Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-02-17
Proceedings upon the Liquor Bill in the House
OF Representatives Feb. 9, 1855.


ing himself that, if the bill should be SO
amended, it would be unanimously supported
by the Democratic members.
Pending these propositions, the gag law
was applied by Mr.. Test of Wayne, who call
ed for the previous question, thus depriving
the minority of al opportunity to discuss the
merits of the bill.
The question then required upon the pas
sage Of the bill.
Mr.. King of johnson, when his name was
called, requested the privilege Of stating his
objections to the bill, and his reasons for vot-
ing against it which privilege was denied
him.
The bill then passed, ayes 55, noes Al.
After the passage of the bill, the gentle
men from PutLam, Mr.. McMurry, fusion
member, approaching the gross injustice done
the minority, msgnanimously moved re-
consideration of the vote, in order that the
Democratic members might have an oppor-
tunity to place themselves as they desired
upon the record.
After much difficulty, Mr.. Sturgis got the
floor, and stated that the Democratic members
had held a caucus, and appointed him to pro-
pose the Liquor Law of Ohio, which had been
tried and found effective, as we'll as consttu-
tional, as a substitute for the law embracing
search, seizure, confscation and destruction,
and the invasion of private property. He
said he believed the law before the House
nstitutional-remarked that every man
enjoyed the right of an opinion in regard to
the matter-that the law in question had been
prejudged, ard that it was already understood
to be unconstitutional; that the law which he
and his friends proposed would stand the
test of the Supreme Court; that he desired to
see the tipping establishments closed, but that
the law reported by the Joint Committee
would be dead letter: that he doubted the
sincerity af many of the friends of the bill
that some who supported it had already as
sured him that they believed the law would
be declared by the Court contrary to the Con-
stitution. He then read his constitutional OBJ
jections to it; stating that he did not pretend to
be legal gentleman, but that constitutional
law was supposed to be so plain that every
man could understand it; he said, in SUBJ
stance, he believed Sec. 81, Art. /, of the
Constitution u be an effectual bar to the en-
forcement of this law Said section declares
that no mans property shall be taken by law
without just compensation. He said that, as
a Representative of Allen county, he was un-
der no pledges; on the contrary, every effort
was made to defeat him upon this question;
understanding which, he telieyed Temper,
ance 10 be the great moral question of the
day, and that it was the duty of the Legisla.
ture to enact some law that would effectually
close the low tipping shops that were ruin.
ing large numbers of the unfortunate, who
were unable to protect themselves He ther
urged upon the House, in an earnest manner
the proprety Of law similar to that of th,
State of Ohio, if they honestly and sincerely
desired to suppress the evils of incompetence
While Mr.. Sturgis was engaged in speak
ing, the firing of the cannon commenced
which, in connection with the loud and bois
ferrous noise in the Hobbies, prevented tn,
speaker from concluding his remarks.
was evident to all that the object was to pre-
vent Mr.. Sturgis, whose speech was delivered
| j. ofr.o IL
cling upon record, even in this informal way
the views Of the minority. Pending the gen
tleman's remarks, the shouting, stamping. fir
ing of guns, &c, &C., beginning to approxim
ate the violence of mob, the Speaker fndin:
it impossible to restore quiet, declared tn,
House and the assembled multitude adjourn
ed.
Thus was passed an act professedly, design
ed to restore law and order;" thus was tn,
voice of an intelligent minority stifed by al
overbearing. uncompromising, intolerant ma
jority; thus was consummated an outrage un
PARALLEL in the history of the legislation of In
diana
With the merits, or der erts of the liquo
law have not at present to do leave the
discussion Of these questions to the people
who are to enjoy the advantages, or expert
ence the disadvantages which the future viii
develop. In regard to the means resorted t
to effect the legislation Of yesterday, we have
word to say; these form, certainly, legiti
mate matter for criticism. Has il come to thii
that the minority are the mere serfs of the
majority? Are the rights of the free aud in
dependent Representatives of one half the
people of the State to be trampled down anc
insultingly discarded by majority bent only
upon sacrificing by one process or another, tn,
inalienable privileges of men We regart
the call for the previous question, before tn,
merits of the bill could be discussed, such al
insult TO the INTEL gence and honesty of til,
people as will not fail to be signaly rebukeC
by the overwhelming voice of the people,
The party that cannot succeed in its cherish
ed aims, without sitting and gagging the op
position, can hardly desire, and surely cauno
hope, that its measures will avoid the gray,
of popular oblivion.
AFTERNOON SEssIoN.-Immedately upor
the meeting of the House in the afternoon
Mr. McMuuay withdrew his motion to recon
sidar the Temnerance hill We cannot tal