TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION.
On motion by Mr. SPANN the joint resolution [H. R. 7--see page 102 and 107 of the Reports, vol. 20] proposing an amendment to the Constitution forever prohibiting the manufacture, sale or keeping for sale in the State of Indiana spirituous, vinous, malt, or intoxicating liquors, except for medical, scentific, mechanical, and wines for sacramental purposes, and providing for repeating sales for such purposes, was read the first time.
Mr. SPANN moved its reference to the Committee on Temperance.
Mr. CHAPMAN moved to amend by referring it to the Judiciary Committee. He said the Judiciary Committee should examine with reference to the legality of this proposition. In his judgement the second section of this resolution proposes to devolve a power upon the General Assembly not only antagonistic to the bill of rights, but to the essence of republican Government. If it will not stand successfully the scrutiny of the Judiciary Committee it certainly should not be passed by the General Assembly. Amendments to the Constitution should be exceedingly well considered. We have no legal right to submit to the people an amendment not conformably to the billof rights, or to the form of Government under which we live. If this should become a part of the Constitution, under it the General Assembly might invest in one party the right to manufacture all the spirituous, malt or intoxicating liquors used in Indiana. When the Democrats shoulc be in power in the General Assembly they would have men here seeking this monopoly, which would be greater than any one is willing to believe. This would become a large monopoly in the hands of one or two men. In the face of the theory and genius upon which our fathers based this Government, it is proposed to pass this kind of a resolution. It is a serious proposition, and the Judiciary Committee is the proper one to consider the expediency of passing the second, even though it be expedient to pass the first proposition. He saw no need of speeding this matter to an immediate and final vote. These matters can not be examined as they should be on the floor of the Senate to-day. He hoped the Senate will consent to the reference he suggested.
Mr. SPANN moved to instruct the Committee to return the resolution to-morrow morning. He feared, unless instructed, this resolution would sleep the sleep of death in that Committee. He desired this proposition, so near the hearts of the people, to be met fairly and squarely.
Mr. BROWN opposed the instructions, because it was an impeachment of the motives of the Committee to insinuate that it would strangle any measure referred to it. He protested against this attempted stigma being put on that Committee without cause.
Mr. SHAFFER saw no need of referring this resolution to any Committee. The little technical points presented by the Senator from Marion [Mr. Chapman] he did not know were worthy the attention of a Committee.
Mr. KAHLO demanded the previous question, which was seconded by the Senate without a division, severel Senators demanding the yeas and nays.
The main question was ordered, and under the operations of the previous question the resolution was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SPANN gave notice that he should file a protest against the act of the Chair in not recognizing the constitutional demand for the yeas and nays, which he subsequently submitted in the following words:
We, the undersigned, hereby enter this, our
page: 132[View Page 132]protest, on the journal of the Senate, against the ruling and decision of the Chair when a viva voce vote had been taken on the question of referring House resolution No. 7 to the Committee on Judiciary with instructions, and before said vote was announced. Senators Bundy, Spann and Foster demanded the yeas and nays, but the Chair disregarding said demand refused to give the said Senators a call of the roll for the ayes and nays. And we hereby protest against the ruling of the President of the Senate, regarding it as the right of Senators and a question of the highest privilege to have a call of the Senate for the ayes and nays when demanded at the proper time.
JESSE J. SPANN, Rush County,
E. H.
BUNDY, Henry County,
E. R. WILSON, Jefferson
County,
A. H. SHAFFER, Huntington
County,
SIMEON T. YANCEY, Hancock
County,
T. J. FOSTER, Allen County.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR--The Chair desires to state that this paper don't set forth the facts as the Chair understands them. There was no demand or voice of any kind heard by the Chair for the yeas and nays on the final vote. A few Senators sat in their places yelling out something like a call for the yeas and nays, but they were out of order, because they didn't address the Chair. They have no right to demand the yeas and nays without addressing the Chair. The Senate will ear me out in the statement that in no case has the yeas and nays been denied by the Chair on a proper demand.
Mr. MENZIES desired to enter a protest against any ruling that looks to depriving any two members of their constitutional right to demand the yeas and nays, even after the result of a vote is announced.
