Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1853-03-19
Who would no, be pet of the Grand sanbe.

as wise as the correspondent Of the Democrat,)
that this ordinance is illegal 10 all its essential
parts; and think base my opinion on very
good and substantial grounds.
The new Constitution is considered, be-
leve by the common people, to be the funda-
mental law of the State. In that offspring Of
language. Most men, though not learned
laWysrs, think we'll understand il:
NO License to traffic in intoxicating liquors
shall hereafter be granted in this State, but
the General assembly may, by law, provide
against evils resulting therefrom."
II strikes my sense, that the above is tol-
erably plain provision, and denies the right to
any and all bodies, to grant licenses. II the
above is recognized as good law, would like
to be informed where their imperial majesties
get the authority to license some one horse
drug store, grocery or merchant 20 traffic in
intoxicating liquors | would like to know,
where they derive the power, to say TO our
citizens that they shall buy particular kind
of medicine from certain individual, and from
no one else. | would like to know who has
clothed them with authority to create and
grant one man q monopoly to trade in a GER
tain kind of merchandise, in order that he
may more effectusly fleece community by ex-
orbitant prices for inferior articles.
Is community ready to be forced to enrich
some fauoritc hanger-on, at the expense Of
ALTO compel men to buy of one man, or do
without the article-to Danish free trade and
substitute an odious monopolizng aristccracy,
created by town council
This ordinance was intended by the prime
movers to prevent the poor from getting what
they prefer, while the rich always expect to be
accommodated with sugar and brandy" or
cold port" This they expect TO gel, even af-
ter the ordinance goes into effect, while the
poor man who takes once in while little
whiskey, is to be denied the privilege The
rich, from their position in society, do not ex-
pect to be denied; they think proprietors will
not dare insult them by daring to refuse.
But think it very likely the advocates of
this Locofeco Ordinance, will say they derive
the power from the general law regulating in
corporated villages and cities.
have looked a little into that, and though
she correspondent of the Democrat may de-
nounce me as giving "verv wise opinion"
must say cannot see any authority for the
passage Of such an ordinance.
The Legislature could grant corporations
only as much power over the subject, as they
themselves possess. And the Legislature has
given Incorporated villages power over the
subject in the words following g, to wit:
They shall have power "to regulate or pro-
hibit ale and porter shops, and houses and pla-
ces for significant or habitual resort for tip
pling and intemperance."
Ths reader will see by the above, that the
Council may pass ordinances to restrain the
sale of liquor by tie drink, but nothing more /;
for the words are very express and explicit
"tippling and ntemperance." 1t does not en-
brace the sale Of liquors by the quart or small
er quantity for medicine, and when not drank
at the place when sold. This is rendered OBJ
vious by a succeeding section of the same stat
ute. where the powers Of corporations are linn
tied and defined, in terms following, to wit:
Municipal corporations shall have power to
make and publish from time to time, bylaws
and ordinances not inconsistent with the laws
of the State"
For proof that this ordinance is inconsistent,
and conflicts with the laws Of the State. re-
fer to the laws Of ls50--5l, page 81. 1t will
there be seen that every citizen Of the State
is authorized to sell intoxicating liquors in
quantities not less than one quart except for
medical and pharmaceutical purposes, for
which it may be sold in any quantity. An or
dinsnce that conflicts or abridges this right Of
the citizen, is illegal; because the power to
make it expressly denied the council by the
general law regulating incorporated cities and
villages. Such is my view Of the subject al
least, and think the conclusion is inevitable
A good deal is said by the correspondent oi
the Democrat in his appeal to the people, to
make the coming election a question of prohi-
of Messrs. Sharp, Doncyson and Sebring, in
being willing to give up the traffic, and con-
sequently ready to make law to punish eve
ry one who was no. willing to be forced into
the measure. They say they are constantly
losing by the traffic, and for that reason were
in favor of the ordinance Noble disinterest-
edness!
The correspondent says "riots" will be done
With. think not; at least not until the ma
.ure of some Of the boys can be changed, fol
the riots and noise is not all the result of This
key by any means. He thinks grocery keep
era will no: be permitted to manufacture pub
lie opinion. | hope not; but also hope law
yers will not be permitted to do so-,as be-
tween the two, do not hnow into who's,
hands the people had better fall, but thinl
they would be safest in the hands Of the gro
Gerry keepers.
In this whole subject of prohibition. ther'
is more humbug than reality. The most ul
ira temperance advocates are in the habit o
buying by the drink and by the gallon. Som,
buy by the jug to "scour table spoons with :
but soon it is all secured" up, and anothe
supply is wanted for the same purpose. Sucl
is the practice!
Will the citizens elect council who hav,
assumed such extraordinary power; or will
they elect one who will keep within their lega
scope, and not attempt to force people to buy
"Poke Berry Brandy" or none? Are ye free
men or slaves? CLARENDON.
A cotemporary lays down the following pthy