In the Senate the case was different.—
One half of the members held over from
last year. They were elected with no re
ference to this subject, and a majority of
those thus held over were hostile to the
prohibitory liquor law. The influence of
party is stronger in the election of a Sen
ator then a member of the House. Those
elected last fall were mostly chosen with a
view to the coming election of a United
States Senator, at the session of 1855.
Less thought was bestowed, in consequence,
to their vote upon the measure in question.
The result was that of thirteen members
chosen at the last election, seven were
friendly to the prohibitory law, and six
were opposed to it. A majority of the
members held over from last year being
opposed to it, the predominating influence
in that body was hostile to prohibition.—
Several of the latter class of Senators elec
ted in the fall of 1853, represented, or ra
ther misrepresented, districts which gave
heavy majorities for the prohibitory law at
the last general election. Had those dis
tricts elected Senators at that time, they
would, without doubt, have chosen none
but genuine friends to this measure. This
explains the course of the Senate on the li
quor bill, and is a sufficient guarantee, that
had the entire Senate, like the Assembly,
been elected last fall, when this question
was fairly before the people, both houses
i would have been friendly to its passage
and no difficulty whatever would have
been found in enacting it.
