Rensselaer Republican, Volume 27, Number 36, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 May 1895 — TURPIE TALKS [ARTICLE]

TURPIE TALKS

▲boat Uia Nicholson BUI and ProdleU Id Raponi. Senator David Turpie addressed the Hendricks Club at Indianapolis, Tuesday night, in an exhaustive argument against the Nicholson bill. His remarks were more especially directed to Section 9. which he held.to be tyrannical and to curtail the natural rights of the citizen. After reviewing the history of the Maine law and the Baxter law the Senator tn partsaid: The terms of this section are only a slight modification of those of the act of 1873. In the one case prohibition is enforced by petition, in the other by remon; strance. The result fs the same under both enactments, absolute inhibition of sale for useonthe premises, in the localities designated, and. indeed, throughoutthe entire State if the condition required obtain. It is easy to see that this ninth sec-, tion is the chief operative clause in the lajt. It is the very core of Its purpose and intendment; yet it is not mentioned in the title; it is not expressed in the title. The only subject embraced in the title is “to better regulate and restrict the sale, ete,!' But If there be no sale, how cah the Sale be regulated? How shall we make restrictions or regulations of a transaction which has no existence? The authors of of., this bill knew very well where its chief power was placed. They counted with main force upon the ninth sectipn. They now urge that the absolute prohibitory provisions of this section ate not only wise and expedient, but that their are good, beneficial arid altogether righteous. Why, then, was this section, good and gracious as it., is, so carefully concealed? Why was it not expressed in-the title and for what reason was it hidden away in ambush? Because the people-off Indiana had so often rejected prohibitioh in every form, this policy is thrust upon us without discussion, without debate, without being heard of as an element-in the last public canvass in our State, proper title of this law Is an act to prohibit the sale and use of malt arid vinous beverages whenever a majority remon-/ strateiadversely thereto. Prohibition is the main purpose—restriction and regulation are incidents. The incidents of restriction and regulation are expressed in the title; the chief subject matter is not even alluded to in the title. 4 In conclusion the Senator said: The Democratic party stands now. where it has al ways stood, opposed to prohibitory legislation. This position is npf Induced by fear of, or favor to. any particular elements or interests in the community, but Is induced wholly by the devotion of the party to the cause of human rights, the .privileges arid immunities of the in asses of the people. The Democratic party has always declared *iteelf in favor of the doctrine arid practice of tetnpefarice and sobriety. ..Itfias never opposed the formation dr progress of those organizations among the people which foster dhese virtues and have accomplished so much practical good hj the world by their advocacy. Its legislation has incorporated, v recognized and protected them. But these associations grow out of voluntary action of their members. I trust the time may be, near, there are manifest signs of its approach, when the action and deliberation of our people and their public representatives shall revert oncemore to the plain ground of reason upon this Subject: shall enter and abldq In the domain of common sense—-commonj sense, that home of the mind, its domicile, itsldwelling place, whither aftel many wanderings it returns at last.