The Bedford gazette. [volume] (Bedford, Pa.) 1805-current, 1856-02-22
PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE.
THE LIQUOR BILL.
DEBATE ~ THE SEN.4TE.

Senate Bill No. Z, to reppa the jug Law
agaa came up in older, pending the amend
nrn Of Mr. Browne.
Mr. INGRAM resumed and concluded his
remarks in opposition 10 the amendment
He canirnapd the amendment on the general
ground that Il was proposed By those who
atrmlted to foist an entire Prabibtory law
uPoH lh- people, and enaetrd tie present law,
which The people condemned.
Mr. WELSH followed on the same side. He
regarded The question aS very important onr,
-rtars The most important that had ever claim
ID The attention 70 the Legislature. He then
proceeded to give his views at length in oppo-
a!0O to the amendment He said ii had been
charged that those who advocate the repeal ot
The Jug Law, did SO from desire for popular
sPPIaaS1, and TO gam the favor of the Liqnour
La.ur. H. rrprIltd The charge so far as it
erN applied to HIM He advocated the repeal
dtbat Iaw because il was uniHs; aud iutoler-
aat and from sense OF duty TO his con>titu-
-a., who asked for lis repeal. lie would have
f'ri-rFed to vote for a direct repeal Of that law,
and I1aye th4 question Of License for after con-
atpraon. H. reviewed the various FEATURES
El6e amendment, and pointed out what hr
N,.arded as its defects The minimum price a
he license was too hiGb for the rutal districts.
H5 objected 10 il also, because il made viola
len Of the law criminal offence, and punish
-1t by imprisonment and disgrace A Iso, that
i encouraged infprmers. Another objection
vas that It did not really repeal the jug Law,
oglooIy such portions Of il as were lnconsis-
IN! with The present bill He wanted 10 SEE
ne Jug law epealed-wiped off the statute
Mr. TAGGART next took the floor in favor
4Nr amendment, and in reply to some Of the
''2'nFnts urged against it, He was willing to
'i'aH tha the law of the last session had not
'&"eFed the expectations of lis friends that
y i-opie were opposed to it. He beIiexed
" FEGPLE WERE WRONG, but, nrvf4-
.r'ss ar was willing 10 vote for the repeal of
"'' a~: but not It's unconditional repeal He
''o'a vote for a license law properly regulat-
'-"' 'hat tavern Keepers might make more
-o'Fy oy It, but that the great cause of temper
,.Ie ,,' night not b. seriously injured. The will
"'T people ongh, not to be- diSregarded. lfh
"a, ~, 'n' laws would be disrpgarded For this
.sl'" De would vote for license law in ac-
~ g.l'''ee with what b. regarded as The will Of
'6r people.
... ~, otIHER was entirely opposed 20 the
,-5,. F5a' o. the jug law. He would disregard tbf
r. '''Ie eamor on The subject, and keep it ah
H., Nau'e book and give it a fair trial. He
w., ,s1 al the idea that the law could notShe
~ ''go oaI. In his district ii was carried oct.
~ ~ SooId be everywhere If the public officers
=. ",'r doty. He read from letter from the
!. 'ohn Chambers, of Philadelphia, whom
,r"o''Inated as the grand high priest OF De-
n,,.s,y' nsly' 10 show that prohibition was good de-
M >'s''c doctrine. The letter was amusing,
ras. Il, 'oSe'lef "tth bis remarks, caused conside-
'''t fnerrlment
srI,, - SoRDAN replied at length 10 the as
s,,s y" 'le amendment, and advocated It's pas
bis4 :, 'le only measure now presented, calcu-
sn,a "oFK a reform of the evils of intemper-
The I'm ne vas for stringent license law.
G,s, ;ns OIL of the committee was not a stringent
Is.ns .n% ,a~' What he regarded as a stringent
nv I% .s law, was one far a.ore stringent than a.
r.,i% law heretofore enacted in the common-
'''' 'AcrP the law of last session.