The Richmond Indiana palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1854-1855, 1855-12-13
The Jedersonian Defending Perkins.

The Jedersonian Defending Perkins.
Our neighbor opens out in his issue of last
week. with a high wrought commentator of
Judge Perkins opinion. in style well cal
cula:ed to make one think he was "playing on
a harp Nv thousand strings" and from the
horrid screenings of his instrument We might
also conclude that a numerous pack Of the
canine species had suddenly broke forth in
their .'baying at the moon We do not
propose TO notice all the discordancies of his
article, for il is "not worth the powder but
will only glance at few Of them.
Our neighbor denounces the Prohibitory
Law as scheme for abridging the liberties
Of the people" which "came seething from
the brains Of political knavesl' When it is
remembered that the law originated in the
"old line Senate. and was passed by the re-
publican House. without 'dotting an or eros
sing THAT an old line democratic Cover
nor approved the bilI-the denunciations Of
our neighbor fall with peculiar force upon the
heads of his own political friends-his curses,
like chickens, come home TO roost." The
question very naturally forces itself upon the
mind of all who read his article, who are these
political knsves? "--are they the political ma
iority in the Senate which originated, perfect
ed, and. on its final passage approred it. yes,
approved all its obnoxious proyisions-is the
Governor who sanctioned with his own sign
manual this abominased law. one Of them? or
is the republican majority of the House and
the unquestonable maj 'ri,y Of the people ofthis
state, embracing the most sober, moral and re-
ligious classes, who accepted it boon from
their hands, who are thus held up to scorn
and derlson as POLITICAL KSAyEs?'
Our neighbor is DESTROYS that those who
disapprove Judge P's. opinion should take
up the thing and discuss it in detail-show lis
unsoundness by argumentatiye quotations,
figures. tropes, DC. drawn from the illustrlous
writers on morals. constitutional law, psalm
lists and poets, who have ever committed their
thoughts to paper in "gude black ink. Such
course might be particularly gratifying to
the vanity of the Judge and his protege. FL
der, but would fall far short Of full and com
plete answer thereto, and moreover il wouldn't
pay'-'twould be time lost, paper and talents
thrown away. We think we have adopted
the only feasible mode by which such miser-
able sophistry can be answered. and that was
5y publishing the thing itself-it carries its
own refutation with it. convincing every SEN
slble of its false logic. immoral sentiment,
indecent illustrations and unsoundness gen
orally. And to for;ify the friends of prohib-
ton with arguments, which are arguments
we have published the appelee's brief in the
Beebe liquor case Has our neighbor ever
read tina, document? We presume. if he had
done SO. he would not have insisted SO strong
ly on an answer to Perkins
The truth is, Jeemes this opinion of your
"friend and pitcher is all stuff, the meress
stuff, Notwithstanding your pathetic signs
about his pride of character (D''-..the high
position he holds"--..his solemn !
Obligations to discharge his duties" and all
that sort of twaddle, still its inherent weakness
is SO glaringly apparen, that we cannot better
characterize it than by calling it STUFF.
Our neighbor contends with much feeling.
for the natural right of mankind to indulge
in the moderate use Of intoxicating liquors,
but if they should by accident oyer-step the
bounds of moderation or to use Judge P's.
more refined term, "rosional enjoysaent"-
and be guilty of drunkenness then they
should be visitited with the mos. condgn
punishment To carry ont this idea. prac-
tically, it would be necessary first to define
drunkenness and then to have an instru-
ment. which might properly be called a
"drunEonseter, for the purpose OF ascertaining
with the utmost precision when there was
violation of law. This brilliant idea certainly
could not have originated in the muddy brain
of the editor of the yef-it must have enaa-
mated from that concentration of legal lore,
Judge P. himself. But We have said more
than we intended at this time upon the SUBJ
ject. and will reserve further comments for
another occasion.