Seeking Further Information

The courteous answers given to the quegtions aeked & fortnight ago, lead the propounder of those questions, who still feels the neej of light, to seek further information in the same way. 1. If the amendment is adopted and the legislature fsils to enact a statute, can men be arrested and convicted and property in liquor be confiscated, eimply on the strength of the amnded constitution ? 2. In the state of Iowa, the effort to amend the constitution failed, and the Clark Prohibitory Law was passed by the legislature upon the basis of the old constitution. This law provides for the seizure and destruction of all liquor, the confiscation and sale of furniture, nd the closing of the building where liquo: has been sold. "VVill the legal gentlemen point out the differente between the constitution cf Iowa and tuat of Michigan, by which this is possible uader oue and not under the othei? 3. Was not liqoor conñscat.ed and de8troyed in Maine under statute, for thirty years before the constitutional amendment was adopted in that state? Did the constitution of Maine support a law which would be unconstitutional in Michigan ? 4. The sec(ion ol the constitution whioh it was intimated last week, might interfere with the execution of a " search and seizure" clause in a prohibitory statute, reads thus, "No person shall be compelled in any crimiaal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of üfe, liberty or property without due proces ot law." Constitution of Mich., article VI, section 32. Wiil the geotlempn teil us whether there are not many aicmons showin;; that the s:ate has abundant power ;o confíscate any property, or forbid its manufacture, if ït is deemed hartnfull or dangerous to the peopie? 5. Will not statute based upon this amendment, which affirms that " spirituous, malt or vincus liquor" is scmetimes property and sometimes is not, according to its future vse, be íár more difficult of execution than a law, based on our present constitution, which recognizes ït as property and confiscates it, beeause it is dangerous to the public welfare ? 6. If there are provisions in our constitution not found in that of Iowa, which forbid so strict a statute as the legislatura of that state has passed, would it not be wiser to geek to remoTe these, rather than to put further limits upon our power to control and eradicate this great evil ? 7. Suppose that of the 400,000 voters of this sute, 100,000 should vote for the amendment and 90,000 against it, and suppose this small msjority is given in a few leg8lative district?, so that a msjority of the members of the legislature are from districts voting against the amendment, have we reason to hope that a legislature, now unwilling to give us a prohibitory statute, will give us one then ? 8. Do the mandatory termsof the amendment involve any real aathority over the members of the legislature, so that they can be punished for perjury or any other crime, if, after taking their oath of office, they fail to enact a prohibitory statute ? 9. If we adopt tbe amendment and thus annul our taz law and surrender our power to levy tazes upun this business, are we not yeilding a constitutional right which is of valué and may be made of greater value in reducmg and ultimately removing the evils of drunkenness? In 1874 there were in Michigan, two distillerieg, employing twenty hands and manufacturing 280,000 gallons of liquor annually. In 1884 no distilleries of liquor are repirted, and Professor Dickie says there are none. In 1874 there were 148 breweries employing 612 hands, manufacturing 217.930 barrels of beer; in 1884 there were 82 breweries, employing 627 hands, tbe amount manufactured is not reported. Tbere were also int1874, five places where wine was manufactured, employing 17 persons and manufacturing $39,000 worth of wine, None are re ported for 1884. In 1874 there were S breweries in Washtenaw county, employing 28 persons; in 1884 there were 3 breweries, employing 9 persons. When the tax law went into operation there were, it is Baid, from 60 to 80 drinking places in Ann Arbor ; now there are 38. Is not tbe decrease of an evil a gain for righteousness, the reduction of tne namber of persona employed in this bad business and of the places of temptation, an advantage to the state and the community ? In the long, hard conflict before us, can we afford to surrender any weapon we now possess? As there will be but one more issue of Thk Register before the elecüon, - which it is hoped will contain a searching anawer to these queries, - and as this must, therefore, be the last communication from the writer upon the subject, he ventures to state what, with present light, seems to him, and to some other temporánea men, as tbe wise course: 1. To vote down the amendment as putting limits upon our power to deal with the evils of intemperance, which may prove a serious embarrass-raent to us. 2. If there are at present any constitutional limitations which prevent our enförcing as good s statute as that of Iowa, to secure their removal as soon as possible. 3. To follow the ezampls of temperance people in Iowa, who, when their, effort to char.ge the constitution, failed, elected a legislature committed to probibition, and thus secured a cocstitu;ional and workable law.