted as that Senator did. He voted "aye."
Mr. WEIR, (in explanation.) The resolution did not go hardly as far as he would like to have it; but as far as it did go he believed it expressed the doctrines of the Republican party, and for that reason he should vote against laying them on the table.
So the resolution was laid on the table.
The amendment was also laid on the table.
LICENSE LAW.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore now announced the consideration of Mr. Slack's amendment to the amendment of the select committee to Mr Fisk's temperance bill (S. 10) pending at the time of the recess, viz: to strikeout all of the bill that requires the payment of money to procure license.
Mr. MURRAY was in favor of a thorough temperance law, and should so vote as long as he lived. He had always voted for sound temperance laws, whenever he had the opportunity; and wanted no better monumental inscription over his grave than that in 1855 he voted for the prohibitory liquor law.
Mr. LINE for the purpose of having a test vote as to whether the Senate is in favor of a license law or not, moved to lay the amendment to the amendment on the table.
On this motion the yeas and nays were demanded, and being ordered and taken, resulted yeas 26, nays 18as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Carnahan, Cobb, Craven, Culver, Fisk, Gooding, Green, Hamilton, Hargrove, Jennings, Jones, Kinley, Line, McLcan, Miller, Murray, OdeII, Rice, Robinson, Studebaker, Tarkington, Turner, Wallace, Weir, Williams and Wilson- 26.
NAYS - Messrs. Beeson, Bennett, Blair, Brown, Conner, Heffren, Hendry, Hill, Johnston, Lomax, McClure, March, Shoemaker, Slack, Steele, Stevens, Thompson and Wagner - 18.
Mr. BEESON, when his name was called, said: He was opposed to the principle of license by the Legislature, but if he could get nothing better he might vote for a license law.
Mr. BENNETT (in explanation) was opposed to a license law, but if we have one he believed a man should pay well for it.
Mr. COBB (in explanation) was opposed to the license system, and would much prefer a law without that provision, but as he was under the impression that we can not pass a law unless it has a provision in it authorizing the issuing of licenses, he should vote to lay the amendment to the amendment on the table.
Mr. CRAVEN (in explanation) was against license or no license, but if the question was between free license and pay license he would favor pay license.
Mr. CULVER (in explanation) was in favor of a stringent liquor law, and if we can not get page: 114[View Page 114]a prohibitory liquor law, he was willing to take the next best thing and vote for the pay license system.
Mr. GOODING (in explanation) had no scruples in voting for any good law license or no license, pay or no pay. He was in favor of the best thing he could get, and was not going to "strain at gnats and swallow camels," upon this question, neither. He should keep on voting for temperance bills until we pass one. If we adopt a license system he would prefer putting the tax high, say from $100 to $1,000. But unless the members of this Legislature were willing to concede a little, he predicted we would adjourn and go home and intemperance would run riot yet two years longer. He wanted to cripple, if he could not kill this thing. The vote which he would now give would be no test of what he would vote for hereafter.
Mr. HEFFREN (in explanation) would vote for no bill that contains a provision to make a man pay for a license. He thought that, instead of selling out licenses we had better go to work and pass laws preventing the sale of these poisonous compounds and drugs. If we had good, cure liquors, and those only, there would not be half so many snakes in men's boots.
Mr. McLEAN, in explanation, would vote for no law that had incorporated in it a pay license provision - (he cared not how high that license may be, even were it high enough to amount to a partial prohibition(unless he voted for it as a dernier resort. He was satisfied the people demanded a license law.
Mr. MARCH, in explanation, was opposed to the whole system of licenses, especially pay licenses. If the sale of intoxicating liquors is entitled to the same protection of any other pursuit, we have no right to impose a tax upon one business which we don't upon another. A license law protects the liquor seller against the force of pubic opinion.
Mr. MILLER, in explanation, would vote for any good temperance bill, with or without license
Mr. SLACK, in explanation, believed if liquor selling be a legitimate business, that we had no right to impose restrictions upon it which we do not impose upon any other business. If it is not a legitimate business, and only evil results flow from it, we should abolish it altogether.
Mr. STUDABAKER, in explanation, said the vote he should give would be no index of the votes he should give hereafter. He desired to see a temperance law passed, and should vote for any law he believed to be constitutional that his vote would secure.
Mr. TURNER, in explanation, said he should not make this a test question. He was opposed to the whole license system, and could not, under any considerations, vote to license the traffic in ardent spirits. He looked upon it as an unjust, disreputable and unhallowed traffic, and could not vote to make the State a partner in that nefarious traffic. If we are to have a license law, he was disposed to have a pay license system, not that he believed the public Treasury would be benefitted thereby, for he believed it would be a curse to participate in the traffic, but because it would operate as a check upon individuals engaging in it.
Mr. WEIR, in explanation, was opposed to any pay for license, but if we are compelled to have a license law, he thought it should be as low as possible. He did not consider this as a test vote, and should vote hereafter whichever way he thought best.
So the amendment to the amendment lies on the table.
The question recurring upon the amendments proposed by the committee, viz: to make the license not less than $25 nor more than $250 -
On motion by Mr. COBB, "$25" was stricken out of the amendment and "$50" inserted in lieu thereof.
Mr. KINLEY moved to amend by striking out all that part of the bill relating to license.
On motion by Mr. WEIR, this proposition to amend was laid on the table by yeas 23, nays 20.
Mr. GREEN moved to amend by striking out "$250" and inserting $1,000.
This motion was laid on the table by yeas 23, nays 22.
Mr. MURRAY proposed to amend the 7th section as follows:
" Every person who shall be found intoxicated and making a disturbance, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof, shall be fined in any sum not less than two dollars nor more than ten dollars."
The amendment was adopted.
Mr. BEESON moved to strike out from tin enacting clause and insert a new bill.
On motion by Mr. WALLACE, the substitute was laid on the table by yeas 25, nays 18.
Mr. WILLIAMS proposed an amendment, compelling the person to designate the place where the liquor is to be sold. Pending whichThe Senate adjourned.
