TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION.
A majority of the Committee on Temperance reported on the House joint resolution No. 7, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana by forver prohibiting the manufacture or sale spirituous, vinous, malt or other intoxicating liquorsx except for specific purposes, ecommending its adoption.
A minority of the same Committee recommended that it lie on the table, for the reason that so radical a change in the present system of distilling and malt brewing business as is proposed by the joint resolution is unwise and far from being demanded either by public sentiment or the exigency of the times.
Mr. SULZER--It is due to myself and to my constituents, in view of the stand I have taken in offering to the House a minority report from the Committee on Temperance, in opposition to the report of the majority of that Committee, involving, as it does, grave objections to the recommendation of the majority, that I should give my reason for my action, and as best I may, explain my postion upon the subject. Mr. Speaker, my business pursuits and associations and my habits of thought have influenced me from my youth to mature manhood to look at questions bearing upon all subjects relating to the development of the material resources of my County and State from a strictly utilitarian and business standpoint, and I do not now propose to discuss the questions involved from other points of observation. I have no desire to champion the liquor interest of the State more than justice and fair play demand at my hands, and while I make no pretensions as a public speaker, and have seldom obtruded myself upon the attention of the House, I profess to be a close observer of public thought upon all matters affecting the material interests of my constituents and the people generally, and I am, therefore, fully persuaded that it is not the part of wisdom nor for the commercial and industrial welfare of Indiana, for the amendment to the Constitution, as proposed by the majority of the Committee on Temperance, to be submitted to the people. I do not believe that it is the part of wisdom for this House to concur in the report of the majority of the Committee on Temperance. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the business of manufacturing whisky and beer and other alcoholic liquors, by whatever names they are known, is a legitimate business, and this every fair-minded man must concede. The General Government is now receiving vast revenues from the business, and Indiana, by her laws upon the subject, is also in receipt of large sums annually. The amount of money invested in the business simply enormous; to strike it down would be to inaugurate a revolution in the commerce and industries of the State. Not only would distillers and brewers suffer, but hundreds, yes thousands, of people would at once be thrown out of employment, and be compelled to suffer all the ills entailed by idleness and destitution. Nor will it do to suppose that the demoralization would stop with distillers, brewers and their employes. The distilling and brewing business in its extended ramifications, if disturbed by rash legislation, would seriously affect other departments of business, resulting in widespread calamity. In view of the facts which I have outlined, I am persuaded that the right thing to do is to table the amendment proposed by the majority of the Committee on Temperance. The amendment, if su bmitted to a vote of the people by the action of this Legislature, and if adopted, by the people, which I do not believe would be the result, would in no degree change the demand for the prohibited articles. The people of Indiana can not be reformed by statutes, nor by constitutional amendments. What then? Simply this: the people of Indiana, instead intead of buying the home-made article, and retaining the wealth secured by its manufacture and sale, would send their money to neighboring States where such laws do not exist, and to that extent the state would be impoverished, for no sane man believes that prohibition prohibits drinking, or that anywhere prohibitory liquor laws have contributed to the wealth of the State where they now exist, or have hitherto existed. In the beginning of my remarks I said that I proposed to discuss the question from a commercial and industrial point of view, and, notwithstanding I believe there are other considerations that should influence the action of this House, I refrain from alluding to them. It is quite sufficient for my purpose to indicate such business objections as, in my opinion, will meet with general approval.
Mr. FLOYD said: In view of the numerous petitions before us from the constituency we represent, we ought to give this matter candid and careful consideration. For us to take upon ourselves the responsibility to go into the Legislature, we ought to hold ourselves always ready to throw away our claim as legislators and submit to the people the responsibility that justly belongs to them. The people have to suffer the evils imposed upon them by the liquor traffic all over this State. The question is not as to whether the adoption of this resolution will result favorably or unfavorably upon the commercial interests, but it is a right vested in the people when they demand at our hands an opportunity to vote upon any given subject. This proposition as recommended by the majority report its simply to allow the people the privilege of voting upon this subject. I think it is becoming and democratic, and the Legislators on both sides of the House ought to acquiesce in this demand of the people and let them settle the question. I know that this thing is an extensive evil and an enormous luxury--one that we can illy afford to support. The question is simply whether we will step in and settle the question, or whether we will let the people have their rights to speak out upon this subject. For my part I am willing to trust this matter in the hands of the people.
The minority report was laid on the table--yeas, 51; nays, 43--and the majority report was adopted--yeas, 54; nays, 30.
Mr. RYAN moved that the resolution be referred to a Special Committee of Five, consisting of Messrs. Floyd, Gregory, Hamilton, Huston and Akin to consider and report to the House to-morrow morning.
The motion was agreed to.
Then the House adjourned.
