Terre Haute Weekly Gazette, Terre Haute, Vigo County, 28 September 1882 — Page 5

Page PDF (10.94 MB)

Back to issue view

\-y*V

i'*,

sary

LAW AND LOGIC. *T

•f

IddreM of Hon. Joseph E. McDonald Before the Jefferson Club. i%'i"

Legal Aspect of the Prohibitory Amendment.

Tha Republican Pnrty Arraigned, Tried and Convicted or Ualfeaaence In Government. V»

Mr. P*widswt and Gkmtlskkh or thb it* raufon club or Indianapolis—The issues for the political campaign of 1882 may be said to be now male up In this State. In moat of the Districts and Counties of the State Congressional aud local nominations have been made, and the two great

Kles

of the country, the Democratic and ublican, have held their State Conven* Hons, promulgated their platforms and nominated candidate* for the different State office*: and in requesting me to address you at the threshold of this canvass, you have a right to expect a fair and oandid dlacoMlon of the political Issues Involved In It.

That discussion will necessarily take place from a partisan standpoint for I am a Democrat, ana may probably be tinged by my feelings toward the Republican party, for I dbn't like it. Although 1 have the highest personal regard and respect for manv Republicans, I entertain a strong feeling of dulike to the Republican party, growing out of my earnest belief that lta existence, and especially its continuance in power, is not beneficial to the Interests of the country.

Before talcing up and considering THE FLATFOBM8 presented by the two parties, 1 may briefly state some of the reasons that have Influenced the judgment 1 have expressed la regard to the Republican party, drawn from its past recotd. The methods by which it continued its adminlHtration in power in 1877, after Its defeat in the election of 1876, are well known to the whole country, and has left a stain upon our Institutions which time will never efface. When the result of the election of 1876 became known to the oountry It disclosed a majority for the Democratic ticket over the Republican ticket of over 250,000 votes, aud nine-ten ins of the whole people believed then, and believe still, that the Democratic ticket had been fairly elected. Yet by political jugglery, supported by fraud and perjury. that result was reversed and the Republican administration continued in power. Since that time it has been uniformly a minority party each general election has been a vote of waut of confidence in it, and yet by chicanery, by corrupt means, such as was used In our 8taie in 1880, and by political trickery,- it has managed to keep oontrol of the admiustratlon of the Government.

THE ILKCTION OF

1880,

which was lost to our party in this State by meanB and instrumentalities which ought to make every honest man blush, resulted in placing the Republican party In power in the Legislative branch of the Government. The Democratic party had oontrol of the popular branch of Congress for the six years preceding, and of both branches for two years next. The Republican party has always been an extravagant party .careless of the public money, indifferent as to the taxes exacted from the people, and wasteful and extravagant in their expenditures. The expenditures of public money, under the appropriations made by a Democratic Congress, shows a reduction of the ordinary expenses of the Government over the appropriations made by the Republicans when in power, of nearly 190,090,000 per annum, or in ihtt six years, over 9100,000,000. No sooner was the Republican party restored to power in Congress than the economy which had been Introduced into our public expenditures by a Democratic Congress was abandoned by them, and they returned at once to their former extravagance. I have not the official statement of the appropriations of the session of Congress just closed, but It has been stated by the independent Republican press, and not contradicted, that the excess of its approprlations over the last year of Democratic appropriations Is about 175,000,000, and greatly exceeds the increase of our revenues. The Increase of our revenue for 1882 over 18U is about 146,000,000, and if the expenses had been kept down would have left a very large surplus to DO applied to the reduction of the National debt, and the fact-that we have been able to reduce our National debt has been because

DEMOCRATIC ECONOMY

saved the money which the Republicans have boastingly applied to that purpose. The return of prosperity, greatly stimulated as it was by the policy of reform and economy Introduced into our affhlrr in 1876 by a Democratic House of Representatives, also enabled us to greatly reduce the interest upon that part of our National debt still outstanding, and but for the veto of the "funding bill" pained by the Democratic Congress, It would have been still further reduced. Even now it la not the light and airy thing that perforation to the Republican platform makes it appear, for it takes •bout 168,000,000 annually to pay it, an amount equal to the annual expenditure of the Government before the war. The Republicans of this State also, in their platform, admit that there ought to be a reduction of the taxes, and say that a revenue greatly reduced in amount is all that is now necessary to pay the interest on our public debt, and the expenses of the Government economloally administered but if the last session of Congress is to be any indication of the course of that party for the future. It would not be neces

to roduoe the taxes in order to bring about an equation between revenue and: expenditures. On the oontrary, it will be but a short time until the taxes will have to be increased.

Recurring to the statement already made you will see these facts present themselves In the-form of a very ample problem: Increase ef expenditures 175,000,000 Inoreape of revehue 45,00J,000

Difference in favor of expenditure $30,000,000 na»ii«ing to some extent the damaging character of this record, at the cloee of

THE LATE SESSION OF CONGRESS,

the

Republican majority In the Senate made

•how of

attempting

of Way*

some

pretty

much

The

crease in

fined sugar

lor

the people

of matohes

the bill did

reduce the taxes. An in

significant bill, reported from the House Committoe

and Means, had passed that body

months before, and had been permitted to quietly rest In

the

began

Senate until public complaints

to reach

them. The House bill,

all the relief measures of the

Republican party, undertook to relieve those who

least

needed it. It took off the tax from bank deposit and bank checks, matches and patent mfdirinw and left the other burdens remslning.

amendments offered to this Republican

measure of

relief by the Finance Committee of

the Senate,

proposed

tariff on

actual in

the tariff on strap iron, and a reduction

of 96 per cent on the duty on tire fined sugar,

leaving the enormous duty of

100 percent, oh re

untouched, that does now and has

someyears operated as a prohibiting duty.

The House

bill was

h«ve given little or

sham, and would

no relief to

at large. The manufacture

this

oountry

now

under the influence of a

not propose

monopoly

protective tariff, which

400 per

effect, and Uje 13,000,-

year which

would

have

is now paid Into the Treasury

simply gone Into the pockets of those

who manufacture

and sell them. VTHE PBE8ENT LAW

collects about 11,800,000 from the proprietors of oatsnt medicines—that is, from those who manufacture and sell then. Kach package or bottle h.i its stamp upon it Indicating the amount of .«. Mild by tne proprietors, which is about one cent for each package or bottle. Takingoff the taxes, as everybody knows, would not affect the nrloe. tor the man who manufactures and sellshas amonopoly. A bottle of patent medicine with a one cent stamp on it we will say now sells for fifty cents. Suppose the stamp tax Is taken off from it, does any person presume the consumer would be able to purchase it for fortynine cents? So that the proposed reduction amounts to an addition of 91,800,000 per year to the profitsof

the

proprietors of these medicines,

and might as well have been voted out of the Treasury. The taxes upon bank deposits and checks can very well be borne for the present and until we are ready to repeal onr entire internal reverfue tax. The proposed amendments in the Senate were frauds. The reduction of the tariff on Besemer steel rails to 920 per ton would be almost as restrict as the present tariff upon importations. The increase of the tariff strap iron professed to be a redaction, but was a fraud noon ite Hue. While continuing the high tariff upon refined sugar the whole oountry is mane tributary to the sugar refiners,as no foreign sugars brought in under tne present tariff are fit for consumption until they have passed the refiners.

WHAT WE DEMAND

and what the oountry will insist upon is, that as 4xar Government is not called upon to meet extraordinary expenses, that a thorough peace pol

io*

shall be providedln reference to revenue and txpendituieTand that the present unjust system

•lf-OET-i.

oi taxation shall be revised, and that those taxes levied under the power to lay and collect "duties and imports" shall be confined strictly to the revenue standard, and if in so doing it shall be In onr power to dispense with

Sle

all

other taxes, then that the internal revenue system of taxation shall be repealeda nd thus relieve the Government aad the people from the expense of maintaining

double system of

taxation. But perhaps the most objectional abase

that

has crept into the administration of our aflkln under Republican rule, and is fraught with more danger to our republican form of Government than any other, is the "spoils system" in office. Of course every administration has been more or less Inclined to select its agents and the employes of the Government from tne members of its own party: but heretofore those selections, under the zealous eye of the people, have been mainly confined to persons who were fit and

oallfled for the place, or, to use Jeffersonian expression, "honest and capable." But for years past all restrictions of this kind have been utterly disregarded by Republican administrations, until now all places under the Government are regarded as the spoils of the party in power. And along with this sys em has also grown up the policy of placing upon the shoulders of these employes the

rABTIBAN EXPENBrrUBES

for their party, so that any new appointee nnder the Republican administration takes his Mutton with the understanding, expressed or finpli d, that he Is to devote at least 2 per cent, of his salary to keeping his party In power. The late session of Congress authorised a very large Increase of clerical force in the Patent Office, and we have it from Republican authority that in the late distribution of that patronage. out of 423 new appointees, thirty-seven were assigned to Indiana and parceled out by the Republican Senator and Republican Representatives of the State. An assessment of 2 per cent, on the salaries of these thlrty-seyen appointees would furnish a fund of about 910,000 to "my dear Hubbell" and to those to whom he thinks proper to disburse it yet, in the very face of these facts, the late Republican Convention cried out in iavor of civil service reform. With these facts before us you will not be surprised at my hostility to the Republican party, and with such a record it is not strange that the Republican party of Indiana, in this canvass, is seeking, by immaterial and

FALSE ISSUE*

to draw public attention away from themlssdeeds of their party. We, therefore, find ourselvee involved in the discussion of questions that do not naturally and necessarily belong to the field of politics, but which have been thrust upon us by the action of the Republican party. I reler now to the proposed amendments to our estate Constitution paragraph. Article 16, Section 1 of the Constitution of 1861 is as follows: "Any amendment or amendments to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of the General Assembly, and, If the same shall bo agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two Houses, such proposed amendmentor amendments shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered on their journals and referred to the General Assembly to be chosen at the next general election and If, In the General Assembly so ntext chosen, such proposed amendmentor amendments shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each House, then it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to submit such amendment or amendments to the electors of the State and if a majority of said electors shall ratify the same, suOh amendment or amendments shall become a part of this Constitution."

Under the Constitution of 1816, amendments could only be made by a Convention chosen for that purpose, and the question of calling such a Convention was submitted to the people every twelfth year. Most of the States have similar provisions to that Contained in our Constitution of 1851, differing, however, very materially In substance. In tne Constitution of Massachusetts, amendments proposed in this manner, must be agreed to by a majority of the Senators and twothirds of the House of Representatives, present and voting thereon, and must be referred to the next General Assembly to be chosen, and If agreed to by a similar vote then submitted to the people for ratification. Under the

CONSTITUTION OF VEBMONT

amendments can only be proposed In the Senate every tenth year, and must be agreed to by a two* thtras vote of Its members, ana concurred In by a mojority of the members of the House of Representatives and referred to the next General Assembly for approval, which if agreed to by the majority of th4 members of the Senate and House of Representatives, they shall then be submitted to a vote of the people. Under the Rhode Island (Constitution after amendments have passed through two successive Legislative bodies, they must then be approved by three-fifths. of the electors of tho State present and voting thereon. In Ohio it requires the agreement of three-fifths of the members elected to each House to the proposed amendments and a subsequent approval by the people at the next election for Senators ana Representatives by a majority of the electors voting at such election. The Constitution of the State of Illinois Is similar to that of the State of Ohio upon this subject In most of the States it is required in the Constitution that the election at which the people shall be called upon to vote upon' a proposed amendmeet shall be a general election, usually that at which members of the General Assembly are to be «lected next after the measure has nassed through the formB of legislation.

It will be Been from these provisions that amendments to the Constitutions of the several States have been

CABKFULLY 6UABDED,

and every precaution taken to secure a full and fair consideration of the subject. This results from tho fact that the Constitution of a State is designed for the organisation of the government of that 8tate. In legal parlance, it is called the "organic law:" its office is to call into existence the different co-ordinate branches comprising a Government, and assign to them their proper powers aud duties, with such limitations upon those powers as the private rights of the citizens may require. Consequently, in almost every State Constitution there is contained an express declaration of private rights reserved from the control anfuuthoritr of the State Government. Ithasneyer been deemed wtoe to extend the provisions of

lating to our

nominal reduction of the

the Bessemer steel rails,

Sec. a. The General Assembly of the Stale of Indiana shall provide in what manner, by whom and at what plaoe such liquors shall be manufactured or sola for medical, scientific* mechanical and sacramental purposes.

The responsibility and the credit, if any credit is due for proposing this amendment, rest upon the Republican party, for while a few Democrats voted for it, and a few Republicans voted against it, it was brought forward and adopted in a Re-

Sle

ublican House of Representatives and reoelved sanction of a Republican Senate. It to very certain that If the last Legislature had been Democratic no such amendment as this would have been proposed, much iees agreed to and, therefore, I insist that in its Inception It was

A REPUBLICAN MBASOBfc.

By the foroe

our State in 1854. The Democratic party of Indiana Is now, ss it has always been,

thisspecissof legislation, ana is especially opposed to engrafting into the organic law ofthe Stale the proposed amendment, and if it shall be finally submitted to a vote Of the people It should be done according to the provisions of the Constitution aad under circumstances most favorable to a full vote, which would undoubtedly be at a general election. Such, in fact, are the provisions of most of the State Constitutions, ana such was undoubtedly the purpose of the frameia of the Constitution of 186L

The Republican platform is in marked contrast with the Democratic platform upon this question, and the Republican party, after initiating the question, has endeavored to shirk the responsibility of it by raising up an immaterial issue, so far as the question Itself is concerned, and in doing that propose to take from

•THE NEXT LEGISLATURE

the power of judgment and decision upon the merits of the proposed amendments by aemandlnx that it be agreed to pro forma I apprehend, whether upon an examination of the amendment itself the member may or may not be of opinion that it is one that ought to become a part of our organic law. To give a popular impression to this remarkable demand, it is put forth under a false pretense of trust in the people. No intelligent man in tn«n»n». has any doubt but that the Republican party, as a party, favor the adoption of the amendment, and yet they have sought to so construct their platform ss to endeavor to hold the individual members of their party who may be opposed to it, and it has been thus explained by tne leaden of their party and their press. Ana, therefore,

Ser

State Constitution so

as to embrace matters of purely a legislative character, dor to engraft provisions in the Constitution that might even remotely interfere with the reserved rights of the citizens. But very few amendments have been agreed to under the section of the Constitution I have qnoted, since its adoption in 1861, and those have usually related to some matter of public interest, as, for example, the amendment of February

18, 1878,

rUBLIO DEBT

or to some change in our laws relating to suffrage andelectlohs. But the last Legislature, being Republican in both branches, seemed to have made a very wide departure from the former usage cm that subject, and proposed and agreed to a radical change in the principles and policy that had heretofore governed our State. The one to which I shall partlculalry call your attention to-night is known as the prohibitory amendment, and is as follows: "Section 1. The manufacture, sale or keeping for sale in stdd State, spirituous, vinous, malt liquors, or any other intoxicating liquors, except for meaioal, scientific, mechanical, Mid wines for sacramental purposes, shall be and is heresy forever prohibited in the State of Indiana.

the Constitution it comes forward

for consideration in this election, aad whatever may be said about the abstract question involved in it, from this time on until it shall be finally disposed of, it is a politlaal question

the very

highest importance, and of the very neatest consequence. It has been agreed to by

the

State, and in that attitude

requisite

vote in the General Assembly in which

may be said by the con

struction they give to their own platform they propose to fall both ways on the subject

can not get them out of the dilemina of attempting. in substance at least, to Illuminate

off this class of manufactures in this State, unher internal revenue laws,about 96,000,000 per annum, and a market is furnished for millions of our products. This entire Industrial interest will be broken up by this amendment, or driven into other States. Indiana has been very prosperous in the past because of her liberal policy, as well as on account of her central position, lying as she does in the great pathway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and so wide a departure as this would be from her past policy ought not to be indulged In unless there was an overruling necessity therefor, and unless the principles introduced in the new departure were in accord with the great principles that underlie the foundation oi our Government. That the Republican party should faver this course of legislation is by no means strange. If there is any one principle that governs and controls their policy it is that doctrine more often acted upon than avowed, that the "end justifies the means," and that whatever can be continued as being even apparently for the public good is to be ratified as right.

IN POINT

waa

proposed, but it must be agreed to by a majority ot all the members elected to each House in the election shortly to take place before provision can be made for submitting such amendment to a vote of the electors

of the

question

the people of this State are now oalled upon to elect members to that General Assembly. The two parties in their late State Conventions had to confront this question, and their declarations upon this subject are before the people. The resolutions of the Democratic Convention, in

CLKAB AND UNMI8TAKABLB

language, oppose this amendment, aad in so doing the Democratic party of the State of Indiana has but reaffirmed its position upon the question of prohibitory legislation, uniformly main-

IP IT Ts

opposed

BO mui»

the Constitution as requires any intelligent, independent and

AND SENSIBLE AGREEMENT

by tne members of the Legislature to the proposed amendment as a prerequisite to its submission to the people nor will the people permit them to pass through this canvass without requiring a more explicit and unequivical state ment of thelrpoeltlon upon the question itself.

Permit me now to call your attention more particularly thun have yet done to the nature and character of the proposed amendments. By the first section it forever prohibits in the State of Indiana "the manufacture, ale, or keeping for sale, in said State, spirituous, vinous, malt, or any other intoxicating liquors, except for medical, scientific, mechanical, and wines for sacramental purposes." The second section makes it obligatory upon the Legislature of the State to "provide in what manner, by whom and at what plaoe such liquor shall be manufactured or sold for medical, scientific, mechanical and sacramental purposes." And until the Legislature shall so provide, while it may be lawful to use spirituous, vinous and other Intoxicating liquors for medical, scientific and mechanical purposes, and wines for sacramental purposes, there would be no person authorized to manufacture or sell such liquors in the State even for the authorized purposes, and after the Legislature had exercised this power the manufacture and sale for the lawful purposes named in the proposed amendment coula only take place at such places and nnder the charge of such persona as the Legislature might prescribe.

THE PRINCIPLE OF THIS PROPOSITION was engrafted in 1855, in what was known as the prohibitory 'aw of that period, and was pronounoed by the Supreme Court to be in conflict with the principles of the bill of rights contained in the Constitution, and therefore void. And it is now sought, after a period of about twenty-seven years, to insert the same into the framework of our Government,there to remain until it may be taken out piecemeal by the slow process provided for an amendment to the Constitution. Those who remember the effect of this measure as a statutory law while it was deemed In force In the state, will bet slowtogive their assont to its becoming apart of the Constitution, aa it resulted In the establishment of County groceries or County funds, with County retail agents tthroughout the State, and threw open the premises of all the citizens of the State to search, and their property to seizure:

There 1s one particular feature of this measure to which I desire to especially direct your attention, and that

is,

the

while it makes it unlawful to

manufacture or sell except for the specific purposes therein named, it does not prohibit the purchase and use of spirituous and intoxicating liquors indiscriminately, no excess In Its use, no drunkenness, however gross, is declared to be unlawful. Again,

IT PROHIBITS

manufacture of spirituous liquors in the State, although it may be the purpose of the manufacturer to dispose of none of Ms products within

the

State, but to send them abroad to enter into

the

general merchandise ot the country. There are at this time large interests in Indiana, with millions of capital involved, engaged in the manufacture of hlgnwlnes, very little, If any, of which are disposed of in this State, but go into the markets of the world to be used, not as a beverage only, but for all legitimate uses and purposes. The United States now collects annual-

& A. HENDRICKS' ABDRBSS

0a the Peidliff .ProMMterj AmeiiMeit, I

To. the Demooratio Editors, June 29,1883. 1 .. A Oloar and Ringing Statement of ths ^Demooratio Position on tit* ...

Question.

My fellow citizens, I have another soMeet upon whlon I wish to speak to you this afternoon. At the last session ofthe Legislature a provision waa agreed to by the two branebee to amend the Con atltntion—to amend it In these words: '•section 1. The manufacture, aale and keeping for sale in saia State, spirituous, vinous, malt liquors, or any other intoxicating llqnors, except for medical, solentlflo, mechanical, ana wines for saeramental purpoeee, shall be and Is hereby forever prohibited In the State of Indiana."

Then, inasmuch aa that made an exoeptton of liquors for particular usee, a second eeetlon of an extraordinary character waa found neoessary, wbl«h I will read to you. "Sec.

but

this

of Indiana snail provide by law in what manner, by whom and at what plaoee such liquors shall be manufactured or aold tor medloinal, soientlflo, mechanical and saeramental purposes."

Except

the first

from

was

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 'j ,,

cn the other hand recognises as the foundation principle of a Republican Government tne capacity of man ?or self-government, and it recognizes also that each Individual oompoaing a Republic is possessed of certain inalienable rights, among which is the right to acquire and use private property, and that the personal rights of the citizens are never to be interfered with unless nnder the clearest demonstration that such interference Is essential to the maiptenance of good order, and for the purpose of securing civil liberty. It is in accordance with these principles that we, who are of the Democratic household of faith, do now, as we have from the beginning,opposed at every step the adoption of such a law as the oue proposed, or lti incorporate as one of our Constitutional provisions, and because we do so we are charged with favoring intemperance and with being in league with the liquor interests of the oountry. The men who make these charges know they are untrue that the Democratic party will at least compare favorably with the Republican •arty

MORALS

and sobriety, and that the people of Indiana' are as advanced In civilisation, sobriety and morality as the people of those States in which the experiment of prohibition has been tried, will not be disputed. If these various interests which are directly assailed by such a law vote against its adoption, instigated so to do by self-interest, I know of no rale by which »e who oppose these measures on principle would have a right to forbid them, nor do I know of any reason why the Republican press of the country should denounce them. They have not brought the issue upon the people they can scarcely be expected to sit idly by and see their property destroyed and their business broken up, because they may have heretofore give their support to the Republican party, but their voles or their action in no manner Influence me. I vote against the proposed amendment now, and shall at all times, on principle, and believe every man, who feels the Importance of maintaining sound Republican doctrines and theories, should do likewise. Certainly no Democrat in Indiana, who will recur to the hittoryaf hit party upon this rubject can find any j**t grounds for abandoning it nam on oooount of tne attitude it hat taken in

THI8 CAMPAIGN,

amd\f an\ ruck thoiild feel to inclined, certainly when he retails to mind what party it is that it the champion ef this measure, and what its political record it, especially in influence to election* in Indiana, all doubts as to the true course and policy for him to purste must at once banish, for the success# the Republican part* in Indiana this fall is the continuance the misrule of thai party and a popular sanction to the corrupt methods by which it was succestful two years ago.

To you, young gentlemen of this Club, as well aa to the young men of the State, allow tne to say a few words in conclusion. The young men of our country are more interested In maintaining unimpaired the true principles of a Republican Government than any other portion of our people, for upon them must devolve the Government Itself personal responsibility and individual liberty are essential to such a Government, and the highest degree of moral reformation may be looked for where the largest measure of personal liberty is enjoyed. Reformations by law an iOMtry reformations by moral ie&umce ere iastimg and bentfcial 7

for the extraordinary character of

section It woutd be impossible to ap

preciate the

absurdity of the second. [Laugh

ter. Just oontemplate

the

Stale engaged in

the paiticuiar

at which

Legislature of the

selecting a particular person,

time ana the particular plaoe

llquora for particular purpoeee may

be sold!—dividing

tricts

and

sales

the 8t*te into liquor dis

appointing a supervisor of liquor

for

each

district, and that, too, provided

by the constitution of the State. This was adopted at the last session ofthe Legislature by a majority of the members elected. Now, I aaB yon first, what la the effect of the adoption of this amendment? I guess will n«t reduce the use of liquor in the State, (somehow or other, If men want liquor they will get it. [Laughter.] It is not for me to say how they will get It, for I don't know but they do obtain liquor whenever they really want it—unless they are entirely without money. I dont believe that the adoption of the amendment Is going to stop the use of liquor in Indiana, but It will have the effect ot stopping the production of liquor in Indiana Men, without the observation ofthe law, can prooure liquor for their individualises and purposes, but men oannot manufacture it without observation, and when these men engaged around this city in the manufacture of malt liquor shall undertake to disregard the constitutional amendment, a thousand eyes will be upon them. The smote from their. chimneys will signal the uses that are made of their machinery they can not eonoeal their pursuits, and trade, enterprise and the employment of labor will be cut off In the State of Indiana, and the valuable m«rket for two Important kinds of grain-corn and barley—will b« stopped at onee. By this amendment you oan destroy a large Industry in the State. By tola amendment you may cut off a valuable market to the farmer: but. In my juogment, you wUl not out off or stop the use of liquor In the State by persons who desire to have It. [Applause.] The seoond effect of this amendment will be, so far as Indiana la concerned, to cut off the internal revenue that is derived from the mautacture oi these liquor*. I don't recollect just wbat the rate of Indiana Is.

Mr. McDonald (interrupting)—It Is over five millions a year, Mr. Hendricks, resuming}—Ovi five millions a year In the State or Indiana from the manufacture of malt and spirituous liquors realized to the National Treasury every year. Unless the Democrats go Into power and reduce appropriations, this, when It is taken away, has to be supplied. Whenwesayto the men manufacturing malt liquors and whiskies, you shall not manufacture another gallon, then the payment from Indiana of her por tlon of the Internal revenue stops, and some* oody has to make up thftt five millions. It has to come from some lndnstry. Where Is the former of sufficient patriotism—if you choose to call It patriotism—of sufficient fanaticism, if you give It the right name (applause! where Is tne farmer that la willing to say, I will give up tne maraet for my grain aud let the Kentucky farmer sell his grain for the manufacture of tne whisky th&t shall tw brought Into Indiana? Where is the farmer thaws willing to say, I will yield and abandon the collection of Internal revenue from liquors of every kind and let it be collected

the productions of my lndustnr? And

we have

got to meet the question. 1 am In

favor of an immense reduotlon In the National revenues, and still it Is to be .expected that a portion of whatever revehue Is collected will be

collected

from whisky and beer, and It

is desirable that it should be so, because there are luxuries that oan well

Dear

the burden of

taxatloh. That is the polloy of the Government.

We then

propose that not

something above 1200,000

year. That

came from the law that imposed the tax upon the sale of .liquor. That aid poetftlfa^ei^SaU be no mow liquoif

producewhat many ofthe people of Indiana believe it

useful to produoe. I dont believe

that from tne manufacture of wine and of beer intemperanoe becomes a habit among the people. It was my opportunity a few yearsMO to visit France and Germany and a portion of

Austria,

and after I left the British

Channel I saw but one man that could be said to be an intoxicated person, and that was in the little town of Carlsbad In the borders of Austria. One man staggered along the street, and I think fifty

loTpereons foP

lowed him as a curiosity. I inquired about It and was told that wherever beer and wine

going to say that the barley and toe hops of Indiana shall not be manufactured into ... '-nee has shown

H..

•ini uiRiu www ».m

cared

very few

_—

——1 under*

stand to be the policy of the Democnktlc party on this subject. It Is a very easy thing for the Republicans to say of you and me that we are the whisky party- It to often an offense to you and me when they say it, but until they shall answer to me why they hadto appropriate ^00 in the Amerfeu Ooognal to nav for the champagne that their followers dlcPdrlnkoa theirtSptai theburisjofaPresdent—unless they explain that, 1 defy them. [Applause. I it is not oecanse 1 want liquor personally that I am the advocate of the Sight on thlssuhjeot. I believe the right of a man to eat and drink—properly protected and

for by the laws of b£s country—to one that the

Constitutional

amendment ought not

to take from him. [Applause.1 That to my OPlhlon on that question. [Applause.1 In 1878, the Republican LeglslaUire, taking the advantage or their election the year before,jpassed what was known as the "Baxter BUI?' It was preeented to me for my con sld eration as the Chief Executive of the State. After a careful examination of its provisions, and coming to the conclusion that there was no CanstituUonal objection to it, I signed It. I am not one oi those who believe that the Governor has the right nnder our system of government to overrule by his veto the will and pleasure ofthe people's representatives, when that will and pleasure has been deliberately and carefully expressed. With great eare the Republicans In the Legislature bad passed that Mil. It had been thoroughly considered, and I felt it to be my duty to give it my signature. But I had the opportunity and the pleasure, at the next Democratic Convention, to express my desire for the repeal of that law and express my opinion as to the system that ought to be adopted in Its place. At the session ofthe Legislature, in January, 1875, In my message to the General Assembly, and also in my message at the speelal essslon, I urged upon It the repeal of the Baxter bill and the enactment of a substitute more agreeable to the people. I °^TOe Mt"¥dWTtary 27, 1873, regulating the sale of ibtoxicattng liquors has not aeeompUshed the good that was expected by its advocates. Itlisnot been suflldentlyinaeeord with public opinion to lie efficient or nsefUl.

It has been the cause of toltattoa without remedying the evils it was intended to suppress. The duty rests upon you to revise and reform that legislation In the discharge of that duty, you will assume that there are evils to society and to individuals connected with the traffio In intoxicating liquors which it is the province of law to restrain and prevent. Sales should not be made to boys ana drunkenness should be punished as well as selling to the Intoxicated and the minor who miarepreeeata or conceals his age to obtain liquor, Should be punished as well as the person who knowingly sells to him. Sales should be forbldaen when the* public peace or safety requires It. Like other pursuits it should sua* pended after a reasonable hour in the night, so as to avoid the disturbances incident to the trafflo at that time. It should be made unlawful to buy whenever it to made unlawful to sell, and punishment should be Inflicted upon thejrarahaser as well as the seller.

The General .Assembly of the State

recommend that a reasonable tax, or license fee, be Imposed. It should be higher than heretofore and subject to forfeiture the license

for disregard

Now, my

fellow-citizens,

When the amendment is proposed, whatever it may be. It Is to be voted upon In each branch of the Legislature, and If agreed to by a fhnjorlty ot all the members elect, then ft sh*ll go to the nextsdbslon of the Legislature.

What Is tne meaning of the words "agreed to?" Be pleased to tell me its meaulng. Does It mean simply that the Legislature shall receive tho proposition and send It out to the people without passing any Judgment of ap-

Blat

dollar of

National revenue shall be collected l'rom any of these products In Indiana, and so Indiana must furnish some other industry strong enough to carry the burthen of the taxes that are thus out off. That is the seoond effect. This forbids all sales of liquor In Indiana. Just now I don't know what is realised to the school fund In Indiana ftpm the sale of liquor. When I left the offloe of Governor -it

roval themselves? By no means. It means the majority of that Legislature, expressing their real Judgment, and the judgment of the people they represent, shall express their approval of It before It shall go another step. [Applause.]

Do you understand by this provision that a man shall be elected to the Legislature and when a Constitutional amendment to proposed that ne doee not believe sboula be adopted ho shall not vote his sentiments, and that he shall vote oontrary to his sentiments so that it shall so out to the people? Is that Democracy? No, gentlemen, it has never been the sentiment of the Democracy. The Demooratio sentiment to that the representatives of the people shall express by their votes and action the true wish and desire of the people. Three times an amendment hss to be passed upon by the

Before oomlng to this hall I examined Webster's definition of ''agreed to." I wanted to And If it wss a word that had no meaning at all. 1 found lta meaning to be "to oome to one mind." That la the first meaning. You observe that tho Constitution says that the proposed amendment shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elect in each branch of the Legislature, aad that means that a majority of the members elected shall oome to one mind one Judgment. One Judgment upon wbat? Upon the propriety of the proposition one Judgment or one n&lna that tne Constitution ought to be amended as is proposed. The next meaning that to given to the word! Is, "to be of one mind—(o harmonise—to yield assent—to approve." Mow, those are the meanings that are given by our great lexicographer to those woras. And those words were adopted by a most aeoonpltohed ard learned member of the convention, Robert Dale Owen, and member of the Committee on Phraseology, ss I reoolleot. Do you think he did not know what the words meant which imposed upon the Legislature the duty before they would send to the people a Constitutional amendment to oome to one mind in its favor?

Gentlemen, this amendment to now before the people. When you vote this fall for a member of the Legislature, If you exercise any mind or Judgment at all upon this question in voting for such member, you have to say "yea" orT*nay" to this amendment.

I will beg to read wbat Mr. Owen said in the Constitutional Convention on this subject. Without any disparagement to any of the other members of thatoody It to toot saying toomueh to say that he was the equal in political wisdom and the superior, I suppose, In t-h* iMsnt learning of our langusge to any of them, and when the question was before this Convention

Mr.

lng

of the law. ThatjpoL

ley will bring a large revenue into the school fUnd, if so directed, and at the same time Identify the interest of the party selling with that of society, in preserving order ana good conduct at his plaoe of business. "X suggest, for your consideration, whether It is notpractlcable to make a difference of regulation In respect to the sale ot vinous and malt liquors and the stronger and more intoxicating drinks. There is a great difference tn the evils that result frotu their use."

Some other suggestions were contained In my message, ana the Legislature of that session adopted a bill supplanting the Baxter Bill, carrying out the suggestions that 1 have just read you, and It beoame the law of the State. It took the plaoe of a law that could not be executed because it was not sustained by publlo sentiment. It beoame a law la the hands of the Courts and officers that could be executed, and that was executed, and did no harm, aud brought into the school fund WOO^XXi a year, [Appiause.l That law was sustained by the Democracy of the State. It was passed almost altogether by a Demooratio vote in the Legislature and was sustained by the press ot the Btate, and I was gratified at its effects. If it was right then that we should regulate the •ales of liquor so as to protect society from the probable evils, is it not right now? Upon wbat ground and for what reason will the Demooratio party ebange Its position It has not changed its position. The Demooratio party stands to-day where it did when the law of 1875 was enacted in favor of a well* regulated oarefully considered license system. (Applause I

I oome to the next

question, the question that is supposed to be one of greater ulfflculty upon this sntyeot. The Constitution of Indiana provides tor Its own amendment, aud with your permission, I will read to yon that provision: "Article 1«, Section 1.—Any amendment or amendufents to this Constitution may be proposed in either branch of tne General Assembly. and If tne same shail be agreed to by a majorltv of the members elected to each of the two Houses, suoh proposed amendment or amendments shall, with the yeas and na^ thereon.be entered on their journCs, and referred to the General Assembly to be chosen at the next general election and, if In the General Assembly so next chosent such proposed amendment or amendments shall be Agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each House, then It shall be the luty of the General Assembly to submit soon amendment or amendments to the electors of the State and, if a majority of suoh Blefltors shall ratify the same, such amendmentor amendments shall become a part of the Constitution."

Will you oe pleased to observe two or three things? First, theeonsututlonal amendment must be proposed in one or other of the branohes of the Legislature secondly, it must be supported by a majority of all the members elect to each branch of the General Assembly, and if agreed to It shall oe referred to tne next General Assembly, and there it shall be considered by each branch, and if agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each branch, tnen it shall be referred by that^ Legislature to the peope tor a vote. Mow that to the provision under whloh any and all amendments to our State Constitution be made. Will you observe, in the first plaoe, it has to be reierred to two General Assemblies? If there is nothing in all this business of amending the Constitution only to obtain the will and pleasure of the people on the sutajeot, will you be good enough to tell me why it Is not referred to the people at the first session of the General Assembly? For what purpose In reason and common sense is it considered at two different sessions of the Legislature If the Legislators have no judgment to pass upon It? In the next place, will you allow me tu call your attention to the language which Is used:

Owen need this langusge:

•*And In the taext plaoe 1 think that any amendment propocea to be made ought to bo submitted to two successive Legislatures and ana to be voted for by a majority at least of tho Legislature before being submitted to the vote of the people. We adopted a ssctlon yesterday—which 1 think a very good one-on the motion or the gentleman from Monroe on my right, Mr. Beed, which provides that a law shall not bo submitted to the people, but that the Legislature shall take the responsibility of their own acts, but in the organic law It to a very different matter. We don't prupoee that the organic law shall be In the power of the Legislature. Now, I think that If It be made Imperative that amendments proposed to be made to the Constitution shall be voted for by two successive Legislatures, being elected with reterenoe to that particular sutgcot, the question will be voted before the people, and they will send Senatots and Bepresentatlvss with a special reference to that question. This, It appears to me. Will be a sufficient guard against Improper and WadvtosdameadflMUts without rcgtCKV-

the aotlon of the LsgAatursto

ten years." That was the

the

anywhere that his

period

expression

ofthe

judgment

Convention, becauae I

cltea much attention, and the next

tions by submitting them to

that dose not understaaa

not

able

to flnu

vie we

were disputed.

Constitution In

as that

qusstlor.

said

thattbese would

sufficient guarantee of the stability of

tho

amendment should

th-

requirement that tbf

emsUsMd first at on-

session of the Legislature and then ajsln athe next ssssion, and

theat

ana is was one usis ury Very particularly to the people by the vote for and aga

the people

And now I will ask your judgment if

fie

vofeacaston the amendment In

187S, as for the Secretary of

But we have

ant*

the Convention were not right?. Are you aware of the fUot that tti peopfc ofthe Bute are not in the haMt of giving epse ial attention to Constitutional

amendment*

that are nropooed at unusual periods'*' Within the last few years wo have snnmlttsr.. two or three amendments to the people. On was of great interest. It related to any possible resumption of the publlo debt asd to any resumption of tho ownership of

tho canal

and It was one that affected tne State Tisas ularly, and It was snbsatMeu the Leglslature la 1M

against that asastM

amounted to nMK Shortly that, the next year, on

the

vote

for tho Secretary of State (Mr. lobs JWi being one oi the candidatsaand Mr. CMnj the other) there were east tOM volss, lb difference being 17»,7A. Slot

atf a* msny

FShmary,

tho Slam

IstlSft

more striking oas* than that

You reoolleot In US0 there had

been sevare

amendments submitted to the people, and there were so few votes east upon them lla the Supreme Court deoided that they wareao adopted, and it beoame

controversy

that ex

Lagftria-

ture deoided to resubmit then#. Amongst o4h ere was one to ohanae our time of sisotlas from October to November, and on tkst amendment the vote was tho largsst.

March 14,1881, the vote was taken, and

waa 151,174 votes cost. At the prsooding

OP.

thssi

Slafr.

election in October of 1M0 the vote for OovST nor (three candtdatee running) was 470,7V, being

differeaee of 808,547. Three hundred

nine

thousand voters less In Indiana voted UMr that amendment after It had been much Oa cussed before the people, and aTter It had boor referred to them lor the seoond time W,ogi less upon the amendment than waa east fo. Governor, and yet you talk about a sstJdt: tory and safe mode of deciding

theeequet'

the people.

Gentlemen, It is the American hahit to submit queetlons of publlo Interest to the psopk, when they come to vote for their important officers, especially members of the I sglsla two. Why are wo not in tho midst tfthk discussion now? Where Is tho men In all Indlana that to so stupid as not to know thav the question to, "Shall the Constitatlosk fet amended?" Applause. 1 Where ta the

aaar

that

In voting lot

his eandldate for the Legfelaturs ho vols on that question? {Applauss] That la we mean by representative governmoat Why did our Constitution prohibit snMBlt* ting the law to the people? They said ttis When you vote for your members of the ug lslaturevote for them intelligently, aadloK them take tho responsibility of their" tlon.

Gentlemen do you reeoUeet that In MM»M the neighboring State of Illinois,

cussed

thsto was W

be settled, by the people of IUIaols. ths grsitt question of human slavery, so far

ao.Choir

position on that qusstlun wss oonssraod,

aad

who settled that question waa it sent downlt* the people and voted for by them?

On tho

trary in Illinois they adopted tho Aaorl plan and followed the American haMt. 1 voted for the champions of the rssp sod vow Stephen A. Douglass was supposed to

champion of one sentiment aad I—*—*'

{applausel

lausel

and Abraham Lincoln of upon the euhjeet at eta very,)

everywhere through Illinois that Important and grave question of human liberty dtocusssd

tne

rights and obligations

out of law, and the relations ofBtalss the general Government— all those quest! were discussed as they had Mver

aeon

on this earth before, so

that discussion, when

tho

aind of all

wss set on fire by the genius aad learning eloquence of thoee two representative the votenCof Illinois came up and decided question in the selection of members eft Legislature, who should ohoose the Blasts. It wee the American habit, and In the* sspdi the questions ware submlttsd and

desldod a,y

the people. Any great qnestlon ooaalng an Indiana to be aeted upon by the peogs,J»institution provides

that It

shau

considered in the election of bers of two consecutive Lsglalatmrea As 1 have read to you from tho figursa

tha*

are found in the offloe of the Secretary o* state a fall vote can not be had exeept

cording to our usage, when wo are voting for the officers of the Government. When we vote for the Governor we vote for

It Is

him

not thoughtof. We

laws, which belongs

Legislature, and

tutlon, whloh builds up, estaM*-»» In motion the machinery of thank you, Mr. President, and for the attention you have given mo.

no'

because of our personal attachment for him but we vote for him because he holds sentiments of government whloh

trove, and wben we vote for the is for the men whose votes will reflect sentiments, and that is the declaration of th' popular Judgment upon the question. Nov the question is before us. It is not a "dodge,* and the American people have never Ui accustomed to "dodges'' In the condoet an management of their publlo affairs. Hi choose to go square up to any question, moo and decide it. Are you and I in favor this amendment? Itdose not belong to th provnioe of Constitutional law. It belongs the prerogative of the Legislature. It

thr

province of the Constitution to frame govern ment and set it in motion to prescribe UK Judicial, the Legislative ana Executive ps partments: to prohibit any impairment of' rights of the people, and set the machls ot the Government In motion, but ft I* the province ot Constitutions to regulate tha whloh belongs to tho Legislative DepaT ment. Why,you may say. that crime veryoftenslveiB soolety that nothing Is

sod

fenslve as a conspiracy, but shall say in the Constitution there Shall aOvsr conlsplracy in Indiana?

write that la

to the province

off'

write

that la

The Ticket*

Secretary of Btate W. K. Myeiw, off Auditor of Btate—James H. Blot, Treasurer of State-John J. Gooper, Attorney General—Viands T, Hord, off BsrthOt omew Connty.

Clerk of the Supreme Court—Sbson

of Cass County. Superintendent of Public Instruction—John Vr Holcombe, of Porter County.

Supreme Judges—First District—W. 1 fMad of Knox County.

Seoond District—George V. HOwa.

off

Fourth District—Alton Zollars, of Altoaf Tha Demooratio Htata Central mlttoe.

John Nsstsr, of Wsrrlck County, Boonsv, Dr. Horsoe V. Norvell, of Greene County, 1 field.

Riley, of Jennings County. Totnei A B. Armlngton, of Decatur County, burg.

John

Buskirk, ef Monroe County,:

ton. Jobn K. Meff, of Randolph County, James M. Cropsey, of Marloa County, apolis.

Dr. W. H. GUlum, of Park County, BodcvOM. Dr. T. H. Harrison. of Boone County, Lite A. B.

Crampton, of Carroll County, oolphl, D. B. Sweetssr, of Grant County. lfsrtoa.

Jos. E. McDcneld, Chairman, T. A. Hendricks, Wm. H. English, David Turple, Jno B.Stoll. Jss. M. Cropsey.' John P. Frenssl, Treasurer. Jos. L. Riley, Secretary. Lewis Jordsn, Assistant Secretory.

Figures

John B. 8toll, of Noble County, Llgonler. Sorden Lister, of 81 Joseph County, S Bend. sxscxmvK coamrra.

that

Spsahj, '5

New York Sun.

The Annual Appropriations for Ten Jtasf

FmN^

Officially Reported by the Treasury Btporlmmt, MTO—Republican Congress. 1874—Republican Congress 172.30, 1875—Republican Congress—.. 1878—Republican Congress 1877—Democratic House .... 1878—Democtatlc House..~. 1879—Democratic House— 172,014 1880—Democratic House— 112,401.7 1881—Democratic Congress-1M.11&2J-1882—Democratic Congress 177/"

134,123 114.0W,

Average for ten yens—• This Year's Apppropriations, as Stated by the Oma man of the Senate Committee. 1888—Robeson Ian Onngrass ..^.^^,.J2H,J94,