Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1874-06-25
WE think Bro. CHAPMAN, of the

Pomeroy Telegraph, is mistaken in
the powers to be conferred upon the
Legislature by the adoption of the
license clause of the new Constitu-
ton. Bro. CHAPMAN favors the
adoption of the license clause, but he
is not in favor of that system which
permits any body to obtain license
on the payment of a certain amount
of money. His plan is developed in
the following extract:
Neither will we vote for any meas
ure of the kind which does not en-
body the principle of local option,
that is to say, the right of every COM
munity to determine for itself, by
vote of its citizens, whether the re-
tail traffic in ardent spirits shall ex-
ist in its midst.
The question that we wish solved
is, will the adoption of the license
clause permit the principle of local
option to be adopted by the Legisla-
ture? We think not. To our appre-
hension the Legislature will have no
power to submit the question of sale
or prohibition, second time, to the
people. By the adoption of the Ii
cense clause the people have for as
long as the Constitution shall exist,
decided the policy of the State upon
this question, and the Legislature has
no power to change that policy. 1t
is either to license or not license. If
the Legislature chooses to license,
that law must be general all over the
State, and the Legislature has no au-
thority to make its application sub
ject to a vote of the people. The
people will have already deci-
ded against prohibition, and it can
not be opened up by the Legislature.
We presume Bro. CHAPMAN will not
claim the right for the Legislature to
apply the option principle to the
State at large, and if it cannot do
that, by what power, we would ask,
can it locally apply it?
By the adoption of the license
clause the people will have decided
the State will have decided-will have
determined" for themselves and it
self, that the ''sale in ardent spirits
shall exist" either under a license
law, or other restrictive" and "com-
pensating" legislation, and there is
no power in the Legislature or the
people, except through Constitu-
tional amendment, to change that de-
cisive and final decree. We think
Bro. CHAPMAN will find, upon more
careful consideration, that his plan is
indefensible. The matter of local
option was buried when the Consti-
tutional Convention defeated the
proposition of Judge WEST.
Some friends of the license system
claim this for it: that the license tax
may be fixed so high that it will
virtually amount to prohibition of the
sale. But even law of this charac-
ter would be of doubtful constitu-
tionality. The license section gives
no authority to prohibits adop-
ton is vote in favor of sale-and
surely the Legislature cannot do by
indirect means what it has no power
to do in direct way.
We think the best plan is to adopt
the alternative section. Then the
people can through the Legislature,
permit the sale, without making it a
monopoly, under such restraining
and restrictive laws as may be
thought necessary, or they can
wholly prohibit the sale. The first
section is authority to sell, without
any authority to prohibit. The sec
ond section also confers authority to
sell, but likewise to prohibit. The
second section is therefore broader,
giving to the people greater power
where of right the settlement of this
question belongs. If the sale of
whisky to be drank upon the premi-
ses where sold is legitimate and
proper, like the selling of coffee,
sugar, calico, &c, then it should not
be burdened with extra taxes. On
the other hand, if it be an evil
against which the power of the State
should be exerted, then surely the
power to prohibit should be reserved
to the people. The hands of the
people should not be tied in the face
of an evil.
The true policy was to leave the
whole question in the hands of the
people-from license to prohibition
but this the Convention has not done,
and we are compelled to choose be-
tween the two forms of the evil pre-
sented. We hope for such a settle
ment as that the greatest good may
eventuate.
THE Cincinnati Common Council
is democratic-so is the Mayor-but
tbara ic not that