The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1853-10-05
the neonle to Judge. who know who were

the people to Judge, who know who were
in attendance. Such an expression is
worthy OF its source.
In the next place Mr.. Holland argues
against the constitutional Of the Maine
law, and seems to base all his arguments
upon a %supposition that somebody or 9th.
or is pledged to the support of that law,
'or its equivalent" Now he cannot find
in the published proceedings OF the tenn.
perance meetings referred 10 by him, a
single word pledging any one TO the sup.
port Of the "Maine law, or its equivalent"
therefore all his arguments are merely the
creation Of another "man Of straw"
If the Maine law were TO become the
law of Ohio, would it be unconstitutional?
Mr.. Hollands only constitutional argument
is that the Maine law provides for license
TO traffic." whilst the constitution of Ohio
says, "No license 20 traffic in intoxicating
liquors shall hereafter be granted in this
State; but the General Assembly may, by
law, provide against evils resulting there.
from" The Maine law entirely prohibits
the sale of Intoxicating liquors as a bever.
age. Does it not then most effectually,
lin the language Of our Constitution, } "pro-
vide against evils resulting" from the "traf.
fc in intoxicating ~liquors?" Most clearly
it does. The only clause in the Maine
law that looks like a license clause is that
in which it provides for the appointment
Of an agent "to sell, within and for, and
on account of the town in which he is
appointed, ''intoxicating liquors for medi-
cinal and mechanical purposes" This
agent is paid "such compensation as she
board appointing him may prescribe"
and the liquors to be sold "under the rules
and regulations Of the board" the agent
giving bond and security for the faithful dis.
charge Of the business Of his appointment.
Every man knows that the provision in
our Constitution simply prohibits the grant.
ing of license 10 certain persons to traffic
in intoxicating liquors as a common arti-
Gle Of merchandise and for their own prof.
1.-THE liquors also being their own. Now
if a law OF Ohio which would provide THAT
the trustees Of 10 wnships might appoint An
agentto sell Intoxicating liquors, belonging
TO the State, County or township, for me-
chanical and medicinal purposes alone,
within and for, and on account Of" the
township. would be granting a license with.
in the meaning Of The Constitution, then
would the Maine law be contrary to the
Constitution OF Ohio-otherwise it would
not. Thus this bugbear about the license
clause is consequently another "man Of
straw"
AT the mass temperance meeting it was
resolved s'that in case the Democratic par.
ty fail to select reliable temperance men
for legislative Offices, that then it will be-
come necessary for the friends Of temper.
ance TO nominate suitable men," The
meeting then appointed twenty democrats
and ten wings and free-soilers to meet
on the 7th of Sept, and "nominate tenn
perance candidates for Legislative offices.
if in their judgment it shall be deemed
expedient." Accordingly the delegates
met and passed one resolution alleging
"that the Democratic party had failed to
meet the wishes Of the temperance men,"
n endorsing the nomina alton of DR.. Sim
clair for Senator, and one resolving to
nominate a candidate for Representative,
which they did.
And now seems to be a proper time to
fully answer the question in the second
paragraph Of Mr.. Hollands article, and
to explain to him why the temperance men
nominated Mr.. Mitchell, as he seems anx-
ious to know. They did not believe he
would carry out. in good faith, the resolu.
tons Of the Democratic convention and
to which he had assented-hence they
made another nomination. The delegates
believed that DR.. Sinclair would act in
good faith and carry out the sentiments
expressed in the resolutions Of the Demo-
cratic convention, and consequently a
imously endorsed his nomination These
are, in few words. the reasons why the
Of all parties and factions" as
Mr.. Holland calls the delegates, did not
endorse his nomination. OF Mr.. Mitchell
they asked no pledge further than his past
conduct. He is not pledged for the "Maine
law, or its equivalent upon which Mr..
Holland dwells so much; but his past con.
duct is a sufficient guaranty that, Tin the
language of the resolutions Of the Demo-
cratic Convention.) he will favor, if elect
ed, ian efficient Laws "to suppress evils
arising from the sale and use Of intoxicat.
ing beverages" one which will .'protect
the health and morals of community and
.preserve social order" He has not.
neither will he pledge himself TO vote for
any law that would ~"violate the Constitu.
tion;'' and no man will say but that as "a
legislator he would ''regard his OATH"
These remarks, as a member Of The
Convention that nominated Mr.. Mitchell.
have deemed it necessary TO make in
justification Of the action Of that body. !
have ~endeavored TO do no injustice TO MIR.
Holland. have not sought 10 place him
in a position on the temperance question
that he does not willingly occupy.
A few words further and will close.
1t is admitted that all honorable men OF
the Democratic party are under obligations
to support the nominees Of their party.
provided the nominees are alike honorable
men. But can it be said that an honora-
BILE man is bound to support a dishonora-
bic man because he is the nominee Of his
party? Certainly not. Then is it not
enough to know that Mr.. Holland is one
Of the most incorrigible boilers that has
ever pestered the Democracy Of Monroe?
7 IL l. . - -