CHAPMAN'S LIQUOR BILL.
Mr. KINLEY moved to take up the bill [H. R. 288.] A bill to amend sections four and eight of the Liquor Law of March 5, 1859, that it may be read by title the second time, and the third time by sections.
It proposes to amend the said section four by appropriately inserting these words: "And that he has filed in the office of the County Auditor the petition of a clear majority of the legal voters of the township, ward or voting precinct, as ascertained from the poll books of the last preceding election, verified by the oath or affirmation of the Township Trustee as to its correctness."
It proposes to amend said section eight by excluding from sale "any person who is in the habit of becoming intoxicated," and adding these words: "And any person so licensed as above provided shall be at all times responsible for and liable in all cases of violation of the provisions of this act by any and all persons in his employ. Any person violating the provisions of this section as amended, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars nor more than fffty dollars, and may be imprisoned for not less than ten nor more than thirty days."
Mr. TURNER. Mr. President: I intend to vote against the passage of this bill but shall vote to have it brought up in order that the party opposed to me in politics which has pretended for the last ten years to be, and have obtained a large vote in this State on the ground that they were temperance men, when practically they were no more so than us who do not make any pretention-that these gentlemen may now have an opportunity of manifesting the truth of their pretensions.
I make these remarks now because at the last end of the roll, where my name occurs, it would not be so well to make them. I want to try this thing on, and let the people see how this party, which gets ten or fifteen thousand votes on the ground that they are temperance men, goes on this question. I want to see if the people will aid them as well hereafter as they have heretofore on the strength of this temperance plea.
The motion was agreed to and accordingly-
The Temperance bill [H. R. 288] was read the second time by title and the third time by sections.
The question being: "Shall the bill pass?"
A constitutional provision requiring the yeas and nays, they were ordered and being taken resulted-yeas 22, nays 23-as follows:
YEAS - Messrs, Andrews, Armstrong, Bellamy, Case, Church, Cravens, Eliott, Fosdick, Gray,Green, Hadley, Hamilton, Hess, Hooper, Johnson of Spencer, Kinley, Reynolds, Robinson of Madison, Robinson of Decatar, Scott, Stein and Wood - 22
NAYS - Messrs. Beardsley, Bird, Bradley, Carson Caven, Fisher, Gifford, Hanna, Henderson, Huey Huffman, Humphreys, Jaquess, Johnson of Montgomery, Laselle, Lee, Montgomery, Morgan, Rice, Sherrod, Smith, Turner and Wolcott - 23.
Pending the roll call
Mr. BRADLEY, when his name was called said: I prefer that this bill should pass if it must without my vote. I vote "no." '
Mr. CHURCH, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: If I understand this bill it is Republican in character. It provides that if a majority of voters of any precinct desire the luxury and benefit of a whisky shop they can have it if they can find a man of a good moral character willing to engage in the business, and give a bond to the State for the protection of citizens. I am inclined to think a majority of the people ought to have this matter in their own hands: and I believe if a majority of the people declare whisky shops to be nuisances-and I believe such places are nuisances-it is time a majority of the people should speak upon this question and their voices should be heard. I believe if a majority of the people desire to have in their vicinity nuisances they ought to have them. And I believe so with reference to any thing else.
This has ever been my opinion, but sometimes during my attendance on the Legislature I have voted contrary to my opinions giving my reasons for it. The reasons are: that the country has been engaged in a civil war, and in consequence of that I have thought it better to vote to postpone this question which might arouse other questions and the bearing might affect out country disastrously. I have endeavored to keep this question out of politics, but now we have the right and it is our duty to legislate on this subject. I vote "aye."
Mr. FISHER when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: Prior to the prohibitory law of 1855, I was an advcate of that law. I believed it was the most important thing the State Legislature could do, to pass such a law. This I think if carried out will be precisely the same as the prohibitory liquor law. The result of that was in effect to set back the progress of the cause of temperance some fifteen years in the State of Indiana. I do not believe the principle is as far advanced now as then.
I believe if we pass this law it will remain upon the statute books no longer than the next session of the Legislature. I believe a Legislature will be elected here in two years that will repeal it and open the floodgates of intemperance wider than ever. I do not believe a majority of the people are in favor of this law. I vote "no."
page: 397[View Page 397]Mr. GIFFORD, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: I represent Franklin County here and I know a majority of the voters there are against this law. I vote "no."
Mr. GREEN, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: Ten years ago I spent the whole winter in getting up the present temperance law. At that time we had the Maine Liquor law men to fight and the liquor men of course, were opposing the passage of that law. We got it throngh and it operated as well as any law upon the subject. I think with proper enforcement of that law it is as stringent as the people will enforce, and at this time they have got a great temper anoe excitement in my district, and I would do violence to the feelings of the people there by voting against this bill, yet I think the bill objecfionable. I vote "aye."
Mr. HAMILTON, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: It is scarcely necessary to state that I always have been in favor of temperance. If I vote against this bill I had better send home for my family and not go up there any more. If I have been beset by my people to ask for any thing here it has been for a law upon the liquor subject something such as is presented in this bill. It aint enough for me, but I am satisfied with what I can get. I vote "aye."
Mr. HOOPER, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: I believe in the principle that the action of the majority on this question is perhaps as near correct as we can get. I realize the great difficulty of properly regulating this question. It is one of the matters almost impossible to determine. But while I must confess some doubts as to the advantages of this law over the present law whether it will accomplish the purpose its friends expect - I am willing to cast my doubt in the direction of correct public morals in the State. I vote "aye."
Mr. JAQUESS, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: I believe I can say practically that I am as good a temperance man as any Senator here. But it is a plain case that our Democratic friends are seeking to gain political advantage out of this thing, and preferring to live under the rule of King Alcohol to living under the rule of the Democratic party I vote "no."
Mr. JOHNSON, of Spencer, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: Two years ago I voted against the temperance bill for reasons not satisfactory at that time to the temperance party, nor were they satisfactory to the whisky sellers. This law refers the question to a majority of the people interested and there is where I believe it ought to be. I vote "aye."
Mr. KINLEY, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: This bill does not contain all I should like; for it is well known to the Senate that I favor prohibition; but I think it a great improvement on the present law. One feature of the bill I wish to call attention to is that, as far as it operates, it throws the question of temperance out of politics and refers it to the people of the township, town or ward. I vote "aye."
Mr. LASELLE, when his name was called, said in explanation of his vote: While I am in favor of a temperance law, I am not in favor of taxing any one business in the land higher than any other business. I think, sir, the present law is too stringent upon one class of persons, and therefore I am opposed to further restriction by the way of license. I vote "no."
Mr. LEE, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: For myself, Mr. President, I am in favor of this bill, but my constituents, I think, would not countenance me in voting for it. This liquor question has been one of the principal planks in their platform for many years, and I do not think they would like to have it knocked out at this late day. I vote "no."
Mr. MORGAN, when his name was called, in explanation said: I claim to be as good a temperance man as any in the House. I helped form the first temperance society in the State in 1824, and I believe I helped form the first one at Evansville. I helped form the first lodge of the Sons of Temperance and I never was drunk in my life, and I don't want to be. The people in my section of the State are divided into two classes-Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats are the first class and the Republican class are those who sell whisky [A VOICE-"And the Democrats drink it"-Laughter]-they sell it wholesale and retail, and the Democrats sell beer. Now I look upon the thing as being morally wrong. I do not think it right for any man to sell whiskey or intoxicating liquors of any sort. I say it is morally wrong, and I say also that I am unwilling to go in partnership with any man to do the business. If it is wrong I say the State of Indiana has no right to go into partnership with the sellers and take part of their earnings. I say a prohibitory liquor law or none at all. I do not believe there can be any good done but by moral suasion. The more laws you make the worse you make the evil. For one I am opposed to all laws I vote "no."
Mr. RICE, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said: It is a question to settle which is the best law. Believing as a friend of the Temperance cause, as I have believed for the last ten years, that the present liquor law if properly backed up and enforced by the temperance men and the moral page: 398[View Page 398] sentiment of the State is the best law on the subject we can get. I am satisfied to retain the law as it is. I have no confidence, and never had in prohibition. This is a prohibitory law for it requires a man, in order to obtain a license to get a majority of the legal voters to petition, and then requires the township Trustee to swear that he has obtained a majority. I say it is prohibitory in effect, and having no faith in any kind of a law that is not backed up by the moral force and determination of the temperance and moral party of the State-or in any law executing itself without the aid of that force, I, of course, go against prohibition. In our county we do it by moral suasion. The selling of whiskey is made so odius that the trafficker deserts it at once. I vote "no."
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison, when his name was called, said: I vote "aye" and I don't care whether it pleases my constituents or not.
Mr. SHERROD, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: I am opposed to all these innovations, I introduced a bill into the House several years ago to repeal the Main Liquor law. I do not believe you can legislate against a class of men in a certain business. I do not believe in sumptuary laws. They are not in keeping with the letter and spirit of the constitution. I vote ''no."
Mr. SMITH, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: I would have been glad had the friends of Temperance adopted a different course. Every man on the Wabash river knows that I have been a temperance man for forty years, but I will vote for no bill that makes the Stare of Indiana or me a partner in that which is wrong. I hold that liquor selling is wrong; that it is an evil; a great evil, and a curse to the nation; but this will not stop it. No temperance law has been made that will remedy it, and until the friends of temperance start in the right direction it cannot be remedied. The other party in this Senate call my party the whisky party, and by implication they claim that they are Temperance men; and yet you Republicans come here and refuse to pass the very law you abuse us for not passing. I vote "no."
Mr. TURNER, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: I should like to have the bill passed on account of members of the Legislature, and if it was applicable only to the city of Indianapolis I should give my vote for it. But as it is not applicable to the city of Indianapolis alone, I believe the majority of the people have decided that prohibition is wrong. I am opposed to the bill. I should be in favor of it if it applied only to members of the Legislature upon the ground, that I do not now expect, after to-day to be a member of this Legislative body, "no."
Mr. WOLCOTT, when his name was called in explanation of his vote said: It is with some regret that I am compelled to vote against this bill. Senators holding over from the last regular session remember that I introduced Senate bill 46, a most stringent bill in its provisions as to the liquor traffic; and I urged it till it passed the Senate. I believe the intemperance of the State is a great evil, and that it should be restrained, but no laws, if against the moral sense of the people can be enforced; All reforms must proceed slowly and gradually. Had this law provided that at any election the question of License or No License should be submitted to the people, I would vote for that. But it goes much farther. It requires the applicant to travel over the township and get the signatures of a majority of the legal voters, and after he obtains these he has got to get the ratification of the township Trustee. Even a majority of the voters might favor the petitioner, but if the Trustee should be unfavorable the will of the majority would be defeated. I believe the law would not be just in its operations and I will vote against it "No."
Mr. WOOD, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: I believe the good overbalances the evil in this bill. It provides, if I understand it, that the principal may be made criminally liable if convicted with his agent; and I am inclined to think that the courts would rule that part invalid. The first part of the bill which requires a petition from a majority of the legal voters of the Township before license is issued, I concur in. I vote "aye."
Mr. CRAVENS, having requested his name to be called, said: I do not know but that I have had a little more extended and bitter experience than most members on this floor. I fear that the friends of this bill, who have been actuated and influenced by the best of motives, have been induced to press its success against what is manifestly the public good. In 1855, under pressure of the public sentiment-by which I was elected, I voted in favor of a prohibitory liquor law. I was then foolish enough to think that the enactment of a law by the strong power of the State would effect the purpose designed. I recollect during the time we were discussing this matter, one of the best statesmen in this State said to some of us in a room at the Bates House: "You need not pass that law. If you do the Courts will not sustain it; and if they do, public opinion will not." A friend asked him: "Then what would you do?" Said he: I would resort to something that is practicable and license the whiskydrinker himself.
The more I have thought of that suggestion page: 399[View Page 399] the more I am satisfied that a law of that sort would be of more effect than the one proposed. A prohibitory law in my judgment will not be enforced. The people are afraid that it will strike at certain powers necessary to be maintained for the welfare of the country. While the bill has some unconstitutional features in it, in that it depends upon some other authority than that which enacts the law for the purpose of taking effect, on the other hand I decidedly favor the Democratic principle which runs through the bill; that is that the majority shall decide; for that great principle runs through the entire frame work of our Government. It is a Democratic principle and a Republican principle.
But I see that this bill will not become a law. I see that from my keeping of the tally. Other considerations rise higher than mere party. From those considerations, and those alone of a character which no man has a right to inquire into, I give my voice and vote for this bill. I vote "aye."
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the vote as above recorded.
So the Liquor Bill [H. R. 288] failed to pass the Senate by yeas 22, nays 23.L
