Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-02-15

MI. OlllQ In6n r6dQ IFOu IONs bIuSlJ
and others, of Maine, to show that pro-
hibition had proved successful in the
twenty-five years it had been in force in
that state, and that there were no more
violations of that law than there were
against the law prohibiting larceny.
MR.. B. THAYER,
of Fillmore, moved to amend to submit
THE PROPOSITION
to the people at the general election in
1884. Mr.. Thayer said that he should vote
for the bill whether amended or not, but it
was no more than just that it should be
submitted at time when there would be
a full vote, such as would not
be had at a special election.
There was also quite an item
of expense in special election
which could be avoided by his proposition.
He did not agree with those who thought
the measure would be endangered by being
submitted at general election. Only a
few weeks will elapse for the date fixed in
the bill until a general election is held at
which there will be a full vote, as was
most desirable, anything less than de-
cided majority operating to make it dead
letter upon the statute book, and thus in
fiicting injury rather than good to the
cause.
Mr.. j. E. Child said the friends of the
measure thought it advisable the question
should be separated as far as
possible from general politics,
as best calculated to get full
and fair expression, but he was not tena-
cious upon the point.
Mr.. Hicks moved to amend the amend.
ment by substituting 1888 for 1884. Speak
ing as Republican, he believed that the
submission of the question at general
election, would result in the downfall of
that party, and not wishing to damage the
party he offered the amendment.
Mr.. Buck-Did I understand the gentle
man that he offered his amendment be-
cause he thought its submission at gen
eral election would injure the Republican
party?
Mr.. Hicks-Yes.
Mr.. Buck-Then shall vote against the
amendment of the gentleman.
Mr.. Hicks amendment to the amend
ment was then voted down, and upon
division, the amendment of Mr.. Thayer
was adopted by vote of 81 to 80.
HUN. 0OhOON T.. OOLr,
speaking of the original motion of Mr..
Child, said he supposed if he should con-
suit his own political interests he would
remain silent. But he could not do so.
He presumed, he said his prohibition
friends would be surprised to hear him say
that of all the legislation
proposed, this, if adopted
would prove the greatest curse.
In this he did not speak for the dram
shops, but for the public good. The meas
sure, if made law, would not surprise the
saloons. The saloon, rather, was the out
growth of prohibition. The time was when
you could not find place where alcohol
was sold by itself, but it was always cou-
pied with food, lodging, etc. The saloon
is the logical outcome of attempts to adopt
legislation that no one but slave would
submit to.
The friends of the measure say they do
not propose to prohibit the use of liquor
but he would like some of them to say how
if they prohibit the manufacture of liquor
it can be secured for use. 1t is one of the
it the world could not exist. It has been
argued that the Almighty did not intend
to have alcohol for common use because
he did not run distillery.
1t might as we'll be said the Almighty
did not intend that bread should be gen
eral article of food because he did not
produce it already prepared.
In enumerating the classes opposed to
such legislation as that here proposed his
friend from Jackson had forgotten
to mention the great bulk of practical tenn
perance men. The liquor sellers and the
are the two extremes, be-
tween which are the large majority, which
while desiring to build up temperance, are
opposed to this unnatural legislation.
The gentleman from Jackson had men
toned number of classes who were op-
posed to prohibition, but he had failed to
say much about those who favored it. He
had failed to tell of leading jurist who
favored prohibition, or any of the great
minds of the country. 1t was, he said,
child of the ministry. He had
nothing to say against this class,
but history confirmed the truth of his
statement that the eras of persecution
which had darkened the land, were those
where the church and state joined hands.
Then there is another class who are load
ing down this prohibition measure. He
was no friend of the saloon keeper, but he
would greatly prefer to associate with them
than the class of hypocrites who are al
ways found in the advocacy of such meas
ures.
The experiment is inpracticable. In
Maine. where it has been in operation for
more than twenty years, it has made
state of hypocrites, and driven the people
to the use of opium and other narcotics,
many times more hurtful than liquor. It
was because he knew what the result of
such legislation had been elsewhere that
he opposed the experiment in Minnesota,
and with that experience be-
fore him he would say, if you
want to save your boys from this curse, to
raise them up manly and honest, don't
pass this law. He was familiar with its
workings in Maine and Massachusetts
twenty years ago. Two years ago he was
back there on visit, and in
little town of 1900 inhabitants he
saw more drinking and drunkenness than
could be seen in Faribault with its 5000
population. The law is dead letter and
a law which cannot be enforced is worse
than no law, because it creates disregard
of all law.
Similar experiments have been made
right here at home in local option.in effect