Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes Co., O. [Ohio]) 1870-1895, 1874-04-23
WHAT is THE LAW.
Legal Aspect Of the Temperance Move
menf

le9ai HSpeCt OF tHe temperance MOVE
ment.
The following sensible article,
written by "E. d. NJ, I'VE take from
the Cincinnati Gazette of 4 recent
date. 1t is to the point, and is wor-
thy of careful persual;
There are several aspects of the
temperance movement. entirely dis
tinct from what is called the 'wo-
mans movement" and that may be
carried on to any extent and yet
leave other great questions to be
settled by society. or course the
first great political question is what
part the law ought to take. If we
suppose all drinking shops to be
abated on any one day or year, they
might arise again. A controversy
of this sort is perpetual in its per-
petual in its very nature. Society
must, in the end, determine wheth
er it will interfere at all by law.and
if it does, in what way. The law
not only does interfere, but has done
so for many years. Not only that
but it interferes in some ways strin
gently and severely. That point is
settled. But there remains open
land upon which there are various
opinions) the question in what way
shall the law interfere? There is a
large party Of Prophibitions and
that party is increasing. Then there
is party of licensists, who think
the best way to regulate or prevent
the drinking-shops is to encourage
the great ones and kill the small
ones. That is by putting the license
so high that the rich ones can pay
for it and the small ores can not!
This process will be very much like
man who undertook TO drive Off
serpents by killing the garter-snakes
and leaving the rattlesnakes and
other vipers to go at large. 1t has
been tried in Cincinnati in all posi-
BILE way. and the history of it can be
found in the files of the newspapers.
The Council used to license grog-
shops, and they tried it high and
low, with no perceptible charge in
the state of affairs. But there was
one good game of it. AS the chief
business of the grog-shOps is to
manufacture pauperism and crime,
the city got revenue to support the
paupers and punish the criminals.
But intemperance was not dimin
ished by confining drinking to Ia
ger and beer houses. The Washing
tonian movement did more good
than all attempts to regulate drink
ing. If the municipal government
wishes,as the United States govern
ment does, to raise a certain amount
of revenue, the more it taxes whisky
and tobacco the better. They are
the proper subjects of taxation. But
what do you mean by licensing
them? Have you any right to make
drunkenness criminal and then Ii
censc it? 1t is contradiction of
terms. The reason, as well as all
moral principle, revolts against it.
To license house to make drunk
enness is precisely the same as to
license a house of ill-fame. The OBJ
jects and results of both are crimi-
nal. You cannot find saloon in
the country which is not selling liq-
uOr to a drunkard. If a man mere
ly manufactures whisky, or sells it
to men who are not drunkards, it is
lawful business. This is what they
assumed when they began their rid
iculous application for injunctions,
one of the most absurd things ever
undertaken by the legal profession.
To understand this, let us see what
the law is, and how it works.
/. Drunkenness is criminal by the
law and every man who contributes
to make drunkard is liable for his
support. This seems to be forgot
ten, and the Directors of the infirm-
airy can sue any liquor sellers who,
by selling liquor to the paupers, con-
tributed to make them so. Perhaps
by going into an investigation they
may get fund.
. Any liquor seller who, by sell
ing drains, has made, or aided in
making, drunkards, is liable, not,as
some suppose, only to the wife and
children of the drunkard, but to the
employer. In one word ANY one in
terested in the labor of the drunk
ard can sue for the loss of the labor
of his employe.
3. The liquor sellers are liable for
selling to a minor and can be indict-
ed for it.
4. 1t is unlawful to sell on Sun
day, and they can be indicted for
that.
5. All gambling is criminal, even
to ten pin alleys, and the drinking
houses can be indicted for permit
ting it in any torn.
Now, how many drinking shops in
Ohio, are not violating that stat
ute? Hoao many can be found Who
are not violating the criminal lars?
The fact is, there is not one in five
aohich is not liable to be indicted or
to damages for making drunkards.
This is the laac; and does it not pre-
sent a beautiful foundation for an
injunction against the aoomen? An
injunction as every laacyer knoscs, is
simply to prevent something, achich,
if done, a1ould cause irreparable
damages. Isn't it beauti full to ask
a. injunction against irreparable
damages to saloon keeper? But
such suits do good. They make
the people look into the law, they
rouse the public sentiment,and they
lead to clearer and more enlighten
ed views of what ought to be done,
and what may ultimately be effec-
tual. 1t may be, and we believe it
is, impossible to Danish unnatural
excitement, and more than that, all
the depravity from the human heart.
Moreover,we would not be hard up
on the Incorporate. The greater
portion of them would be glad
enough to escape from their tolls
Nor would we be hard upon the sa-
loon keepers. A great many Of them
are simply endeavoring to support
their family in what is a common,
and they suppose, lawful occupa-
ton. The law of love, therefore, re-
quires that we should not visit alto
Oether uDOn them or-thpir yictima