Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-02-17
Remarks In the House, on the Temperance Bill
February Sth, 1855.

Gus liquors for purposes allowed. Mr. Nc
Murray moved to so change this part, that all
persons. who wished to, might sell under the
provisions of the bill
Mr.. McMurray said that the reason assign
ed by those who favored the bill as it now is,
was thar a similar provision was incorporated
in the prohibitory laws of other States. But
these Staies are eastern, and might suit the
views of their citizens, but our people are diff
ferent-tiey come from all points and enter
tam conflicting views and sentiments.
Our people are opposed to this Agency sys-
tenn. AS an evidence of this he had recent
ly received letters from a number of his con-
stituents, and bad seen many of them here
and not one approved this part of the BILL
IL will increase the number of officers in this
State nearly 1900. who are authorized to
draw from the treasury, money enough to
carry out the agency system. He feared such
a provision would cause a reaction, and in
jure the temperance cause. The object sought
to be accomplished, might be attained by CIV
ing to every person OF g,cd moral character,
the privilege to sell, upon complying with the
requirements Of the bill.
Mr.. Walpole remarked that the minority
would not present any fdctious opposition
against the bll--all they asked was an oppor-
tunity to offer such amendments as they re-
ga-ded as proper. The platform of May did
not oppose prohibition, but only the princi-
pies OF prohibition, usually designated by the
words search. seizure, clufscation and des-
truction. lie preferred such bill as all could
by mutual compromise, agree upon and such
an one, the gentleman from Allen, Mr.. Sturgis
proposes to move as a substitute. 1t is the
Ohio law-efficisGt as a prohibi:ory law, and
has been, by recent decision, pronounced
constitutional by the Supreme Court of Ohio.
A compromise, which would receive the
strength of b'th political parties, will carry
with 1t a power sufficient to enforce its Oh
servance, and the substitute would dry up all
the retail establishments. The Fusion party,
In its Convention, gave no pledges that it was
in favor of the Maine law, but for q p OhibitO-
rg law. and the Ohio law was of such nature.
He desired that the m j 'rity would allow
them to place on the journals, their proposi-
ton that the country might see they bad re-
deamed their pledges given in October. As
for himself be was ready to yield his own in-
dividual opinions, if compromise could be
effected.
Mr.. Test said that the bill reported by the
Joint Temperance Committees could not be
obnoxious or the account of the search, seiz-
ure and con6scAtion it had. seeing that ma
jOrity of the Senate had passed it-a body
controlled by the party to which the gentle
man, Mr.. Walpole, belongs. lie saw no occa-
sion to alter the bill: he approved it as it was.
aud, therefore moved that the amendment be
laid on the. table.
Their amendment was So laid
Mr.. Humphreys moved to strike out of the
first section all thai relates to cider.
Mr.. Murray admitted that the bill went
fkurs sh,r, 4 81.
the canvass. The committee on Temperance
had examined the whole subject most care
fully-the Ohio aud all other law. The Old
Liners in the Senate had voted for it, and if
that party went against il in this House, the
friends of the bill could balance the action
Of the one against that Of the other He was
for the sill, because its provisions were neces
sary 10 enforce It's object against the rum-sel.
Ter, who would break through them if possi-
bic. If any one was unprepared to vote for
this bill, let him 60 to those who had the dis
tribution of the poor fund recently raised at
the Atheneum in this city. and he will learn
Of such distress, all CAUSED by liquor, as will
prepare vote for the bill.
Mr.. Sturgis moved the Ohio law as a sub
stitute for the bill.
Mr.. Newcomb said that there were now
two propositions before the House-to strike
out in the first section all that relates to CT
der, and to have a new BILL such as the law of
Ohio.
The bill allows cider to be made by persons
and sold in quantities not less than three gall
Ions.
1t was absolutely necessary to have some
restrictions to the sale of cider else the dog
geries under the pretence of selling cider,
nix with it the most vile and intoxicating
,mpounds. As the bill is, it will give the
rorm er the whole market to himself. There
will be no one between him and the consum-
er of cider, to appropriate all the profits.
The Senate has set us a noble example, and
we ought to follow it. They who had not
been sent here as friends to the principles OF
the bill, have passed it as it is-and shall the
Republican party destroy itself by any division
in their support of the bill =? Even the Lieut..
Governor had urged its passage without al
teration, aud concurring with him, he moved
the previous question.
The House seconded the call and the
main question was put; which was on the
substitute (the Ohio law offered by Mr. Stur-
gis.
The substitute was not adopted.
Those who voted in the affirmative were
Messrs.,
Ayes-Alden, Buskirk, Carnahan, Clark OF
Jasper, Cotton, Crozier, Davis, Essex, Gordon,
HargrOve, Huffstetter, Hume, Hunt, Jeter
King of johnson, King of Madison. Landsrs
Lennon, Lewis, Logan, Lowe, Mcclure Nc
Farland, Martin, Miller, Montgomery, Peck
enpaugh, Peyton SchoonOver Shull, Sturgis
Tanner, Walpole and Wiliamson-34
Those who voted IN the Negative were
Mtssrs.
Noes.-Bartholomew, Beach, Bonner, Bran
ham, Brazelton, BrUthwell, Buchanan, Bur
nett. Cain, Clark Of Steu ben, Clark of Rush
Clark of Tippecanoe, Clark of Union, Coen
Dickerson, Dunn, Earl, Ellis, Fouts, Frazer
Gifferd, Gillian, Gwinn, Hadsell. Hall of La
porte, Hall of Warren, Harryman, Her
vey, Hillyer, Hudson, Humphreys, Nc
Connel, McCord, McMurry, Malick. Mel
lett Meredith, Merriield Monks, Murray
Newcomb Peden, Sanford, Sidwell, Sims
Shryock, Smith of Lagrange, Smith of Perry
SpOttswOOd, Stanton, Tackett, Test, Thomas
Todd, Trusler, Turner, Wilson, Wood, anC
Speaker-59.
Mr.. Humphreys amendment did not pre-
vail, and the question recurring on the en-
grossment Of the bill it was decided in th
Affirmative.
Those who voted in the Affirmative wer
Messrs-,
Ayes.-Bartholomew Beach, Bonner, Bran
ham, Brazelton, Brothwel., Buchanan, Bur
nett, Cain, Clark Of Steuben, Clark OF Rush
ClaIk of Tippecanoe, Clark of Union, Coeu
Dickerson, Dunn, Earl, Ellis, Fouts. Frazer
Gillian, Gwinn, Hadsell, Hall of Laporte