The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1868-08-05

agaut per diem and now sir, after this question
prevent the sale of intoxicating LIQUORS on elcc-
ton days. Carried.
The amendment by Mr.. Bowman making
the provisions of the bill npply to the times of
Messrs. Seymour, Bowman, POu and others.
. Mr.. Seymour opposed the amendment, so far
as it applied to such places as Newborn and Will
mngton. The holding of the superior courts in
those cities was but mere incident, and was
scarcely known except to those engaged in the
courts. If the amendment was adopted, he
should offer proviso excepting Wilmington and
Newborn from the provisions OF the bill.
Mr. Bowman said the necessity for such
measure in his part of the State was very appa-
rent. The orders of Gen. Candy in reference to
the sale of spirituous liquors on election days
had very salutary effect in preventing disorder
resulting from drunkenness, and if the law ap-
piled well on one public day, why not on another?
He would admit that the holding of the Superior
courts was but mere incident in such places as
Raleigh, Newbcrn and Wilmington; but in the
towns west of the Blue Ridge nearly every man
was gathered in. Litigation would be going on,
men would get drunk, defy the civil authorities,
and become perfect terror to the inhabitants of
the villages He thought the measure would do
more to restrain offenders than the police force.
He desired the sale OF liquor prohibited, both
by the small and large measure. and was opposed
to giving it any showing whatever on public
days. He appealed to the House to adopt the
bill with his amendment, and thus promote the
interests OF humanity and civilization.
Mr.. Short expressed himself in favor of the bill
as reported by the committee. In consequence
of the wide difference of political opinion at the
present time, he considered it necessary to prevent
the sale of liquor on election days; but he be-
lieved the amendment would operate unjustly
on those who had to pay SO largely for the pri-
vilege of retailing spirits.
MIR. Hutchins would like to see such law en-
acted as once existed in Maine. In that State
he had seen on public days, as token OF sobri-
ETY., barrel hung up on high pole, with an
open bung turned downwards He believed the
bill would make sober men, and cause more
bread and meat to be in the houses of many now
addicted to the use of the bottle. He hoped the
amendment would prevail
Mr. Morris favored the amendment. Jurors
and witnesses ought to have clear heads and
brains, and in order to effect that result he want
ed the sale of liquor prohibited during the terms
OF the superior courts
Mr.. Jarvis moved to amend by inserting the
words "nor within five miles of the capital OF
the State during the session of the Legislature.
Mr.. Harris, OF Wake thought the bill was not
strong enough. In order that it might be made
more explicit, he desired that it should be re.er-
rcd to a special committee of three.
Mr. Pou favored the bill as originally reported.
The real governing law was public opinion. No
statute law was effective unless supported by
public opinion. He didn't believe there were
ffty GOOD citizens in .he State but what de-
sired that liquor should be kept from the polls,
especially under the present state OF public
opinion. He believed the effect of the amend
ment would be to open secret and Illicit COM
merce in the article Hewas atemperance man,
and wanted liquor put down; not, however, by
the force of statute law, but by educating public
opinion up to the point that when man appear
ed drunk in PUBLIC he should be deemed guilty OF u
misdemcanor. He believed total abstinence So
cieties to be humbugs, and that all stringent laws
preventing the sale of spirits to be mere bosh.
Doubtless there would be drunkards until the land
was covered with vineyards The United States,
with all its power, had endeayored to squeeze out
So for every gallon manufactured, but failed
We in the South know something of the power
of the United States. The government had
whipped us, but whiskey had whipped it, and
compelled it to reduce the tax from 50 per gal
lon to 80 cents. -..
Mr.. Davis moved to amend the amendment by
providing that barrel should be placed on the
flag staff of the capitol, with the bung turned
downwards Ruled out of order.
Mr. Bowman regretted to see the bill made the
subject of ridicule. He believed it was OF just
as much importance to have sober men during
court weeks as on election days. He related an
instance that took place in Ashe county, where
gentleman by the name OF Smith, attemp-
ting to make a phlitcal address, barely escaped
with his life. The measure was one of first-rate
importance to the Western part of the State, and
Mr.. Seymour moved the previous question:
Not sustained.
The amendment of Mr.. Jarvis was rejected.
Mr. Downing moved to amend the amendment
by excepcng all towns and cities OF population
OF 1000 or upwards. Lost.
The question Oh Mr.. Bowman's amendment
was decided in the negative by the following
YEAs-Messrs. Bowman, Gambler, Downing,
Gahagan, Gunter, Gilbert, Hicks, Hutchings,
Horney, Hodgn, Ingram, Long of Chatham,
Morris, Mendenhall, Price. Proffitt, Reynolds,
Stevens, Sykes, Vest and White-21.
NAYs-Messrs. Ashworth, Armstrong, Barnett,
Blair Barnes, Banner, Carson, Cherry, Cawthorn,
Davis, Durham, Davidson, Ellington, Estes, Far
row, Calling, Gibson, Graham, Hodnett, High,
Humphires, Hayes, Hinnant, Hawkins, Hen
dricks. Justice, of Henderson, Jarvis, Kelly, of
Davie, Kelly, of Moore, Leary, Latin, McCanless,
Nicholson, Pou, Parker, Proctor, Robbins, Rem
frow, Rea, Smith OF Allegheny, Stlley, Sim
| monds, Seymour, Sinclair, Short, Shaver, Sic
grist, Thompson, Vestal, Wilson, Williamson,
Whitley, Waldrop and Williams-54.
Mr. Seymour again moved the previous ques-
ton, which was sustained
The bill then passed its second and third read
ings, was ordered to be engrossed and sent to
the Senate.
On motion OF Mr.. Pou, the House adjourned.