Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1854-10-09

mllar ordeal would certainly have been un.
just; and, what had still stronger infu-
enee upon the action Of friends, they con
sldered that it would unquestionably be
!, Unconstitutional.
Legislatures are expected to take the
| responsibility Of passing such laws as the
people may demand, unless where the con
Istitution makes an especial exception, as
III the case of the banking law. Those G.
ven who urged the adoption of the submis-
sion clause, in the Liquor Law, admitted
that they deemed it unconstitutional No
lone, friend or foe, expressed any other O.
Iplnlon Members Of the Legislature S,5oar
to support the Constitution. TWAS hard
ly consonant with what the friends of this
bill deemed their duty, after taking such
an oath, to vote for provision which thew
believed and which was geaeYally adj
|nastted-to be unconstitutional. In addi-
}tion to all this, there was possibility
Iprobability-that such submission would
render the whole law unconstitutional in
the opinion Of our courts, even should It
escape the veto of the Governor.
Under these circumstances, the friends
of the bill consulted together, and deter
mined that their only course was to oppose
this impolitic and unjust provision. They
were firmly of the opinion that it was far
better to trust to the people the selection
lof men who would truly represent their
feelings Oh this subject, in tie next Legis-
lature, and who would pass their law with
out rendering it liable to any such consti-
tutional objections, than to aceede to the
amendment of the Senate. A committee
of conference, however, was appointed up
on the disagreeing vote of the two Houses,
consisting of six Members--three from the
Senate, two Of whom were hostile to Pro-
hibitory Law, but in favor of the submis-
sion clause, and one friendly to such law
but opposed to submission; and three frclini
the Assembly, all favorable to th8 law and
opposed to submission Thus the commit
tee consisted of four friends Of the law, OPP
posed to the submission, and two enemies
( of it, in favor of submission.
The committee consulted together for
| the purpose of agreeing upon SOME com
promise. But the two members hostile
to the bill refused to make any concession
whatever to the wishes Of those who oppo-
sed the submission clause in its very obi
Gus form. The latter felt as they were in
the majority, that something should be
yielded by their opponents. The submits
sion clause had barely passed the Senate
| by a vote of thirteen to twelve; it was
stricken out in the House by the decisive
vote of ~ to 20. Still, IN their desire to
secure the passage of the law which had
been emphatically called for bya vote of
the people at the ballot-hox, its friends in
the committee were finally induced to yield
almost everything to the demands of the
Senate. They proposed to strike out the
section containing the submission clause,
and insert another providing that the act
should go into effect on the first day of
February, 1855; and that, at the general
election next fall, the people should vote
on the question of its repeal. If there
should be a majority for repeal, the sue
Iceeding Legislature would Of course repeal
it; if not, the vote would be in The nature
of an instruction to that body against re-
/. peal Here was delay, longer even than
its opponents asked, and a vote Of the peo-
pile, which would test their sentiments in
regard to TIE law just as truly as the 9th
Ter method Of submission, and without rem
dering it obnoxious to the constitutional
objection which would be incurred by con-
Iferring Legislative power upon the people.
Every aenand Of the Senate was fully
complied with, except the violation OF the
i Constitution, which wouzd render 1t the
imperative duty Of the Governor to veto
THE enactment Its friends had yielded ev-
erything, but this had gone farther than
j they ought in justice to their constituents
yet their proposition, which went beyond
fairness, was recited; and they we're frank
lily told that the opponents of the bill were
willing to take advantage Of any unconsti-
nationality achich might attach to the 1aao
'lby the proposed mode Of submission! In
making that proposition, they had gone to
the extreme limit which their own ideas
Iof propriety, or which their duty to their
constituents would allow. They were sat
isfed that no compromise could be agreed
upon, and accordingly the majority Of the
committee reported in favor of striking out
the submission clause--the minority in IA
vor of retaining it. The Senate adopted
the report of the latter, the Assembly that
lof the former.
j 1t is the intention OF the opposition in
|dubitably, to prevent these facts, and to
endeavor to place the real friends of the
law, in both Houses, in false light before
the people, respecting their action on this
bill. The work of misrepresentation has
ALREADY begun. 1t is already limited that
the measure failed through the obstiaacy
|of its advocates. We ask every rejecting
man, every true friend of the Temperance
j Reform, to read the facts we have here
narrated, and which cannot be gainsayed,
and we are ready to abide his decision, and
stand convicted or acquitted Of the implied
'lcharge, according to his deliberate judge
,lment upon the facts here presented.
j In conclusion, we have but few sug-
|gestions to make The subject of Pro-
.|hibitory Liquor Law will again be agita-
tied, at the coming November election, and
will probably cause more excitement than
at any time heretofore. The prospect Of
success is not at all discouraging. This
49, AZ, x,oo,lo have o,,1,z 10 aioot n Eo,cf