Press enter after choosing selection

Temperance Legislation

Temperance Legislation image
Parent Issue
Day
29
Month
September
Year
1886
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

In the issue of the Leve r of Aug. Utli, 1880, Cha?. P. Rumoü, one of the headlights of prohlbltinn in this state, makes a statement that I eonsider incorrect ia every particular. It, and otlier statements very similar, have been repeated and repeated receutly until many, I presume, have come to think them true. His statement is a followa: "When the republlcan party eame into power ït found an excellent prohibitory law on tlie gtatute booka of Michigan, wblch law had been approved by a popular vote of the people ut a special election. It ifudlouslv avolded the enforeeuient of the law; ainended it several times in the interest of. the trade, and liually repealed it altogether." In the Center, of July 88d, 1886, Hon. J. P. St. John says"Democratie legislatures enacted prohibilory laws in Michigan and other States betore the republican party was born, md repuDlican lcgislatures afterwards rupealed the laws In Michigan and other itatet." A long letter from J. R. Liiing Is pnblished in the Center of July 29th, 1880. in which he says, referring to the prohibitory law: "When tlie republican party took the reins of goverament in 1855, it suuck this law from our sratutes as ruthlessly as any tyrant ever usurped tlie rights of any people in any age." In the Center of Aug. 18tb, J. VV. Fitz Maurlee -n-: 'Wne republican party fouod Michljian :i probibitlon state when il came Info power, and in place of entoruing the paralyzed law, it was left in aheyauce till the people were disgusted with free whisky, and in 1875 repealed the law. In 1854 the democracy gave leven States prohibition and m tast as the republicana rejrained power the prohibilory lans in these slates with the exception of Main were repealed." Now, what are the facts in the case, n fiir hs Michigan is concerned? From its organ izatiou m a state down to 1855 Michigan bad al most uoiformly boen uniler democratie control and until the adoption ot uur constitntion of 1850 any pereon of (jood mural character, for a suiu of trom two to twenty dollars, could obtain a lleeuse to sell ardent spirits. The constitutional convention of 1830 (uontalnlog S(i democratt and SO whlgs) inserted the followlng as Sec. 47,; act 4: "The legislature shall not pass any act authorizing the grant of license for the sale of ardent spirits or other intoxicating liquor." The result was that froni the aüoption of the constitution to the passage of the act of is;,;;, a democratie body, enaeted our first prohibitory law. Jt was subinitted to the people at special election in June following and was sustained by them by a inajority of about 20.000. It took effect in December following and for a time was very generally obeyed, but a test case was taken to our supreme eourt and that tribunal failed to sustain it. The result was that liquors were sold as unrestrainedly as formerly. 5o much tor the excellency of the law ou PU{ statute books wheu the republican party came into power. It is a well-known hot that the republicun party was organlzed at JackaOO in July, 1854, and that the election in November follovt int; resultad in a republican tiiuinph. All the state offices and a majority of the members of the legis'ature being republicana. When the legislature cohvened in January '55, retiriug Qov. Andrew i'arsons, a demoernt, in his annual message, pages 8 and !), joint document, tttate of Michigan, 1856, pleaded fora repeal of all laws relating to the quesÜOD and asked for the enactment of a law prohlbltlns Ihe sale of spirits in less quantitie than oue or more gallons. 1 am happy to say that Gov. l'ar:-ons' advice was not followed. Gov. Bingham in his inaugural address ol 1S55, urged such aciion as would avoid the eonstitutional objections, and enabled the benilieent measures to go into tilect. Gov. Hinghani's recommeudations were adopted, and on February 3d, 1S55, he approved act No. 17, etitltled, "An act to prevent the manufacture and sale of spllitoout or iiitoxicating liquors as a beveraize." This act was feustained by the courts and ainended several times, but always to make it more effective, never in the interest of the trade. It stood on our statue books for twenty years, and wal by no means thoroughly enforced and during the session of 1875 was repealed and the present system adopted. As a rule, I admlt that the party In power is responsible for the leglslatiou enacted during the period it is in power, but I think all candid persons will concede that there are exceptlons to that rule. For example, the legïslature of '75 was republicau by a small majority (six in the house and tour iu the senate) still by ihe action of a few republicana together with the unanimous vote of the demócrata, Jud;e Christiancy was chosen U. 8. Senator, while Zachariah Chandler was the choice of a larga majority of the party in power. U'ho was responsible for the defeat of the Morrison bill in Congress? Most certainly not the party in power. The republicaus together with forty-one democrats claim that lionor. The law of 1855 was repealed in a similar manner, a large majority of the democrats voting for its repeal and a small minority of the republicans voting with tliem. When the tax bill passed the house the vote stood as follows: Year, democrat 30, republiean 19; nay?, (emocratic 1, republican 25; not voting 1!. The partie stood republican 53, democrat 47. Who is responsible for the passage of the bill ? The above vote is taken from the record. The bill was very much ainended in the senate. (Öeventeen amendments being made to a bill of Uiteen sections), and In the opinión of the most radical temperance men it was much improved, and linally passed by a vote of yeas, democratie 9, republican 8; nays, democratie 4, republican 11. The f our democratie senators who went on record in the negative did so, not bei-aii-e they were opposed to a chango, bat because the amendments made by the senate made the bill too strong to suit them. There was much less objection to the pólice bill and only two amendments were made by the senate. One was Striking the word "knowingly" out of seclion one, which read as follows : "Any persou who sliall knowingly viólate the provisions of this section shall bo deemed gnllty of a misdemeanor, eet" The otlier was striking out section i. which repenled the law of '55. The tax bill contalncd a repealiflg section also :cnil the Sonate thnught was enouuh. The House by a elose vote coneurred in the amendnients made by the Senate, only two democrats going on record in tavorof concuriing iu the amendinent striking the wind 'knowingly ' out of section one of the pólice bill. What ezperlenoel have hadwtta wbUkylaw suits (and 1 have had some) I found it ditflcult enough to prove that a saloon keeper had violuted the law, without bel Ing obliged to prove that he knew he was doing so. The billa referred to receivcd öov. Bagley'sapproval and became laws. Tliey have been amended several times, but always to mako theni moro effective and stringent, and it is thouirht by many of the best temperante men In the state to be the best law relativa to the Mquor traflic that we have ever had and if thoroiijfhly enforced would no doubt greatlv restrain the sale of intoxicating drinks. As I have already stated the law of '55 stood on our books for twenty years, was very differcntly enforced ami many good temperance men even thought best to try a change. I could mention the names of several tnembers of the senate, gentlemen whoin I esteem very hijfhly, that took that view of the caee and voted accordingly. Senator Jenks, of Hurón, a man above reproach, a pillar of the Baptist churcu at Sand Beach, much to my surprise was one. Petitions trom thousands of them reinonstrated against it. Still underall thecircumstanceaand in the manner I have stated the leaislature saw fit to make the change. I think the facts above stated sliew very clearly that all the legislation relative to the liquor trafflc we ever had in tuig state that was good for anything was given by the republican legislatures, and that the repeal of the law of '55 was accomplished lartrely through democratie strengtb and influence. The present law prohibits the sale, gift or delivcry, either directly or indirectly, of inloxiCHting drinks to minora, lo intoxicated persons, to persons in the habit of getting intoxiciited, and if a person is forniinir a habit of drinking to exeess, a uotice from certain persons named makes t unlawlul to sell or give intoxicants to sucli pi'rsons. It also prohibits the sale on Smid ly or election days and all legal liolklays, and compels any per-on before eugaging in the business to give a homl iu trom $3,000 to $G,000 with three retponalble sureties redding in tb township or ward, to pay all daniüges actual añil exeiuplary that muy be adjudged to any person for injuries Inflloted upon them either in person or property by reason of liis selling intoxicating liquors. W-X l'rot'. Dickey in his speech at Howell on the lUtli of August last, said that if our present law was enforced to the letter lie considerad it a league witli heil. That idea may suil him nnd his followers, but I for one very respect lul ly demur.

Article

Subjects
Ann Arbor Courier
Old News