AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. COLE made an ineffectual motion to indefinitely postpone the bill--yeas, 37; nay 52.
The bill passed--yeas, 52; nays, 37. ge
LIQUOR LICENSE.
The SPEAKER announced the special order for this hour to be consideration of the bill [H. R. 402] amending acts regulating the sale of liquor--the question being on the majority report of the Committee on Temperance, recommending the passage of the bill.
The report was concurred in by--yeas, 46; nays, 43.
Mr. BENHAM made an ineffectual effort to amend the bill by reducing the fine from $125 to $75.
Mr. BUSKIRK was opposed to the bill. He considered it a mere subterfuge, which fact is apparent upon the face of it. The people of the State were in want of a prohibition law, instead of a subterfuge.
Mr. FLOYD, for many reasons advocated this bill. He thought every member upon this floor ought to accept a well-defined and well-drawn local option bill and vote for it.
Mr. KENNER--When the Democratic party had full sway they trampled under foot the prohibitory legislation of that day. When the Baxter bill came up they struck section after section out of it until they ruined it, knowing that they had the power. They are prompted to chide us to-day. There are two provisions in this bill that are good. We have Counties in this State where the people, through the Board of Commissioners, stop immoral men from getting license. The Board of Commissioners are the men to have final jurisdiction on this question, because they are directly connected with the people. That is one good provision of this bill.
Mr. MITCHELL thought the wording of this bill was too much like the old law, in reference to the character of the individual applying ror license. The wording is the same as in the old law; it does not say that he shall be a man of high moral character, or it does not define what kind of a character he shall be, it simply says "of good character." He thought the Republican were standing between two fires, trembling and quaking for fear of passing a bill here that will not satisfy the constituents of temperance people of the State, and afraid to act for fear that the whisky element of Indiana will go against them, thereby losing the State two years hence. He wanted a temperance law that means what it says and that will protect the temperance people and the people of Indiana, but he was not in favor of bringing a bill here containing the same features of the old bill with the exception of a few changes such as raising the license $25 in each case.
Mr. HUSTON--When the time comes to cast my vote I expect to vote for the temperance bill. As the gentleman from Wayne has said, nothing would please me betcer than the passage of a local option or prohibitory law. I am opposed to this bill, but do not understand that I will not vote for it, because I will vote for any temperance bill that is proposed, any bill that takes one step forward; but I am opposed to this bill for various reasons. In the first place I think that $2,000 as a bond is insufficient. I believe that should be increased, and increased largely, so as to prevent men from getting license. It has been said by the Democrats upon this floor that Republicans are afraid. One Republican here thought it unwise to do it. page: 263[View Page 263] I think under the circumstances, it is unwise to do it. We tried that a few years ago, and I think the question whether or not Republicans shall be in the supremacy in the State of Indiana is of far greater importance than whether or not we shall have a temporary suspension of local business. [Applause.] As has been said, if the Democrats were in power they would not pass a local option law. I think they are too shrewd to do it. We need only look back to the passage of the Baxter law; that killed us, and you need ngs expect Democratic brethren to be caught in the same trap. For another reason, I believe that a man who engages in the liquor traffic needs laws as strong and firm to regulate his action as you do with men who happen to be engaged in the banking business. He moved to amend Section 1, line five, by striking out the words: "$2,000" and inserting in lieu thereof "$5,000."
Mr. COLE--I hope the bill will not be ordered engrossed now. I think the House can use the time much better in disposing of the bills before it than discussing question which can not possibly come before the House for passage at this session. But since the question is up, I agree with the gentleman from Fayette and Union [Mr. Huston] that it is to the interest of the saloon keepers to have the law which governs the sale of intoxicating liquors plainly and clearly defined in every particular.
Mr. HUSTON said this amendment could do no harm nor cause a political division. He thought the merits of this amendment were apparent to every member, as there were many men who could give a bond of $2,000, but when it comes to give a bond of $5,000 the matter changes wonderfully. The amendment will work no hardships to men who are legitimately engaged in business.
Mr. HAMILTON did not think it prudent to legislate beyond the sentiments of the people. While this bill did not wholly meet with his approbation, he considered it the best measure under the circumstance, and favored its passage.
Mr. LINDLAY said he would vote for the strictest temperance measure that could be brought forward, and his constitutents would indorse his conduct. He hoped the bill would be ordered engrossed.
The amendument to raise the bond to $5,000 was adopted.
Mr. GIBSON moved to amend Section 1 by insertting in line 13 after the word "Commissioner" the following: "And shall file with his application a petition signed by a majority of the voters of the Township, Ward, city or incorporated town in which he desires to sell."
He said: I have taken this opportunity to show the constituency of the gentlemen on the right, if they come here expecting to support a local option measure that amendment gives it to you. It provides that no person shall have license unless a majority of the voters in the Township, city or Ward so vote, I want to see what you will do with this amendment. The Republican party has always claimed that it was the better party--the unsullied party. It went before the country in the last campaign, hoLding up its hands, claiming to be the temperance party. I am ready to vote for a stringent option law. I believe my contituency would favor it, but I do not care whether they would or not.
Mr. FALL made an ineffectual effort to lay the amendment on the table.
Mr. COLE moved to amend the amendment by inserting the following; "Praying that license be granted to said applicant."
Mr. KENNER said such a measure would be unconstitutional.
Mr. McSHEEHY made an ineffectual motion to postpone further consideration until to-morrow at 2 p. m.
Mr. CARTER--If that amendment were put in this bill it would not be a local option bill. If the Democrats want to vote for that they can have an opportunity. It would be simply nonsense to put that provision in this bill. The gentlemen are consuming this time to the great detriment of the public service. I therefore move to lay the amendment on the table.
The amendment to the amendment was laid on the table.
The amendment offered by [Mr. Gibson] was rejected.
Then the House adjourned till to-morrow
