The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-03-23
Especial to the Farmer.)

Iue AililldliOu OI llceIiSeS DIll was uSiO before the excise committee. yester- day afternoon. The strength behind the bill indicated that some such mea- sure will not be delayed many years, although the prospect of the present bill passing the present Legislature seems small, The chief argument against the bill was made by John J. 'Splain, who devoted much time to showing that the measure is confs- catory in its nature, that there IS no public sentiment for the bill and that a reduction in the number of places where drink is sold does not affect the amount of drinking that is done.
 MT. Splain spoke as follows:
 MT. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
 Committee:
 In opposing this limitation bill l
 desire to preface my remarks with the
 statement that I appear in no pro-
 particular interest in the sense of be-
 ing employed therefor I am here
 simply as a native and citizen of Con-
 nectlcut to protest against a rank 1n-
 justice towards a large number of It's
 citizens among whom I count many
 here to protest against my native
 State entering on a crusade of con-
 fiscation, which I believe to be the
 only logical result of the passage of 8
 limitation law such as is under dis
 cussion here to-day.
 Naturally, when so radical 8 chang c
 is suggested in the existing laws as
 this limitation bill provides for, on
 the persons or the interests suggest ing the change devolves the burden of proving that public sentiment de- mands 1t. Likewise if is incumbent
 fbav fo hat rndr Tn the number of drinking places will eff feet a reduction of drinking itself. Un- less they can prove these two points to your satisfaction (and, in my judg- ment, 1t is impossible for them to do so) they can offer no convincing req son why your committee should rec ommend change in the existing con ditions, which are satisfactory to all concerned except those who are anx- ious to establish another milestone on the journey to their ultimate goal of statewide prohibition in Connecticut. sentiment for statewide prohibition here. they hope, by stabbing the G- Quor trade here and there in vital spots, to inject a little of the virus of partial prohibition into the body poli- tic of our commonwealth.
 maintain, first, that there is no considerable degree of public senti- ment in Connecticut for limitation law such as is here proposed. Pub lie sentiment. as l take it and as it is regarded in the general acceptance of the term, is interpreted to mean the common opinion or the common desire of a majority of all the people. No two or three men, no two or three temperance workers, no two or three clergymen or organizations of clergymen, no two or three or four or five or even ten thousand petitioners &@ ,es, lar wishes or views or plans consti- tute the public sentiment of this State. It is true that we have the historic case of the three tailors of Tooley street who got together in a London back-room and resolved that they were the people of England. and we have this year repetition of the spectacle to which many previous leg islative committees in Connecticut have been treated of two or three men corning here, backed possibly by @ few thousand petitioners, and de- claring that they, and they alone, represent the public sentiment of this State on the excise question. And they expect your committee, as they have expected the committees that came before yours, to accept that statement as fact! When any mat ter of legislation other than one of excise is before a committee of the general assembly those who advocate it are expected to show something pretty substantial in the way of pub lie backing, and I maintain that it ought not to be different in a matter affecting so vitally as this proposed limitation law does vested rights and properties that have been built up through energy and industry honest ly applied under the sanction of the law and in accordance with what the majority of the people in this State really want. For 1t will not me de- nied, take it, unless by some reck- less quack doctor of reform, that the majority of the people in this com monwealth of Connecticut, as well os in the nation at large. are drinking people. If it be denied that the ma jority of people in America are drink ing people, refer those who would deny the statement to the report of the Committee of Fifty( a body of Americas leading sociologists head ed by such men as Hon. Seth Low, President Eliot of Harvard. Hon. Car roll D. Wright, Bishop Potter of New York, Prof. R. H. Chittenden of Yale, Dr. Felix Adler, Bishop Conaty and others equally distinguished who in their report on "The Physiological Aspects Of the liquor Problem"s de- clare that not more than 20 per cent. of all the male adults in this country are total abstainers and not more than per cent. are positively in temperate. If it be denied that the majority of Connecticut's people are drinkers, l refer those who deny the statement to the vote on license in our cities and towns during the past quarter of century, which shows that a large preponderance or Connecticut's citizenship favor the sale of spirits and beer, and favor it for the presumable reason that they want full opportunity to secure such things as they may wish to have In the way of drink when they want 1t. Isn't it a fair inference then. gentle men, in view of the indisputable fact that a large majority of Connectt- cuts citizenship is made up of drink ing people, that they are antagonistic to any plan that would lessen their opportunities for securing what they want to drink when -hey want it. as dnction in the number of drinking places must effectually lessen those opportunities? Isn't it a fair infer ence, too. in view of the fact that the advocates of this limitH~.on measure bring to their support none of the majority of Connecticuts citizenship. that they are assuming position they cannot sustain when they tell your committee that public senti- ment is back of them in their de- mands for this proposed limitation taken to indicate public sentiment on this matter, I do not hesitate to say that, if the entire citizenship of this State were polled it would be found that they are against not alone this limitation bill, but against any fur ther tinkering with the existing ex- aisA laws on the part of those whose