Mr. PETTY said his sympathies, and the sympathies of his most intimate friends and associates, were in favor of a bill to suppress intemperance; but he would not vote for this bill, which he deemed a violation of the principles of justice, equity, and the Constitution.

Mr. RAMSAY, upon asking to be excused from voting, stated: I have always been a temperance man, but came here upon this as well as every other question, unpledged and untrammeled. In the present bill there are several provisions I think wrong, which I made attempts to have corrected before the committee, but did not succeed. The alternative now presented is to vote for or against the bill as it is. I confess I have some doubts, but upon the whole, I have come to the conclusion that if I err, it shall be on the side of humanity. I withdraw my excuse, and vote Aye.

Mr. RICKERSON: I shall vote for this bill, because I consider it adapted to promote the greatest good of the greatest number.

Mr. STEVENS believed the bill entirely constitutional, but objected to some of its provisions, (particularly that in regard to the arrest and imprisonment of corporations;) nevertheless he should vote for the bill because his constituents approved it. (In the course of his remarks, Mr. Stevens said, that he had never in his life drank a drop of spirits, beer, etc.)

Mr. STUYVESANT said he should be obliged to vote against the bill for the reasons, first, because it had not been properly discussed in Committee of the Whole; and second, because he deemed some of its provisions in contravention of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Mr. STORRS did not object to the bill on the question of its constitutionality, but for other reasons stated.

Mr. WARD also briefly gave reasons for his vote, his objections being based upon the inexpediency and unconstitutionality of the bill.

IN SENATE:

Mr. DICKINSON said he had voted for the bill of last winter; but he was free to say that he would have amended it in many particulars, if he could have done so. But that privilege was denied him, and he found himself forced to vote for the bill, notwithstanding its objectionable features,

or else vote against the entire measure. Of course, he adopted the former alternative. But that vote would not deter him from striving to amend this bill in those objectionable particulars. He, too, wanted a temperance law, as much as any Senator about the circle, or any man in the State; but he wanted one that would not defeat itself. Senators had said that this bill had been passed upon by the people, and approved, in toto, by them. Was this so? How was it in Tompkins county, where this very question of seizure and search was carried down to the people? The contest was between the man who last winter goaded Senators and members to vote for this bill, discarding all propositions to amend, and who said, in his zeal, that he would rather have the measure defeated than see it amended in one particular, and a man who was avowedly opposed to that principle. What was the result? Why, Mr. Joyhonorable, high-minded, and unobjectionable in every other particular-was defeated by the people, while his opponent was returned to the Assembly.

A similar result was witnessed in Dutchess county. The people have decided against the right of search and seizure. -they will not brook it, and he, for one, would never consent to vote a law upon our statute-books which he believed would be inoperative. He did not want to vote for a bill on so important a subject, to have it repealed by the next. Legislature. Our people are a law-abiding people-no other State or nation holds their like. [Laughter and applause.] They walk up to the ballot-box, and there silently but emphatically express their sentiments, and woe to the man or men who disregard them. Unlike Massachusetts or SouthCarolina, when they disapprove of a man-whether he be a Van Buren or a Fillmore-she expresses herself loudly and boldly, and in terms that are never misunderstood.

Mr. CROSBY, in behalf of the minority of the Temperance Committee, reported another bill, which he moved as an amendment to the majority bill. The following is a synopsis of it:

1. To punish the sale of liquors to be drank on the premises, except at hotels and refectories, and then only to guests, to be drank at meals.

2. To punish by imprisonment, and summarily, any person found intoxicated.

3. To prevent the sale or re-distillation of any alcohol.

into high-wines or pure spirits, or whisky, when rectified and re-manufactured from alcohol, either separately or collectively, or being manufactured into either brandy, rum, gin, or other spirituous liquors to be sold or used directly or indirectly by the people of this State, either as a beverage or for manufacturing, mechanical, or medicinal pur

poses.

4. To permit the sale of alcohol made by distillation, as alcohol in its crude state, for mechanical, manufacturing, or medicinal purposes in quantities not less than one gallon.

Mr. WATKINS (the question of striking out the search and seizure clause pending) said:

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a matter of surprise to me that this bill for the suppression of intemperance, and of which the Whig party of the State has assumed to act as godfather, should meet with such treatment at the hands of its pro. fessed friends, here in this Senate. It is, I apprehend, to be shorn of all its hitherto boasted vitality, to be carved, mangled, and absolutely, murderously slaughtered, with less science than a medical quack would perform a post-mortem on a defunct patient, and that, too, by and in the house of its friends, and under the very specious pretext, that the people, the very dear people (for which some short-minded and venerable grave Whig Senators have imbibed such a sudden and profound reverence) desire no such Maine law as this enacted by the Assembly, and now here under consideration. Well might one now exclaim: "Save me from my friends, I'll take care of my enemies." Gentlemen Senators, do have at least some pity on your bantling! rather let it die a natural death than attempt to kill it under the professed garb of kindness. Pray, how long is it since the Senator from the 26th, and the erudite legal Senator from the 24th, a valuable sympathizing member of the Judiciary Committee, became so profoundly awe-stricken, and piously obedient to the wishes of the people? Could such sentiments have so universally pervaded their natures a few days since, when the census bill, taking the appointing power of marshals from the supervisors and justices, and placing it in the hands of the Whig Secretary of State, was on its final passage? I apprehend not, and I apprehend another thing, and, for their benefit, I will simply allude to it.

They had then just heard the result of the town meetings held in a large portion of the State, and as a scorched cat

dreads the fire, they apprehended a worse calamity, if they pass the bill, at the election next fall. Have not they said as much? How fervently have they deplored the fate of a Joy and Sterling coming down on the devoted head of the Whig party, individually and collectively. Hence their wonderful admiration, at the present time, for the wishes of the people. Give yourselves no uneasiness. Messrs. Joy and Sterling were not defeated because they were the true friends of temperance, but from other considerations. Keep firm, then, in your boots, for I begin to suspect a majority of the people have resolved to test the experiment of a Maine Law, but no such hermaphrodite concern as it is proposed to transmogrify this bill into. Come up to the mark, then, and I for one will help you perfect such a bill as the friends of temperance wish to try, and such a one that, when passed, its friends, and the friends of temperance, shall have no excuse for saying, if it don't operate well, it was not the bill they asked for, having been shorn of all its Sampsonian-not Sam-sonian features. The temperance folks desire, and will not be satisfied unless you give them a bill with some vim in it; none of your milk-and-water concerns, and such bill (if they get any) they will have, if my assistance can aid them in constructing it. If the disease of the body politic is of so desperate a nature as to require prohibition at all, give it, as we doctors say, sharp practice, and you will either kill or cure the patient; one thing being very certain, you will get rid of the matter, and put an end to this everlasting furor and excitement on the subject of the Maine Liquor Law in politics. I believe I may say, there is no lawyer around the circle that considers the sections that are proposed to be stricken out, unconstitutional, and therefore they may be considered sound in that respect, and I shall therefore vote against striking them out. Sir, for myself, I very much question the practical operation of any Prohibitory Liquor Law. It will be a mere dead letter on the statutebook. My remedy for the evil of intemperance lies in another direction. Enforce the present excise laws. It is their abuse that creates the evil of intemperance. No law is worth a straw, unless the people are compelled to submit to its provisions.

What good will the Maine Law do, if not enforced? Just none at all. But it is said that the present excise laws can not be enforced. How then can you enforce this bastard

Maine Law that you propose here in the Senate to pass, shorn of all its efficient provisions. But as I before remarked, I have strong impressions that the people desire to test the Maine Law. If so, amen to it. I bow with becoming submission, and the sooner it comes the better. If passed, and it operates well, I shall by my acts and votes sustain it, and be most agreeably gratified; but having fearful apprehensions to the contrary, I shall vote against any prohibitory law that you may enact. I am sensible of the gravity and importance of this bill, and of the evils of intemperance, and would not have thus spoken with seeming brevity in regard to it, had it not already been, as I think, most shabbily treated, here in this Senate, by its friends.

Pending the question as to the time when the law should take effect,

Mr. DICKINSON stated that in the cities there were brewers who were buying 1500 bushels of grain per day for brewing purposes. This required 2000 or 3000 barrels per day. Coopers who make these barrels have employment from this source. When they are deprived of this business they must seek employment in some other calling. There were hundreds and thousands of interests which would suffer if this bill was made to take effect soon after the Legislature adjourned. He hoped Senators would come forward manfully and sustain the section as it now stood. It was when you did wrong and injustice that men would do all they could to prevent the execution of the law.

Mr. Z. CLARK did not regard the motion to re-consider the vote of the importance that had been claimed for it on both sides. If he voted at all on the question, as several Senators were absent who voted to have the time fixed in July, he was inclined to think it would be against the motion to reconsider.

Mr. BISHOP claimed that if 1500 bushels of grain were used daily in cities for brewing purposes, it could be turned to an honest account; the same with the barrels-they could be used for other purposes. If the argument of the Senator from the 26th was correct, these millions of bushels of grain ought to be kept from the distilleries, and used for food. Better begin immediately-the sooner the better. He alluded to the 30,000 commitments in the city of New York, in one