The Tiffin tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1868-1887, 1870-12-15

Of liquors in violation Of the act, no
order should be made-fOr il j. the
business land not the place. that
creates the nuisance, and hence where
the business has ceased there IS no
nuisance TO abaue. Have any of the
parties cited ever closed their places
Of business during the session OF the
court, so as TO exclude the issuing Of
such an Order2 I answer, No! Then
the court has failed TO enforce the law
which explicitly says that the law as
quoted above "shall be given in spec
4 iaI charge TO the Grand Jury, by the
Judges Of the Court of Common Pleas,
at each term therOfn i this law
complied with in this county? Read
er YOU must answer for yourself. and
at the same time ask yourself "have
I done nv duty in the premises -
We have come now to the penalties
attached for the violation Of the above
law.
SEC. s. For every violation Of the
provisions of the first, second, and
third sections Of this Act, every per-
son so offending shall forfeit and pay
a fine of not less than zen, nor more
prisOned in the jail of the county for
not less than ten nor more than thir-
" days, or both, at the discretion Of
the court, and shall pay the costs Of
prosecution.
Let Us look back at the action Of the
Court and see whether the law has
been satisfied or not. The answer is
short, No! The fine in each ease was
only One-half what the law cOmpels,
viz: five dollars. The Court has not
the power by law to make the fiIe a
less sum than ten dollars and costs.
Who is TO blame here? We say un-
hesitatingly the Prosecuting Attorney.
In this connection, may say, il has
been currently reported that the
Prosecuting Attorney told the in
dieted parties that il they would
plead guilty TO the first charge, he
would nOnsuit the second His action
in the matter would seem TO justify
the report, for, instead of satisfying
the law, he did enter a nOUe, by the
parties paying costs. The law reads,
'tFhat for every violation of the
Fourth Section of this Act, every per-
son convicted as the keeper Of any
place therein declared to be nuisance,
shall forfeit and pay fine of not less
than fifty nor more than one hundred
dollars, or be imprisoned for from
twenty to fifty days, or both, a. the
discretion of the Court, and pay the
costs of prosecution; and such place
or places so kept by such person or
persons shall be shut up abated upon
the order Of the Court, before whom
such conviction may be had, until
such time as a bond shall be given
said Court in the sum of One Thou
sand Dollars, payable to the State of
Ohio, conditioned, that he or they
will not sell Intoxicating liquors in
violation of the law, and pay all fines,
costs and damages assessed. If the
bond is forfeited, suit may be brought
thereon for the use of any person in
terested, or for the use OF county in
case of fine or costs due such county.
Section Tenth makes a man liable
if he rents his property in whole or in
part for the purpose OF selling intoxi-
eating liquors, to the extent that a
building may he sold fer fines and
costs in any prosecution.
1t certainly looks as if the Prosecut-
ing Attorney had overridden his pow
eT, and allowed his discretion and rem
ditiOn Of the law too wide a scope.
The fact is potent that it Is "human
tC err" but, as Billings says, sit is
devilish to brag on it.n
On the second indictment, the suits
were dismissed by payment of costs.
Is this the provision of the law |?
Read it again and see if there is not a
fine attached as we'll as costs. Does it
subserve the best interests of the law
abiding citizens to allow these cases
to go unpunished ? If it does, then
the Prosecuting Attorney is right.
If it does not, then again we have the
wantOn error committed in the face
of the fact that the oath of Office com
pels the strict enforcement of the law.
In connection with this matter, let
US see wnat the Sunday law is. Ifind
in Volume /, Laws of Ohio, Page AS,
Section 2, THAT If any tavern keep
er, or Otner person, shall sell or barter
any spirituOus liquors on the first day
of the week, com monty called Sun
day, such tavern keeper, or other per-
son, so offending, shall be fined in
sum not exceeding five dOllars.n
Is il necessary when the city mar
shal sees a disturbance on the street
for a citizen to inform him that the
parties are violating the law, and does
not his oath of office tell him in plain
terms to arrest them a? Even so is it
necessary fCI him TO be informed of
the fact that every Sunday the sa-
looms are kept open in violation of
law, and he wait for some one to file
an Information before the Mayor be-
fore he will make an arrest? Does
not the law compel action in both
cases alike? HIS evidence before the
Mayor should be sufficient for a con-
viction and fine. 1t is so ia. other cit
les, why not in this ?
But fear have already encrOach-
ed too much on your valuable space,
and will dismiss the audience until
some future occasion.
Nor A GOOD TE8IPLAR.