Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 39, Number 28, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 December 1906 — More Temperance Laws Needed. [ARTICLE]

More Temperance Laws Needed.

State Senator Thomas T. Moore, of Greencastle, author of the Moore temperance law, passed by the last Legislature and recently upheld by the Supreme Court, is receiving letters daily from all over the state urging him to take up the temper ance fight iu the Legislature again this winter, with a particular view to having the State licence raised to SI,OOO instead o£&U)0. Mr. Moore says that he would not be surprised to see temperance matters take an important position in State legislation this coming year. He would favor an amendment which would give to counties aod cities the same right to remonstrate that the townships and wards now have. These two amendments or additions to the existing temperance laws of the state are both exactly what is needed and would put Indiana right to the front in the m itter of temperance reform. We believe however there is now still another greatly needed amendment to the present law, and the neces sity for which arose from the late decision of the Supreme Court upholding the bl nket remonstrance. Ose feature of that decision was to give to every person who desires to apply for a license jn any ward or township where a blanket remocstrance is in force the right to a full hearing at any time sis to the snf ficiency of such blanket remon strance. To illustrate what the decision means, let us take the case of Carpenter township, this county, from which a blanket remonstrance containing the names of three fifths of the legal voters ot the township as east at the last election, has just been filed. Now under this decision of the Supreme Court there is nothing to prevent the liquor interests from having one or even a dozen applicants from that township every month and each applicant can force the Commissioners to a long and costly trial, before them, exceedingly an. oying and expensive to the signers of the remonstrance, in which the sufficiency of the remonstrance wonld have to be fnlly proven every time; and when that is done, another trial coaid be forced in every case in the circuit courts, and with the right o* carrying the trials to other conntien on change of venae. And following that to the Supreme Court. It is thus easy to be seen what an effective means this decision of the Supreme Court has placed in the hands of the breweis and other liquor interests to wear out the friends of temperance in every lo cility where the prospects cf busi ness are largegenough to justify the expense. In fact we believe that unless the Legislature makes some law to overcome this very unfavorable decision of the Supreme Court, that the liquor interests will avail themselves of it systematically and by wholesale and to each an extent as

largely to do away with blanket lemonstrances all over the state. The law should provide that after a blanket remonstrance has once been examiued by the courts and found &ood that no one should have even the right to apply for a license in the district covered by such remonstrance until after the two years bad expired.