Phillipsburg herald. [volume] (Phillipsburg, Kan.) 1882-1905, 1886-02-13

voted in the negative were to be left
liable to the suspicion that they were in
favor OF inebyiety, ="
The joint rule No. XIII excludes
liquors from the Capitol but the viola
ton of it, so far as punishment is con
cerned, is visited only on the employees.
The force Of Senator Ingalls, remarks
become very convincing when we con-
slider that the Senators who voted for
the rule had then in violation of a SINH
lar rule CX) 49 different kinds of drinks
in the Senate restaurant, over which
they exercised supreme control. 1t IS
clear they wanted but the mantle al
forded by their pretense to temperance
when they were secure in their old ways.
temperance to the contrary notwi1h-
standing.
The yeas and nays being called on
the last above amendment to punish
Senators for a violation OF the rule SEN
ator Ingalls, voted in favor Of it, but
there being but 20 voting yea and 50
voting nay the amendment did not
carry.
Mr.. Edmonds then moved an amend
ment to strike out all that clause as
follows: .sAnd any officer or employee
Of either House who shall in any man
ner violate OF connive at the violation
Of this rule shall be dI- missed from Of
hce.' The amendment OF Mr.. Edmonds
was agreed TO.
The question arose during the dis
cussion, as TO whether malt and vinOus
liquors were Intoxicating, when an
amendent was offered by Senator
Riddleberger as follows: In the first
line strike out the words Intoxicating
liquors, - and insert spurious or malt
liquors, wine or cider, so as to read,
No spurious or malt liquors, wine
or cider shall be offered for sale, exhib-
tied or kept within the Capitol or in
any room connected Herewith, etc. -
Senator Ingalls, voted for this amend
ment, but there being but 20 yeas to
So nays it did not pass. There being
no further amendments, Rule XIII was
passed as follows: ''No Intoxicating
| liquors shall be offered for sale, exhib-
tied or kept within the Capitol or any
room or building connected Herewith,
which by law is under exclusive control
Of either House or joint control Of both
Houses or on the public ground ada
cent thereto, and 1t shall be the duty OF
the Sergeant-at-arms of the two Houses
under the supervision of the presiding
officer thereof, respectively to strictly
enforce the foregoing provision" The
yeas and nays were not called and we
cannot tell how the different senators
voted on the final passage
The foregoing is a very brief history
of the temperance legislation in our
present senate at this session. The
part Senator ingalls, took in it has been
| criticised and condemned by several
papers protesting to be either christian
or temperance, or both, and through
them very respectable, honest and we'll
meaning people have been led INTO the
error that Senator ingalls, was opposed
to temperance and temperance legisla-
lion. His acts and motives on the tenn
perance question have been criticised
! in the pulpit in our own city by a min
lister who evidently meant well but was
misled by erroneous statements Of the
press. Our people, who ought to give
full faith and caedance 10 our Minister'S
have been misiuformed and great in
Justice has been done our senator John j..
ingalls,. That the people may correctly
Judge the acts of cur public men the
/ facts ought to be submitted. which your
contributor has attempted to do in this
case. No doubt very large portion Of
the readers Of the HERALD are decided
" in favor OF temperance aud temper
apce legislation. They ought to be,
for they would only favor the right
and rieht minded people ought not TO
condemn without hearing; nor are
they slow in detecting that which is
real from the ever fleeing mOckery Of
false pretense, as exhibited in joint
Rule XIII. There being no penalty to
its viola4iOns, no punishment, no rule Of
procedure for its enforcement, it is but
a false pretense at temperance legisla-
ton. w r. Il