Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-04-18

WHEREAS, So much of lot M in Green
Lawn Cemetery, at Columbus, as may be
needed for the interment of deceased Union
soldiers was donated to the State for said
purpose and the sum of six hundred and
fifteen dollars was expended by the State
in removing bodies of such soldiers to SAID
cemetery, and
WHEREAS, 1t is proposed by the Quarter
master General CT the United States army
to take charge of said lots, and make suit
able provision for the care thereof, and for
removing thereto the bodies of deceased
Union soldiers buried elsewhere in the
State; therefore be it
ResolUed by the General Assembly of the
State of Ohio, That the Governor be au-
Ihorized to transfer to the QuaFtermaster- |
General U. ). A, or some other proper offi-
Ger acting in behalf of the General Govern
ment, the above named lots, to be held up |
on the same terms and under the same
conditions as they are now held, upon pay
ment to the State of the amount expended
on said lots as above specified. And on re
ceipt of said money the Governor shall
| certify it into the State Treasury, and the
| same shall be applied to the completion of
the record of Ohio soldiers. provided for in
the act passed March IL, 1864.
THIRD READING.
S. B. No. 165 For the relief of Harrison
Butte, was read the third time.
| Mr.. NICHOL said it was the unanimous
wish of the people of the township in which
| the robbery was committed, and OF which
| Mr.. Butte was treasurer, that the bill should
| pass. He presented a number of deposit
tions touching the robbery of Mr.. Butte,
which were read at the Clerks desk. The
deposition showed that Mr.. Butte had made
good the loss to the township, being some
S1.500.
Mr.. POND moved to recommit the bill
with instructions to amend by striking out
| words nd in
l, and the same words in the first line, Sec
ond section; also strike out the preamble.
The House agreed.
/ Mr.. POND reported the bill back amend
ed as instructed. The report was agreed
to, and the bill put upon its passage. The
yeas and nays being called, resulte1-yeas
II, nays 73. So the bill was lost.
III. B. No. 355-To authorize the town
council of the incorporated town of Frank
lin, Warren county, to levy a tax to erect
breakwaters for the protection of said
town, was read the third time.
Mr.. SCOTT, of Warren, advocated the
passage of the bill.
The yeas and nays were called, and re-
sulted-yeas 81, nays none. So the bill
passed.
II. B. No. SO, by Mr.. WALLING-To
repeal an act for the inspection of gas me-
ters, the protection and regulation of the
gas-light companies, passed April 6, 1866,
and an act to amend sections 2 4, 6, and
10 of an act entitled an act for the inspec-
tion of gas meters, the protection OF gas
consumers and regulation of gas-light
companies, passed March 9, 1857, was read
the third time.
Mr.. WALLING briefly advocated the
passage of the bill.
Mr.. WOLF took similar views of the
necessity OF such measure. He thought
the obnoxious laws alluded to in the bill
ought to be repealed.
The yeas and nays were called on the
passage of the bill, and resulted-yeas 81,
nays Al. So the bill was lost.
Mr.. BETS moved to reconsider the vote
by which the bill was lost. The House
agreed.
CALL OF THE HOUSE.
A call of the House was had, and 81
members were found present. All further
proceedings under the call were dispensed
| with.
The question was then upon the passage
of the bill just defeated.
Mr.. WOLF further advocated the passage
of the bill
Mr.. DENNIS briefly opposed the passage
OF the bill. He thought it was necessary
that there should be some legaliZed umpire
between the manufacturer and the con-
sumner. This bill would destroy such.
Mr.. SHERWIN opposed the bill, urging
that the bill heretofore passed by the House
during this session was liberal enough in
its provisions, and he thought there was no
further necessity for legislation on the SUBJ
ject
Mr.. WALLING said the bill alluded to
had failed TO pass the Senate, and hence
there was imperative necessity for this
measure.
The yeas and nays were called, and re-
sulted-yeas 30, nays Al. So the bill passed.
Fl. B. No. 145, Mr.. HILL, of Defiance
To repeal sections one and four OF an act
entitled an act to provide against the evils
resulting from the sale of Intoxicating liq-
uors in the State of Ohio, and to amend
section eight of said act, passed May i, 1854
[Swan & Critchfieid, page l43l and 1881
was read the third time. H
Mr.. KERR, of Jefferson, moved to re-
i. commit the bill with instructions to amend
by striking out all after the enacting clause
until and including the word ''that," in line
one, section two-change sections three and
four to two and three.
Mr.. RUKENBROD moved to further
amend by striking out all after the word
'dollars," in line five, section three, and in
serting the following: ''And shall pay the
cost of prosecution and for every violation
of the provisions OF the fourth section of
this act, every person convicted as the keep
er OF any place therein declared to be nui-
sances, shall forfeit and pay fine of not
less thar fifty nor more than one hundred
dollars. and be imprisoned in the Jail of the
county for not less than twenty nor more
than fifty days, and pay the cost of prose-
cution; and such place or places so kept by
such person or persons so convict
ed, shall be shut up and abated
upon the order OF the court
before whom such conviction may be had,
until such time as such person or persons,
keeping such place or places, shall give
bond and security, to the acceptance fsaid
court, in the penal sum of one thousand
dollars, payable to the State of Ohio, condi-
toned that he or they may not sell intoxi-
eating liquors contrary to the laws of the
State, and will pay all fines. costs and dam
ages assessed against such keeper or keep
ers, for every violation thereof; and in case
of forfeiture of such bond, suits may be
brought thereon for the use of any person
interested, or for the use of the county, in
case of a fine or cost due such county /;
provided, that the provisions of the first
and fourth sections OF this act shall not ex-
tend to the sale of wine manufactured of
the pure juice of the grape, manufactured
in this State or beer. ale or cider.
Mr.. RUKENBROD defended his amend
ment on the ground that it not only in
creased the money fine for violation of the
law, but also imprisoned the offender, with
out the discretion of the court. He was in
favor of making no distinction in the grade
of the rumseller. He wanted the rich and
influential liquor dealer to be imprisoned
as we'll as the low and degraded doggery
keeper.
Mr.. HILL, of Defiance, said he had in
troduced this bill because the present law
was dead letter on the statute book. AS
far as his observation extended, the law was
universally disregarded. There was not
town IL the country, so far as he knew,
where intoxicating liquors were not sold
with impunity. He believed the license
system was the best, and the repeal of this
law would lead to an amendment to the
constitution which would allow licenses to
be issued under such restrictions and regu-