enness.

No, sir; I will not speak of this here, for it will become a proper theme for those whose duty it is to carry this question before the people when this Convention shall say that such a section as this (as brought forward by the gentleman from Potter, Mr. Mann,) shall go into the Constitution. No, sir; I will not appeal to the prejudice nor to the passions of any, but if we do not obey the prayers of these people, who are daily petitioning us upon this subject, and give them an opportunity to show by their votes that alcoholic liquors shall no longer be sold as a beverage in this State, we shall have closed our to the pleadings of our fathers, inothers, brothers, sisters, wives, children, friends and neighbors. I know full well that this Convention is composed of men whose ideas are broad and comprehensive; men whose actions here will be criticized long after they have passed away to their final reward, and I know that, however much we may differ as to many matters relating to the interests of the State, and the best means of government for the body politic, we will all agree that it will not do for us to oppose these forty thousand prayers that have come up to us, and the many more that are reaching us day by day.

ears

The people are in earnest, "but calm." They know, or they have reason to believe, that we will be just, that we will give them the opportunity to show by their votes their faith in this great reform. I remember the good old Book tells us that St. Paul said, that "it is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended, or is made weak ;” therefore, cannot we agree to sacrifice some of our cherished idols for the good of society? Sir, we can afford to be just to the people of this Commonwealth and give them this privilege when, on this question, the interests of the present, and the lives of future millions of people are at stake. It may dry up the fountains from which their is so much gain, but yet I believe, in due time, that the one hundred and thirty thousand persons who are, either directly or indirectly, engaged in the traffic of ardent spirits in this Commonwealth will find it to their interests to pursue a more honorable employment, will turn their attention to agriculture, mining and mineral pursuits, and thereby build up that

The people will not be satisfied unless we accede to their prayer in this regard, and I appeal to every gentleman upon this floor to see to it that we give to the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that which they so much demand. Let us present this section to them in such manner that they can have a free, full and satisfactory vote upon the question. That is all I desire, and I believe it to be the desire of a large majority of the delegates upon this floor. I do not believe that this question is confined to a few temperance men, nor teetotalers. Not at all. It rests deep in the hearts of the people, and it comes up out of their great hearts. It is the underlying strata which underlies the foundation of our social system, and the people over the State see and understand it. Their demand has come to us, and shall we obey it? If not, then against the work that we are doing there will be a moral influence brought to bear that will make our labor vain. Nay, I fear that if we do not heed this general voice of the people, and present this section to them, or some other one of like character, that the work we are doing will be rejected by them, and be lost to us and to the State.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman: I did not intend to make any remarks upon this subject, and so expressed myself to several members before the Convention was called to order this morning. Inasmuch as I think it is unnecessary to recapitulate the reasons why some legislation would seem to be required to correct this great evil, I do not propose to go over the socalled temperance ground; but the gentleman from Dauphin (Mr. MacVeagh) advanced positions so novel, as I hold them to be, so false in theory, and so utterly impracticable; ideas that have never been acted upon in the past, and never can be acted upon in the future, that 1 cannot remain quiet. He asserted and maintained the principle that neither the Legislature, nor any other power, has the right to restrain or abolish that traffic or that business which is detrimental to the interests of society, because it would interfere with private rights or natural privileges. That is the ground the gentleman takes. Why, a more startling proposition, one more false in principle, I never heard enunciated in my life. Not a right to prohibit a business when the public safety demands it? I cannot comprehend what

the gentleman can mean by so startling, so strange, and, he will permit me to say, with all respect, so absurd a proposition. Why, from the very earliest times, men have always said, and society has always held; in fact, society cannot be kept together without a recognition of that fundamental fact or principle, that there is a right inherent in the people to prohibit a business or occupation, or anything else that is inimical to the interests of society. He joins issue with that simple proprosition fair and square, or, at least, that is a perfectly fair inference from his premises. Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not expect as much good from this proposed prohibition by the State as some other gentleman do. I well know that its preventive efficiency depends altogether on the extent of the public sentiment to sustain it in the respective localities, but I do know that where those conditions exist, that is, where a tolerable strong temperance sentiment, and moral courage to enforce, prevails, that absolute prohibition will be both a blessing and an incalculable benefit in the direction of the total eradication, in time, of the great curse.

Mr. MACVEAGH. Mr. Chairman: Do I understand the gentleman to hold that the control over the individual has no limits but the judgment of the majority as to what is injurious or not?

Mr. CARTER. I do not propose to be led from my line of argument, or to follow the gentleman into the mazes of metaphysical abstractions, but I do propose and intend to make my argument as clear as a sunbeam, and to utterly demolish that of the learned and eloquent gentleman. What I say is this, that society has always restrained and, necessarily, always must restrain, that traffic, business or occupation which is proved to be detrimental to the public good, and clearly so when the safety of the community demands it. That, sir, is the ground I take, and that is what the gentleman from Dauphin denies. And, the gentleman will permit me say, that it does seem like shirking that question when he would get up some other question. I think he must have a premonition of the fate which awaits his position, and begins to realize the position in which he has placed himself, and would withdraw or contract his scattered lines, as it were, to draw them in. But I do not intend to be led off by the abstractions which he offers to my consideration. I hold that if this business is detrimental to the interests of the public, that the

public have a right, by their constituted authorities, to restrain, limit or prohibit it. I believe that the right which has been exercised, restraining, involves the right to prohibit if prohibition be found necessary. If that be right which has always been exercise of curtailing and restricting, then it would be right to prohibit this traffic altogether-that follows as a matter of course. Society has always placed this traffic under different regulations from any other business, and it has always been made to rest on a different footing from the selling of books, or hats, or any other kind of merchandise. Liquor saloons have been limited in number, and I submit to the gentleman from Dauphin, that if it is right to limit them, one-fourth, for instance, they have a right to limit these places one-half, or three-fourths, that then they have a right to take away the other fourth and make the restrictions absolute.

The gentleman from Dauphin has spoken in regard to the infringments of individual rights. We do not desire to interfere with any individual rights. If they are incidentally infringed upon, it is because they come in conflict with a wholesome law which the people desire or require for their protection; to that contingency all good men submit.

I assert that the principle, that it is the right of the people to put down wrong, has always been held, and society cannot exist without it, nor can public order exist without it. I might claim the right to manufacture cartridges and fireworks, or I might desire to bring in a ton or two of powder and locate it near this hall, to the imminent peril of gentlemen sitting here; and I might say that I have a right to do this thing in pursuance of my lawful employment, the manufacture of this pyrotechnical merchandise. But, very properly, you would say that I have no right to pursue any business which exposes to danger my fellow-man, or which might. cause loss of life or limb.

The gentleman himself returned from Turkey recently, after a long and dangerous voyage. I want to show the extent to which the principle leads; all centering down to that one principle, that the State has a right to restrict, restrain, prohibit, if it be necessary, if the public good requires it, even to deprivation of his liberty for a time. Suppose that when the gentleman returned, that the port from which he sailed had been infected with plague. He might have been stopped

on the eve of leaving the vessel, when, of course, desiring to go home; when perhaps his health and that of his family required it, and yet he would be subjected to detention on the part of the authorities. The health officer comes and says, "this vessel has come from an infected port, and you must come with me, sir; I shall detain you, and turn lock and key on you, and you shall remain there for a period of five or six weeks." If to that conduct the inquiry was made, "why deprive a man of his liberty?" The unanswerable reply would be that "the public safety and the public good required it, and that you shall not spread disease." And I think that that principle is identical with the principle involved in this issue. I remember when the cholera was about, some years ago, that the local authorities in cities prohibited the sale of cucumbers, and of oysters, and of cabbages and turnips. In any one of those cities a man might say, "I have a right to eat turnips; they do not disagree with me, and I have a right to eat green cabbage, or oysters." The authorities did not say to that man, "you shall not eat cabbage or turnips," but they said to the man who was dealing in them, "you shall not sell them; you shall not embark in a business or pursue a business which is detrimental to the public good." Thus thousands claim, on similar grounds, that it is our right and duty to prohibit this traffic in liquor. It seems to me that this rests precisely on the same principle, the same foundation.

Self-preservation is the great law of nature. Some years past, when the rebellion had reared its bloody hydra-head in the Southland, there were men who told us that there existed no right to coerce a State. Well, I was not learned in the law, but I had a small modicum of common sense, and I knew, whether it was so in statute law or not, whether it was in the Constitution of the United States or not, that the right of self-preservation existed, and must exist necessarily in the government, and when I heard the gentleman's clarion voice waking up the hills and valleys all over Chester county, I found that he then took that view, that if there was no right to coerce a State, it would be safe to rest on the principle that there was an inherent right in the State to save its own

life.

I believe that it has been decided in England, in the early days, that if two men are floating on a plank which will only sustain one man, one of them would 5. Vol. III.

have the right to push the other overboard, and it would not be murder. The bearing which that matter has upon the case under consideration is simply this, that the State has a right to protect itself to the extent of prohibiting any line of traffic in any business restraining its citizens, if the public good requires it.

Another thought and I am done. How can we refuse the prayers of theso petitioners? Who have made this appeal? Why, the mothers, the wives, the sisters, the daughters and the numberless sons of this Commonwealth. I cannot so steel my heart against their appeal. Nor they alone. The poor victim himself. Among the crowd that are now flocking to the polls over this wide-spread Commonwealth to-day are hundreds, nay thousands, of men who are victims of this evil habit. They find themselves unable to restrain themselves, and are asking the people by their votes that they shall be protected, that this curse, this temptation shall be removed from them. They feel their own impotence to resist. They feel that they are descending the rapids leading to a fearful cataract that they can no longer stem, a current that is carrying them to the whirlpool of destruction and they desire that some power shall intervene to save them. Can I hore, if my voice and my vote will aid in granting the prayers of the people, silence the one or withhold the other? God forbid. May my final appeal to mercy, which we all need, be rejected if I reject the appeal of a sinking, drowning man, or of a pleading, heart-broken wife or mother in such a way as that.

I have not the slightest doubt, sir, but what, sooner or later, the cause of tomperance will triumph, and I have no desire as I said before, to go into any elaborate argument in regard to this matter, but simply to reply to what I hold to be the utterly false doctrine of the gentleman from Dauphin (Mr. MacVeagh.)

I will only add I was struck with the remark of the gentleman from Crawford, (Mr. Mantor,) that it is unsafe for us to refuse to submit this matter as a separate proposition to the people. I beleve that the people of the State of Pennsylvania are so interested in this matter that we will awaken a feeling of hostility against the whole work of the Convention; and it is a matter that we should considerwell..

Mr. CURRY. Mr. Chairman: I am in favor of the proposition as it came from the Committee on Legislation, bocause it

strikes at the very foundation of a great evil which has existed in our Commonwealth from its existence. The people of the Commonwealth have asked us, by their petitions, to insert a clause in the Constitution that will prevent the manufacturing and sale of intoxicating drinks as a beverage in this Commonwealth. I am aware that to many of the members of this Convention, who have heard of the evils of intemperance from their childhood up to this time, the discussion of this subject is perhaps as irksome as any subject that could be introduced. This is the first time that I have asked the attention of this Convention, and I shall promise not to detain you very long, while I call the attention of the Convention to one or two facts.

Is the proposition submitted by the Committee on Legislation a proper one? Is it such a proposition as the people of this Commonwealth demand? Will it meet the expectation of those whom we represent? If it does not, we should vote it down, and submit something that will meet their views. The reason that I favor the proposition and believe that it will meet the expectation of the people of this Commonwealth, is because it will strike at the very root of intemperance. It will uproot it entirely, and drive from our borders that iniquity of which we have heard so many most fearful complaints.

The objection meets us right here, and says that we have not the right or the power thus to submit a proposition of this kind. I ask, if we are the representatives of a free people, if we represent the people of this Commonwealth, and if they have delegated to us the right and the power thus to alter and amend the Constitution, or the fundamental law of the Commonwealth, have we not the right to submit to them the proposition for their ratification that may touch the appetites and the interests of the men who neither fear God nor regard man?

I claim that we have the right, and I claim that the people of this Commonwealth expect us to exercise that right, and in doing so we will simply do our duty. If these propositions shall be submitted to the people as they came from the hands of the Covention and the people of this Commonweath shall ratify them, then I ask what will be the result? Will we not be relieved of the great evil of which we have heard year after year? Will not the people rise up en masse and sustain the Convention

that had the nerve and the manliness to hear the prayers of the thousands of petitioners who have presented memorials here, asking for a provision of this kind? In case we do not adopt a provision of this kind the enemy will have gained a victory. The great eye of this Commonwealth to-day is turned upon this Convention. All the temperance organizations throughout the Commonwealth are watching our movement with a jealous eye. They are watching carefully every step we take in this direction. Should we fail it will be a triumph for those who seek to destroy the happiness of mankind for the sake of gain.

In this case the objectors ask, in what way have we injured society? A thousand voices come up from every section of the Commonwealth and say: "Behold what intemperance has done! Behold the families that have been impoverished, and the happy homes made desolate and friendless because of the terrible ravages of the traffic in ardent spirits."

One case this moment presents itself to me. In our own little county of Blair, right at the base of the Allegheny mountains, where, a few days ago, the people rose up in their might, and by a majority of over two thousand expressed themselves in favor of a measure like this, a young man from a neighboring county was arraigned in our court for the terrible crime of murder. A lawyer, a member of this Convention, who is looking me in the eye, appeared in his defense.

Why," said he, "he is a young man from my own town of Chambersburg ;" and he plead eloquently for the young man's life. What had the prisoner to say in his defense? "I was drunk in the town of Altoona. I did not know that 1 sent a bullet whistling through the heart of that man Devine. No; I did not do it." But the stern arm of the law held him tight in its grasp, and the young man, notwithstanding the tears, and sympathies and prayers of a mother, lies within the walls of the Western Penitertiary.

I ask if there was no other case, as one of the legitimate fruits of intemperance, that this should be sufficient; but at this moment it occurs to me that in the city of New York, while the clock is pointing to mid-day, behold there suspended that man Foster who is expiating his crime. For what reason? Because he was under the influence of liquor when he committed the fatal deed. The tears of that wife

who stood by him, and the poor little children who gathered around him, will be an incentive for every man who fears God and desires to stand by that which is right. There is nothing under Heaven that is so honorable and so noble in man as to do that which he believes to be right, and right will bear him out in all his actions. Scores of cases present themselves to my mind of similar import; and lawyers who are members of this Convention know full well what horrors intemperance has brought upon the land.

Now, our people ask us to submit to them a proposition. They are willing to hear us, and they are willing to do all that it is proper for us to ask them to do. All they ask is, "let us have a chance to speak, and if we fail to endorse your action let the blame be with us." Are they asking too much? Oh, no! Therefore I shall, with all my heart, vote for this proposition or any proposition that will strike at the foundation of this most terrible evil. During the session of this Convention we have heard men of eloquence and of great power denounce our railroad corpoporations. We have heard denunciations of the iniquitous crimes of which they are said to be guilty, and of wickedness in legislation from time to time. But, sir, I ask you to compare all the alleged crimes of all the corporations in the Commonwealth, and place them in the scale against all the crimes resulting from intoxicating drinks, and I will venture the assertion that every honest man will say that the crime of intemperance is above them all.

Railroad corporations, in any respects, inasmuch as they facilitate trade, and open up commerce between the east and the west, are a blessing. If there are some injurious influences connected with them, what are they in comparison with the infamous crimes of the manufacturing and selling the very essence of iniquity under a legalized form.

Mr. Chairman, if the Convention will submit this question to the people for their ratification or rejection, my conviction is that they will ratify it by a very large majority. All I ask is a chance for the people to speak on this subject before the bar of public opinion. We shall wait patiently for their verdict.

Mr. DE FRANCE. Mr. Chairman: I do not wish to detain the committee more than five minutes at the furthest. Perhaps, sir, I have presented more petitions from the people for this measure than any

other member of the Convention. I have presented the petitions of at least six thousand people who are in favor of submitting this proposition as a separate proposition for the peoples' ratification or rejection. I hope the Convention will adopt this plan to have the amendment submitted to a separate vote of the people. It does not appear to be a mere matter that belongs to the temperance people. The votes of the people in the country seem to indicate that more than just the temperance people are in favor of this measure. If we obey the petitions of the people, and the people have called for this one proposition perhaps more than any other since we came to the Conventian, it would seem that we would be required to submit it as a separate proposition. I have not heard any argument advanced by any gentleman on this floor against so submitting it, except the argument of the gentleman from Dauphin, (Mr. MacVeagh,) and that argument has some weight in it.

It

Government cannot exercise more than the admitted governmental powers. cannot go beyond that, and the question is whether the power of taking away this privilege to manufacture drink or sell liquor is a governmental power or not. A majority of the people cannot take your property and give it to me, or the property of the gentleman from Dauphin, (Mr. MacVeagh,) and give it to the gentleman from Lancaster (Mr. Carter.) That, indeed, is not a governmental power; but this question is not of that kind.

It was maintained for a very long while that the school law was unconstitutional for that very reason. The claim was that one man's property or money could not be taken or given for the use of another man or his children, but the general belief, and what has been established in this State, is that where the necessities of the State require it you can take a qualified liberty from a person, or even an amount of money, and give it, not to the other man, but for the benefit of the State. That is the power of this government. I do not think that this proposition infringes upon the doctrine that we cannot take the property of one man and give it to another.

I am satisfied that the temperance movement, if it could be carried out to any great extent, would be a great benefit to the people of the State; and for that reason we ought to submit that proposition. Let any person here, for instance any lawyer, take his classmates and run them