New-York tribune., 1884-01-25
A DEBATE ON PROHIBITION.
VOTE OF PROGRESS IN THE ASSEMBLY,

IsTs-A LESSON FROM OHIO
| [FRoM THE REGULAR CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBuSEI
| ALBANY, Jan. 24-The proposed amendment TO
! the Constitution prohibiting the sale and
manufacture of liqnor in this State was
considered for the first time by the Assem-
| bly, to-day. 1t was introduced by the Rev.
w. II. Olin, gray haired Methodist minister from
| Binghamton who represents Broome County In
the Assembly. Mr.. Olins figure has beena promi-
nent one since the session of the Legislature began.
He occupies a conspicuous seat in the Assembly
Chamber and his black garments of clerical cut,
his white neckte, and his patriarchal beard. sill
YER gray as his hair have made him parsonage OK
note to every spectator that enters the room
Until to-day, however he has taken lit~
tie part in the deliberations of the As
sembly; evidently desiring TO learn the tenn
per of his associates before making any speeches.
When ne called up the amendment there was
visable sensation among the other members.
Every one listened respectfully, as Mr. DIN In a
loud earnest tone of voice, described the evils OK
intemperance the crime due 10 liquor drinking and
argued that the only way to permanently cure tho
curse of intcmperance would be to pass prohib-
itorv amendment.
THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE AMENDMENT.
Mr.. Roosevelt, of slight form and boysh look, rs-
piled to Mr. Oin. He spoke with great earnestness
of manner and his speech was so condensed, able.
and to the point that he held the attention Of tho
Assembymen as it has not been held before this
| year. His speech consisted of two arguments
| first that the amendment ought not to be passed;
and second, that it would be bad policy for tho
Republicans to pass 1t. The last argument
was listened to with the most at
| tention by the Republican Assembymen, some
of whom are inclined to think that the plank prom
| ising the submission of prohibtOry amendment TO
the people was rashy put into the Rchheld Springs
| platform. Governor Hoskins is said
to have been the author of the plank. The prohibt-
| ton movement was strong in the Western part Of
| the State where he lives and he thought Prohibi-
| tiOnists would aid tho Republican party If ths
| plank was adopted Mr.. Roosevelt said that he re-
| gretted that he should be compelled to Oppose
| the amendment after such promise had been made
| by Republican State Convention. Still when he
! was nominated for Assembly, he had frankly
| told his Republican constituents that he could nes
support that plank. Much had been Slid about the
dnty of the Legislature TO submit such an ainend-
ment to the people In his opinion, member or
the Legislature would evade his duty by net act
ing upon his own opinions, but submitting 10 Out
! scTibed three stages for making an amendment To
| the Constitution that it should be ap-
proved by two Legislatures and once by
the people. The present Legislature bad
one duty, the next Legislature n second duty and
the people third duty II was true that the dele
| proved plank pledging the submission OF prOh-
| Diton amendment to the Constitution. He Thought
that most ill-advised and unwise plank. Bu the
| should not commit an error if the convention had
done so. Was it eXpe,ient to pass the amendlnentf
| If tne amendment bv some unfortunate mscha
! should be passed il could not be enforced
the great cities. When nineteeu-twen-
tietbs of the people were opposed to, such
! an amendment il could not be enforced. In
| New-York the passage of the amendment would
mean free rum" The inhabitants of New-lork,
temperance men and clergymen included. wers
opposed to the amendment, because they believed
thai il would increase liquOr-drinking rather than
lessen it. Every one recognized that prohibt9Sy
amendment would be wholly impracticable He
had visited States that had passed prohIbto1
where Prohibitionists were in va
majority, th1 amendment enforced but in
all other places was a dead letter. In hisopinOn
the extreme ProhibitiOnsts did as much harm
as the liquor dealers. They worked with the lqu0r
dealers to prevent the passage of laws that would
lessen liquor selling. The Prohibitionists threat
ened to defeat the Republican party If the Legs-
lature did not pass the amendment, lie did not
fear these threats In his opinion the Prohibitions
lists would neveraid the Republican party whatever
it might do to satisfy their demands. In Ohio too
Republican party lately granted the demands Of tho
Prohibition party. Did the Pr0hibtionsts give aid
to the Republican party Not once. The policy of
the Prohibition party was the same in this state
They would threaten, and perhaps force, RepuOl-
cans iutO taking certain course and would then
desert them and give ald 10 their greatest enemy
the Democratic party. Repeatedly IT has hap
pened in Eew-YOrk City in close districts whers
there hquOr-dealing Democrat on one side
and temperate Republican on the other that mo
Pr0hibltiOnistS would nominate third candldatef
draw of votes from the Republican candidate, and
elect the Democrat.
The average liquor dealer would prefer 10 bave
the ProhbtOry amendment-whch he knew he
could evadc-paSsed, than practical restrictive
liquor law. The worst feature of the ainendment
was that it made distinction between beer drink
ing aud the drinking of spirituOus liquors
| DISTINCTION BETWEEN SPIRITS AND BEER.
Mr. Hubbell, of Monroe County, who promises
to be one of the leading Republican AS
semblymen, offered two important amendments
The amendments in brief would secure to tha
people the right of voting separately IN the ques-
ti0ns of prohibiting the sale Of beer and prohibiting
the sale of spirituOus liquors. lie would thus
divide the prohibition amendment into two separate
amendments; one prohibiting the sale and manu-
facture of beer and other brewed liquors; and a
second amendment prohibiting the sale Of lnt0Ncat-
ing distilled liquors Thus the persons who do not
think that beer is an intoxicating liquor aud VINO
think that its sale promotes temperance rather tan
intemperance would have chance of voting
for the amendment prohibiting the sale of DIS
titled liquors. while TefTanlng from voting Tor tlat
which prohibits the sale of beer. - -,
| Mr. Olin opposed the adoption of Mr. HuDDelPs
amendments. In his opinion beer drinking was Just
as bad, and just intoxicating as the drinking OK
distilled liquors.
George Clinton opposed the amendment arguing
that il could not be enforced. Mr. Hunt, OF Jefers
son County earnestly favored the amendment. a,
reply was made to his speech by Mr. Haggerty, OF
New-York who opposed the amendment. Pro-
gressD was then voted on the amendment. Mr.:
Olin will soon again ask for its consideration ana
1T, H., bon,