THE DRUNKARD.
Mr. Milligan's bill [S. 141] declaring drunkenness a misdemeanor, (see page 135} having failed to pass day before yesterday, it was taken up.
[Leave of absence was obtained for Mr. Smith till Tuesday, and for Mr. Niles till noon.]
page: 354[View Page 354]Mr. CHURCH believed it as much a crime to drink as to sell intoxicating liquors, and ten times more a crime where the man makes himself a beastly drunkard. He never knew a whisky shop to chase after the people, but it was a common thing for men to run after whisky shops. This law works well in the cities, and why not adopt it for the country? He was astonished that any temperance man should oppose it.
Mr. OYLER also had a poor opinion of the temperance man who would vote against this bill.
Mr. MASON could not see why it is proposed to punish a drunkard for acting:in a rude and insolent manner, and allow those who are not drunk to act so with impunity.
Mr. BENNETT said: The Senate has passed a law licensing the sale of liquor, and he would not vote to punish a man for purchasing what we have said may be sold. He wanted to be consistent.
Mr. BONHAM favored this bill for the reason the Senator from Fayette [Mr. Bennet] opposed it. We ought to have some protection against drunkenness in public places. It has become an easy matter to tell when a man is drunk. He had not been on the cars for the past six months without being annoyed by drunken men. This is certainly a good bill, and it ought to pass.
Mr. CASON thought himself as good a temperance man as any gentleman on the floor, but always opposed this kind of legislation, for the reason that a person becoming intoxicated has no control over himself; and it was a great hardship to punish a man for acts done while in that condition.
Mr. RICE could not understand how drunkenness can be an excuse for crime. This bill would prove a direct benefit to the family of the drunkard. Just such a law as this would prove more of a terror than any other enactment gentlemen can pass. This is a better law than the one passed the other day; and this is just the very law the] people have been petitioning for.
Mr. CHURCH believed this to be the most important bill on this subject that has been before the Senate; and spoke again in favor of its passage.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas 20, nays 26 - as follows.
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Bellamy, Bonham, Brown, Church, Hyatt, Johnson, Lewis, Milligan, Noyes, Oyler, Reagan, Rice, Richmond, Robinson, Terry, Thompson, Ward, Wolcott and Mr. President (Cumback) - 20.
NAYS - Messrs. Barker, Bennett, Bowman, Cason, Carson, Cravens, Cullen, English, Gifford, Hanna, Houghton, Howk, Huey, Humphreys, Jaquess. Lee, Mason, Newlin, Parrish Reynolds, Sherrod, Smith, Staggs, Stein, Taggart and Turner - 26.
Mr. CASON, at the suggestion of Mr. Terry, moved to reconsider the vote just taken.
The motion was agreed to.
On motion by Mr. TERRY, the bill was recommitted with instructions to strikeout "10" and insert "1" in lieu, strike out "30" and insert "20" in lieu, and strike out "drugs."
Subsequently -
The Committee on Temperance returned the bill amended as instructed; and the report was concurred in.
Mr. Richmond's bill [S. 144] to provide for impartially impanneling juries, (on page 320 of these Reports) which failed to pass last Tuesday, was now rejectedyeas 19, nays 24 - as follows:
AYES - Messrs. Armstrong, Bellamy, Bonham, Cason, Houghton, Hyatt, Jacquess, Johnson, Lewis. Mason, Newlin,Oyler. Reagan,Reynold, Rice, Robinson, Stein, Terry, and Turner - 19.
NAYS - Messrs. Barker, Bennett, Bowman, Brown, Carson, Church Cullen, English,Gifford, Hanna, Howk. Huey, Humphreys, Lee, Noyes, Parrish, Richmond, Sherrod. Smith, Staggs, Taggart, Thompson, Ward and Wolcott - 24.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. BENNETT said there was no necessity for such a bill as this. If it were to pass, a Sheriff would scarcely ever get to perform his duties in any casethere would be objections preferred continually.
Mr. CULLEN, when his name was called, said: I have just as much confidence in Sheriffs as I have in Judges, as a general rule; for I had a case last week where the Judge decided to give four hundred and fifty dollars damages for the pasture of three hundred and twenty-five head of sheep a little lass than three months. I have just as much confidence in Sheriffs as I have in Judges and will vote against the passage of this bill. "No."
Mr. OYLER, when his name was called, said: I have just as much confidence in Sheriffs as I have in Judges, and no more. We have a law now by which when a man makes an affidavit that the Judge is prejudiced against him, he can have a change of venue; and I am in favor of having a law so that when a man makes an affidavit that that the Sheriff is biased against him he can have an impartial man to impannel a jury. I shall vote for thfs bill. "Aye."
The result was then announced as above recorded.
Mr. PARRISH, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted a report on the Adjutant General's office, which characterizes that officers' report as one of the most valuable of its kind, &c.
On his motion the reading thereof was dispensed with and 200 copies ordered printed.
On motion of Mr. CUMBACK (Mr. Stein in the chair) his bill S. 182 - see page page: 355[View Page 355] 355280 of these reports - was made the special order for Tuesday 10 o'clock A. M.
Mr. Steins' bill [S 142] paving to Morehead. Hall & Co., $23,494 07, and to H G. Wright and the heirs of Patrick Shann on for $33,763 48; being read the third time -
Mr. STEIN explained his bill. The money due these parties is for work done by them on the Wabash & Erie Canal in Tippecanoe county in the years- 1842, '43 and '44; and the claims have been before the General Assembly several times but never were repudiated.
The bill failed to pass for want of a constitutional majority - yeas 23; nays, 22.
Mr. Richmond's bill [S. 218] directing State and county officers to receive certain certificates as payments of money, being read the third time -
Mr. RICHMOND explained. The bill provides that certain claims against the State, held by individuals for labor performed, shall be received in payment for swamp lands, &c.
It was passed by yeas 26, nays 14.
On motion by Mr. STEIN the vote of yesterday afternoon, passing the ten per cent, interest bill [S. 93 - see page 105 and 321] of these Reports;] was reconsidered; the bill was amended by striking therefrom all that relates to amending the present law leaving it as an independent proposition; and it was again passed by yeas 33, nays 7.
On motion by Mr. HANNA. the bill [S. 228introduced day before yesterday] regulating the measurement of work done by certain mechanics, was read the second time.
He moved for a dispensation that the bill may be read the third time now.
Mr. CARSON stated that the bill contemplates the measurement for brick-layers as the brick come from the kiln, and not as they are laid in the wall: and in that particular changes the whole rule of business as it now is. He preferred to leave these matters as they are.
The motion to dispense with the constitutional provision was agreed to - yeas 35, nays not reported - and the bill was read the third time.
On motion by Mr. CARSON, the bill was referred to a special committee of three, which the PRESIDENT makes to consist of Messrs. Carson, Reagan and Huffman.
Mr. Bennett's bill, [S 84] increasing the salaries of Circuit [to $2 500] and Common Pleas Judges [to $2,000] being read the third time -
Mr. CRAVENS moved to recommit the bill with instructions to reduce each salary $500, adding a docket fee of one dollar for each and every case disposed of, and to repeal the old section.
Mr. OYLER opposed this motion - it would duplicate the pay of the Judges. Before concluding he gave way for a motion to adjourn.
The Senate took a recess till two o'clock.
