The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-07-15
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
A Prohibition Ticket.

advance the cause of temperance reforml 1t
must be apparent we think, that such course
would be most injurious to the cause which the
advocates of such reform have at heart.
No thoughtful Temperance man can doubt that
one or the other of the great parties into which
the people of the State is divided will carry the
State and elect its State and legislative ticket
This being so, the question naturally arises: Is
it matter of indifference to the friends of tenn
perance which party shall have control of the
legislative and executive powers of the State for
the next four years7 That can be readily
answered by examining the attitude of the
two parties on the question lying at
the root of all progress in the matter Of
temperance reform. There are only two aspecJs
| in which the manufacture and sale as a bever-
age of intoxicating liquors can be considered
One view is that such manufacture and sale is
lawful and legitimate business, as much so as
] the manufacture and sale of -four, sugar, and
other articles essential to life and comfort. The
other view is that the manufacture and sale as
beverage of intoxicating liquor is an evil
working only mischief to the user, to his family
and to society. In the first aspect it is claimed
! that the iquor-dealer has as much right to man
ufacture and sell intoxicating liquor as q bever-
age as his neighbor has to raise and sell CATTLE
wheat, or potatoes; and that the Legislature has
no rightful authority to do anything more than
! to enact judicious laws to regulate such manu-
facture and SALE that all prohibitory laws are
not only violative of personal liberty, and prop
erty rights, but are also subversive of
the Constitution. In the second aspect, it
| is said that the manufacture and sale of intoxi-
ness, pauperism and crime and that they ought
i to be prohibited by the most stringent penal
/ laws the same as other acts of immoral and Grim
inal tendency The Democratic party believes
| the former, and temperance people believe the
| latter to be the true view of the question.
1 Assuming, then, that the manufacture and
sale of intoxicating liquor to be used as COM
mon beverage are evils that ought to be prohibit
ed by law, the next question is: Does the present
Constitution permit the enactment of a prohibit
/ DRY laws The answer is, that the Constitution,
as interpreted by the Democratic judges of our
! Supreme Court forbids the enactment of pro-
/ hibitory liquor law. On the 10Th of February
/ 1863, the Legislature enacted a well-adjusted
/ probitory liquor law, and the Supreme
Court at its November term, 1855 in the case
| of Beebe against the State declared it unconst-
tutional The court held that the Legislature
had no constitutional power to prohibit the man
ufacture and sale of Intoxicating liquors as a
/ beverage that the only constitutional power
possessed by 1t was to regulate their manufac-
ture and SALE So long, then, as the present
/ constitution, thus interpreted, remains in force
the right to manufacture and traffic in intoxicat-
ing liquors is shielded by the Constitution and is
i firmly entrenched beyond and above prohibitory
4 legislation The manufacture and traffic can be
i licensed and regulated. cared for and protected
/ but it can not be prohibited and stopped The
4 State may constitutionally authorize the making
i of drunkards and paupers by legal enactment.
i but it is powerless under the present Constitu
/ ton to prohibit the manufacture and
4 n hat WI np0dI1 drt1T 1lroy1y 1occ
| and pauperism The same Democratic
/ Supreme Court had previously decided
at its November term 1853, in the case of Maize
/ against the State, that the present Constitution
denies to the Legislature power to enact a local
/ option liquor law. Hence every avenue to the
suppression of the liquor traffic, either by prohi-
bition or by local option, is carefully hedged up
1 by the present Constitution, asexpounded by
Democratic Supreme Court.
No practical progress can be made in temper
ance reform until we obtain either a new Con-
| sttution or new exposition by the Supreme
Court of the present Constitution To obtain
new exposition of the present Constitution would
require thorough change in the political com
plexion Of the Supreme bench. To accomplish
this would be slow and uncertain remedy. The
judges are elected at different times
and hold their offices for six
years. The only practicable, and at
| the same time reasonably speedy remedy, is
either to amend the present Constitution or to
i call convention to frame new Constitution
The process of amending the Constitution Is
| tedious one If a proposed amendment has
been agreed to by majority of the members
/ elected to each of the two houses, it must then
| be referred to the General Assembly to be
chosen at the next general election, and, if
| agreed to by majority of all the members
elected to each house, it is then to be submitted
to the electors of the State, and if agreed to by
a majority of such electors, it then becomes
part of the Constitution. This process is a long
and hazardous one. requiring to insure success,
onfa IL
eral Assemblies, and then the obtaining of ma
jority of the popular vote when such proposed
amendment is submitted to the people.
The most direct and speedy method is to elect
| Legislature pledged to call con
stitutional convention. That DONE the way is
| open to obtain speedy submission of a consti-
| tutional provision in favor of prohibition to
direct vote Of the people, unembarrassed by any
extraneous political question. If the next Legis-
ature, for example, should be in favor of calling
a constitutional convention, it could be convened
| by next June, and the new Constitution could be
submitted to vote of the people in the fall of
1883. No other course SO speedy or so fair and
free from political complications could be de-
vised. 1t would fully meet the demands of the
temperance reformers.
The Democratic party, in its platform adopted
at its late State convention, is opposed both to
the calling of a constitutional convention and to
l~any amendment of the present Constitution reat-
ing to the subject of the manufacture and sale
of intoxicating liquors In the fifteenth resolu-
ton they declare that we are opposed to the
calling of convention to alter and amend
the Constitution of this Statep And
in the last clause of the sixteenth resolution they
saw Therefore we are opposed to any consti
tutional amendment relating to the subject Of
the manufacture and sale Of Intoxicating and
malt liquors.
On the other hand, the Republican party ex-
plicity declares that they in favor Of calling
a convention to alter and amend the Constitution
of the State so thatit shall be abreast of the
hoe oh md hoxy 5c ofk
pie. The third resolution of the Republican
platform declares; I'm the lapse Of thirty three
years, by the increase Of our population, and by
the marvellous development of our material re-
sources and the spread Of intelligence, our State
has outgrown the Constitution of 1851 and we
therefore favor the calling Of q convention at an