THE
BREVIER LEGISLATIVE REPORTS.
FOURTEENTH VOLUME.
INDIANA LEGISLATURE.
The Temperance Question.---Debate in Continuation.
IN SENATE.
THURSDAY February 20, 1873.[CONTINUED FROM PAGE 187.]
THE BRIBERY QUESTION.
Mr. WADGE offered a preamble and resolution, setting forth that whereas, a charge had been made in a public meeting at the Academy of Music, last Sunday, that money was being used to influence Senators in their votes on the bill for the suppression of intemperance, and that the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars had been already raised for that purpose, and whereas, it is due to the dignity of this body or to such of its members as may vote against this bill from conscientious motives, therefore a committee of five be appointed to investigate the matter with power to send for persons and papers and report at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. DAGGY said no specific charge had been made against any Senator. It had not even been charged that any Senator had received any money, only that a sum had been raised. He thought the statement was too vague to be worthy of notice. He therefore moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The motion was rejected by yeas 22, nays 27 - as follows.
YEAS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Beeson, Brown, Bunyan, Chapman, Daggy, Daugherty, Dwiggins, Friedley of Scott, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Miller, Neff, O'Brien, Oliver, Orr, Ringo, Scott, and Steele - 22.
NAYS - Messrs. Beggs, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Carnahan, Cave, Collett, Dittemore, Fuller, Francisco, Friedley of Lawrence, Glessner, Gooding, Gregg, Hall, Hubbard, Rhodes, Sarnighausen, Slater, Sleeth, Smith, Stroud, Taylor, Thompson, Wadge, Williams and Winterbotham - 27.
Pending the roll call.
Mr. BROWN in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: If I did not know the man referred to [Col. John W. Kay] I would vote for the resolutions; but he is a zealous advocate of any cause he undertakes and he sometimes allows his enthusiasm to get away with him. I am told that the audience was exceedingly large and enthusiastic: that the beauty and fashion of Indianapolis were out, and that he, taking advantage of it desired of course, to appear to the best possible advantage. He could not think of anything else to say; was very earnestly advocating this bill, and if a commission of insanity had come around about that time and taken possession of him, they would have found him insane and taken him to some asylum. I trust he will not be made the subject of a severe investigation committee presided over by the Senator from Lake [Mr. Wadge.] I have no doubt he made the statement without reflection and is now sorry for what he said, therefore I will I vote to lay the resolution on the table.
Mr. DAGGY, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I made the motion for the reason that the resolution page: 511[View Page 511] contains no charge against any Senator. If it will charge any Senator by name I am ready to pass it. I vote "aye."
Mr. GLESSNER, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I understand this charge has not only been made on this occasion but on several other occasions, and I think I have heard it myself, and it goes further than the statement in the resolution - that any Senator who shall vote against this bill it would be presumptive evidence that he was bought. I think it just and due to the honor and integrity of this Senate and to Senators who may vote against this bill, that this Committee should be appointed and an investigation had, so that if the charge is unfounded Senators may be properly exculpated. On the other hand if it is found that any Senator has been improperly influenced he ought to be exposed, so that proper action may be taken to expel him from this body. I regard this resolution in a serious sense. When a personal charge is made against a Senator or a class of Senators, they have always, upon a request therefor, been given a committee of investigation, so they may have an opportunity of exculpating themselves. I vote "no."
Mr. GOODING, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: For the remaining time of this session we have more important business than running down rumors started away from this body. The charge is in an indefinite shape. If any man will get anything like a tangible charge, I would be in favor of investigating it.Mr. GREGG, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I was at the meeting last Sunday and heard the gentleman's [Col. Ray's] remarks, but I do not think, in all justice to the gentleman that he made the charge as set out in these resolutions. I understood the gentleman in the vehemence of his argument to say that he had been informed that there had been money raised for the purpose of using in the Senate to procure the defeat of this bill, and that the country would probably hold those who voted against the bill guilty on the presumption that those who voted against the bill were influenced by this money. The gentleman was extravagent enough to say that it would politically kill any Senator who would vote against the bill - that the cause of temperance held in its hand the fate of any man. But inasmuch as the charge has gone out I will vote for the investigation. I vote "no."
Mr. O'BRIEN, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: It seems to me it would be premature to order an investigation before the vote on this temperance bill, for we do not know who to investigate. Therefore I vote "aye,"
Mr. ORR, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: If I could for a moment believe the report to be true, I would vote for these resolutions. As it is I must vote in favor of laying them on the table. I vote "aye."
Mr. SLEETH, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: Whatever may have been his [Col. Ray's] statement or the vehemence with which it was uttered, he is a gentleman of truth and veracity, and I cannot believe it was not true if he made it. I cannot believe that he would stand up before an audience and tell that which was not true. I know other legislative bodies have not thought it infringing upon their dignity to order investigations into the conduct of their members, and I cannot see why an investigation should not be ordered upon this charge. I think it due to this body and to the people we represent; therefore I vote "no" on this motion.
Mr. THOMPSON, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: Col. Ray was an excellent man, but having been for a long time overseer of one of the prisons, he had grown up with the idea that mankind is generally depraved, and he takes it for granted when he sees a man acting in opposition to his sentiments, that he is corrupt.
Mr. WADGE, when his name was called, said: I desire to explain my reasons for offering these resolutions. I will read a report of this speech as published in the Indiana Journal, and leave it to the Senate if it does not contain a charge of bribery against every man in the Senate who may vote against the temperance bill. Mr. W. read:
"Col. John W. Ray was then called for and came out from behind the scene very much as Billy Manning slouches upon the stage at the commencement of one of his great acts. He said they had now presented to the Legislature a bill that had principle and not expediency for its foundation. There are three common law principles in the bill. First, the common law has never recognized the right to sell intoxicating liquors as a beverage. No man has ever been able to sell it except under a special provision of the statute. And it is a very poor comment on a traffic that when the people, through their representatives, are about to place this trade on the same ground as that by which every common law trade is tolerated, to see them boasting that they have two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to buy a Senate with. If he were a member of the Indiana Senate, he would expect every man in Indiana to believe that he got part of that money if he voted against this bill. (Applause.) He told the legislators present, that when the whisky men boast that they have got the money and declare that they intend to use it, they cannot escape the odium of having been the recipient of part of that money if they vote against the bill."
Now I say this means nothing if it does not mean money has been used: and it seems to me the Senate cannot overlook a charge of page: 512[View Page 512] that kind and support its dignity as it should.
I vote "no,"
When the roll call was finished.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the vote as above recorded.
So the motion to lay on the table was rejected.
On motion of Mr. BROWN the resolutions were made a special order for ten and a half o'clock to-morrow a. m.
THE TEMPERANCE BILL.
Mr. BEESON moved to suspend the order of business to take up the House temperance bill.
The motion was agreed to - yeas 28, nays 21.
Mr. SLATER move ineffectually to adjourn.
Mr. O'BRIEN moved that the bill be read the third time.
Mr. BOONE moved that the bill be recommitted to the Committee on Temperance with certain instructions - see top of page 188.
Mr. BROWN thought the motion ought to prevail. He should like to see in what attitude the Committee on Temperance would place themselves in refusing to receive this bill. The bill contains some very strange provisions. His desire was to make a law that would stand the test of the severest criticism and investigation. The two leading features of the bill are, first, that it requires a majority of the citizens of the ward or town to sign the petition of the parties, and the next is that it provides that the party selling liquor, shall be liable for consequential damages He thought the first of these provisions was constitutional. He thought it would be so decided notwithstanding the Supreme Court a good many years ago made a decision rather adverse to that. But as to the other provision he ventured the opinion that it was illegal and void, and he beleved it would be so determined whenever it was presented. He did not believe under the State Constitution, a man could be made more liable in a case of that kind than the common law makes him. We have our common law action against a whisky seller, if by reason of any improper engagement of his a party sustains injury or damage.
He then referred to the abstract in the JOURNAL of this morning of the dicision made in Ohio recently upon the liquor law of that State, and said that in at least two of the points on which an adverse decision had been rendered, that law was precisely the same as this bill. The bill he said should be so amended that the fact that the liquor was sold in a place rented for that use should make it at least prima facie evidence, if not absolute knowledge that the party renting had notice of the sale.
Mr. ORR here rose to a point of order, that Mr. Brown had already spoken five minutes, and was cut off from proceeding under the rule recently adopted.
Mr. DITTEMORE moved that he be allowed to proceed -
Messrs O'Brien, Hall Orr, and others objected.
Mr. BROWN said he made no factious opposition to the bill. The objections he had made to the bill were in good faith. He was now willing to leave it to the fnrture to tell who are right, he, who desired to strip the bill of its objectionable feature so that it will became a valid and existing law, or those who would put it through in a defective and objectionable form, on the plea of necessity.
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence, and Mr. Hall and Mr. Brown addressing the chair, [Mr. Chapman in the chair] the latter demanding a division of the question. Mr. Hall being recognized demanded the previous question.
The Senate seconded the demand.
Mr. BROWN demanded the yeas and nays on the question whether the main question should be now put, and the yeas and nays were ordered and being taken resulted as follows:
YEAS - Messrs, Armstrong, Beadsley, Beeson, Bunyan, Chapman, Collett, Daggy, Daugherty, Dwiggins, Friedley of Scott, Hall, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, O'Brien, Oliver Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Scott, Sleeth, Steele and Taylor - 27.
NAYS Messrs Beggs, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Brown, Carnahan, Cave, Dittemore, Fuller, Francisco, Friedley of Lawrence, Glessner, Gooding, Gregg, Sarnighausen, Slater, Smith, Stroud, Thompson, Wadge, Williams and Winterbotham - 22.
So the main question was ordered to be put.
The PRESIDING OFFICER stated the first question to be on the motion to recommit.
Mr. BROWN said that was the first, last and only question before the Senate. The motion of Mr. Boone involved several proposed amendments to the bill and he therefore demanded a division of the question.
Mr. HUBBARD made the point of order that it takes a majority of the Senate to order a division of the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER sustained the point of order on the ground that a demand for a division of the question can not be made after the previous question is ordered.
Mr. DWIGGINS said the only question is, shall the bill be recommitted with instructions? and that question is not divisible.
Mr. BROWN appealed from this decision of the chair and said he demanded a division page: 513[View Page 513] of the question before the previous question was ordered.
The motion to recommit the bill was rejected by yeas 24, nays 25 - as follows:
YEAS - Messrs. Beggs, Bird, Boone, Bowman, Brown, Carnahan, Cave, Collett, Dittemore, Fuller, Francisco, Friedley of Lawrence, Glessner, Gooding, Gregg, Sarnighausen, Slater, Sleeth, Smith, Stroud, Thompson, Wadge, Williams and Wmterbotham. - 24.
NAYS - Messrs. Armstrong, Beardsley, Beeson, Bunyan, Chapman, Daggy, Daugherty, Dwiggins, Friedley of Scott, Hall, Harney, Haworth, Hough, Howard, Hubbard, Miller, Neff, O'Brien, Oliver, Orr, Rhodes, Ringo, Scott, Steele and Taylor - 25.
Pending the roll call -
Mr. FRIEDLEY, of Lawrence, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called said: I suppose this is the last attempt that will be made to perfect this bill. It seems to me the proposition is a good and a very reasonable one. And that it ought to commend itself to the favor of every friend of temperance on this floor. It is one against which no substantial objection can be urged. It is simply a proposition to make amendments that every one will concede are reasonable in themselves and for the purpose of having those amendments properly brought before the Senate the bill is to be referred to the Committee on Temperance and placed in the hands of the friends of the bill, so that if it is desirable on their part or if it desirable on the part of the friends of temperance here to perfect the bill it may be done. They are to say now whether they will use that ordinary precaution in framing this most important measure or whether by disregarding the ordinary rules of legislation they will rush on and drive the people who are asking for a temperance law upon the rock upon which the temperance ship in Ohio has foundered. "I plead" he said "in behalf of these people who have petitioned this General Assembly for a temperance law and I plead with the friends of this bill and I ask them whether they will throw away this last opportunity to amend and perfect this bill."
It cannot be urged as an objection to this proposition that it is too late, or that it will endanger the final success of the measure. That cannot be urged. There, are yet I believe nineteen days of this session remaining. These friends of temperance if they have procrastinated this measure, if they have put it off from day to day until it is too late in their judgment, to amend, they are responsible for that. They have had leave to report at any time and if there has been delay that delay can not be charged upon those who are seeking that the bill shall be rendered as nearly perfect as possible. But there is no danger of the defeat of this measure.
We are told that the whole people of the State are aroused, and I am not one of those who believe that the Representatives of the people will not hear the voice of the people. I believe they will hear the voice of the people and I believe they will be governed by the voice of the people. I have confidence in the inteligence in the patrotism and in the fidelity to principle of the gentlemen in the other end of this capitol, and I am not one of those who believe that they can be influence by improper motives who believe that they will alllow a measure of this kind to be strangled in that end of the capitol. And if there are those here who want confidence in that end of the capitol let them vote against this proposition of the Senator from Boone. I plead with those who would have a genuine temperance bill on the statute books of Indiana to pause and examine and consider whether this is such a bill as the people of this State demand. I beg them to consider for a moment whether or not there are not great legal objections to some portions of this bill, and whether it is not better, in deference to the demands of the people to pause and perfect this bill. If as many as three of the amendments proposed by the Senator from Boone [Mr. Boone] are adopted I will vote for the passage of the bill.
Mr. NEFF, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I am one of the Committee on Temperance in the Senate, and when the bill was first introduced into the Senate I was in favor of amending it, decidedly so. I believe now there were defects in the bill that ought to be remedied if it can be done without endangering its passage. I insisted before the Committee that it should be done. But the Committee thought that it would endanger its passage, and with the view of the majority of the committee, and on conferring with the members of a like committee of the House, I learned that it would probably endanger the passage of the bill. I withdrew all objections on that account, and agreed to say nothing in favor of amending the bill, but vote for it just as it was. If it could be done without endangering its passage I would be in favor of the reference. But believing as I do after having looked over the whole ground that it would endanger its passage I am in favor of passing it just as it came from the House of Representatives. I vote "no."
Mr. SCOTT, when his name was called said: I want to say to the Senate in explanation of my vote that so far as the friends of the bill belonging to the Committee of Temperance are concerned we are satisfied with this bill, and are in no wise alarmed by the reports of the Journal of this morning concerning the decission of some judge in Ohio. It would'nt have a feathers weight. I vote "no."33
page: 514[View Page 514]Mr. STEELE, in explanation of his vote when his name was called said: In another shape we are fighting the same battles over again that we fought on yesterday. The objections to this bill may be brought together in one single objection; and it is proposed now to send it to the Committee on Temperance. The object is evidently to gain time and nothing else. As far as this decission in Ohio is concerned as the gentleman from Vigo [Mr. Scott] says, I see nothing alarming in it. Some judge there perhaps has decided that some parts of the Ohio law are unconstitutional, but we have as able authority in favor of the constitutionality of this bill as it now stands as he authority of the Ohio judge, therefore I see no necessity of changing it one way or the other. Let us take this question up and vote for it at once. I vote "no" on this motion.
Mr. THOMPSON said: Mr. President, I ask the indulgence of the Senate to make a statement of my reasons for voting in favor of the recommitment, of this bill, and which shall be my only plea to justify my opposition to its final passage. This I conceive alike due to myself, and to my constitutents, whose acquaintance, and friendship, I have ever esteemed my highest honor. The subject is attractive, which accounts for the pressing crowds, who have come to witness our action, in this Hall, on this day. I am sure it is their deep interest for, and against the bill, that brings them here. They have no other curiosity to gratify beyond this. The great men of the State, and nation have indulged them too often, with the ring of true eloquence and statesmanship, in this capitol, for them now to brave the inclemency of this winter day to hear speech making, through idle curiosity.
Mr. President, I am too much oppressed with the delicacy which springs from my imperfections as a public speaker, and the different views I entertain, in reference to the merits of this bill, from those of a majority of this Senate, and from a large portion oi this vast audience, to rigidly conform my remarks to parliamentary rules, or bring them strictly within the expectation of Senators. Perhaps the charity, and pardoning power of the Senate, may keep pace with their patience, and permit me, in my feeble style, to execute my plans in laying before them my statement.
When I was nominated, unexpectedly and unsolicited, on my part, to the position I hold, the subject of a radical temperance law was not mentioned in the convention. Some of the ardent temperance men of the State had already indicated in various ways, their determination to nominate a temperance ticket. Both the great panics were in the field making every preparation for the coming contest. Each was stimulated by the hope of success, or fear of defeat, to put forth an effort and energy in prosecuting the canvass unexampled, hitherto, in the history of the State.
The Republican party, referring to its history and its principles, in the passed, strenuously advocated its present policy as substantial reasons for its success at the polls, and staked its advocacy before the people on its history and national policy. Its platform was essentially politic, and the convention regarded the position held by its political antagonists as too critical and dangerous to assume to add to its principles any of the moral questions agitated by the radical temperance movement.
Thus having placed itself before the people; in a declaration of its principles, I was selected a nominee for the office of State Senator. It was under the full conviction that I was chosen on no other grounds than on the pure principles that constituted the platform of the national Republican party, that I had assured gentlemen of this city, that if elected, I would support no principle in the Legislature on the subject of temperance that did not enter into the canvass before the people. On the contrary I should feel bound to vote against any bill of the kind.
In giving this assurance to my neighbors I done nothing more than was done by the leaders of both parties in this city. For so far as I was able to gather the intentions of politicians on this subject, both the prominent parties ignored the subject of a radical temperance law. The interests of the Republican party were deemed by me of more importance to the country than the passage of a stringent liquor law. No law, on the subject of temperance, passed in advance of the moral sentiments of the people can be executed; this has been tested in Indiana. And the Republican party of 1856, received ample proof of this fact in the defeat of their ticket.
In the management of my own affairs through life, I have never found it necessary to resort to false dealing either in word or deed, and I am sure that my neighbors and friends would dispise me, if in my act this day, it shall appear that I made my way to this Hall by deceit and fraud. It has been asserted that I should back down in this vote from promises made before my election; this could be done only by taking leave of all self respect, and presenting to this Senate and to this community a character unworthy of the confidence of a truth loving people. The principle of justice should not be violated by legislators with less impunity, than it should be by citizens in their commercial transactions. The State cannot afford to reform her long established customs or page: 515[View Page 515] laws by rendering the property of any portion of her citizens valuless. Since the beginning of law in Indiana, these laws have encouraged the sale of spirituous liquors, by licensing the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits thereby declaring the commerce right and proper.
This encouragement on the part of the State has induced many of her citizens to invest their money in this species of properly, until there are, it is said, upwards of fitly millions of dollars worth of liquors in the State owned by our citizens. This large accumulation of liquor is the result of legislation that extends as far back as fifty years. By the passage of this bill you allow the men your laws invited to engage in the traffic, no time to wind up their immense business, and by placing a ban on their commerce, you condemn their property as valueless, and turn them and their families out bankrupts.
The bill refuses a year, a month, a week, or even one day to these people, in which they might remove their liquors to some quarter of the country where the law givers have not all turned saints, or if they have, they have not permitted their enthusiasm of sudden conversion to remove from their minds that great truth, that whoever would be holy must be first just, not only as citizens, but as legislators. If by the act of the State individuals have engaged in a business you regard as injurious to the morals and happiness of the people, she ought not to adopt the work of destruction as an atonement for errors perpetrated by the statute, for generations, but adopt a legislation that while it corrects the errors of the past, will afford ample time to those interested to relieve themselves through the channels of commerce, and the laws of trade.
Past experience admonishes all law makers to confine their legislative acts within the bounds of stern justice to all the subjects of the State, and strictly within the wants and wishes of the people. To transcend these limits is a betrayal of their confidence, and a disgraceful usurpation of their rights.
Good intentions of legislators can never substitute the demands of an intelligent constituency, ro lead the public sentiment to respect the laws which war against private interests under the specious plea of benefiting morals, or more thoroughly establishing th public safety. You propose to correct the errors of law by destroying property accumulated under its execution, and to save the morals of one class by destroying the property of another. If you correct false legislation and, at the same time, give all concerned in the sale and ownership of spiritous liquors, ample time to save themselves from financial ruin, why hesitate for a moment,to recommit with instructions, so to amend the bill.
If the Senate shall depart from its usual calm and dispassionate character, this day, and manifest untimely haste in the execution of this bill, they may live to see it recorded in the statutes of the State, a law, but it will surely add to their mortification, if on account ot its severity, they shall behold the opposition of the people set it at defiance and sanction, by silent permission the terrible reign of free whisky throughout our large cities.
Were the people of our commonwealth homeogenious, in their customs, tastes, views of morals, and State policy, sumptuary laws might meet with a certain administration, and the sanction of the governed. But we have come from all parts of the civilized world, bringing with us different views of religion, morals, and tastes, which make the faithful execution of such laws quite impossible, and engenders in the minds of perhaps a large majority of citizens the spirit of opposition to the law, and rebellion to the State that attemps its execution.
If you send this bill forth as law, change it to afford ample time to all citizens, who are engaged in the liquor traffic to relieve themselves of this species of property, by exhausting their stock on hand, that all may enjoy the promised reign of temperance throughout the State. But if you send it out armed with vengence on the commerce of liquor traffic, declaring its "time shall be no longer," you, thereby, will convulse the public mind, and the law will be regarded as a declaration of war against private property, and will chalenge deadly hostility and political opposition to the party in power.
Mr. President, I have said more on this subject than I intended, but the position I occupy and the importance of the bill, would not permit me to say less. I shall cast my vote in accordance with pledges made before the election. Honesty in the public servants of the State, truth in society, confidence between man and man; all demand this at my hand. And all I ask in return is that if ever an epitaph shall point to my character, it may record of me "that he performed all his obligations, kept his promises and never forsook his friends." I vote "aye."
When the roll call was completed -
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR announced the vote as above recorded.
So the motion to recommit the bill was rejected.
After some conversational debate the temperance bill was read the third time and finally passed by yeas 30, nays 19 - see page 188.
Pending the roll call.
Mr. BIRD, in explanation of his vote, page: 516[View Page 516] when his name was called said, if this bill passes in my opinion it will yield no revenue to the school fund while the present law yields something like one hundrrd thousand dollars. I think the act now on the statute books was a much better law than this. I vote "no."
Mr. BROWN, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote said: I have in opposing this bill but sought to make something out of it. My judgment is that the bill is an imperfect one. I do not think all the provisions will be declared inoperative but in less than six months at the outside, in my judgment, the temperance cause in the State of Indiana as far as legal enactments are concerned will be in a very much worse condition than it now is. I have, however, discharged my duty to the best of my ability. I have cleared my conscience and those who have pressed and urged this bill upon the Senate for its passage, who have, with stubborness all the way through, refused to modify its confesed imperfections, may take the responsibility of its passage. I shall vote for their bantling and if trouble comes, they, and not I, are responsible. [Applause from the lobbies.]
Mr. DITTEMORE moved that the lobbies be cleared.
Mr. DWIGGINS. No motion is in order pending the roll call.
Mr. DITTEMORE. If this Senate cannot protect itself from boisterous demonstrations by parties outside who are here by courtesy, we had better at once quit business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. Chapman in the chair.] Unless persons in the lobbies keep perfectly quiet and refrain from making any more noisy demonstrations, the sergeant at arms will clear the lobbies.
Mr. COLLETT, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: I have been voting for amendments to this bill and have done so in good faith. I have given no votes for the purpose of delay or retarding action upon the bill. While I am anxious to have a good temperance law, I am anxious to have one as perfect as possible, and while there are a great many things in this bill I could wish to have amended and which would in my opinion, have made the bill much more perfect, the friends of the bill have seen proper to refuse to have it amended. Still, there are some good features in the bill, one of them making drunkenness a crime. It that were the only part of the bill that was constitutional, I would vote for this clause alone. I vote "aye."
Mr. GOODING, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said : I think it my duty and I am satisfied to reflect the wish and judgment of my constituents, and I think I do that when I vote against the bill. I vote "no."
Mr. HARNEY, when his name was called, said: I wish to explain the vote I shall give. In my public life I have not been regarded par excellence as a temperance man. I have always doubted the efficacy of laws that are sumptuary in their character and are intended to enforce virture by legislation. It so happened that I was a member of the Committee which reported the law now in force. The present law worked well for a time, but the time has come to change it in order to adopt it to the present condition of the State. If I were left to submit a bill on this subject I would not take this one. This law would not be my first choice. If I were to select a law, I would take one which would not include vinous and malt liquors. But liquor sellers will not except such a law nor will they live up to it, and the temperance men will not be satisfied with it; therefore, it would be inoperative. Seeing this condition of affairs, and deeming myself that there should be a change in the temperance law of the State I shall vote for the bill which the temperance men of the State are in favor of and intend to enforce. There is one provision in the law mixed up with the crud provisions, to which I gave my hearty consent. That is the provision that emancipates women from the condition in which she has hitherto been placed. It allows her to sue for a wrong that is done to her. For that reason, if for no other, I shall vote "aye."This provision would secure my vote over other objections. Women have heretofore been victims without means of defence, and this provision gives her the privilege of entering the courts to redress her grievances. As far as my personal relations are concerned, I have made no pledges to one clan or another and I feel free to vote the way I think best reflects the wishes of my constituents. I vote "aye."
Mr. HOUGH, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: In giving the vote I shall, I wish to say that I reflect the wishes of both my constituents and myself. I vote "aye."
Mr. NEFF, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: When this bill was before the Committee I was decidedly in favor of amending it, perfecting it. I believed it was defective. I believed then that it would not meet the wishes of its friends, and I believe so yet. But my constituents were anxious that the bill should pass just as it came from the House, and I withdrew all objections to it on that account,because they were in favor of it, looking at it in this light, that if it did not prove what was expected, it would not be my fault, but theirs. I was in favor of striking out that page: 517[View Page 517] part of the first section which takes away from a man the right to sell liquor by the small or large quantity without any responsibility, provided it is taken away from the premises where sold. This bill, if passed, would probably prevent any man in my county from getting a permit, but instead of that it will be filled up with irresponsible persons who can sell, to be taken away from the premises, any amount of liquor that they desire. But as my people are in favor of the bill as it is, and feeling if that amendment is made the bill would not pass the House of Representatives I will vote "aye."
Mr. ORR, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: I am here without any instructions from my constituents, but knowing the moral "stata" of my people and being left to my own judgment in the matter I feel proud that I am here to represent my people without instructions. This bill is not as strong as I could wish, but inasmuch as I believe that the bill will be a preventative of crime in this country I vote "aye."
Mr. SLATER, in explanation of his vote, when his name was called, said: The only benefit I can see to result from the passage of the bill will be the breaking down of the Republican party. It is the death knell of the Republican party and I should vote for it if it wouldn't pass without any vote. But as it is, I shall vote "no."
Mr. SLEETH, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said: The Senator from Johnson (Mr. Slater) has indicated that this bill would be the death of the Republician party. Other Senators have indicated their opinion that the bill itself is unconstitutional and that it would be struck down by the courts. If it should give us free Democracy and free whisky that would be a bad state of affairs.
Democracy will win then. The people I represent are very anxious for a temperance bill. I do not feel nor have I felt that this was such a bill as the people of the State are demanding. I have done all in my power, both in public debate in the Senate and in private conversations with Senators and with members of the committee, to have amendments made to this bill, which it is conceded, by those who oppose them, would be an improvement on the bill, and which I believe would be an improvement on the bill. They have, however, by the vote of the House, been laid on the table, and as I presume we can have no better law than this one, I am compelled, under protest, to vote for it, not believing that it is such a bill as the people of the State demand, and I leave the responsibility of supporting this bill with the people who have forced it through this house without amendment and with the courts of the State. I stand recorded in favor of every amendment offered which I thought would tend to perfect the bill; and now I must be content to vote for it as it is. I vote "aye.
Mr. THOMPSON, when his name was called; in explanation of his vote, said: I regretted that I differ so materially from a large portion of the best friends I ever had in the State and I regret, also, that the bill, being the production of both parties of the Legislature both the Republicans and the Democrats and both acknowledging its imperfections, I regret that it has not been perfected. I regret it very much. I vote "no."
Mr. WADGE, in explanation of his vote when his name was called, said: I shall vote against the bill for the reason assigned by the Senator from Johnson (Mr. Slater.) I honestly believe the passage of the bill would be the death knell of the Republican party. Working, as I have with that party for the last fifteen years for its success it shall not be said that I have done anything to cause its death. I vote "no."
Mr. WINTERBOTHAM, when his name was called, in explanation of his vote, said : He had tried in his humble way to represent his constituents and he desired to do so in the vote he was about to give on the bill before the Senate, but if any of them favored such a law they had failed to make it known to him, as their representative upon this floor. Why pass a more stringent law until we enforce the one we have? The records of our courts show indictment after indictment, and not a violation of law the punished not a fine collected. He was opposed to putting laws on our statute books in advance of public sentiment, for that would fall stillborn from our hands and thus tend to bring all laws into disrepute. He stated that there were eight thousand voters in his district, over one-third of whom were Germans or their descendents. Wine and beer is their national beverage, they have, like tea and coffee, almost become a necessity - and he was opposed to depriving them of what seems necessary to their happiness at their social gatherings, while we allow the rich to stock their wine cellars with choice liquor, enjoy their luxuries, and entertain their guests at home. He voted "no."
Mr. FRIEDLEY of Lawrence, desiring his name to be again called, said: In explanation of my vote I desire to say this: I have worked faithfully and earnestly and sincerely with a desire to have this bill perfected. It has not been done in my judgment. I believe that it will not be sustained by the courts. I have at any rate grave fears that it will not be sustained. I believe it will set the cause of intemperance back ten or fif- en years in Indiana, but I propose to let page: 518[View Page 518] the responsibility rest where it properly belongs. I have received a great many petitions from my people asking for a temperance law. I believe that this is not such a one as they require, and yet I believe that it is the only one that will come before the Senate at this session, and in deference to the views of my constituents, and with very grave and serious doubts about the propriety of passing the bill, I will vote "aye,"
Mr. BOONE, desiring his name to be called again, said: I propose to vote "aye" and I want to explain my vote if the Senate pleases. I believe the law now in force is a better temperance law to-day than the one we are now passing, if it were properly enforced. My constituents however, in both counties, that I represent, have but a small amount of means invested in this business, and the amount which they have is worse than if they had none. In my judgment, I have worked in good faith to try and perfect this bill,to make it as perfect as possible, for the purpose of giving to the people, a temperance law that might be effective in some degree. I have not done what I have with any factious feeling but in good faith. I have failed throughout. I judge that this law will be, in effect, a failure, but I have found in my practice that the better plan is, when the people want to have their own way about a thing for a little while to let them have it. They will find it a hard machine to run with. Therefore I have thought proper to change my vote. [When his name was first called he voted "no."] I voted "no" when my name was called for the purpose of seeing whether certain gentleman would show their hands or not. I vote "aye."
When the roll call was finished.-
The PRESIDING OFFICER announced the vote as above recorded.
So the temperance bill finally passed the Senate.
