Mr. WISNER said: Reasons had been asked for the passage of the bill. One reason was, that the people demanded it. They had been petitioning for such a law for many years.

They desired that the Legislature should do something to save fathers, sons, wives, and daughters from ruin. Very few remonstrances had been presented against such a law. Two successive Legislatures had been elected to pass some law like that pending. Last year, both Houses passed a law, which was vetoed. But the people, nothing discouraged, have returned another Legislature in favor of such a law, with a Governor to sign it.

In May, 1816, when the license question was referred to the people, the vote showed that they were opposed to the traffic. The friends of that law recommended forbearance. They did not desire to use rigid measures; and because of that forbearance the law was repealed by the Legislature; why, he could not say. The people were disappointed.

There are evidences that the people ask for this law.

This liquor business is a costly business. It imposes an expense of nearly eighty millions a year on the tax-payers. But if it be but half that, it is enormous. Why should those (chiefly the producers) who have to bear this tax, be compelled to continue to groan under the burden? The traffic produces only evil and beggary. But for it, there would be but little suffering now. Enough money is wasted every year to build an enlarged' canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson.

What is the cause of all the terrible suffering now experienced by the poor in your cities? Why are our prisons and alms-houses filled? It has its cause in this traffic. Suppress it, and these evils will soon disappear, and the gallows will be robbed of its prey. Few murders are committed by sober men. Few casualties occur which do not spring from this traffic. Every day proves this. Why should not a traffic thus pernicious-carrying crimes, and death, and suffering in its train-be suppressed?

Mr. W. was glad, last evening, to hear that good laws could be carried out even in New-York. From what was then said, he was quite sure that, under an efficient officer, this law could be enforced. Mayor Wood-a man of hickory name-would enforce it. If the suppression of the traffic for one day does so much good, what might we not hope

for by perpetual suppression? New-York would soon be- ́ come the glory of the whole earth.

Then why not pass this bill? The existing law has been in force fifty years. We have found it inadequate. If enforced, it could not accomplish the good desired. But could it be enforced? It has not been. Then why shall we not have some law which could be enforced, and, when enforced, would be effective? Let us try it. It will do no harm; and if it shall work oppressively, it can be repealed.

Mr. AITKEN corrected the remark that no remonstrances had been sent up against this bill. Last year there were sent up innumerable remonstrances.

Mr. WISNER: But not to be compared to the number of petitioners.

Mr. AITKEN: Remonstrances were treated cavalierly last. year, and they would be now. Hence it was not considered worth while to send them here. Mr. A. denied also that this Legislature represented the people; and argued to prove that, while intemperance was a great evil, the violation of personal rights, as this bill proposed, also was an evil. But this bill will not abolish the evil of intemperance. If it would, he would sustain it with all his heart. No law can abolish the evils of intemperance; and this law would raise a spirit of rebellion against it, resulting in even greater mischief than now exists.

Mr. L. B. JOHNSON spoke at length in favor of the bill, as reported, reviewing the history of the bill which was last year vetoed, the effect of that veto upon the public. mind, its influence upon the late election, and the verdict of the people, closing with the expression of the hope that the friends of the bill would adhere to it as reported by the committee.

Mr. WAGER said the issue in his district was "Maine Law or no Maine Law." And as the gentleman from Alleghany (Mr. L. B. Johnson) said yesterday that dealing in intoxicating drinks was a "dirty business," he desired to say, in reply, that some of his constituents were dealers, and he would add that they were as respectable as any equal number of citizens of Alleghany county, including the gentleman himself. That gentleman is a druggist, and he probably desires to secure a monopoly of this "dirty business." Then the "dirty business" would become respectable, particularly if he was allowed his hundred per cent. profit.

Mr. W. said he was opposed to prohibition, and he believed the people were; for he denied that there had been any popular expression to the contrary. If there was a majority here for the principle, they represent, not the people, but a faction. Prohibition was a violation of the principle of universal freedom. Men would not be reformed by compulsion. Convince their judgments and they would submit. This subject of temperance had been dragged into politics against the early professions of its friends. Now it is proposed to say what a man shall drink. Next, as in Austria, you may legislate what he shall wear, and then, when, where, and how he shall worship. He was practically a temperance man, and desired the triumph of the principle; but he would not over-ride every recognized principle of law to accomplish, or to endeavor to accomplish, a fancied or a real good. Do so, and the enactment will fail-as in the case of the gambling law, the law against the violation of the Sabbath, and the statute to punish profane swearing. Those laws are against the public conscience; and if this law is to be attempted to be enforced, the police must be greatly augmented. Better support a few paupers than thousands of policemen. The people are hostile to a standing police force. If good can be accomplished by a statute, the statute must be in harmony with justice and the public conscience. This statute is in harmony with neither.

Mr. MUNDY had been sent here to oppose this law; and he would do so on the final vote. Meanwhile, he would be pleased to hear what could be said in favor of the bill-a friend of which had said that the late Governor had been overwhelmed because of his veto of the bill passed by the last Legislature. This he denied. That gentleman still lives, and compares to his successor as the brilliant orb shining at mid-day, and casting its refulgent beams to illuminate the world, does to the dim glimmer of the glowworm sticking in the mud in some dismal swamp.

Mr. BALDWIN, of St. Lawrence, said: I proceed now, sir, to offer some reasons which will influence me to vote for this bill.

And first, I believe a large majority of the people expect and demand such a law; and I will here, sir, go back to the action of the people upon the excise law of 1846.

That was a law, sir, that will be remembered by all;

giving the people of all the towns of the State (except the city of New-York) the right to vote upon the question of license or no license, in the respective towns. That law, sir, tendered and made a distinct issue upon license or no license, traffic or no traffic, in intoxicating liquors as a beverage. And, sir, what was the result? In deciding for that law, the people voted for the law alone. No political object or interest was coupled with it. They had a long time-a year from its enactment to voting upon it-to examine and weigh it in all its bearings, so that they could not fail to make up their minds maturely and deliberately. They reflected on the burdensome taxes they were compelled to pay in support of the revenue of the retailer; the pauperism and crime induced by the drinking of ardent spirits; and the exposure of themselves and children to be made drunkards by this scourge; and thus declared, through the ballot-box, that their interest and their safety required that the retailing of ardent spirits as a beverage should cease.

The result was, sir, a majority for the law, far greater than had ever been known in a contested political election. But a single county in the whole State (to wit, the small county of Richmond) voted for license; and even there, the majority for license was only fifty-five. All the other counties of the State, no license, by majorities from 59 to 4058. The eight cities in the State, allowed to vote upon the question, decided against license by an aggregate majority of 6148 votes. Nine towns were divided by a tie vote. 168 towns voted license, and in most cases by small. majorities.

On the other hand, 656 towns voted no license.

Thus it will be seen that about four fifths of the towns in the State pronounced in favor of the law, and against license, and in most of the towns the majorities were large.

In each of the six counties of Cayuga, Rockland, Tioga, Tompkins, Wayne, and Warren, every town voted no license. In sixteen other counties, only a single town in each voted license. The majority in the whole State, against license, 67,984.

It was asserted at the time, and to some extent believed, that the attendance at the polls was scanty, and that the friends of the traffic suffered the election to go by default.

To this it may be answered that, in sixteen counties,

which it is believed can not vary far from a fair average of the State, the vote under the license law exceeded that cast for Senators in the same counties, about six months previously, by 5958 votes, and is greater than was the whole vote upon the question of a convention to revise the Constitution, by 27,542 votes.

This law, sir, provided that, on the petition of a certain number of electors in a town, the vote might be taken again the following year, and that many of the towns availed themselves of this provision the next year, to test the ques tion by a new vote. And I freely admit, sir, the vote indicated a loss of confidence in the working of the law, but I think not in its main principle, which was prohibition. It so happened, sir, as the law was not general, that a town which had voted no license might be surrounded with those that had voted license, and thus afford easy access to supplies from those towns. Again, sir, it afforded no way by which liquor for necessary purposes could legally be obtained; and the Legislature repealed it. But, sir, the temperance principle of the State was not repealed with it.

Since that time, sir, it has been agitating, and strengthening, and maturing the principles of the present bill; and two successive Legislatures have been returned here, with large majorities in its favor.

After discoursing at length upon his reasons for supporting the bill, and noticing the various object ions raised against it, Mr. B. concluded as follows:

But, sir, I have consumed too much of the time of the Committee, and still there are other points on which I should like to speak; and I will only say to you, sir, and the members upon this floor, that with such advantages in prospect as the passage of this law secures, it comes forward and fearlessly prefers its claim to the countenance and aid alike of the pious, the benevolent, and the patriotic. Do you love your country; help to wipe off this darkest and foulest blot upon its character, and cleanse it from that loathsome leprosy which intemperance has fastened upon it. Would you honor your Redeemer, and extend the inestimable blessings of his religion; come forward, and zealously coöperate in giving expansion and permanence to the principles of his truth, in the support of this cause.

And