Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1883-05-02
ANTI-TREAT BILL.
Another Windy Discussion in
the Senate.

From Commercial Gazette.
HARRISBURG, PA, April 25.-The
Senate spent couple of hours this
morning talking over Mr.. Greer's anti
treat bill, which was defeated on final
passage yesterday. 1t was brought
up by motion to reconsider, which
was promptly carried, and the question
recurring on its final passags, Senator
Dayies made a vigorous argument
against it. He regarded the bill as
the worst kind of sumptuary legisla-
tion, and declared that it would only
increase the evil which it was designed
to restrict and limit George Handy
Smith insinuated that it was a deep
laid scheme by certain politicians to
escape the expense of treating their
constituents about election time. Mr..
Henninger, of Lehigh, thought it was
bad policy to enact law that would
be violated every hour of the day.
Replying to his numerous objectors,
Mr.. Greer emphasized the fact that the
custom of treating was responsible for
nearly all the intemperance of the day
Destroy it and you will greatly lessen
the evil. The custom has become so
strong that nine men out of ten can't
say no. This bill will protect men
who drink in moderation and who, but
for the habit of treating, would never
become incorporate.
FROM GRAVE TO GAY.
Mr.. Sill, of Erie, also spoke in favor
of the bill Mr.. Lantz, of Lebanon, said
that there were no such thirsty indi-
viduals in his county as Mr.. Greer bad
described. George Handy Smith
gravely inquired whether the bill
would prevent man from going into
a bar-room and giving ten cents to
every man in the crowd. Mr.. Lantz
gave it up and Mr.. Greer informed
him that it wouldn't.
Mr. Cooper rose to say that the bill
had passed through the various stages
more out of compliment to its author
than any intrinsic merit it possessed.
He thought it was wrong in principle,
it should not be inforced, and it was
only cutting deeper a groove in our
statute books that was too deep al
ready in attempting to control customs
and habits by law. All experience
teaches that it is American character
to resist whatever encroaches in the
least on personal liberty. This bill
would revive the old custom of keep
ing sideboard at home 1t would
tend to decrease the respect for the
law.
Senator Lee said that as a temper
ance man he was opposed to the bill
because it would not promote the
cause of temperance or restrict the
sale of liquors.; and for the stronger
reason that it would prevent the en-
forcement of existing laws.
EFFECT OF SUCH LAWS.
Mr.. Greer put in '.just one word" as
the Chair was about to put the ques-
ton. He said that he had not as yet
met landlord who wanted the bill
passed. They were all against it, and
that was one of the best reasons why
it should pass. 1t is no reason for
voting against bill, be thought, that
it would not be popular and that it
would be hard to enforce it.
DR.. Patton, from Greene county
standpoint, thought that it was not
possible to legislate intemperance out
of existance. His experience was that
Greene county without single licens-
ed house consumed more whisky to
the square foot than any other county
in the State.
A vote was then taken Mr.. Greer's
bill obtained a majority of those pres
ent, but failed to pass for the want of
the necessary twenty-six votes. The
vote was as follows:
Ayes-Messrs. Agnew. Arnbolt,
Aull, Beddis, Coke, Emery. Greer,
Harlan, Hess, Humes, Longenecker,
McCracken, Macfarlane, McNeill, Mel
son, Ross, Sill. Smiley, Stewart, SUIT
ton and Upperman-2l.
Nays-Messrs. Adams, Cooper,
Davies, Henninger, Herr, Keefer, Ken
nedy, King, Laird, Lantz, Lee, Mylin,
Patton, Shearer, Smith, Stehman,
Vandergrift, Wagner, Watres and
Wolverton-20