The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-02-13
FOR LONDON'S BILL
AS II is AMENDED
The Committee has Ordered
a Favorable Report.
TIE BILL is IMPROVED
A Minority Report Will be FlIed---1he Vote
Was not Reached Until After a
Discussion Ct Nearly
Two Hours.


The Senate Committee on Propositions
and Grievances held most important
meeting of the session in the Senate
Chamber at 4 o'clock yesterday after
noon There was quite a sprinkling OF
leading temperance men in the Senate
and in the lobbies and a number Of
ladies in the galleries interested in the
great matter that was pending
At the previous meeting Of this com
mittee, subcommittee, composed of
the Chairman, Senator Vann, of Cho-
wan; Senator Warren, of Jones. and
Senator Brown, of Columbus, had been
appointed a subcommittee to draft
substitute for all the temperance bills
before the committee. They did not
succeed in agreeing. Mr.. Warren for him.
self, and Mr.. Vann, presented a bill they
had drafted. Senator Brown presented
as a minority report for the Van Warren
bill, the London bill, with certain amend
ments that improve but do not weaken
it After the amendments were adopted
by motion of Senator Brown his SUBJ
stitute (The London Bid, with amend
nIents, was ordered favorably reported
to the Senate The vote stood for the
Brown substitute: Brown, Beasley,
Hicks, of Duplin; Goodwin, Marshall
Against: Warren, SrTuill, Hunter and
Crisp. Mr.. Warren gave notice that ne
would file a minority report, and Chair
man Vann stated that he would join
in the minority report.
This vote was not reached until after
a n SiC Of M tvyo
| tor Warren opened by reading the bill,
he and Mr.. Vann had drawn, and COM
menting on it. He said that it CON
tanned the chief provisions in the watts
(, bill but did not make them apply to any
| county unless member of the Legisla-
ture from that county desired to in
corporate his county until it had been
voted upon by the people of the county.
He argued that it was best not to put
the bill in operation in every county in
| the State Only these counties should
be put in by act of the Legislature which
desire this to be done, and then it was
wisest to submit the matter to the voter.
| of the other counties "Some member
| said he did not know what their people
want Prohibition ought not to
| be forced upon those counties. Some
members know that the people want pro-
hibition and it ought to be given to
them. But the principle of submitting
this and all other question to the people
was one that ought nto to be departed
from" The same condition does not ex-
! ist in every county and legislation that
would suit one county would not suit
every county He referred to his own
temperance record. Twice in his life
lie had had an opportunity to vote for
! the prohibition question and he had
voted for prohibition and il is generally
| known in his county that he is prohI-
| bitlonist. While he believed in prohib-
| tion he thought there was something
! higher the right Of the people to con-
| troll their own affairs. Legislation that
is not approved by the people will be a
dead letter. We do not want. to dodge
the issue, we want to meet it, but we
want to meet it in way that will be
in harmony with the doctrine of home
rule.
Senator Beasiey argued in support of
the substitute bill-the London Bill He
| said that, if the Warren-Vann bill should
pass, the Senate would be not only dodg
ing the issue, but the Senators would
be stultifying themselves. The people
The question is whether State policy
on the liquor question be adopted The
Vann- Warren substitute does not touch
the State policy. If it should be adopted,
it does not do anything and will lead to
nothing. 1t will be much wiser for the
committee to make a report somewhat
like this: I'VE, the committee to whom
was referred temperance bills, after
careful consideration Of the matter, do
hereby recommend that every member
of the body be allowed the
same right .e has always had
for his own county" That is what it
would mean, but we had better do it in
plain terms. Any man now has a right
to draw a bill to exactly suit his county,
and this is about what is proposed in tie
Warren Vann bill. This is no longer a
question of local control. The question
is put scuarely and fairly whether the
State shall have State liquor policy.
Senator Goodwin said that he moved at
the previous meeting to postpone con-
sideration because he wished to examine
carefully into the London bill That
having done so, he wished to say that
he had read it carefully and he confess
ed that he had found no objection to the
bill whatever and was prepared to vote
fol it without crossing 't' or dotting
an 81 If any change at all, he would
advocate that it be changed so that sec
ton would require the applicant to
sell liauor to get petition signed by
one-third of the qualified voters instead
of majority. as in the original bill.
He submitted that suggestion in the
form of an amendment ard it was adopt
ed
Mr.. Lamb, of Cumberland, said that
CONTINUED on Fifth Page.)