The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-02-02

number of convicis committed had fallen to
70 $50, more thgn twenty-five per cent. less,
and tine number of counties without saloons
had run up to 23, two and a halt times as
many as in 1872, under the license law. rfss
But this Is not all, drunkenness had very
largely decreased According to reports, made
by truthful and reliable persons residing in
She respective counties reported. it appears
that mp to January. 1874, in, IL months. out
It doubtful as to the decrease in drunken
ness, while the rest reported decrease as
follows: One, 100 per cent; one, 80; two, 75;
one, So; fourteen, so; eight, IS, and the bal
ance range from l to % PER cent, and
slight TO considerable"
Thus 1t will be seen by these statistics,
that nom 1860 TO 1870, under q iudicious,
vell-regulated license law, the manufacture
ofintOxicants increased twelve times faster
than the population; and, as legitimate re-
suit, insanity and idiocy increased double
nearly six times, and crime nine times as
fasti whereas, on the other hand, in less
than q year after the passage OF the local OPP
ton law, and that, too, with an increase of
nearly 1900 polls, saloons decreased one
third, drunkenness 80 per cent, and con-
victs committed decreased more than %
per cent. ask the Senators to ponder over
these facts, end give them due consideration,
before they seek to supplant local option
with license law. And yet, in the face of
these facts, we hear the cry, that local OPP
ton is failure. "a failurei Yes; il 5Rs
failed to disapp0int the friends of humanity!
L. has failed to please saloon keepers, brew
ers and distiilersl" If this law has utterly
failed in its purpose. ask, how comes IL
that those who traffic in alcoholics are so Bit
terly opposed to it? That they are opposed
- IL we know rom the declaration of Gov.
Hendricks, for he says, SIT has encountered
determined hostility on the part oftnose en-
gagged in the liquor business" This is the
Strongest proof of its efficiency-would the
saloon keepers be so fearfully anxious to
repeal a failure1 With these facts before us
facts which no sophistry or logic can gain
kay-can we, who profess to be here to
legislate, not in the interest Of a certain class
OF men, but TOR the well being of the
people at lsrge-can We vote to re-
peal a law which has worked
so bene6ciently, and in its stead enact law
opposed to the public goodf The cry comes
up from ali parts Of the state that the
TAXES ARE OPPRESSIVE,
that relief must be had, for the people can
bear the burden no longer. When The peo-
pie are asking for bread as it were, will you
give them rtone in the shape of passing q
license law which is sure to increase their
burdens? Whatever other Senators may do,
so far as am concerned, 1 can not, and will
not disregard the cries OF a patient and
magnanimous people. Seeing then that this
local option law has tended so much to re-
strain the ruinous traffic in drink, and to
largely decrease drunkenness and its evils,
why seek to repeal it7 Why not sustain it.
strengthen and make it more effective by
restoring the ninth section, increasing the
penalty for selling without a permit, and, if
the people demand license fee, 1 care not
how heavy, why let them have Ii. But in
stead of using that money TO defile the
treasury of the common school fund. use it
in building aud founding grand inebriate
asylum, wherein may be protected end
maintained those poor degraded sons of
humanity whose manhood has been
destroyed by this most unjust and inhuman
traffic in drink! This traffic in the bodies
and souls of meni
But why repeal III You say repeal it be-
cause in many places it is not executed. Is
that a good reason? Would you repeal the
laws against murder, arson or petty larceny
because these laws are violated, or because
the violateTs denounce them and proclaim
that they are oppressive7 Nay verify! You
would rather cry out to make the laws more
rigorous. Suppose the superintendent of the
i'Indians Central should hire engineer
TO run a train from indianapolis to Rich
noond, but when he reaches Knightstowu,
he returns and tells the superintendent he
can not run the train past that point. Would
the superintendent be foolish enough to say,
well, if you can not, will order the rails
TO oe torn up from Knightstown to Rich
mOnd." Certainly not. He would reply
Instantly: "lf you can not, will get man
that CAMP And so with this local option
law and it's provisions, because some per-
sons in official position who are under the
behests of the whisky power fail to execute
the law, will you be foolish enough TO repeal
1T Or will you not act the wiser part OF as
sisting TO elect persons to Office who will ex-
ecut6 the law and assist in STRENGTHENING
the detective pointsf
What injustice or oppression is there in
this local option principle that it should be
thus assailedf In the Declaration of In
dependence the great primary principle of
American government is set forth in these
words: 1--WE hold these truths to be self
evident-that all men are created equal !;
that they are endowed by their creator with
certain inalienable rights; that among these
are life, liberty, and the pursuit OF bappi-
ness; that to secure these rights govern
ments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the
governed" Thus recognizing the grand
q ntral idea OF a republic. that the people
shall decide what in their government they
deem best adapted to promote their safety
and happiness. Why not apply this
principle of popalar sovereignty to the peo-
pie instead of the county commissioners or
auditor in granting license 10 sell that
which is 50 inimical to the public good?
Who ~ 80 competent to pass on this
question as those who are most Immediately
affected by the sale or non-ssle of licuorf
Ii the sale of intoxieants will promote the
welfare, effect the happiness and decrease
the burdens Of any community, will not
they know it as well as any one else in the
county or state7 II, on the other hand, such
trafficis injurious to their interests interteres
with security totheir lives, liberty or happi-
ness, which they have the inalienable right
to demand, who shall dare to say those per-
sons shall not express their condemnation
OF the traffic, and refuse TO sign petitions
thereafter But, 1t may DO asked, why ap'
ply this principle to the sale of intoxicating
liquors alonef Why not apply the same
rule
To OTHER KINDS OF BUsINEssf
Isnswer, because all the ordinary business
of life is sustained and conducted under the