Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1883-04-18
OTHER PROCEEDINGS.


the House.
OTHER PROCEEDINGS.
HARRISBURG, April There were
only ninety-fve members of the House
present this morning, and although
this was less than quorum, twenty
five bills were passed on first reading.
Then the House adjourned. by almost
unanimous consent, at III o'clock, one
hour before the regular time. Had the
session continued until noon all the re-
naming bills on first reading might
have been read. The first-reading cal
endar can be finished on Monday even
ing, if the members do not have their
usual original resolution circus.
THE PROHIBITION BILL.
An unusually large number of re-
monstrances against the passage of the
Prohibition bill were presented, nearly
one half of the members present offer
ing one or more such documents. The
petitions for its passage were compare
lively few to-day, although heretofore
they have generally had the preponder-
ance. Lee Thompson, of Armstrong
county, called the attention of the
House to remonstrance which had
been presented, through him, against
the bill several days ago. He had
noticed at the time that all the names
appeared to have been written by one
hand and since then be had received
letter from President Judge James b.
Neil, whose name was affixed to the
remonstrance, declaring that the sigma
ture was forgery.
HARRISBURG, April 1.-THE pro-
hibitory amendment came up in the
House this morning on second reading
and consumed almost the entire day.
The fight was started by Hughes, of
Bedford, who moved to strike off the
proviso that was inserted in committee
that all persons engaged in the liquor
business should be compensated for the
loss sustained. Mr.. Emery, of Law
renee county, made long speech in
favor of the motion. He claimed that
the rider was put on with the manifest
intention of killing the amendment.
The people do not desire it; they did
not ask for any such preyiso in their
petitions they wanted the question of
| prohibition submitted by itself without
ary side issues. George II. Morgan,
of Philadelphia, thought that prohibit
tion would be attended with disastrous
results to the business interests OF the
State, and pictured in graphic language
the inconvenience to the Quaker City
people, who would have 10 be ferried
over to Jersey for their stimqlalts.
Hays, of Erie, said that the question
before the House was not whether pro-
hibition was right or wrong, or wheth-
er it was good policy or not, but wheth-
er it should be submitted TO q vote OF
the people. He thought that sufi-
cient number had asked for it to war
rant the Legislature in allowing them
70 cypress their preferences at the polls,
and declared thst in his opinion the
House would make q iaistSsc # it dis
regarded their wishes. He was op-
posed to the compensation proposed.
Mr, Stubbs, of Chester, argued that it
was entirely unnecessary and super
Auous to attach to tba amendment a
proviso for compensation. H9 wanted
the question to be submitted to tAe
people in its original form.
Sharpe, of Franklin, in one Of his
ablest speeches argued that unless
| compensation is provided for in the
amendment it will not be in the power
of any future Legislature 10 repair the
loss that the bill may occasion. @Fhs
Constitution provides" said be, "for
the payment of damages when proper
ty is seized by the State for public pur-
poses, but the destruction of the liquor
business by prohibitory amendment
does not come under that provision.
There ia no provision in the Constitu-
tion that would afford remedy, and
on the other hand thefa IL Q positive
prohibition that would prevent all leg
islation for the payment of losses, which
are contemplated in this amendment
The gentlemen who advocate striking
out this proviso, therefore, make a
stupendous blapder when they say that
it is superfuoUs and that all that is
necessary is future Legislation. The
Government Of the United States neyss
could have abolished slavery without
| compensation to the owners OF the
slaves il they had not raised their
hands against the Government and for
feited their rights. The idea OF this
amendment without compensation is
wholly repugnant to all ideas of right
and justice II you must have prohi-
bition pay for It. That would be fair ;
that would be Ststssmaalike; that
would be Christianlke."
WHAT MAY BE DONE.
Mr.. Lowry, of Indiana want to
ask the gentleman if be means to say
that the State cannot enact the amend
without the compensation clause.
Mr.. Sharpe-Of course you can.
You can confscate a mans property
within the Constitution if you want to.
The question wss further discussed
by Mitchell, of Bradford, Morrison, of
Mercer, Parcels, of Milllin, Hughes, Of
Bedford, and Lowry, of Indiana, all Of
whom favored the repeal Of the CON-
pensation clause, Mr.. Lowry claiming
that the liquor trade had had sufficient
notice of what was coming 10 provide
against loss. Mcnamara, of Bedford,
took up the rest of the morning. He
argued that 1t would be justas fair and
right for the Legislature to prohibit
the Bible because it furnishes food for
infidels az to abolish the manufacture
Of liquor He claimed that a prohibit
tory law could not be inforced, and
that It's only result would be to en-
courage cant and hypocrisy. He