AFTERNOON SESSION.
LOCAL OPTION LIQUOR LAW.
Mr. Shaffer's bill [S. 30--see page 40], to regulate the license and sale of intoxicating liquors--similar to the Baxter bill of 1873--being read the third time--
Mr. SHAFFER said: This bill, as presented by the majority of the Committee on Temperance, is now agitating the minds of more people all over the State than any other measure that will come before this present General Assembly. It is a question upon which to-day the eye of thousands of all classes and sex rest, and they are watching it with as great solicitude as the fond mother would over the destiny and welfare of her only child. Every Senator here to-day feels the responsibility resting on him in determining which way he shall vote in order to satisfy his conscience and do justice to his constituents--justice to suffering thousands; justice to law, order and humanity--justice to his famlly and every moral element of society, and justice to himself and his God.
The question that presents itself and should present itself earnestly and candidly to the mind of every Senator is this: Am I in favor that whisky shall have the controlling power in all the affairs of our noble State? or, am I in favor of temperance, morality and all the Christian graces and virtues of good society? Sir, I am free to say, and am glad to say here to-day, that this temperance question is not a political one. No party at this page: 246[View Page 246] day and age can afford to turn its back, when such a monstrous evil in our land is staring us in the face. No Senator here to-day, of either party, would say that we dare not legislate against crime in its various forms? and to-day, the greatest evil, the greatest curse to mankind and society generally, is the crime of intemperance with all its concomitant evils.
Then why should any party be afraid to antagonize the whisky interest, the saloon interest of our State? If they are afraid, it is only because they are governed by the deluded idea that it will injure their party.
Mr. President, while I am a Republican, and a Republican from principle--because I believe that the Republican party is a party of principle--and while I pride myself upon my genuine Republicanism, having been intimately identified with that party from its very infancy--while I was present when the chief corner-stone of the Republican party was dedicated upon the grand principle of truth, justice and universal liberty, and I have watched its grand growth and progress from then to its present enviable position--and now if this, my own party, is unable and unwilling to carry this temperance question, and give it its hearty support and influence, I will not say what I will do myself; but I do know what thousands of good Republicans of the State of Indiana will do and say--that the Republicans may go to the d--l, and they will seek a more congenial party, which will have the backbone to say that old King Alcohol shall not rule us, nor dictate to us as upon what line of policy we shall or may legislate; and that we dare to do right, and vote our honest sentiments and the sentiment of best elements of society. In my estimation it is all bosh and gush for any party or politician to say or think that 10,000 besotted whisky dealers of Indiana can control party cause ruin and destruction in its ranks. I should rather fear the 40,000 temperance voters of this State who have petitioned and prayed this Senate to give the people of this State a good local option law on the subject of temperance--men of intelligence and sobriety--men of high moral standing, refinement and culture. These are the voters and men who shape public sentiment of the State and Nation, and are to be feared vastly more than the few low bummers and deluded sharks behind the whisky counter.
Mr. GRAHAM--I only desire to say that I have but one objection to this bill, and that is this: If the temperance cause is right, or if the evils of intemperance are wrong, then the licensing principle is wrong, per se. If it is wrong to indulge in the sue of stimulants, then to license their sale is wrong--entirely wrong. But it is frequently said: "Of two evils choose the least." If we can not entirely prohibit the sale or use of intoxicants, we had better prevent it as much as we can. I favor this bill becaue it is the best measure we can get. I would rather eradicate the opportunity of using intoxicating liquors, which is damning men's bodies and souls. There are some features of this bill which are new, and they are certainly in keeping with the nature of our institutions, and which should commend the bill to the favorable consideration and support of the people of this State. It is republican in its form. It 1s a bill which will adapt itself to the wants and and necessities and desires of the constituents of every Senator. It is purely democratic. I have the honor of representing one County that has granted but one liquor license in twenty years, and I regard it as a distinguished honor to represent such a County. On the other hand, I represent another County which grants liquor licenses under the present law. This comes from the fact that there is a difference of sentiment in these two Counties, and so I can support this bill consistently and carry out the wishes of the people in both of these Counties. If the sentiment of one locality is in favor of licensing the sale of intoxicating liquors, as a matter of course they can vote to so do. On the other hand, if the other County desire not to grant such license of course they have the privilege under this bill to reject all such applicants. I know that in one of the Counties referred to they never will grant a license under this bill, or any other law enacted by the Legislature of Indiana. There seems to be at this time an unusual amount of excitement on account of the of ravages of intemperance. From all parts of the State come up memorials signed by thousands of people favor of temperance legislation, and I can not believe that this is a political question, for these memorials come from the County of Allen, from the County of Jackson, from the County of Hancock--
Mr. BROWN (interrupting)--Jackson County is the most outspoken temperance County in the State.
Mr. GRAHAM [continuing]--I say there can be nothing political in this proposition. Then there can be no reason why, without regard to politics, this bill should not receive the support of Members of the Senate. I said there was unusual excitement among the people on this question, and that is true, and why is it: Simply on account of the inroads intemperance is making on society in this State, and the cry coming up from all parts of the State is: "Men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved?" The question is now: If it should be considered a political question, shall the public morals bend to politics, or shall not politics rather bend to the demand of public morals and public decency? Can Senators in the face of the senitment existing now over the State vote against the provisions of this bill? It proposes one of the most liberal temperance laws we have ever had. The only objection I have to the bill I have already stated, but of course that will not influence me to vote, against it. I do not believe that to license this evil is right, but at the same time I think that this is an important measure, and it is my duty, representing the constituency I do, to give it my hearty support.
Mr. COFFEY--I am in favor of this bill, and I do not regard it as a political mesure, but I do believe it the Democratic party in the State of Indiana arrays itself against this bill it will be seriously affected thereby, and I believe the same with reference to the Republican party. The people are asking this legislation at our hands, without reference to politics. This is a local option measure, and I can see nothing objectionable in that fact. It seems to me that is right--it is democratic and I do not see how any political argument can be made against it. It has been stated that the present liquor law was in advance of public sentiment and is not enforced. Why is it not enforced? In my judgment it is because the penalty is not severe enough. This bill would remedy that evil; and why? Because those engaged in the traffic, when they violate this law they are not only to be punished by fine but by imprisonment also. I believe this bill will be much better than our present temperance law. It is not as perfect as I would like it, but it was ordered to the engrossment under the operation of the previous question, and consequently no amendment could be offered. I see it stated in the Republican press of this State--and I am inclined to think that some Republican Senators have that idea--that it is the desire of the Democratic members of this General Assemblyto entrap the Republican party--that there are Democratic Senators and Representatives who are willing to sacrifice themselves if they can but induce Republican members to vote for a bill like this, because in doing that they contend it will probably bring about the defeat of the Republican party two years from now. As far as I am concerned I say that charge is absolutely false. I am advocating this bill and intend to support it from an honest conviction that it is page: 247[View Page 247] right, and no man can justly impugn my motives in so doing.
Mr. BELL said: I have consistenty voted to forward this bill thus far and get it in as good a shape as possible in order that we might have a fair and square vote upon this question in the Senate, but I shall not vote for the bill, because I do not believe it is right. I do not believe in sumptuary legislation of any kind. I eblong to a party which, as a party, don't believe in it, and I desire to oppose it on all occasions. But the Republican party, especially in respect to the sale of liquors, has been in favor of such legislation from time immemorial. It began with the Maine liquor law and ended up with the Baxter bill, and it believes in it to-day. I oppose it from principle. I do not believe it is right. But this party of great moral ideas, this party that comprises all the morality, all the intelligence, and all the decency, so to speak, of the country, I find is throwing everything in the way of opposing this bill through its mouthpieces and its political organs. Not because this bill is wrong, not because it is not right, but because it is inexpedient just at this time to pass this bill. I have noticed in the columns of the Journal, the organ of the God and morality party, and that other highly moral organ, the News, wrhich almost always gets upon a plane above ordinary humanity, that neither one of them place their opposition to this bill on the ground that it is wrong. They are afraid it will hurt the Republican party. That is the only ground of their opposition. I want to see this bill come up here fairly and squarely in order to give my Republican brethren a chance to redeem their promises made in the last campaign to the people of this State. I made no promises on this subject, and I do not think the Democratic party, in its platfor or otherwise, made any, because it is a party opposed to sumptuary legislation, and is therefore, as a panty, opposed to this measure, if it were made a party measure. But, as an individual representing the sentiments of my constituency, not standing upon the ground of policy at all, but upon the ground of right and wrong, I propose to cast my vote against this bill; and if I could not find any better ground than mere expediency, if it were to injure the party to which I belong. I would be found in the ranks of its supporters. I think every measure should stand or fall upon its merits.
Mr. WILSON--As far as the temperance question is concerned, I do not think it is party question. The summary feature never needs any political party to advocate it. I do not believe any political party, as a political organization, would ever dare oppose it, because when it does it runs against the moral sentiment of the people of the country. We need legislation of this kind to keep good men from going to the devil through intemperence. I do not believe in throwing this thing backward and forward between the two parties, for, brethen, we all live in glass houses. I gave the strength of my manhood to the Democratic party--the grandist party that ever had an organization--yet I am free to say that the scepter has departed from Judea because of its corruptions and mistake, it is the virtues of a party that make it strong, and correct principles that give it prominence. I am constrained to believe that not every man who cries temperance is in heart a temperance man. "It is not every one that sayeth: Lord, Lord, but he that doeth the will of my Father shall enter in." I think those who drafted this bill originally were sincere in their temperance desires, and, unfortunately, while they slept the devil came in and tares were sown, and I find something in the bill that don't look right. I wonder why some gentlemen are so anxious to get such a law on the Statute book. It seems to me there is "a nigger in the woodpile" some where. Had I been getting this bill up I would not kill it by inserting impracticabilities. The Baxter bill was killed by the bungling of men who pretend to be friends to the bill, but who were its enemies. The penalities for the violation of this bill should be made conditional punishment. The punishment should be doubled for the second offense, and the law should be kept in its purity by increasing the punishement every time. As poor a lawyer as I am, make me your Prosecutor and give me a Judge who will increase the fine every time the same man violates the law, and I will clean out your whisky saloons in Indianapolis or elsewhere pretty quick. I would suggest that the friends of this bill ought to have it resubmitted to a Committee and have its imperfections fixed. It should give jurisdiction to Justices of the Peace to take recognizance and impose adequate punishment. Or these amendments might be made in the other House.
Mr. BROWN after referring to several sections of the bill conferring jurisdiction for offenses committed against its provisions, in but one or two of which a justice of the Peace has jurisdiction; he said, I am for the bill because I am in favor of taking jurisdiction away from the Justices in prosecution of this kindas far as it can be safely done. Another reason why I am for the bill is this, I have believed all my life that a man ought not to stand in the way of allowing his fellow man an opportunity to redeem a pledge and make good his word. I take the hazard now of parting company with my friend, the Senator from Allen (Mr. Bell), so that I amy lend some little aid in giving the twenty-five Republican Senators on this floor an opportunity of performing the implied obligation they made last fall withe temperance people of Indiana. [A voice: "There are only twenty-four."] There are only twenty four of you? There will be less than that next time if you do not pass this bill. There is no doubt, and it can not be gainsaid or denied with any appearance of truth, in my opinion, but that the Republican party succeeded in this State upon--if not an absolute bargain--a certainly implied agreement that if that party came into power, it would furnish the temperance sentiment of Indiana such measures of relief as the temperance people themselves chose to present. All over this State, wherever the temperance sentiment was strong, Mr. Porter was declared to be par excellence the Temperance candidate, and with his elevation was to assure that great millenium when reform and temperance was to perform their sacred offices in this State. But we find that the temperance people of the State prepared a bill which they desired enacted into a law, and it was entrusted to a Committee appointed by the Lieutenant Governor as President of the Senate. And what kind of a Committee was it? [Mr. B. then proceeded to criticise every Member.] That is the kind of Committee the Republican party gave this temperance measure to. Was that done for the purpose of defeating this bill and getting rid of this question? In God's name, is it strange that some Democrats care to its rescure when they found the child almost strangled to death at its birth? If it were not for some of us fellows who know all about this business, it would never have come from such a committee. But, Mr. President, I shall vote for this bill, and if it should pass and gives relief to the people I shall be glad of it. At least I shall not have it said to my discredit that I was one of the means that preventen the Republican party from making its promises good, or kept it from redeeming its plighted word in the last political campaign.
Mr. SHAFFER.--Let us look for a few moment at the operations of our present liquor law. The page: 248[View Page 248] question is frequently asked, why not enforce the present law before asking for more legislation?
To this question I would answer that no law on our statute book is better enforced, if any is as well, and with this enforcement, with all the care and attention it receives, no one will deny but what it is an utter failure. To show that the law is enforced as well, if not better, than many other laws on our statute book, I will venture to say that there is not an unlicensed saloon in Marion County that anyone knows of, and there are probably fifty in the State. There is not one that is known to the authorities--not one.
The obtaining of license is a very small inconvenience to the saloon-keeper, and he can sell as he pleases at least so far as prosecutions are concerned. The law forbids the selling on Sunday or between the hours of 11 p. m. and 5 a. m. But who is to inform against such offenders. Must the sober men and women of the community loiter about licensed saloons all day Sunday or from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. at night to detect a violation of sales made on Sunday or at other times prohibited? And the very men or persons to whom the sales are made, will not testify against the seller, nor can they be made under oath, to eriminate themselves, they either don't- know or don't remember who sold them the whisky or whatever was drank, and the Courts have ruled that the proprietor is not responstble for his agent. You must positively prove that "A" sold the liquor, which can not be done without a sober man or a temperance man sits in the saloon all day or all night to detect, and that is an utter impossibility. And after one is de tecte! what does the fine amount to? Ten dollarst which the saloon-keeper cares nothing about, tha, he can in one day or night make up the loss Then, again, under the present law, they must not sell to a man who is in he "habit of becoming intoxicated," but the law does not fix a definition to intoxication; it does a when a man is intoxicated; whether it is when he staggers a little or staggers much; or whether he must beat his wife or burn his house, or fall into the gutter. The question is: "What constitutes a 'habit?'" Is a man who gets drunk once a year, once a month, once a week, once a day in the habit of being intoxicated? Until what contitutes a "habit" is defined, this provision of the present law is impracticable. The law defines arson and larceny, but does not define drunkenness or the "habit" of being intoxicated. This same idea implies to Section 11 of the present law, that nobody knows "judicially" when a man is in a state of intoxication, hence there are no convictions. Section 12 is only Section which has any force at all--which imposes penalties to those only not having a licene--$20 fine, and it may be $100. If similar penalties were fixed to the violation of Sections which pretend to forbid the selling to minors, drunkards and on the Sabbath, even with the difficulty of detection, these violations would be extremely rare.
Section 14 is rendered inoperative by the decisions of the Courts, which exculpates the seller if the boy has the appearance of being twenty-one. There is no need of asking questions; can sell with impunity to any and all under Sections 14 and 15. Section 16 is a grand fraud. Any person who shall sell adulterated liquors is guilty of a misdemeanor and fined in the sum of $50 to $500; and I venture to say that there is not a single pint of pure liquor sold in Marion County as a beverage. There may be some pure liquors, but that is not the kind that is dealt over the esunters of our saloons. There is no recognized standard of pure liquor, and it will cost from $30 to $50 to anylize any sample, and every barrel at least should be tested. But do our saloon men ever think that they are required under this section of the law to test the miserable stuff they are selling? They know that they will not be detected even if their whisky contains snakes old enough vote. The very cheapest rife whisky that will kill at forty rode off-hand, is just as pure at their best, and their profits are that much more. Then, will the Senator here say that such a 1aw is good enough and that we need no new legislation. Talk to me that such a law is good and sufficient and then talk of a white blackbird, or a pious devil, with the same consistency. People are not blind to these facts and will have redress. Now, sir, just to give Section 17 of this law a few moments attention, and I will dismiss this law in all its hideous deformity. Section 17 does not define what is a disorderly saloon. Conduct that would be disorderly in a Church, school or parlor would be, or might be proper in a saloon. Have you ever heard or ever seen a single saloon-keeper prosecuted for keeping a disorderly saloon? Never. There may be broils, rioting and all manner of disturbances, but never are proprietors of all those hell-holes ever prosecuted under this section of the present law. The whole law is a fare--a disgrace upon our statute book and a disgrace to the intelligence of the Legislature which enacted it.
The bill was rejected by yeas, 28; nays, 25.
Mr. MARVIN, when his name was called, said: Having promised my constiuents that if they would elect meas Senator I would vote for those measures that would give the greatest good to the greatest number, and believing in the good old Democratic doctrine that the people have the right of regulating their domestic affairs in their own way, subject only to the Constitution, and believing that this bill gives them that power, and being in favor of temperance in all things, I vote aye.
So the bill was rejected.
Mr. POINDEXTER made an ineffectual motion--yeas, 28; nays, 17; two-thirds not voting in the affirmative--to take up his bill [S. 128] concerning intoxicating liquors.
GUABDIAN AND WARD.
Mr. GRUBBS' bill [S. 82], to amend Section 10 of the act touching guardian and ward, of June 19, 1852, being read the third time--
Mr. GRUBBS explained that the bill only give power to guardians to mortgage or lease the estate of ward for the purpose of paying off indebtedness,
Mr. BELL, as a general principle, would oppose measures containing the features of this bill, but as the whole matter is to be supervised by the Courts it is sufficiently guarded, and would preserve, largely, the ward's estate.
Mr. MENZIES pointed out an objection, that the guardian is not required to specifically set forth in petition. This would have a tendency to incumber estates.
Mr. TRAYLOR also was satisfied this bill ought not to pass. It will permit guardians to contract debts for wards and then go into Court and obtain permission to mortgage the estate.
Mr. HENRY, too, opposed the bill. He saw no guards around it.
Mr. GRUBBS--The opposition proceeds on the assumption that it places the power to mortgage with guardians, ignoring the fact that it must be under order of the Court for the betterment of the estate, or to pay existing indebtedness.
Mr. URMSTON pointed out an objection.
The bill passed--yeas, 27; nays, 11.
NEW PROPOSITIONS.
By Mr. CHAPMAN, for the Joint Committee thereon [S. 326]: For making a contract with the city of Indianapolis for constructing a sewer from the Institute for the Deaf and Dumb and from the Prison and Reformatory for Women and Girls, and making an appropriation for carrying such contract in effect, was read the first time.
By Mr. VIEHE [S. 327]: Regulating the redemption of lands from sale on execution or decree of Courts, was read by title only under a despensa- page: 249[View Page 249] tion of the constitutional rule, and 200 copies ordered printed.
Mr. FOSTER moved for a dispensation of the constitutional restriction that his bill [S. 2] to repeal the railroad whistling act of March 29, 1879, just read the second time, may be considered as engrossed, read the third time and put on its passage; but no quorum voting--
The Senate adjourned till to-morrow.
