Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1874-05-14
The Reer Ordinance Repealed.

ell Of this village have repealed what is
known as the Ale, Beer and Porter Ordi-
nance; and this was done, too, in the ab-
sence of any petitions from the voters of
town asking the Council to do any such
thing, and when they knew that remon-
strances were being signed by large num-
bers of the best men in the town against
the repeal. At previous meeting the re-
peal had passed its first reading, and was to
have come up for its second reading. when
the Council was waited on by a committee
who informed them that the canvass for
signatures to the remonstrance was not
completed, and that at their next meeting,
when the repeal would come up in its reg
ular order, they would be ready to pre-
sent the papers; but, regardless of this,
and with indecent haste, the Council sus-
pended the rule, read the repeating ordi
nance and passed it instanter.
The remonstr ance papers contained, per-
haps, within forty names of majority of
all the voters in the corporation, and some
Of the papers had not been returned and
some of the districts had not yet been can
pa ssed, and there can scarcely be doubt
but by the next meeting Of the Council, a
majority Of the names of the voters of the
town would have been signed to these re-
monstrance papers; and this, too, in the abb
sence Of any petitions for the repeal of the
ordinance. These are, substantially, the
facts in this case, and the action Of the
Council presents to the world, as far as we
know, an unparalleled degree ofperverted
power and disregard for the will Of the
people. They fastened to their work, ar
rogantly repudiating the right of the peo-
pie to be heard on question of such vital
importance to the moral and civil interests
of this whole community, in town and
throughout the county.
But this is not all; they have added in
suit to injury, in this fact that as solace
for the great wrong which this repeal
has done this community, they have passed
another ordinance, by which they have in
suited the intelligence of the people, by
irving to make them believe that it affords
better guarantees to secure good order and
sobrietv in our town than the one they re-
pealed.
If we understand the provisions of this
ordinance correctly, it copies the statute OF
the State, with the exception that it makes
some damaging changes in the penalties;
IN other words it abrogates the Statutory
provisions as to penalties and institutes les
ser ones, thereby discOunting the authority
and wisdom of the Legislature in the en-
actment of laws. The statute of the State
reads as follows:
SEC. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any
person or persons, by agent or otherwise
to sell intoxicating liquors to minors, un
less upon the written order Of their pa
rents, guardians, or family physician.
Sec 8. That it shall be unlawful Tor an.
person, by agent or otherwise, to sell in
toxicating liquors to persons intoxicated
OF who are in the habit of getting lntoXlca
ted.
The statute further provides, That 70
every violation of the second and thir'
sections of this act, every porson so offend
ing shall forfeit and pay fine of not les
than five OF more than fifty dollars, or b
imprisoned in the jail Of the county 70
not less than ten nor more than thirty days
OF both, at the discretion of the court, an
shall pay the cost of prosecution.
The ordinance, as passed by our Coun
Gil, provides that ale, beer porter, nativ
wine and cider, shall not be sold to mino1
unless upon the ORDER; it adds cider, but
does not require a WRITTEN ORDER, as tt
statute does. For selling to persons into1
icated, OF who are in the habit of gettr
intoxicated, this shoddy ordinance provide
that for selling in violation as above, evel
person offending, ETC., shall be subject
nav a fine OF not less than five nor mo-
than TEN dollars. We believe the impri
onment which is optional with the Coul
IT. the law Of the State, is not authorized
this ordinance.
Sensible of the fact that the thrown
open Of dozen or two of low, dirty S
looms, would result disastrously to the S
briefly, peace and good order of our tow
the Council make sickening show of
a desire to provide against the evil resul
of the traffic by incorporating in their orr
nance a provision, requiring every salo
keeper to keep a record of the amonnt Of
sales. and to report the same to the COu
ell once every month, and upon this I
port they propose to assess fund sufticie
to pay two extra policemen, at the rate
$3.50 day, when on duty. Thus it W
be seen that our wise eouncilmen have
sumed the right to levy an excise tax
tax that the State itself has not the pow
to levey and collect
Wehave not time just now to notice
the very extraordinary provisions of Il
extraordinary village ordinance, passed
an extraordinarily wise board of coune
men. We venture the assertion, that the
is not a single section in the ordinance, l
less it be the section repeating the Be
ordina nee, that can stand the tests in {
courts long enough to be knocked down
Not single dollar Of the proposed exc
can be legally collected; the idea Of collie
ing tax in that way, and the idea of c.
trolling the results Of this beer-selling b
mess (Which the Council admit will
damaging to the peace and sobriety of
town. in the way proposed, is the mel
humbug, unworthy to be entertain ed
the merest ninny in community.
But, suppose our wise councilmen gt
work and hire two policemen, expectin
p.Sy them from the proceeds of this lille
excise tax, and the saloon keeper refu
AZ he will, to pay the tax, how do
councilnen propose to pay for the serv
of these police? made necessary, as t
tacitIy admit, by the unrestrained sale
beer, &c? So,
They will have to be paid, and they
not be paid out of fund sthey have
- 1wer to collect, the pay will have to co
as !, does to defray the expenses for
other no, zee regulations, out Of the cor
-. -. w, and all will have to pa