TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION.
The joint resolution [H. R. 7--see pages 103 and 107 of these Reports] proposing an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors was read the third time, and, under the operation of the previous question, passed by yeas, 26 nays, 20; as follows:
YEAS--Brown, Bundy, Coffey, Comstock, Davidson, Davis, Garrigus, Graham, Grubbs, Hefron, Henry, Hostetter, Kahlo, Keiser, Langdon, Lockridge, Marvin, Owen, Ristine, Sayre, Shaffer, Smith, Spann, White, Wilson and Vancey--26.
NAYS--Bell, Benz, Bischowski, Briscoe, Chapman, Compton, Foster, Hart, Hutchinson, Kramer, Leeper, Majors, Menzies, Rahm, Traylor, Urmston, Van Vorhis, Viehe, Voyles and Wood--20.
Mr. Brown said: I shall vote for the passage of this joint resolution, but I am not sure that I ought to do so. I regard it very different from the proposition of leaving the liquor traffic in the hands of the Legislature, so that the different localities can settle the matter among themselves whether they will or will not permit the traffic to be engaged in. And if, at the next election, the people express themselves against it I will freely free to so vote in the next General Assembly. In my opinion this is the worst possible move genuine temperance cause. If this proposed amendment is finally submitted to the people it will be voted down, and that will set the temperance cause back at least twenty yeara. But the teperance advocates are clamorous for the opportunity of submitting the question to the people, and I will not stand in the way of the people expressing their opinion upon it.
Mr. COFFEY says: "Without committing myself for or against the resolution, I shall vote for it. The questions involved belong to the people, and I am willing that the same shallbe submitted to them in the form of an amendment to the Constitution for their ratification or rejection. More than 50,000 voters of the State are asking it, and believing their request should be granted, I vote 'aye.'"
Mr. DAVIDSON, understanding that he would have a chance to come in possession and be fully informed as to the views of his constituents before casting his final vote on this resolution two years hence, was willing to vote in favor of the resolution to-day.
Mr. HEFRON says: I shall vote for the adoption of this resolution, not because I indorse the provisions contained in it, but because I desire that the people of the State may have an opportunity of expressing at the ballot-box their wishes upon this much-agitated question. Upon questions of great public concern, affecting their moral or social welfare, the people, in my judgment, ought to be consulted at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings and their desires ascertained, so that their public servants may act intelligently and advisedly therein. I therefore vote "aye."
Mr. RAHM says: I voted against the prohibitory amendment, because I didn't believe in such a page: 149[View Page 149] law, when all the adjoining States can manufacture all they want to do, and sell their products to us. Our faming community would be the losers, especially those raising corn. It is better to pass a strict temperance law than to destroy the business and commerce of our State.
Mr. SMITH says: Without expressing an opinion upon the merits of the amendment, I desire to cast my vote in accordance with a conviction that I have always entertained--that being, that the people are the source of all political power, and whenever they express a desire, by petition or otherwise, to have any great matter of interest submitted to them in the form of a constitutional amendment, the Legislature should, without hesitation, make such submission, and let the voters of the State determine by the ballot, whether such proposed amendment shall become a part of the Constitution or not.
Mr. VOYLES says--I am opposed to this proposition. The resolution ought to be entitle "A resolution to so amend the Constitution that the property of such persons as are engaged in manufacturing beer, ale or other liquors, shall condemned, confiscated and rendered of no value." If this resoluton should go before the people and be adopted, millions of dollars of valuable property would become absolutely worthless in the hands of its owners. I am not in favor of doing ing tending to lead to such a hardship and ch destrucion of values. I do not believe that when the manufacturing of liquors and beer in Indiana shall be stopped by constitutional inhibition that the use of the liquors will cease. The Democratic party never gave indorsement to any such a proposition in this State, either in platform or legislation, I therefore vote "no."
Mr. WILSON says: The fundamental law of the State should express the will of the people. If there be any doubt as to whether the present Constitution does contain their will, the plain duty of the Legislature is to afford her citizens an opportunity to indicate their will in the way provided therein, without delay or hindrance. No man is worthy to represent a people whom he fears to trust on all questions of public welfare. He voted "aye."
Mr. WOOD says: I am entirely opposed to this proposed amendment. It is extreme and fanatical in its provisions, and will do more injury to the cause it is offered to aid than its authors now contemplate. The people of the State do not want it, and the expense of submiting it to a vote of the people, if ever it be submited, will be money wasted. Such a measure is fraught with danger of property rights. Thousands of dollars of property will become valueless under this pernicious proposition, and no good will come in return. It is a wrong step and will strike down vested rights and ruin much invested capital. It will aid nothing now demanded but be prolific of much detriment to business interest, and I vote "no."
Mr. YANCEY would vote for this resolution because the people petitioned for the right to settle by ballot that question. He believed in the sacred right of petition, and that the Legislature has no right to withhold from the people the right to vote on a proposition to amend the Constitution--the basis on which all our laws are enacted, and by which the people are governed. He voted "aye."
And so the joint resolution [H. R. 8] passed the Senate.
Mr. SHAFFER moved to reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution passed, and to lay that motion on the table.
The latter motion was agreed to.
