Ashtabula telegraph. (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1874-1880, 1874-07-18
From the Cincinnati Gazette, June q.
= -. oti.,;,,afi Gazette.

From, the Cincinnati Gazette June q.
To the Editor of the Cincinnati Gazette:
The he Importance of the license
ouestion; the position of the Gazette
hold upon 1t; snd the influence the
Gazette has upon such questions,
owing to its ability and general cor
rectness on public questions, are my
excuse for asking the privilege of
questioning some of your positions.
Believing with you that the traffic
in intoxicating liquors works great
evil, we differ only as to the best
means of suppressing it.
A great many of our readers can
not vote for licensing any evil be-
lieving that God has put no proviso
to any of His laws that permits of |
compromising with evil. This may
be what you call high moral ground
but | believe that any departure
from its lowers the tone of public
morals, and creates an easy sort of
virtue that makes way for every sort
of compromise with evil. Licensing
liquor selling is advocated on
the same ground that licensing
prostitution and licensing gambling
are, to-wit: They are evils that
cannot he suppressed, therefore they
should be restricted. The enormity
of the evil, in either case, is not con
sidered-only the question as to the
power of suppressing. 1t is there
fore principle that would license
any crime, in any community where
the crime could be suppressed. Are
the people of Ohio prepared to take
such position on the question of
intemperance? Is the Gazette pre-
pared to sanction such a principle, in
general?
But |, in common with the great
majority of the people of Ohio to
oppose intemperance, oppose license,
not only because it is wrongPer Sc
but because it will not mitigate but
increase the evils of intemperance.
License will give legality and respect
ability to the traffic. The Volks-
freund says that "no license" places
the stigma of dishonor upon the
traffic. The Watcher am Erie ad-
vocates the license clause because it
will give legal standing for the
business of distillers and brewers.
To give any evil legal standing re-
moves the stigma from it in a meas
ure, and thereby strengthens it.
The stigma is the mark of public
sentiment, which is stronger than
law.
To license an evil on the ground
that it cannot be suppressed is to
lower the tone of public sentiment
and expectation. And as such evils
as the liquor traffic always debauch
public sentiment, every concession
that is made to them strengthens
them, and in like measure weakens
all public expectation of suppressing
them. If the evils of an unrestrain-
ed traffic will not create a public
sentiment that will suppress it how
can we hope that the evil mitigated
(?) by license will create such a sen
timent? License, therefore, cannot
be advocated as an equator of pro
hibit on, but must be accepted, fol
all time, as "Hobson's choice"
The Gazette, in its advocacy OF
) license has taken several position:
that are untenable. First, you hold
that the Legislature will have the
power to ''prohibit" under the Ii
cense clause. This, is at best, {
very doubtful question, with the
leanings in the negative. The de
bate in the convention, the change
of the word, RESTRAIN" to ''restrict,
the submission of an alternate
prohibition" clause, and the decis
ions that the Legislatures could no
prohibit under the present Constitu
tion, all weigh against any right O
: prohibition or virtual prohibition
under the license clause, therefore
with the expectation that prohibition
may be attained under it, is to lay
snare.
Another error you have advanced
is, that opposition to license is op
position to taxing the traffic, and t,
making it pay to support the crimi
nails and paupers it makes. Thi
cannot be correct. The right of the
State to tax the traffic is conceded
by the United States liquor hcens,
law; and this law and the decision,
of the United States courts under it
have established the principle thai
the traffic may be taxed, without Ii
censing or legalizing it-else the
United States tax could not be levied
without legalizing the traffic-whicI
is just the reverse of the decisions
upon the question. Besides, section
4 of II of the new Constitution ex.
pressly proves that the Legislature
may impose a tax, by license, excise.
or otherwise. We could, therefore,
under the ''prohibition" clause, taa
the traffic provided we could not or
did not want to pass a prohibitory
bill. And the Legislature could, if
the prohibition clause be adopted.
pass local option bill that would
tax or prohibit as the different town
ships and counties should vote
Thus under the prohibition clause,
we may have prohibition, or tax, or
local option withoutgiving the trafc
legal recognition by license.
| Your position that prohibition has
been a failure under our present
Constitution is incorrect for the rea-
son that we have not had prohibi-
ton. We have not only uot had
prohibition, but our courts have de-
cided that we could not have under
our present Constitution. We have
had, however, virtual license clause
for our laws do license, not tax, the
sale of liquors, in certain quantities,
and to certain persons. 1t is not cor
rect, nor just, therefore, to charge
prohibition" with the failure to
/ suDDreSS the evils of infamnoropoo