The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-01-31

ed by n committee when Ii made its
original report he moved that h bill
be re-referred. Murphy of Rowan OBJ
sected 10 this re-eammittment. saying
he thought members ought TO meet the
issue sluarely and be willing to say
whether they desired to take advantage
o. an accidental law or not. Wial-
borne said he introduced q bill for re-
pea, except as 20 the counties above
referred 10 wnich are named In the
acts OF 1908, and that the bill was 81
worde that any county desiring 1t
could be placed within the anti-jug aS
territory He added that + was a well
known fact that the anti-jug law bill.
applying TO 2 who's state was defeated
in 1905, and hence that il was nothing
but proper % repeal any law which had
been enacted by mistake Graham VI
Granville favored re-commitment Ct
the bill. as did Stewart OF Harnett am
Alexander Of Mecklenburg. Koonca. IL
Cnslow opposed p~ostponement, saying
1t was generally understood during the
campaign. n he had so stated to hts
constituents. that the law would be re-
pealed because it was tainted with err
ror, IL not with fraud He had the AL
thorlty Of the distinguished chairman
of the Democratic committee for The
assurance tina rs n matter OF course
the law would be repealed. Warren Of
Jones sad the law was not made an is
sue In the campaign in his section. be-
cause it was universally considered
that as a matter of course 1t would he
repealed. This is the only manly course
to pursue. and then,if 1t is desired an
other bill giving an anti-jug law 10
the entire state could be introduced and
stand on its merits. Men high in au-
thority in North Carolina had led the
people to believe this law would be
promptly repealed 50 far as il a re-
lated to territory not including the hill.
He opposed any postponement. Murphy
Of Rowan said he had no objections 10
an anti-jug law of those counties whose
members desired it, but was not in IA
vor Of postroning action in repeating
the law covering the whole state.
The people expected to see the law
repealed promptly. and yet here it
was. goth day of the session, and the
bill to repeal had been he'd back ana
now it was proposed to still further
postpone it. Mitchell, of BERTHE, fa-
vored the repeal without n further
postponement, saying it was Wei
known how he stood on h temper
ance question and how the liquor IN
uence tried to defeat him in the last
campaign, but he could not rest con
tented a without voting the
repeal Of the present law, passed mad
vertently. He believed an anti-1ug
law could be passed by this legislature
to cover this whole State, but whether
that was SO or not, it would be un-
~pardonable and unmanly to allow the
law as at present construed by the
supreme court to remain on the
statutes. Robson said he would vote
for an anti-jug aw for h whole
State, but was unalterab1y opposed to
delay another moment in voting to
repeal present law. He felt that the
construction placed by the supreme
court, making the law universal, vas
good law, yet at the same time 1t
amounted to an admission of want Of
care on the part Of the legislature.
and as a former member he could not
make amends any too soon. Biggs
followed in the same strain. Riburn
said he was glad to know all members
acquitted the author of the local anti
jug law Of any intention to include
the State under the pretense OF a
local measure. He said he was the
partner of Mr.. Hoey, the ~introducer
of the bill two years ago, n knew
that Hoey V dreamed OF h act
having a general application. He
strongly favored repeating the pres
ent law, excepting for the counties il
was drawn to cover. McNinch with
drew his amendment saying he hoped
his purpose would not be miscon-
strued. He gave notice that he would
introduce a bill to enact an aatl-iue
law for the state. Davis withdrew
his motion to re-commit and the bill
ra CSn1 on roll ra17 90 fo 81 the fol
lowing voted no: Canady, Feimster,
Cover, Graham, of Lincoln, Jones
McGill, Mcqueen, Olive, Redding,
Stronach, Taylor, Of Vance, Thagard.
Wade, west, of Bladen, West of Chero-
kee, Williams, Wood, Powers, OF
Rutherford and Young.
In explaining why he voted no,
Powers said he believed a bird in the
hand was worth two in the bush.
On the third reading Of the bill the
following counties asked to be OK
empted from the operations of the re-
pealing bill. Caldwell. Watauga,
Burke. Rutherford, and Randolph.
McNinch begged members to with
draw these amendments to have their
counties exempted at this stage Of the
proceedings, saying it would be rob
bing the temperance forces of their
victory and ~endangering the passage
of an anti-jug Jaw later on. The
amendment was then withdrawn an
the bill was sent to the Senate.
FINAL READING.
Bills passed final reading to vail
date judgments under which sales OF
contingent remainders have bcelt
made. and to permit trustees Of de
ceased mortgages to the
right to foreClose.
By consent McNinch introduced a
bill to define the place of sale Of liquor
in North Carolina, and it was referred
to the committee on liquor traffic. Il
is IN anti-jug law for the entire State.
The House committee on railroads
lookup the growers bill prohibiting the
running of freight trains carrying per-
ishable products On Sundays. James
TT Pom i'm behalf of the railroad made