The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1874-03-21

HAt~~"toc @to tIFvhtNt1 " vas WcttAt1o
BY vote Of 81 to 20 pos,poning il to the
9Th Of April, which Is the day on which
the present session expires BY limitation,
Nine gentlemen who were put down as ad
xocates of the bill were absent These
were nearly equally divided between the
Democratic aud Republican parties, four
Democrats and Eve Republicans. There
were II members present, IL absent, aud
one vacancy. A number Of those who
voted against local option are pledged to
vote for stringent license and damage
law. Il remains TO be seen whether the
pledge viii be redeemed. Your cores
pendent believes that such law will be
passed A number Of those who voted
for local option, did so in Difference TO the
moral sentiment Of the age, which dictated
| It, not that they believe that ii would ac-
conplish what It's friends claim for it. On
the contrary, they believe it TO be gilt
tering bubble, which, when pricked by the
sharp point Of experience, win be found to
have little or nothing in il, on account of
is impracticability. A general prohibit
ton law would be far more practicable
than local option law, because, if one
county should pass it and another should
not, the liquor traffic Of both counties
would be concentrated in one, and, Of
course, the law would be Of no effect. If
the prohibition we're made general, instead
Of local or partial, then II would be more
effective, provided OF course, that It could
be enforced; but the perversity Of human
nature makes il doubtful whether Il could
be enforced, and this brings up the qucs-
ton whether men can be reformed or re-
strained in their appetites by legal means.
In other words, is moral suasion or legal
suasion most effective to bring about the
much-desired temperance rcform9 On
tais question men differ. The Great Au-
thor Of the moral law himself did not CON-
pei men to accept It. He set life and
death before them, as the results Of obe-
dience or disobedience, and left them free
agents to choose the one or the other
just before the inal vote was taken, great
confusion prevailed IN the House, and the
Speaker could with difficulty preserve or
der. He raped fariously with his gavel
and percmptorily commanded the mem
bers TO take their seats. After the restor-
alton Of order the motion to lay on the
table the motion TO reconsider the vote
postponing the bill and thus virtually kill
ing il, was carried by 40 yeas to % nays
The yeas were:
Messrs. Bond, Cotton, Nutwell, Turner Of
Calvert, Lancaster, Buchanan, Matthews,
Merryman, Turner Of Baltimore county, Tur-
ner Of Cecil county, Mackey, Robsy, Grafton,
Lee, McCosker, I. II. Hamilton, Cooper. Cl
r. Hamilton, McWilliams, Foster, Stewart
Of Baltimore, McAleese, Gill, Hart, Harig,
Joyce, Groh, Fenton, Freaner, Grimes, Stake,
Wier, Wack, Waters, Gait, Brown, Stewart
Of Howard, Bedsworth, Staylor and West--iO.
Nays-Messrs. Hines, Merritt, Henkle,
Robinson, Bird, Seth, Valiant, Coulburn,
Duer, Gordy, Davis, Thompson, Kemp, Pru.
it, Merrill, Rooms, Miller, Amman, loane,
Greenfield, Clark, Watkins, Park, Brace,
and Vanderford-25.
The temperance Republicans absent or
not voting on the final vote were DR.. Etch-
ison, DR.. Lamar, DR.. Glotfelty, Mr.. Mich
odemus and Mr. Hawkins. The correct
account of the defeat of the local option
bill is given in the Baltimore San, of Mon
day, and is as follows;
The first struggle was over a motion to in.
definitely postpone, which was defeated-yeas
"a, -yys IS. Then the motion to postpone
I'LL April created another storm, and the
motion was carried. The great contest of the
night, however, was on the motion to recon
slider the vote postponing the bill. This mo-
ton was made with view to its immediate
defeat, so rs to prevent the bill from being
brought mp again before April 8. Its friends
a. once resorted to parliamentary tactics for
delay, and tried to obtain an adjournment, in
the hope that next week those who were alb.
sent would return, and they could then recon-
slider and bring the bill up again. April 9th
beins on the very eve Of the expiration Of the
constitutional term there is, Of course, no
chance Of passing the bill at that late stage.
Points Of order were raised and oyer.ruled by
the Speaker, resulting in appeals from his de.
cisions, which were always sustained
At one time, when Mr.. Brace tried to have
call Of the House, great deal Of confusion
prevailed, in the midst of which Speaker
Hines displayed the utmost patience. Mem. |
bers we're passing back and forth on the floor
and speaking from all sides. Finally order |
was restored, the Speaker refusing TO enter. |
tain any motion until quiet was re- established.
The opponents Of the MEASURE met and par
RED every blow Of its friends. Finally at IL |
p. m. vote was reached on the motion to !
lay on the table the motion to reconsider the |
vote pos,poning the bill and il was carried |
yeas 49, nays 25-so the bill is practically lost.
This was the final defeat Of the bill. Its |
friends surrendered quietly, and Immediately |
after the report Of the election committee had |
been made the House adjourned until Monday |
morning. ~
The snti-localoptionist celebrated their
victory with much zezt ut their HEADQUARTERS.
and kept up their resels until an early hour
in the morning.
The defeat Of the bill is in great measure
due, not to the strength Of its opponents, but
% the want Of tact and lakewarmness OF its
friends, the committee which had Il in charge,
and the solid opposition Of lis enemies. Mr.. |
Seth, chairman Of the special temperance
committee, warned the friends Of the bill not /
TO call the subject up at the end Of The week
when 10 many members were absent They |
did Il, however, and hence, in q great degree,
can be credited the def at. IL was rumored !
beforehand that the tactics Of the opposition
were 70 have alleged friends Of the bill absent,
and thus, with their local option side weaken.
ed, they would s'fnll on The events occur.
red as they were foreshadoxed, and resulted /
a. the opponents Of the measure anticipated. |
Although dead irretriesabiy in the House. |
since Il will take two-thirds vote (which Il |
cannot musterl TO give the bill third reading \
tit i now on It's secondl on the last day Of the |
session, the Senate has the power neverthe-
less, 10 originate the same measure.
The bill 70 increase the license TO sell
liquor In quantities not less than a pint.
from SIS to $50 win be brought forward. |
Ordinary licenses are TO be increased 30 |
per cent. and oyster house licenses from
$50 to SIS. Upon this bill a sufficient
number have pledged themselves to carry |
II, or similar bill, through the House
A part Of the tactics Of the liquor men |
was an order, passed several days previous,
calling upon the Comptroller Of tie Treas
ury for information az to the effect Of the
local option bill upon the finances Of the
State. The Comptroller sent to the Speak
er q communication IN response to said \
order, setting forth that the total revenue
derived from licenses 20 sell liquor In the
State, was sl69, S45.28, and IL this reve-