The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-26
NICHOLSON TO TURPIE.
The Author Of the New Liquor LAW
Responds to the Senator's Speech.
Indianapolis. April "a.


a little space to reply to the somewhat err
ratio speech of Senator Turpie Tuesday
night. / may appear presumptuous in thus
attempting to cross the path of our junior
Senator. but the speech Is so transparent
and smacks so much of theories long ago
exploded that even a layman may dare to
speak in reply. IL is a trihe refreshing,
but disgusting, to see the fossil
remains of the old Bourbon age dug out
and Toasted upon with evident relish, but
even the junior Senator may live yet long
enough to awaken from his Rip Van
Wrinkle dream to find out that civilization
has advanced, and that government exists.
not to give liberty to that which Is against
society and the public good, but in part
to protect the citizen in every right that
conduces to his owl development. 1t is the
Senator's right to plead for the socialistic
doctrine that a man has the inherent right
to do as he pleases. But most people are
learning the orthodox doctrine that no man
has a right to make himself a burden upon
society and the State. and. further. That
except as he pleases to conform his action
with the pubic good, and TO SO conduct
with the rights, privileges and happiness
Of any other , citizen. The Senator Is
quoted as saying that with respect to GER
tain rights the man Is greater than the
State. 1T may he granted, but 1t must also
be noticed that IT is true with reference
l IiSnto Oiil AhtA 10 -
America, and when the people, through the
are against the public welfare in a com
munity. then that same majority mas the
e nee to be sacrificed for the happiness
and prosperity of the greater number.
The speech referred to proceeded on me
ator know the rule Of law in Indiana?
has declared that the liquor. businessmen
the men-but the business itself has no in
delegated rights? Il, follows. then, that no
man has the inherent right to sell liquor,
pose any restriction whatever. Tne Senator
pleads for the unrestricted rights or IN
dividuals in certain lines and then also
in other words; that people have the right
strictions may be placed upon the business.
If drinking is a right that must not be re-
e sasn may the latter be r Is sa.a
that the Supreme Court has also declared
that no license is ever issued in this State
Internationally. and in proportion as the
and it's effects against the public good, in
that proportion has that same majority
extent of %forbidding it altogether. The
government claims the right, and exercises
il sometimes, to confiscate the property OF
individuals when it can be shown to be for
the public welfare, and yet the Senator
would perhaps hold that the right to gain
and hold property is an inherent right. The
Senator's argument is both fallacious and
vicious when he seeks to give the impress
of local self-government when the individ-
ual acts are the question at issue. The
question arossr a, Of prudence fo sai or !%heg I may Sc SELF 2
government is to be administered, but if
the question of right is to be considered. 1t
is well enough to know that the govern
ment can go to extreme limits in the way
of restricting or forbidding a practice which
shall be regarded as a public evil.
The argument is made that the State has
almost universally adhered to the restrictive
policy concerning the liquor traffic, and
then the conclusion is drawn, apparently,
that there must be no changes in the future
In other words, what has been is good
meaning boiled down to solid facts. Even
the Senator, who is evidently welded to
the idols of long ago should nave been
The liquor law under which the State has
been operating for the past twenty years
and it is limited that the Senator had a
voice in it's construction-is woefully insult
fcient to protect society against the evils
be cursed with this law just because it has
existed twenty years? Perhaps the Sena-
tor would be gracious enough to admit that
other restrictions might be placed upon the
business. but will he please inform the public
to what limit the State may go in imposing
public welfare regulates the whole matter,
and that this and not the individual right
determines the limit. lneTe must De al
vancement in government to meet new con-
ditions, just as there must be development
in civilization.
son bill proclaims 1T as a restrictive meas
ure, and intimates that Section 8 was not
mentioned in the title. May be he will want
to knock it out in the courts. on this ground;
but he will then find in the title these
words. and providing for remonstrance
of the same and he may also learn that,
instead of Section 9 being concealed to de-
section was more prominently considered
than any other one of the entire measure.
| is the one to be forbidden and the
Senator says that stealing is forbidden be-
cause it is the abuse of the right to obtain
property is the means of leading every mar,
or nearly every man VINO has property to
become a thief, or has the general tendency
to make everyfman a thief. then even that
right may properly be foro.d1s1. This sarne
argument applies s,, to the evils Of drunken
to forbid.
The Senator is soiicitous about the speak
ton: Is he so forgetful that he does not
know that the "speak-easy'' is already out
I IeMsni mus against ins I that w efhane the 1eses State te
already forbids? Most people are inclined
TO ee p eUsn IS ! n ana w are r alsSous 10 !; attack msk
not have been the practice forty years ago.
The Senator misjudges when he says the
homes would be made happier and more
prosperous, no doubt, were such the case.
but it only provides that the business of
liquor selling may be forbidden in a com
munity when fhe majority shall so will 1t.
1t is asked, why not compel people to be-
long to church or some benevolent organi-
zation? Why? Because people do not re-
gard it as a public evil and thereby in
| fringing on the rights of others and Of So
| ciety not to belong to church or other or
| CARNATIONS. The cases are iii no sense
parallel. When the people of a community
believe that liquor selling is wrong in their
| midst and conclusive of evil and against the
| best welfare of the citizens. then is there
| any right on earth to prevent that COM
/ munity from protecting its citizens, thus
assuring to them the best ideal of right
the right to their own best development?
Our Senator quotes Scripture Really, hut
when a man undertakes to scondone a
wrong practice by the Bible. as is, often
| done, he has passed beyond re ordinary
realm of human thought, and is more of
a curiosity than a reality. In this instance
the choice OF Scripture Is bad. for no one
would believe in this age-except our junior
Senator-tllat the eating of meat was com
sidered as bad. even in the days of Paul.
as the business OF engaging in the liquor
traffic Is considered to-day by the masses.
The speech is something OF a curiosity and
| savorS of certain beliefs forty years ago,
which most people have outgrown.
1t matters not what the Senator's purpose
may be in attacking Section 0 OF this b.ll.
but he VIII evidently learn in time .aat the
vast majority of the people In this state