Spirit of the age. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1849-1865, 1862-03-10
The Distillerv Ordinance.

The Distillery Ordinance.
An esteemed friend ia a note to us on 9TH
er business, incidentally alludes to the re-
marks we made last week on this subject,
and says:
eff you will examine the proceedings Of
the Convention on this question, / think yeu
will find that the Ordinance, as it passed, is
the Distillers' Ordinance; that it gives a
bounty to the Distiller, and that it was sup
ported In debate, and voted for by many
members who avowed their opposition to all
legislation on the subject. And you will
also find that many of the members who
voted against the Ordinance on its last read
ing, were the most jealous advocates of total
prohibition. Mr.. Berry of Orange, proposed
to prohibit all distillation Of grain, after the
10th of March INSTEAD Of April and Messrs.
Uraham and Badger supported the PROPOSE
ton most earnestly while Messrs. Boyle,
christian, Dick, Douthit, Gilmer, Gorrell,
Osborne, Starbuck, Strong of Mecklenburg,
wilson and Woodfn svowed opposition to
all legislation on the subject, or advocated
the imposition of a small tax on the distill-
er. All the members from Wake were in
favor OF some measure far more efficient and
40 00JSSeiohooiC Ilan TIE OTulIlanCe as IL
passed. L allude to this article of yours,
because it seems to me you do injustice to
some oFour most patriotic citizens"
We acknowledge our obligations to our
friend for this analysis of the action and vote
of the Convention on the Distillery Ordi-
nance. We We're not in attendance during all
the sessions of the Convention when the Ordi-
nance was under dissatisfaction is our men,
DRY very distinct as to the debates and amend
ments offered, and by whom, as reported in
the City papers. Oar intelligent Correspon-
dent no doubt represents the matter fairly
and truly, and the publication of his note
gives us an opportunity to correct any erro-
neous statements into which we were misled
in our remarks last week. We would not
do any one injustice who voted against the
Ordinance.
We confess to our surprise on finding the
names of the Delegates from Wake and Or
ange recorded against the measure, because,
as stated by our Correspondent above, they
had previously advocated prohibition on the
subject. But when we found their names
recorded in the negative, along with Rufin,
Mebane, Sprouse, Joyce and other most vi
olent opponents of prohibition, and in OPP
position to the votes of Hicks, Smith of Ma.
con, Leak, Thompson of Wayne, Thompson
of BERTHE and others Of the warmest friends
of prohibition, We could but conclude they
had changed their minds and purposely put
themselves on the record as opposed to the
measure. If by their votes against Mr.. Gil
! mer's amendment any Of those who votee
against it hoped to sdefeat it and secure
more favorable ordnance, we do most hear
tily approve of their motives for the amend
ment of Mr.. Gilmer we regard as a most dc
cided failure to meet the question-and We
SO denounced it when we first announced it
passage.
But repeated attempts had been made il
the Convention to get q decided expression
: of the body in favor of prohibition, and ha'
r signally failed-so much SO as to induce MIR
Thompson of BERTHE, a warm friend of pro
hibition, to move an indefinite postpone
men: on the suhject-so Disguised was h
with the tergiversations and quibblings ofth
majority to boldly and squarely meet tn
J. question. But he withdrew the motion, a
!, the suggestion of friends of prohibition an
finding that a prompt and decided estoppe
of the nefarious business could not be secul
d ed, he, with most land we supposed alp
o the prohibitory friends, voted for the ord
nance, esteeming it better to have even tina
n tardy and insulting action to the necessiti,
of the case, than to leave the distilleries
d run riot without any restraint.
n We can readily understand however, no
: a member might vote against Mr.. Gilmer
a amendment, and yet be in favor of prehib
y ton and we are glad to learn, and hope
ir may prove true, that our Delegates, al
L. perhaps other Delegates who voted against
were prompted by the highly patriot
hope of being able to secure the passage
IS an ordinance worthy of the exalted patrit
st ism and intelligence of the body from WIFI
lie it emanated.