Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1874-05-14
The License Question.

II the constitution were silent on tn
subject, the Legislature would hav
power to license or not to prohibit OF
not; to restrain or let alone the liuuo
traffic. The first position adopted b,
the Constitutional Convention to b,
submitted separately to the people pro
vides as follows:
SEC. License to traffic in spirituous, vim
ous, or malt liquors, under such regulation
and limitations rs shall be prescribed by law
may be granted, but this section shall not pre-
vent the General Assembly from passing law.
to restrict such traffic, and to compensate the
injuries resulting therefrom
This provides that the Legislature
mag license. 1t does not say it shall
license. Under this section the Legis-
lature may also restrict restrain or
prohibit In fine, it would have the
same power, under the proposed sec
ton, that it would have if the Constitu-
ton were silent on the subject. Thus
the Legislature would be free to act in
accordance with public sentiment. and
this, as we have said all along, is the
safest plan to adopt. We are willing
| to trust the Legislature to carry out the
will of the people. Those who object to
licensing the traffic or moral grounds
need not object to this section because
1t Is not mandatory. 1t leaves it Op-
tional with the Legislature or not. It
might adopt the local option feature,
or prohibit absolutely. Whatever pub.
lie sentiment would demand would be
secured. Of course if public sentiment
should favor prohibition there would
be no license. Ii, however, public sem
tlment opposed prohibitson, law to
fh0f nffact vunr1lA of ho
have prohibitory laws now, with free
trade, in all the large cities. No effort
ls made, even by the temperance peo-
pie, to enforce the laws of this city,
Moral suasiOn, which the women are
practlelng, may change public senti-
ment and work it up to the point of
prohibition. In that event the section
quoted above would not prevent the
adoption of pr0hibitory laws.
There are objections to this section
rom the temperance side, because it
does not prohibit license. The other
side object because it does not provide
that the Legislature shall licence. Both
distrust the people-that is to say, they
distrust themselves as part of the peO-
pie. The great middle class, however,
are willing to leave the matter to the |
Legislature, and this class will support
the section we have quoted. The tenn
perance people, when they come to look |
at the matter from practical stand
point, will also, in large part, give it |
their support, relying upon the Legis- |
lature to pass laws that will meet their |
views
The second alternate proposition reads
as follows:
SEC. :. No license to traffic in intoxicating
liquors shall hereafter be granted in this State:
but the General Assembly may, by law, re-
strain or prohibit such traffic, or may provide
against evils resulting therefrom.
This, if adopted, would prohibit the
from licensing the traffic,
but that body might repeal every law
ep the statute book intended to prohi-
bit or RESTRAIN the traffic. 1t could
nut license, but might permit free
trade. THIS section il the same SUBJ
as the anti-licenSe clause in
the present Constitution. Under the
influence of the temperance movement,
laws are enforced in the smaller towns,
but in all cities of first and second classes
there is free trade. The evils resulting
from this traffic are very great, and no
power has been found sufficient 10 re.
strain or prohibit the rusiness. This
axpel ience ought to be sufficient. Life
is too short for another experiment of
quarter of century. We should re-
gret very much, therefore, to have the
Legislature tied up as it has been for
the last twenty-three ears on this sub
ect. We regret the motives of the
people who favor this section on moral
grounds, but we believe they are mis-
taken, and We expect to exert ourselves
to convince them upon this point before
The time for voting on the Constitution
Gazette.