The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-04-04
SPLA|N PROCtAIMS LIMITATION BILL
 IS C0NFISCATORY
Argument in Opposition to
 Measure Nov Pending in the Legislature
Says Property Rights Are Alt tackled ard Serious Blow is Dealt an Established and We'll Ordered Institution

IilC 1T eiI IleI III US issue LOudN IG- publishes, by request, the argument made by John J. Splain of New Ha- yen against the bill now before the legislative excise committee which seeks to reduce the number of saloons
 in this state to one to every 1000 in
 population. MT. Splain IS general
 manager of the Sylvester z. Poll
 theatrical interests and student of
 sociology. His address follows:
 (Republished by Request.)
 MT. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
 Committee:
 In opposing this limitation, bill |
 desire to preface my remarks with
 the statement that l appear in no
 professional capacity, representing no
 paeticular interest in the sense of be-
 ing employed therefor. I am here
 sim sly as a native and citizen of Con
 1ecticut to protest against rank in
 Justice towards a large number of it's
 citizens among whom count many
 esteemed personal friends. l am here
 to protest against my native State en-
 tering on a crusade of confiscation.
 which I believe to be the only logical
 result of the passage of a limitation
 law such as is under discussion here
 to-day.
 Ma turaIly, when so radical a change
 is sugg ested 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 it. Likewise it is incumbent
 on them to prove that a reduction
 in the number of drinking places will
 effect a reduction of drinking Itself.
 Unless they can prove these two
 points to your satisfaction (and, in my
 Judgment, it is impossible for them
 fN T coA ff1oy- Jln r-
 ing reason why your committee
 should recommend a change in the
 existing conditions. which are satis-
 factory to all concerned except those
 who are anxious to establish another
 milestone on the journey to their ul-
 innate goal of statewide prohibition lE
 Connecticut. Realizing that there is little or no sentiment for statewide
 prohibition here, they hope, by stab
 ping the liquor trade here and there
 in vital spots, to inject little of the
 virus of partial prohibition into the body polite of our commonwealth. I 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 I take 1t and as it is regarded in the general acceptation 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 clergy men, no two or three or four or five or even ten thousand petitioners can assume to say that their particular wishes or views or pIanS constitute 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 London back room and resolved that they were the people of England, and we have this year a repetition of the spectacle 60 which many previous legislative com l mittees in Connecticut have been treated of two or three men coming here, backed possibly by few thous- and petitioners, and declaring that 1 they, and they alone, represent the public sentiment of this State on the excise question. And they expect your committee, as they have expect 1 yours, to accept that statement as | fact! When any matter of Iegisla- | ton other than one of excise is be- l fore committee of the general as- sembly those who advocate it are ex- pected to show something pretty sub- stantial in the way of public backing, and I maintain that it ought not to 1 be different in a matter affecting so vitally as this proposed limitation law does vested rights and properties I that nave been DullC en- ergy and industry honestly applied under the sanction of the law and in accordance with what the majority of 1 the people in this State really want. 1 For it will not be denied, I take :t, | unless by some reckless quack doctor l of reform, that the majority of the people in this commonwealth of Con- necticut. as well as in the nation at l large, use spirituouS or malt liquors either habitualIy or occasionally; in other words, that the majority of people in Connecticut, as well as in | the nation at large, are drinking peo- pie. If it be denied that the major ity of people in America are drink 1 ing people, I refer those who would deny the statement to the report or the Committee of Fifty Ga body of Americas leading socio1ogists headed dent Eliot of Harvard, Hon. Carroll D. Wright, Bishop Potter of New York, Prof. R. H. Chittenden of Yale. Or. Felix Adler, Bishop Conaty anu | others equally distinguished) who in their report on 'The Physiological Aspects of the Liquor Problem 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 lntemper- ate. If it be denied that the ma 1 jority of Connecticut's people are ' w | ny the statement to the vote on li- nense in our cities and towns during | the past quarter of a century, which shows that large preponderance of | Connecticut'S citizenship favor the Iale Of spirits and beer, and favor it for the presuma ble reason that they want full opportunity to secure such l things as they may wish to have in | the way of drink when they want it. l Isn't it fair inference then, gentle men, in view of the indiSputa bIe fact hat @ large majority of Connecti- cuts citizenship is made up of drink l ing people, that are antagonistic to any plan that would lessen their op- portunities for securing what they want to drink when they want 1t, as any plan that looks to material re- duction ill the number of drinking places must effectually lessen those opportunities? Isn't it a fair infer ence, too, ir view of the fact that the advocates of this limitation meas ure bring to their support none of the majority of Connecticuts citizenship, 1 that they are assuming q position they cannot sustain when they tell your committee that public sentiment 's back of them in their demands for this proposed limitation law? In so far as anything can be taken to in- dicate public sentiment on this mat ter, I do not hesitate to say that, if the entire citizenship of this State were boiled, it would be found that they are against not alone this Iimi- tation bill, but against any further ing. tinkering with the existing excise laws on the part of those whose per eistent propensity and particular pre-