The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-29

who framed it. and it IS manifest that drawn to
| be read between the lines. The Liquor League in
the name of the Democratic party, says that it lis
now, it always has been in favor of law and
| order" Well what kindl PerhaTs good law and
order for saloon keepers but very bad for everybody
else. The who made that platform certainly did
not mean that they were IN favor OF the laws OF tins
State in force regulating the sale of intoxicating
| liquors. for all know that they have diligently
sought their repeal and failing in that have violated
their provisions, and then asked that they be not
punished therefor because said laws obnoxious to
| them. They ask to be allowed to violate the IL
o'clock and Sunday provisions of the law. claim
six days out of not enough in which to ply
their trade There is other class of business that
requires legislation to conne its participants to these
| limits We all know that these men do not want
more stringent laws. Hence, must conclude that
they are in favor of laws giving more latitude and
protection to the saloon keeper and less authority
and protection to the people.
What the people of this city demand is the enforce
ment of the laws have; enforcement against
members of the Liquor League who sell whisky,
well against the poor unfortunate who commits
ofense because it has been sold to him; the same
kind of enforcement against all classes of men in all
| kinds of business. Without stopping to argue
whether the laws the best that could be passed
not it is enough for and for all good citizens to
know that the laws exist to convice us that they
ought to be upheld and enforced. If law is bad,
enforce it. and thereby the speedily work its
peal. If the law is good enforce it matter of
| course for the welfare of society.
The platform referred to does not declare in favor
of enforcing the laws at all Here is fine opportu-,
nifty to read between the lines Take the laws Of the
State they exist on the subject of the liquor
traffic and we know, already stated. that the
| who furnishing the money and directing the
campaign in the interest," of the candidates nominated
at Mozart Hail. not in favor of enforcing those
laws. Well we have no other Hence we must con-
clude that the plank of the platform quoted from to
| be read one way before and another way after the
election.
do not believe there is any great desire on the
part of the people of this city, outside of the persons
having direct interest in the saloon business, to
weaken the laws now in force. And believe there is
fiVYanvt fhar IF
the Democratic, well as the Republican party, to
enforce the laws we have.
What greater danger to the State and republican
institutions can be imagined than organized effort
| to disobey the laws! To allow such movement
to succeed is, to invite reign of
terror and to transform organized society into mob
To even encourage such course is to depreciate the
value of property and to lessen the security of
homes There is equvocation or uncertainty as to
the meaning of the language employed in the Repub
can platform this subject. 1t declares emphatic
ally in favor of he enforcement of law in the interest
of public order and for the preservation of private
| rights" Cannot the lawabidng Democrats of this
| city stand on that patforma I think they
| A correspondent of one of the daily papers, few
days since, put this whole matter in nut shell: THE
to, has planted its faith squarely on an
| anti-league platform. The Democratic party must
| or break it's faith with the men who have
furnished the money that its campaigns. 1t will
be very singular positon for party claiming to be
Democratic-which means the government of the
| people-to unite with league that has no polit-
ca creed but to control the legislation OF the State
and municipalities, to give the liquor traffic
| untrammeled chance to make money and disturb the
peace and quiet of the community If the citizens of In
dianapolis do not at thecomng election vndicate the
rights of the many against the moneyed privileges of
the few-vindicate the sober lawobserving and moral
sentiments of the peoplethere is little to hope for
the future growth of the city. 1t it becomes known
that leagues and law breakers to rule the govern
ment of the capital of the State ndianan feel
proud of the morals and intelligence of his State. We
do not think this humiating calamity befall u.s."
This society, called the Liquor League has not been
content to stop with attempts to control legislation,
but has carried it's Hobbies before the officers of State to
demand who should and who should not be appointed
to control the police of the city. Nay the members
of this league have not stopped there but have sought
missoners. when appointed by threats of removal.
And they have not stopped even there, but have at
tempted to have faithful police officers removed for
doing their clear and sworn duty.
Ought such organization be allowed longer to
exist Will the far-minded Democrats of this city
help to extend its existence by giving it their votes!
The law abiding people hope not
And now, in leaving this branch of the discussion
desire to again state to my party friends and to all
the people of this city that stand squarey and firmly
the first and fourth panks of the platform adopted
by the convention which nominated in this hall I
willing to stand fall the principles there de-
clared If should fall VIII have the consciousness
of knowing that fell in good cause. There would
also be satisfaction in the thought that my defeat
| would surely be the triumph Of some two years
hence representing the principles here espouse for
SO sure as Liquor League principles prevail now.
their adherents will be swept from the face of the
earth in the next contest. The people of this city
could hardly stand than two years of untram-
meled Liquor League domination.
But the issue most squarely drawn in this con.
test is the to whether the saloons shall pay
tax to the city not The platform adopted at Mo-
Fart Hall is silent this subject; but it is we'll
known fact that the candidates of that convention,
and large majority of those nominated in the Demo
cratic ward and district conventions for councimen
and aldermen, opposed to taxing the saloons. On
the other hand the platform adopted by the Republic
convention declares in unmistakable terms for the
levy of 500 saloon tax. 1 stand upon that plank
of the platform also.
Under the act act of 1872 passed by
tax on saloons of not more than 500 per annum.
The smallest town in the State may impose this
500 tax, and ;. the largest city can do no
This city did not take advantage of the law in
question until three years ago. and then imposed
but $52 year instead of the maximum amount al
lowed The Liquor League is in favor of repeating
the ordinance imposing the $50 tax, thus practically
relieving the saloonkeepers far their business
is concerned from all the burdens of taxation The
Republican candidates pledged not only to that
the $50 shall stand but that $4S more shall be added.
This, in my judgment, is fair and resemble. In
cities of the country outside of Inana the tax
is ten times and in many smaller ones than Indian
apolis, it is five times large.
Do you suppose the members Of the Legislature,
when they fixed the limit 90 for cities and towns
expected the largest city in the State to make it essl
If saloon keepers in the various towns and small cities
of the State can afford to pay $780, many of them
do cannot they do in indianapolis where the bust
ness IS much more proitable2
1t has not been very long since tax of $500 was
imposed by some OF the cities of this State. The
liquor law of 1859 which remained in force until the
passage of the Baxter law" in 1878, had mita-
ton clause to the amount of to be charged by
municipal corporations. The act Of 1867, providing
for the organization and government of cities author
lied cities Ito exact license Tor tax money from all
persons licensed to retail Intoxicating liquors by
county State authority" Under that statute the
| little city of Franklin fixed the tax saloons at
$500. The saoonkeepers refused to pay. The
question of the power of the Council to impose such
| tax tested. When the case came to the
Supreme Court, in 1872, it was held by the full
bench that the ordinance imposing the tax
was valid, and the court refused to say that
the amount of the tax in effect prohbitory or
| unreasonable. wiley Owens. 80 IND. 429)
Hence, when the Legislature. in 1878 repealed tn
Baxter BILL by the act which is in force the linn
itat;o c1a Of -; q