The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1906-03-08
BISHOPS BILLS
PROVE POSERS
Legislators Are a Little At
Sea As to How to Dispose
Of These Measures
DEVIL AND THE DEEP SEA
CLERGY AND CHURCH ON ONE
SIDE AND sALoONKEEPERs ON
THE OTHER MAKE THEIR
LIVES A BURDEN TO THEM
Especial to ..The Jersey city News,

Special to THE Jersey City News.')
TRENTON, March, 8. 1906 Nothing
was talked about among the Legislators
yesterday except the hearing given by the
Miscellaneous Business Committee. of the
Senate Tuesday evening, on the Bishops
bills, providing stricter regulations for sa-
looms and the increase of the minimum
license fees in various municipalities Of
the State. 1t was conceded that not in
many years, if indeed, ever before in the
hearing that brought out such real elo-
quenee as that at this hearing. The cler-
gymen of different denominations who
spoke in favor Of the bills displayed ora
tory of a high order, especially Rev.
Father G. J. Kelly, of Hoboken, and
Rev Father Sullivan, of Jersey City.
Ex-senator Robert s. Hudspeth attacked
the measure with fire and vigor that in
spired the trust in the hearts Of his fol-
lowers of material modification, if not
defeat of the proposed statutes.
Whether the Bishops bills will be
amended or altered or reported in the
present shape by the Miscellaneous Busi-
ness Committee will not be known until
next week, when the committee will meet
and discuss the matter. The consensus
of opinion among men who have at
tended legislative sessions for many years
is that the committee will be forced to
make some report on the bills to satisfy
the clergy's strong demand for restrictive
legislation.
IF the committee alters the bill ma
terially by eliminating the restrictive
clause appertaining to the removal Of
screens, nontransparent glass, ETC., from
saloon windows said one prominent ad-
vocate of the Bishops bill today, 1--WE will
not accept it. The contest will then only
be temporarily postponed until next ses-
sion when we will resume it with an
ardor that will only be increased and
may bring greater restrictions than are
now proposed.
1--WE want the whole bill as it stands
or none at all. IF any clause be taken
out We will fight and if it is going to be
fight between the church with the
thousands of people it represents on one
side and the saloon men and the politi-
clans on the other, we know what the
result viii be. and the legislators will
have nobody but themselves to blame for
leaving it within our power to fight. We
are not looking for it, but surely we will
not run away for it when it comes"
The legislators are loath to discuss the
Bishops bills. or give any intimation Of
how they will vote on them. As one
prominent leader expressed it to-day, "it
will be time enough to think about those
bills when they are put up to you with
out attempting to jump hurdles before
you reach Them Other Legislators ex-
pressed similar sentiments. They all
realize that they are confronted with a
hard proposition and how it can be solved
to the satisfaction of both sides is some
thing that they would like to know. Many
are in hopes that the committee will
solve the problem by at least holding
these bills up so that no member will
be forced to take sides on the question,
Nearly all the lawmakers. however
are agreed that the Bishops Bills as at
present drafted are too drastic in their
provisions, and will have to be modified
before they will stand any show of the
coming laws Especially the provision
which provides for the removal of
screens. etc. is said to be too harsh and
fanatical to receive even consideration.
The clergy would prefer that the bill be
defeated than passed without this clause
or with it amended.