year, because intoxicated-take off 10,000 for persons com mitted half a dozen times during the year, and you have 20,000 commitments of persons! The jail door is opened. 20,000 times! It is closed 20,000 times-making 40,000! 20,000 officers to take them to prison! What a mass of labor, and all on account of the sale of ardent spirits. Let us have the law, and the sooner it goes into effect the better. Mr. PRATT said: Mr. President, I have no intention of making a speech; but I can not allow a measure of this character, which affects so intimately the whole social fabric, to pass without at least entering my solemn protest against it. I must confess that I had strong hopes that in a State in which so much vigor of mind adorns our courts, our pulpits, and our public journals, we should have been spared this humiliation. I had hoped that we, as the representatives assembled of the State-proudly known as the Empire State, should have set a different example; that here the boisterous waves of fanaticism should have been stayed; but, sir, I find I am mistaken, and now there is nothing left to its opponents but to place their names on the record emphatically against this monstrous delusion.

I shall only add further that this is in my estimation the strongest blow which has ever been given against the temperance reform; and when the people rise in their might and majesty and take measures which will upset the machinations of temperance partisans, I wash my hands of all the consequences which will ensue either to the temperance cause or to the party which has so imprudently fostered this unconstitutional and pernicious bill.

In conclusion of a lengthy speech, Mr. BUTTS said:

I therefore conclude that though the features of the billare more stringent than former laws, still the principle is the same, and has the same beneficent object in view, and is therefore no abridgment of personal rights. I know full well that it is affirmed that this bill seeks to deprive men of the good creatures of God, designed by the Creator for the use of man. I would reply that the assertion needs. proof. Will any one pretend that ardent spirit is the good creature of God, and as such ought to be received with thankfulness and gratitude? As well might you call the Mohammedan creed or inquisition of Rome the creature of

God. The vegetables or grain from which ardent or intoxicating spirit is extracted, are the gift of God, made suitable to the wants of man, and as such should be gratefully received. But ardent spirit is the invention of man's ingenuity, and its introduction into society as an article of traffic and use by community as a beverage, is the offspring of man's vitiated taste and cupidity. I am ready to admit, Mr. President, that many of the gifts of Providence, before they can subserve the wants or comforts of man, must undergo a change by his agency, and be suitably prepared for his use, this being in perfect accordance with the dispensation of Providence to man, making labor the price of his comforts and happiness; but man, in this particular, to secure his happiness and to supply his wants, must act in concert with the designs of Providence, and not counter to them.

The third objection is that the law is inexpedient and unjust. I argue, sir, that this law is expedient because it is right in the abstract, and that it is just for the reason that it confers manifold greater benefits upon those who are prohibited from the use of intoxicating beverage, in a pecuniary point of view, than the pecuniary losses to which the objectors are subjected; consequently the greatest good for the larger number is secured.

Let us examine this subject a moment upon the hypothesis that intoxicating drink to men in health is always injurious; and I think this hypothesis will not be denied. If true, it then follows that the whole entire cost of the liquor to the consumer is a dead loss to them for the amount of the cost, to which must be added consequent waste of time growing out of its use, the consequences of the diseases it engenders, the expense of criminal proceedings attending the same, the damages resulting to various branches of business arising from the incapacity of agents caused by drunkenness, and -I think I shall not be charged with extravagance, if I add to the original cost an amount equal thereto. Now, sir, on which side is justice? Shall the objectors lose their million, or society, through its constituent elements and its aggregate capacity, lose two millions, or in the same proportion for a greater or less amount? I apprehend, sir, that the question of justice is easily decided, and more especially when we take into the account that the opposers of this bill have long monopolized the traffic of palming upon community for a valid consideration that which for a beverage was worthless and

decidedly detrimental to every interest of society. Upon what principle of justice, then, can the seller, distiller, or brewer of intoxicating liquor, require community to buy their liquor for a beverage, to secure them from loss, when to do so community must, as above shown, lose the entire cost thereof and a sum equal thereto ? Upon none whatever. I must, therefore, Mr. President, conclude that this law is both just and expedient.

Much has been said, sir, in the discussion upon this subject--and the insinuation has frequently been made directly against the friends of the bill-that they were legislating to make men moral. If by these insinuations and charges, the opponents of this bill mean nothing more than that its friends. wish to frame such a law as shall eminently tend to produce moral results, then we acknowledge the truth of such a charge; but if they would wish to send abroad the impression that the friends of this bill expected by any legislative enactment to make men moral by changing their nature, then we hurl back the unjust aspersion to the source from whence it came. The friends of this bill entertain 'no such sentiments, and have made no averments that justify such conclusions. All they affirm is, that a law just and wise in its provisions tends to restrain and check immoral and vicious tendencies, addresses itself to the consciences of those who are the subjects of the law, will cause them to reflect, to consider and to comply with its salutary provisions, if moral suasion has any influence over them. But if moral suasion can not reach their case, then the friends of this bill insist that in those acts that relate to man's conduct with his fellow man, legal restraint is necessary-must be exercised to counteract evils that moral suasion can not reach or remove; and, Mr. President, entertaining these views in relation to this bill, thinking its main features calculated to secure results, if fairly applied and carried out, that will be beneficial to the great mass of our people, without unjustly inflicting injury upon any, I shall, when called by the clerk to vote on this bill, most cheerfully respond in the affirmative.

The bill passed by the following vote:

AYES-Messrs. Bishop, Bradford, Butts, W. Clark, Z. Clark, Danforth, Dickinson, Dorrance, Field, Goodwin, Halsey, Hitchcock, Hopkins, Munroe, Putnam, Richards, Robertson, Sherrill, Walker, Whitney, Williams-21. NOES-Messrs. Barnard, Barr, Brooks, Crosby, Hutchins, Lansing, Pratt, Spencer, Storing, Watkins, Yost-11.

Some amendments having been made to the bill, it was passed down to the Assembly for concurrence.

Mr. O'KEEFE moved to lay the bill on the table until the amended bill should be printed.

Mr. BALDWIN moved a Committee of Conference. [Ruled out of order, until after a vote was taken upon the Senate's amendments.]

After the amendments were read through,

Mr. ODELL moved to concur in the Senate's amendments. Mr. O'KEEFE was proceeding to debate the motion, when the SPEAKER decided that the motion was not debatable. Mr. O'KEEFE appealed from this decision.

The CHAIR briefly gave his reasons for his decision, and the Chair was sustained-74 to 44.

Mr. WATERBURY moved to re-commit the bill.

Mr. CHURCHILL moved the previous question. Ordered -100 to 5.

Mr. STEBBINS: If the IIouse non-concurs, can a Committee of Conference be appointed by the House?

The SPEAKER: A motion for such a Committee would then be in order.

The amendments of the Senate were then concurred in --ayes 80, noes 44, as follows:

AYES-Messrs. Baldwin, J. Bennett, J. P. Bennett, Beyea, Blakeslee, Boynton, Brush, Buckley, Bushnell, Chester, Cocks, S. B. Cole, Covey, Eames, Everest, Fairchild, Ferdon, Fitch, Gates, Gleason, Goddard, Headley, Hull, Hunt, Jimmerson, C. P. Johnson, L. B. Johnson, Kendig, Knapp, Kirkland, Lamport, Leigh, Littlefield, Lourie, Machan, McKinney, Mallory. Main, Masters, May, E. Miller, L. Miller, Munro, Odell, Paine, D. Palmer, F. W. Palmer, Peck, Pennoyer, Platt, Ramsay, Raymond, Rickerson, Rider, Rhodes, Schuyler, B. Smith, J. A. Smith, S. Smith, Speaker, Stanton, Stebbins, Stevens, Storrs, Terhune, G. Tompkins, I. Tompkins, Van Etten, Van Osdol, Warner, Walker, Ward, Wells, E. S. Whalen, S. S. Whallon, A. G. Williams, G. D. Williams, Wilsey, Wisner, Wooden, Wygant-80.

NOES-Messrs. Aitken, Allen, Baldwin, Baker, Beecher, Blakeslee, Blatchford, Blessing, Bridenbecker, Campbell, Case, Chapin, Churchill, Clark, E. Cole, Coleman, Comstock, Conger, Davidson, Davy, Devening. Dixon, Donnan, Dumont, Edwards, Emans, Green, Evans, Maguire, McLaughlin, Mundy, O'Keefe, Parsons, Petty, Phelps, Seymour, Smalley, W. B. Smith, Terhune, Wager, Waterbury, Weed—44.

Absent--Messrs. Dodge, J. C. Palmer, Searing, and E. L.

Smith.

Mr. STEVENS moved to re-consider this vote. Lost-31 to 84.

Gov. CLARK affixed his signature to the bill on the 9th of April. A certified copy is given in the fore part of this volume.

Upon the complete passage of this bill the following important correspondence took place. There was also much other correspondence on the same subject, and it is very likely the suggestions and opinions were good; but as the letters were either anonymous or over some such elastic signature as "A Magistrate," "A Member of the New-York Bar," we do not consider them worthy an insertion here.

MAYOR WOOD AND THE PROHIBITORY LAW.

To the People of New-York:

MAYOR'S OFFICE, N. Y., April 16, 1855.

The Legislature of this State having passed an act entitled "An Act for the Suppression of Intemperance, Pauperism, and Crime," known as the Prohibitory Liquor Law, and as my position with reference to its enforcement in this city, so far as that duty may devolve upon my office, should be declared at an early day, to leave no doubt as to its character, I hereby. present, for public consideration, the principles which control my conduct as a public officer, alike applicable to matters of great or small import..

That the people govern-not in their primary capacity, but through representatives freely and fairly chosen-is the theory of American government. The people are the source. of political power. They make the laws; and the great safeguard of American liberty is general compliance. As the statutes thus created for the better protection of life and property, and the pursuit of happiness, are but the reflection. of the popular will for the time being, so are they binding upon the body politic-the minority as well as the majority who are alike parties to the compact, the obligations of which it is dishonorable to disregard. And though these elements of self-government present the distinguishing features between our own and the governments of Europe,