The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1854-06-22
The Prohibitory Liquor Law Convention.

The Prohibitory Liquor Law convention
This body met at Harrisburgh, on
Wednesday, the 7th inst, and was at
tended by large number of delegates
A resolution to accept the issue of d.
rect vote of the people in October, on the
question Of prohibition, was adopted
The opinion prevailed in the convention
that on the abstract question there would
be large majority in its favor in the
State. It was determined not to nomin-
ate candidates for the Gubernatorial
Chair; but to publish the replies to the
queries submitted to the respective candi-
dates now in nomination, all of whom
had answered them. Letters were also
received from the candidates for the Su-
preme Court, but from a manifest pro-
priety neither we're read to the Conyen-
ton. The Convention adjourned with
out making any nominations, leaving the
friends of Prohibition free to vote for such
candidates as they thought proper.
We subjoin the queries submitted, and
the replies Of Gov. BIGLER and Judge
Pollock. The letter of the latter is man.
ly, straight forward and to the point
That of the former is contemplate in the
last degree, and for non-commitalism is
worthy the sage of Kinderhook in his
palmiest days. Let the people read them
and then judge which of the two is most
worthy of their confidence and support.
1. Do you believe a law prohibiting the
manufacture and sale of Intoxicating IL
quors, except for sacramental, medicinal,
mechanical or artistical purposes, to
be constitutional, in your opinion, be
affected by submission of its repeal to
vote OF the people, provided ma
jority voted in favor of the law!
2. In the event of your election, should
the Legislature enact such law, will it
receive your executive sanction?
The following are the replies which
were received from Gov. Bigler and
Judge Pollock
GOVERNOR BIGLERS LETTER.
HARRISBURG, june 6, 1854.
GENTLEMEN [ have been honored BY
the receipt of your communication of the
18th. ult., propounding to me certain
questions touching the subject of Pro-
hibitory Liquor Law.
TO your first inquiry | reply that the
Supreme Court of the State have repeat.
edly held, and [ can concur in the doc
trine, that the Legislature can exercise
all lawmaking power not expressly for
hidden by the State or Frederal Consti-
tuition. Under this construction, ! be-
ieve the Legislature have authority to
control the manufacture and sale Of spir-
ituous liquors, but in the use of that pow
er, it must be obvious that law mi ght
be passed, which, III its details, would be
a manifest violation of the Constitution,
and hence the impossibility of answering
your question distinctly, without seeing
the exact terms of the proposed law.
As to the second point in the inquiry,
it must be very clear that law, constitu-
tional in itself, would not be rendered
otherwise by allowing the people to de-
eide by vote whether the Legislature
should repeal it or not, no matter what
that vote might be-
To your second inquiry, l answer that
[ sincerely deplore the evils of intemper-
ance, and am now willing, as 1 always
have been, to sanction any proper meas
ure to mitigate, and, if possible, entirely
remove the vice but [ cannot pledge my
self to sanction law the details of which
have not seen. The terms of the con-
stitution and oath of Office would seem to
forbid this course on the part of an Ex-
ecutiVe. He should be free to Judge of
the constitutionality and wisdom of a
law after having fully examined
and considered its provisions
' cry respectfully, your obedient,
WIN. BIGLER.
10 Stephen Miller, Jas. Black, Jas. Piper,
John Jones and Geo. W Stanton,
Esqs., Committee.