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

the Minnesota legislature had to meet the
issue. They had invited it and it could not
be lodged For himself he did not OPP
pose it as politician but
as citizen, temperance
man who believed it unwise and dangerous
legislation, and he trusted the motion of
the gentleman from jackson would not
prevail.
MR.. BoARDMAN
said he had intended to listen and say
nothing. He was surprised at the charac-
ter of the arguments advanced by
the friends of this measure-argu-
ments against which his nature revolte6.
The question was should this constitu-
tional amendment be submitted to the
people, to which he answered no, because
he believed large majority of the better
class of people opposed it; second, because
if a majority of the people did want it, 1t
wronged the minority, and third, because
it was dangerous legislation, and if adj
missable in reference to liquor, it could be
extended to everything connected with
the political relations of the
people. Experience teaches that great
caution should be used in attempting to
said he entered also his protest against the
tactics employed by the friends OF tenn
perance to pack the hall of the legislature
to the detriment of the public business.
Before his election he received a letter
asking how he was going to vote upon this
question, with the threat that if he pro
posed to oppose it he would be defeated,
which was system of attempted bribery
to which he entered his protest.
Mr.. Cole, excusing himself for occupy
ing the attention of the house. said he de-
sired to call the attention to the claim of
prohibitionists that there should be no op-
position to submission to the people, that
being their right and the duty of
the legislature. Laws, he said,
were passed and amended by the
legislature. But to change the constitu-
ton, two acts were imposed by the organic
law. First the legislature was required
to consider and decide for itself whether
a change was desirable. The wishes of
the people in the matter were not to gov
ern them in this decision. If the legisla-
ture decided change advisable, then the
people were to act. It took the two bodies
acting separately. The legislature could
not shirk its duty by putting it
upon the people, but it must
decide first for itself, and then let the peo-
pie, made by the organic act the final ar
biters, make their decision.
criticised the position of the last speaker.
This, he said, was preventative form of
government. The voice of the people is
the voice of God. The constitution in its
very first section reserved to the people the
right to'modify and amend the fundament-
al law of the land. In this discussion he
had not proposed to argue the cause of
temperance, because he supposed
that would be argeud before the people.
He did not believe that prohibition was
the best mode of treating the temperance
question, but his constituents asked for it,
and they had right to pass upon it, Pc
titions had been pouring in upon this leg
islature asking for the privilege of voting
upon the question of a prohibition amend
ment. Why was this? Because it was
generally admitted there was something
wrong in the management of the liquor
traffic. There is a difference of opinion
as to the remedy. The pc
titions received here ask the
privilege of amending the con-
stitution prohibiting the manufacture and
sale of liquor, believing the present laws
insufficient to meet the emergencies. They
want to try another plan and the constitu
ton gives them the right, if
shown to be in a major
ity when the votes are cast, to try the ex-
pertinent. This is all there is of this ques-
ton, and all the legislature has to do is to
say whether they will or will not let the
the right vouchsafed them by the organic
act.
Mr.. Jas. Smith moved that when the COM
mittee rise it recommend the indefinite
postponement of the bill.
MR.. BUCK,
of Winona, said he was opposed to this
bill because it contemplated the submits
sion to the people of question upon which
they have no right to pass. There are GER
tain rights which cannot be surrendered.
Thomas Jefferson called them inalienable
rights-the right to do what one pleases
with himself and his property, if he does
not interfere with his neighbor. 1t is the
right which makes a man the judge of what
he shall eat, drink or wear. If the people
have the right to prohibit the sale of liquor
then they have the right to prohibit the
sale of tobacco, tea and coffee, to say
when one shall go to bed at night and
get up in the morning in order to promote
the public good. If the doctrine should
prevail every step of the citizen would be
controlled by the law. 1t is no new ques-
ton. The advocates of these questions
belong to the crank family, like Guiteau.
Guiteau's mission was to save the Re-
publican party. The mission of these
people is to save everybody. In the old
en- time when these people had control,
more than 10000 women were tortured,
burned and killed, because they did not
believe with those in power. They de-
stroyed churches and statuary,
calling them creations OF the
devil. They ransacked all England to
find somebody who did not believe as they
did, that they might torture them. Finally
an outraged people drove this particular
type of people from power. Down in
Massachusetts they drove Roger Williams
into the wilderness to perish, and hung old
women for riding on broomst1cks. 1t is
this type of people who are demanding
this legislation. Adopt it and the next
move would be to make all adopt their re-