THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
Mr. TERRY submitted the following:
MR. PRESIDENT : The Committee on Temperance, to which was referred the Senate bill No. 167, an act to prohibit selling and buying intoxicating liquors to be used as a beverage, and pre- page: 331[View Page 331] scribing penalties for the violation thereof, have had the same under consideration, and the majority of the committee have instructed me to report the same back to the Senate, with the recommendation that it be laid on the table; for the reason that a bill entitled an act to regulate and license the sale of spirituous, vinous, malt, and other intoxicating liquors, believed to comprise all legislative action necessary to be had at time, has already been reported to the Senate, and its passage recommended, by unanimous consent of this committee, which last named bill is now on its third reading awaiting final action by the Senate.
Mr. REAGAN, from the minority of said committee made a report dissenting from the majority in the opinion that further legislation is unnecessary, arguing at length in favor of prohibitory laws, and recommending the passage of the bill S. 167 - described on page 190 of these REPORTS.
Mr. LEWIS moved to substitute the minority for the majority report.
Mr. CULLEN insisted, though late in the session, the people of Indiana, should be heard on this question. Referring to the fact that the leaders of the two great political parties were afraid to take the lead in the temperance movement, he believed no party could succeed in this State, or anywhere else, unless they proceeded upon principles of justice and right. The storm of battle having passed away, he was unwilling to longer lay this question aside an impolitic, and now hailed upon his banner the motto, "Total Prohibition," in answer to the voice of over 10,000 petitioners of the State of Indiana. Let us come square up to the question, and not, by dodging it, say that we are political cowards. He reflected severely upon using the money raised from licensing this iniquity for the education of the children of the land, and in closing, declared his willingness to vote for every temperance bill proposed here that shall be an improvement on existing laws.
Mr. OYLER repelled the charge of political cowardice as far as it affected the Republican party. For fifteen years he had been an open opponent of a prohibitory law, and among the many petitions he had offered, not one was in favor of a prohibitory law. He spoke in favor of the bill which failed in the Senate lately for want of the votes of professedly prohibitory members; and, as it would be again called up, he hoped it would be passed. If he had the world as he would have it there should not be a drop of distilled or malt liquor in it; and, of course, it was not upon personal grounds that he opposed prohibition.
Mr. SMITH had received many petitions for a prohitory law but none for a license law. If the selling of liquor is wrong, why license it? He would not vote for a license law, but would vote consistently and every time for a prohibitory law.
Mr. CHURCH said. In the canvass in his district this question seemed to be avoided, and not being instructed on this point he was somewhat at a loss as to how he should act on this matter. He also replied to the charge of political cowardice. There is danger of overstepping the mark in this matter, but as a friend of great reforms he would vote in favor of substituting the minority for the majority report.
Mr. ROBINSON opposed the adoption of the minority report. He did not believe the bill reported was the kind of a law prohibitionists were petitioning for.
Mr. JAQUESS was nominated and was placed upon a platform which pledged him to favor no further legislation at the present time on the subject of temperance. He was frank to admit that in his canvass he took Democratic thunder and beat them at their own game, and he was opposed now to spiking the gun that whipped them in the last campaign.
Mr. CULLEN did not charge Senators with cowardice on this question, but insisted that there are leading members of the party who are acting like cowards. He regarded the license system as all wrong, and gentlemen ought to be willing to heed the voice of the people on this question. If they think a prohibitory law is right let them have it; for that voice never will be hushed till men are sent here who will obey their wishes on this great vital question.
Mr. STEIN claimed to entertain as much genuine sympathy for the temperance cause as any other Senator, but desired to give it a practical effect. However proper it might be elsewhere to indulge in sentiment and passion on the subject, it was the duty of the legislator to act with consideration. Laws should be adapted to society as it is, and absolute prohibition would be a mere vanity on the statute book. A practice so common as drinking can not be extirpated by a stroke of the pen, and a law which would be almost universally violated and knowingly so, would only serve to demoralize the people. We can not disregard the infirmities and imperfections of human nature. Our best laws are such as accept this principle. The statute of frauds is grounded on the assumption that men are tempted by their-avarice into perjury. Is not appetite as active a principle as avarice? Do we flatter ourselves that we can radically stifle appetite by a law? The passion will work its way and have its indulgence; and hence, if it can not be prohibited, sound policy should be content to regulate it. On this ground he should oppose the minority report and contribute all his energies in behalf of Senator Wolcott's License bill. Mr. S. also called the attention of Senators to the fact that no provision was made by page: 332[View Page 332] the bill favored by the minority report to compensate the owners of liquor for the stocks now on hand, and which would forthwith become outlawed, There was a doubt in his mind whether this did not constitute a serious constitutional objection to the proposed measure.
Mr. CRAVENS would go as far as any one here or elsewhere in putting restraints upon this evil. He would even favor total prohibition if there was any evidence that public sentiment or the courts of the country would sustain such a measure. He voted once for a prohibitory law, and afterwards voted to repeal what remained of it after the Supreme Court had declared it to be unconstitutional. He regarded wholesome restraints upon the traffic as the only sound and wise policy. If a law to license the drinker would accomplish the object, he would favor that, and was not sure but it would be the most effective restraint. From the admonitions of experience, he did not esteem it wise to attempt legislation that is not likely to meet with a favorable response from those who are to enforce its provisions. He therefore opposed the minority report, and should vote accordingly.
Mr. THOMPSON would be sorry indeed to bring in here an issue that was not broached in the canvass; and being convinced that a prohibitory law could not be enforced in this community, he should oppose substituting the minority for the majority report
Mr. MILLIGAN said there might be some questions on which his people may not know where to find him, but on this vexed liquor question, none that know him can be mistaken. From his youth up he had ever, upon all occasions, opposed the use of stimulating drink as a beverage. But as we have adopted the majority report thereon, and -recommended the bill introduced by Senator Wollcot, it will be a good prohibitory law if we can pass it - one, he thought, that can be sustained, and one that will be enforced. He did not think that a strictly prohibitory law can be carried out and enforced, and therefore should have to vote against the minority report.
Mr. TAGGART, for reasons given by him, when the bill S. 46 was under consideration, would not vote to change a law which satisfied his constituents, who were capable of governing themselves in this respect, as well as in all others. He had come to the conclusion that the majority here were determined to stave off the passage of a liquor bill, and therefore called upon them to stand by their work and put it through, without reference to help from, the other side of the chamber.
Mr. REAGAN would favor any improvement for the present liquor law, even if it were in the shape of a license law, though his people did not demand or ask for the license of a wrong.
Mr. NILES regretted the evils of drunkenness as deeply as any other Senator; but we cannot crush out such evils by a sweeping act of legislation. We should legislate with a view to things as they are. Strictly prohibitory sumptuary laws have always proved a failure, and even in New England, have not advanced the cause of temperance. We can regulate the evil of intemperance by a good license law; but must leave the great work of reform, to moral influences and to an enlightened public sentiment.
The motion to substitute the minority for the majority report was rejected by yeas 8, nays 33.
The majority report was then concurred in by yeas 31, nays 10.
Mr. OYLER offered the following:
Resolved, That the Committee on Temperance, in their report of the number of persons petitioning on the subject be instructed to so separate the names, as to show the kind of legislation asked for by the petitioners.
The resolution was adopted.
