The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1906-03-17
Assemblymsn From the
County Are Very Much
Perplexed As to How to
Vote.
CLERGY OPPOSE: CHANGE
THEY PREFER THAT THE BILL
BE DEFEATED RATHER THAN
AMENDED TO SUIT THE Ii
QUoR MEN WHO FAVOR COM
PROMISE.
VT
Special to "The Jersey CITY News'o

"
Especial to THE jersey City News'D
TRENTON, March II. 1906. Not
withstanding that the clergy and the
brewers representing the liquor interests
are at lcggerheadss over the amendments
to be proposed to the Bishops bill and
have declared negotiations off until next
Monday evening, the agitation Of the
question viii net down. The representa-
tives Of the brewers are still insisting
upon amendments which will remove the
drastic features regarding screens. ETC.,
from the bill. while the clergy are as
determined as ever that the bill shall re-
main as drafted or be defeated a:
whole.
The clergy will not listen to any COM
promise amendment to the screen pro-
vision. They claim that if this feature
of the bill is taken out, the Legislature
may as well defeat the bill because
without it the object which they seek
will be destroyed. AT first. the clergy
was willing to compromise and permit
the opening of saloons on Sundays from
1 to II p. NJ, but since the liquor inter
ests have made such determined effort
to defeat their bill and have refused to
not listen to a compromise when it was
offered. they have withdrawn their prop
osition as to the Sunday halliday OPEN
ing and insist upon the screen provision,
which would unquestionably cause the
saloons to be kept closed on Sundays:
The brewers are alarmed. They teai-
ize that the clergy are making big in
roads and that the agitation which they
raised in favor of the Bishops bill has
spread over all parts of the State. Since
the hearing which the Miscellaneous
Business Committee of the Senate gave
the clergy and liquor interests last week,
many legislators who, at first, We're
openly opposed to the bill have heard
from their constituents and are not dis
posed to express their opinion as freely
as heretofore.
An instance may be cited among the
Hudson members in the House. Assem-
bly1Ean Berg stated in an interview that
from his talks with his colleagues he was
convinced that all of them would vote
against the Bishops bill. The state
ment aroused the church people and they
decided to let their representatives hear
from them. AS result nearly every
member Of the Hudson delegation was
overwhelmed with letters asking them to
vote for the bill. Many letters contained
threats that unless they repuddated Mr..
Berg's statement it would mean the end
of their political careers.
The Hudson members who had not ex-
pressed any opinion as to how they iN
tended to vote. became alarmed and We're
quick to avail themselves Of the opportu-i
nifty to deny that Mr.. Berg was author
lied to speak for them. or that they in
tended to vote against the bill as Mr..
Berg claimed
Mr.. Arrowsmfth, Of Hoboken, was
among the first to deny Mr.. Berg's state
ment. He openly declared that he fa-
yored the Bishops bill as it stood, and
intended to vote for it irrespective of
how his colleagues felt about it. He
said he knew that he would earn the
enmity of the saloon interests by so do
ing but he did not care. He was willing
to stand ON his mettle and vote as his
conscience dictated, regardless Of the in
fuences brought to bear upon him.
Mr.. Arrowsmith said that the. respect
able saloonkeepers were not opposed To-
sAe Bishops bill If it was slightly amend
ed. but were induced to oppose it merely
to save the low dive keeper and saloon
men who. kept places with back roosns
freauented' by women. who were afraid
that if the Bishops bill became law
~, oxy u-n,,fd he. cr,,,5,e,ll,f1,. -. a,,t ~