The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1881-06-29


In talking yesterday AFTERNOON with an
Express reporter, Senator Voorhees, expressed
himself as follows On the subject of the pro-
posed prohibitory amendment to the Con-
stitution of Indiagac
No good will come Of the pzesent prohibition
movement in Indiana. II Will not only utterly
Eil but it will do positive ham. 1t aims at an
absolute impossibility. All good people believe
in temperance. which means moderation. not
prohibition; and the history of the human race
does not furnish a single instance where a civil
lied government has totally abolished the man
ufa sture or use of malt, vinous, or spirituous
liquors. Such measures have been attempted but
have always failed. Public opinion is the su-
Prens Jaw OF tne worIu, anu the acts OF your
ton are not respected by public opinion they
will fall lifeleSs TO the ground. Kansas, / believe
provision similar TO that proposed 10 the Consti-
tuition of Indiana on the subject of prohibition.
1t is q dead letter. i see that Juries composed of
and the manufacturers and dealers are preparing
to go on with their business as If no such pro-
hibitOry clause was in their Constitution. This
is an unwholesome state of things, for il more or
less demoralizes a community to have laws which
they will not execute. The fault, however, in
this, instance, is i'm the law itself. It goes beyond
very well what was called the Maine law of 1855
in this State. The Courts and Juries would not
convict under 1t when its violation was proven
beyond question. 1t will be so again If prohibit
ton is adopted in Indiana We VIII have a pro-
vision in our Constitution which will not be
obeyed or enforced. want to see nothing of that
kind
Question-Do you think such eaprovision in a
State Constitution would be in harmony with the
Constitution of the United States Answer-I do
not. In my opinion a State has no power to con-
tiscate the property of its citizens who are engaged
in lawful trade; neither can the Federal Govern
ment do so. The manufacturers of malt, vinous
and spirituous liquors pay an immense revenue
they receive, and are entitled to receive. its full
and complete protection. There is paid in the
city of Terre Haute alone by the distillers and
ment of the United Sta .es. In order to do this
these manufacturers have made large invest
ments and purchased extensive and valuable
property, real and personal. The adoption of the
ton of Indiana will confscate all such property,
or nearly so, and destroy millions, now as much
under the protection OF law as any other species
of property. In my Judgment the Courts will
not sustain such a measure.
QueStiOn-What are your views in regard TO
submitting the pTohibitory amendments to a
vote OF the people? All the measure is un-
tive of private, vested rights, / can see no use in
the expense and trouble OF submitting ii TO q
popular vote. OF course | appreciate the argu
the people, but why should a measure of injus-
tice and manifest violation of the Constitution be
made an issue at an election2 II the people
vote it, ali their labor and trouble Would avail
nothing. The Courts would undo il all.
IQueStion-ln what way do you think the cause
OF temperance can be best promoted? A.-By
education and the general Improvement of the
people. Nothing was ever accomplished by
sumptuary laws. You can not prescribe by legis
1ation what a man shall eat or drink You may
regulate the traffic in liquors and keep the bust
ness in prudent and responsible hands, but be-
yond this legislation will fail.