The Belmont chronicle, and farmers, mechanics and manufacturers advocate. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1848-1855, 1854-10-06
The Liquor Law Decided Constitutional.

The District Court now in session in Ath-
ems, Ohio, Judge Nash, Peck and Whitman,
on the bench, have fully sustained the con-
stitutionallty of the liquor law. They over.
ruled the decision Of Judge Corwin.
In the District Court FOR the County OF Ath-
ems, State of Ohio VS.. J. Lawrence--Ap-
plicaton for the allowance Of Writ of Err
ror to the Probate Court of said couhty.
Judge Whitman delivered the opinion of
the Court, which was in substance on the
points here mentioned, as folows:-
This is an application for an allowance Of
writ Of error, to the Probate Court, based
among other things, upon the position claim
ed by Plaintiff ia error that, the act entitled
can act to provide against the evils resulting
from The sale Of intoxicating Liquors in the
State of Ohio, passed May |, 1854" is un-
constitutional. Counse, for plaintiff in err
ror, contends that this act is unconstitutional
on the grounds:
lst. That said act was never read three
! times prior TO its passage.
I'd. That it is a prohibitory act, and not
merely an act 20 regulate traffic in spirituous
liquors.
We are referred to an opinion Of Chief
Justice Corwini given at Chambers, to sus-
tain the plaintiff in error. Fer this opinion
reference is made to newspaper report of
this case. This is very good evidence; but
| ift is to be believed, the learned Judge was
in our opinion, clearly in the wrong. twas
claimed that the law was void because it
had not been read rpon three several days.
The present law, it appears, was inserted
as an amendment on the engrossment of the
bill which had already been twice read. 1t
was then read third time, and put on its f..
nal passage in the Senate. This, we be-
ieve is in accordance with the parli amentary
| law. When bill is once introduced on q
subject. it is open to all amendments german
to the subject embraced in it; and it matters
not whether the amendments are made in de-
tail, or by striking out all after the enacting
clause, and inse rting a new bill in form per.
tanning to the subject matter Of the orig ina
| Till, and no one ever before heard that such
an amendment had to be read on three sew.
eral days. This clause, that a bill must be
read on three several days, is no new provis.
ion, it is mere copy of the provision contain.
ed in the old constitution.
We have had, therefore, fifty years of ex-
perience under this clause, and this is the
first time that ever such an objection was raj
sed, and what was done in this case has been
done with almost every law which has pass
ed Every legislator will recollect innumer-
able instances of such amendments as the one
made in this act.
The Court therefore, have no doubt of the
invalidily of this objection, and that the ac,
was well passed.
The second objection is equally untenable
| This is not prohibitory law; even if a pro.
| hibitory is unconstitutional, as to which ques.
tion we express no opinion. This law reg
ulates the traffic SO as to prevent the evils re-
sulting from this traffic, and comes clearly
within legislation for the prevention of the
evils of the traffic of intoxicating liquors.
Both of these objections are, therefore, over
ruled.