Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1883-02-21
JUDGE EAGNEW'S ANSWER.
He Explains the Amendment
Alteration.

Special to the Commercial Gazette.
HARRISBURG, Feb. l0.-A printed
letter from Judge Agnew to Hon. John
Stewart, Chairman of the Committee
on Constitutional Reform, was distrl-
butte among the members of the Leg.
islature to-day. 1t opens with state
ment that the letters from Harrisburg
published in Pittsburgh with reference
to the alteration in the form of the
amendment are IAN effort of the enc
mics of prohibition to divide its friends
and cast on them the odium of defeat In
the Assembly, defeat they design to
secure through obnoxious amendments.
| shall not be betrayed into controversy
by answering them. But it is due to
the cause, to the Assembly, and to my
self to set the subject fairly before the
committee"
Judge Agnew then recites the history
of his personal connection with the
Constitutional Amendment Associa-
tion and of the expression of his views
concerning the form of amendment to
be presented. He states that he took
no part in the meeting which prepared
the formula used in the petition, and
when it was submitted to him by DIR.
Starr, expressed his qualification that
improbable disputes about form were
ended. He then says:
But perceiving certain vague terms
and defects through which the enemy
might attack it, expressly reserved
my right 10 suggest to the Legislature
any notifications for its perfection in
form. Afterwards, DR.. Starr, in a
letter of December 8, 1882, requested
of me a form such as l would approve.
/ gave it, being careful to use the form
in the petitions, so as to preserve both
its language and its purpose, making
only such notifications as my ex-
perience in Interpretation taught me
would be necessary to guard against
unfriendly attacks. Being informed
also that the proposed amendment
should be presented on the first day OF
the session, to secure its certain con,
sideration, wrote to Mr. Emery, oi
New Castle, on the llth of December
1882 sending him copy OF the same
form, in order to secure the purpose OF
the petitioners.
In all this l acted in perfect good
faith, and the intelligence of the com
mittee will enable them to see l have
preserved the true intent of the peti
tioners. That your committee may
more clearly perceive this, if anything
were needed, now state the features
of the form feared the enemy might
attack Prohibition has two adverse
forces to overcome after the adoption
of the amendment by the people, viz.
an adverse Legislature.in framing laws
to carry out the amendment, and an ad
verse Court in its Interpretation.
1t will be remembered that in my ad
dress before the House | gave history
of the past conflicts in which Assem-
bly, was arrayed against Assembly, anC
Court against Court, whereby temper
ance legislation had always been de
feated. We must expect the same con
hicts hereafter. The recent Iowa de
| ClSiOuJ tWO JuuSOo "Suihoe onS, wv
turning prohibition amendment il
another warning. 1t is obvious, there
fore, that the slightest gap in oul
amendment may lead to similar fate
There is rule which every logiciar
and good lawyer knows, the maxim O
Quintillian, cited by Blair in hii
Rhetoric, that one must write not only
that he may be understood, but so thai
he shall not be mas understood. A
friend may interpret my meaning cor
rectly even if vaguely expressed. but an
enemy will seize upon the obscurity
to defeat the intent. Now let US read
the formula in the petitions, in view o.
those dangers to be guarded against. II
begins: 1.-The manufacture or sale, OIL
keeping for sale of any alcoholic or in
toxicating liquors" A friend would
say alcoholic" means any liquor con
tanning alcohol in any Intoxicating
quantity. But an enemy, bent on
weakening the prohibition, would say
"The course of Legislation in Pennsyl-
vania has always distinguished al
coholic' from other intoxicants, defining
them as spirituous, malt aud fermented
liquors" This is also the common un'
derstanding, and coupled with the rule
| that constitution is to be interpreted