The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-04-24
Follows His Confrerc I'm Vigorously
Denouncing the Nicholson Bill,
which the Governor Signed.
SECTION NINE HIS THEME
ADDRESS BEFORE A HANDFUL OF
HENDRICKS CLUB MEMBERS.
DcmagogicaI Reference to the Inser-
ton of the Local OPP
lion Section in the Bill.

1870 SAodd0 ~1dllIlcWS d SNORT time ago,
The Indiana Senators hope to crush Cover
nor Matthews politically, in one fell swoop
as it were, by themselves attacking the
Nicholson bill which the Governor dared
sign. Senator Turpie's address at the Hem
bricks Club last night was expected to be
the keynote of the Voorhees-Turpie combine
against Matthews, who, his friends say, will
only too gladly espouse the cause of the
new law, as against any attacks the Sem
ators may make on it.
Sentor Turpie was attraction enough TO
draw about fifty members of the club to the
rooms to hear him discuss in particular Sec
ton 9, the so-called local option clause or
the Nicholson bill. During the hour in
which he held the floor, enough enthusiasm
was aroused to cause one weak cheer to be
given when he referred to the supporters
of the Nicholson bill as placing more faith
In the power of constables and police to force
temperance upon the people than in the
good sense free agency of the people them
selves. At the mention of the words con-
stables and police in a derisiye sort of way,
one lone shout of applause was given. AL
though Sen;Lter Turpie was suffering greatly
from palsv-so much in fact, that he could
hardly hold the few papers on which he had
jotted down his notes-his voice was firm and
clear and was raised with his old-time vipor
sufficiently to fill a hall as large as any
In the city; but it only reverberated and
re-echoed from the walls of a room not
large enough to hold the two-score Of
people who were present. He began his re-
marks by thanking the club for having
invited him to address it on the subject of
prohibitory legislation. and then continued,
in substance saying:
Indiana has been a State almost eighty
years and, with a few exceptions of short
duration, during that entire time has held
TO one policy in dealing with the liquor
traf1c-the regulation and licensing of 1t.
The beginning Of this policy may be found
In the territorial enactments. The laws nave
not always been the same; but they have
been consistent and with two objects in
view-the regulation Of the traffic and the
raising of revenue. The money thus OBJ
tanned has been used for the benefit of the
free schools of the State, of which we are all
proud.
There have been only two brief periods
or departure from this uniform policy.
In 1850, with a large majority, the Know
Nothings passed what was known as the
Maine law, which remained in force only
until the next Legislature could repeal II.
In 1873, the Republicans passed the Baxter
bill, which was in force about the same
length Of time. The Maine law was for
absolute prohibition, while the Baxter law
was somewhat similar to the present Nichoi-
e son olli; ana ! 5Pa nan fnalS red IN both h, OF these
pired during that time. The canvass against
the Baxter bill was carried on largely in
Marion county,, which was then about 5000
Republican. TIL canvass was complete.
Every. schoolhouse, every cross roads were
visited, and in fact many meetings Were
held In barns. The people came out will
ingly and listened to the arguments for a
measure which would displace the odious
the right Of life. liberty and the pursuit
OF happiness. Both the county and State
Went W strongly against ns4z the Baxter law and
which is now In force. and 1 can see no
reason for departure from it.. There has
for one and the people do not want 1t. The
odious feature of the Nicholson bill is con-
tanned in the ninth section"
He then read the section referred to. 1t
is the one that is commonly called the
local option section. giving the majority of
the county commissioners and prevent the
issuance of a liquor license.
There was a parallel section to this
in the Baxter law, Senator Turpie con-
tinued, THE Baxter law required the APP
pl aiority TO Of present fes Voters q pebs sfore s sign could 6y se a
cure a license. This is practically the
same as the new law. Both are
s Be- prohlbi PiEah'Oiii n to Sna It may may
be extended to a county, and If In a whole
county why n. not in the no,s entire e state? , The
section. But let us look at the title a
moment. The title says the bill is for the
intoxicants. How can you regulate a thing
that Is prohibited? Why was not this
Of being concealed and hid away in the body
of the bill for the purpose of deceiving
and defrauding those who had to vote upon
it? The supporters of the bill claim that
ii Is a good, gracious and beneficient policy.
IL SO, why did they hide IL away and con-
ceal 1t from the eye of an ordinary OBJ
server? because people have voted against
it time and time again, and its author knew
1t would not go through without hypocrisy
and deceit. 1t is n foul, premeditated at
tack upon the liberties Of the people and
the rights of property. There are millions
of dollars invested in this State in the
LIQUOR traffic and the promoters of this
bill took this underhand method of stabbing
sIt Is said in this country that the will of
the majority governs. 1t does when ex-
pressed in a lawful manner, and at proper
times and places; but there are certain
things over which the will OF the majority
has no authority. They are set out in full
erty and the pursuit of happiness. and the
various others named in that famous bill,
are all rights which cannot be taken away.
They may be regulated. but the will of the
majority is not powerful. enough to take
them away-they cannot be prohibited; de-
MED or destroyed: The right of life, liber-
ty and the pursuit of happiness; what. does
this mean? Merely the right TO breathe?
to eat sufficient bread and drink sufficient
water TO sustain life? No, gentlemen. 1t
means the right to live. and to live in the
luIi pursuit u HdpiAhS9S. ~ ~
right to adopt certain habits of life. Habits
to suit YOU? No, sir. To suit the majority.
No. sir: to suit the man himself. If the
question lis, who shall be Governor, sheriff
or constable. the will of the majority rules;
but if il Is what shall | eat, drink, or how
I shall worship, l am the majority. and am
sovereign in my rights. None can say no.
There are certain rights With which a free
government cannot interfere. They are SOW
ereien in the individual. They don't depend
upon others or upon the majority. each per-
son being independent in his action. With
respect to these rights. the man is greater
than the state-man. a free moral agent, is
infinitely greater. .
..All these rights are subject to abuses
the right to eat and drink may result in
debauchery, free speech in Islander. free
dom of the press in libel. But is abuse OF
any of these any excuse for prohibition?
Shall we have no more eating and drinking,
the press or no more right TO bear arms?
ANY OF them result in evils when abused.
Stealing is a gross abuse of the right to
acquire property. just as drunkenness is a
gross abuse of the right TO drink. For this
reason we prohibit stealing. You Will all
saw we must not abolish the rights of the
| people. II we do not, we must expect
abuses. 1t Is an imperfect world. gentle
| men: we must take the better with the
worse.
at is often the case that extreme meas
ures defeat the purpose for which they
were enacted. Under Section 8 of the
Nicholson bill revenue viii be cut Oft. but
will the sale cease? Have you heard Of
illicit sales-sales without license-does
thiss bill take any notice of the s~peak-easyy
pt Ae-- 4Ia a n a,xsrs axrAr DnU hAEa