The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-07

i
i've legislation? The conclusion of DIR. Pot
ter, that in restrictive measures for the con-
| troll of the whisky traffic is to be found the
real strength OF the present temperance
movement" is an absurdity, first, for the
reason given above, and, second, because
| every whisky man in the country is a real
enthusiast in his support of these very re-
Strlctive measures, as against prohibition.
| Why? Manfestly for no other reason thar
that he knows that prohibition even
/ though it may be but ndif1erently enforced,
imposes such formidable restrictions upon
the traffic as no merely restrictive measure
ever has done or will do. How can such
measures be the real strength of the temper
ance movement and at the same time so far
favor the traffic as to meet with its indorse-
menR Whisky men everywhere regard the
usual restrictive measures as triumphs for
the traffic.
DR.. Taylor says: at is idle to talk of pro-
hibition when we cannot have the measure
of restriction now on the statute book car
ried out" And the editor of the Journal
| adds This remark of the Doctor could very
well be repeated in Indiana" know but
little about the law in New York or the diff
| tioulties in the way of its enforcement. But
do know all about the difficulties to be en-
countered in trying to enforce our own law.
In the first place, it is quite difficult matter
TO secure Indictments and when they are
obtained full average of nine out of every
ten will fail, not because the facts as set forth
in the indictment are not true, but because
in almost every case we are shut up to the
necessity of relying upon the testimony of
either the man who sells or the man who
drinks for the evidence necessary to sustain
| the Indictment All who have tried the
experiment know that they are in about as
much danger of being struck by lightning
as of securing conviction on the testimony
OF either. l have known prominent bust
ness man called UNEXPECTEDLY before
| the GRAND ittrv aryd on his festiuopu r1ndar
oath, an indictment found for selling on
Sunday Two days after, when this same
business man was placed on tile
witness stand in open court, the whole
matter had so entirely passed from his mind
that he found it impossible to remember
whether he had even either bought or drank
beer in that saloon on the Sabbath. l have
known dozen minors called, unexpectedly,
| before the grand jury, and on their direct
testimony indictments were found for selling
to minors. In just few days after when
| these same young men were placed on the
witness-stand in open court it was i'm.
possible for one of them to remember anv
time when he had either bought or drank
beer in any OF these saloons OF, in fact
whether be had ever done so or not. have
| known a ssloon-keeper to stand up in open
court and swear that he did not know that
a certain man, to whom he had
sold whisky, was in the habit o.
getting drunk, when the fact was az
thoroughly known in the whole communiey
as the fact is known In New York that the
Democrats carried that State last fall. The
above is just hint at the difficulties to ba
encountered i'll trying TO enforce our re-
strictive law But if we can have nothing
better, and must have simply restrictive
law then let the Legislature so provide that
it will be no more difficult to convict under
it than it is to convict of theft or counter
feitng under existing laws A man is found
with counterfeit money in his position; the
law presumes that he is either a counterfeiter
or engaged in passing counterfeit money.
The burden of proof is with him A man
is found with stolen goods in his possession;
the law presumes that he is either
a thief or in collision with thieves, the bur
den of proof Is with him; he must prove him.
self innocent, or, on this presumptive evil
dence he stands convicted But our well
regulated license law is guilty of no such
presumptions as these In all cases it pre-
sumes that the saloon-keeper and his EN-
ployes are innocent until proven guilty by
the clearest and most direct evidence. The
fact that minor goes into a saloon perfectly
sober and comes out drunk is no evidence
whatever that either the proprietor any oaS
| in his employ furnished him the intoxicants
The whole burden of proof rests on the prose-
cution, Ii must also be proven ir'
each case that "a gill is less quantity
than a quart" or your case ia.
Let the law provide that the fact
/ bIiae SltAiOi bAO lAOiAN VI DstSA NOOh VI Il
! saloon is open on the Sabbath, and any cleo
/ ton or public holiday shall be presumptive
! evidence of guilt. The fact that minor or
| habitual drunkard obtained intoxicants in
any given place, or were seen coming out OF
a saloon in a state of intoxication, shall be
presumptive that the proprietor is guilty of
selling in violation OF law. l am first, LAST
and all the time for prohibition, fully be-
lieving that it is the only remedy; but if we
cannot have that for the present, then, in
the name of reason and common justice. in
the name of the thousands of blighted homes
and stricken hearts, insist that we shall have
a law that can be enforced and under whicl
| some little show at least of protection for the
youth and unfortunate OF our State can bs
! secured. L. G. BUCKLES,
GREENcAsTLE IND, Feb. 2 1888.