Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1854-05-05
s.ss for pamnse..

~ tttat hee ~" te"t ss'e te~hee
4 the papers. east aud wess. north and
south, that Mrs. West OF Brookville
had recovered damages from liquor
seller. 70 the amount Of thirty six dol. |
lars. for selling liquor to her husband
This has been seized by the enemies
Of prohibition, as a proof that the
present law, reinforced. would be suiii.
eient.
But what are the facts? This Mr..
West had been drunk most OF the time,
for months. Il was well known where
be got the liquor, II was known too,
that. with the exception Of an occasion.
al days labor; he wholly neglected to
provide for bis family. and yet all at
tempts to hold the liquor sellers re-
sponsible. were In vain until one day
.ast winter. the conscientious liquor
seller. finding that Mr.. Vests money
had given out refused to sell him any
more, and, rather unceremoniously in.
vited him 10 leave. This offended Mr..
West, and he induced his wife 10 brlng
suit against Mr.. Martin; and he became
witness. and helped TO find other
testimony. ofcourse there were law.
yers that could be hired to defend the
liquor interest. against the poor wo-
man. After taking change Of venue,
challenging juries, and taking other
steps TO hsrrass the woman and her
counsel. (who, Of course, had merely
volunteered. for she was too poor TO
employ them. a verdict was rendered
In favor Of the woman In the enormous
amount Of thirty sir dollars.
Thereupon the praises Of the law
were sung by every anti.temperance
paper In the stue. Only enforce The
present iaw. they said. and there is no
need Of prohibition. But. in the mean
while. an appeal was taken 10 the
Court of Common Pleas. Here a mo.
ton WAS first made TO dismiss the suit,
because Mr.. Martin was sued. and not
the securities on his Bond. This mo.
ton was overruled by the Court.
At last the case eamo up for trial.
A jury was empannelled. and The case
went TO them. after a sensible charge
from Judge Reid. The result will be
seen by the repor, of our Court Cor.
respondent. published two weeks ago,
II will be seen by the report that
Hon Judge Cant. ourlate Senator. was
one Of the july. io acknowledges
that he was one OF the five that oppo.
sed finding for the defendant. lie
does not deny that the woman proved
that Martin sold the liquor, and that
West was drunk But che failed 10
prove that West roaidhaps been al rsrk
ifsobsri Now We are bound 10 re.
eeivo the Judges explanations nor will
We charge him u resorting TO mere
bubble to render his own fayoriIe law
nugalory. Judge Cant Is not that
kind ola man. elss we do not know
him. With all his wrong views on
lhi. question, we have much re-.
spect for bis honesty Of action. Ii we
know him. he will do what he thinks
Is about right. Hon. Spencer Wiley, a
former representative, and a probable
future Senator. WIS also ono of the mi.
norily. Mr.. Wiley is not behind
Judge Cant in moral integrity. and a
disposition to do what he considers 10
be according to law and evidence. II
We are correctly informed, his objec.
tons we're. in substance. the same as
theJudge's.
Now here is a question Of pracll
cal character. that we submit TO the
candid reader. Some of you are not
in favor Of prohibition; or. of what you
call ultra measures. You would II.
eenss men and hold them responsible
for the damages resulting rom the
traffic. Let us ask. is il possible to
to present clearer case OF damages
than this? Is it possible to prove more
clearly. all that ought To be necessary
to sustain suit than was done in this
case? Surely not. None but 0m-
niscicnce can tell what a man would
or would not do. under certain
circumstances. Does not this suit
and its results--(its final results we
can not predict. for it is to go to the
Supreme Court on some error or 9TH
er lift goes against Martin here.) But
docs it not most clearly demonstrate
that there is need Of law that will
reach such cases in another way?
II there are any evils in drunken
ness--if any growing out of tipping
houses that can be remedied by law,
can they be reached by any other
means than the entire prohibition Of
tipping houses? Ifso. will not Judge
Cant or Mr.. Wiley tell us how? Come
friends. this isa practical question:
II is one on which your fellow citizens