Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1879-01-30
Tavinr fIna TRAFFIC.

The lecture delivered by DR.. Walden
before the St. Paul's Methodist Episcopal
Lyeeum, in Cincinnati, in December last,
on the subject of prohibition and taxafloh
of the traffic in intoxicating liquors, has
many good points and suggestions In IT.
We make the following extract from his
lecture:
s'The Constitution prohibits granting
license to the traffic I'm Intoxicating lio-
uors, but ordains that the General As
sembly may By law provide against the
evils resulting therefron.'
If the General Assembly shall adjudge
that this end can be most directly reached
by taxation, there surely is u constitu-
tional basis for an excise law if it shall
adjudge that the most effective provision
IS by Prohibition, there is a constitutional
basis for prohibitory law. Which of
these constitutional methods, Prohibition
or Taxation, will best meet the case as it
stands In 0hioI @
II required to choose between prohibi-
tion and taxation, the great body of tenn
perance people would continue to favor
prohlbltlon-and few of them would be
disposed to substitute taxation for the
present life. Il was designed to restrain
the liquor traffic and to limit the amount
l of drunkenness, aud It might be so en-
forced as to be practically pTohibitory in
large portion of the State, but for the
provision which exempts ale, beer and
wine-the provision that practically null
lilies the whole law in Cincinnati and
other large cities.''
There seems to be no doubut but the
Legislature has authority under the Con-
stitution to prohibit the traffic in intoxi-
eating liquors, and that it has power also
to provide against the evil results of the
traffic. Now, if the traffic is prohibited,
no evils can result from it; but, if it is
not prohibited, it will be sold, and the
Constitution authorizes the Legislature
to restrain the traffic, and to create laws
imposing penalties against the evils re-
sulting from the traffic.
1t admits of doubt, whether, under the
Constitution, the Legislature has right
to enact law levying an excise tax upor
the traffic. AS we remarked in our las
issue, in an article on this subject: we art
not particular as to the modL that shal
be adopted for the purpose of Kidding
our country of this giant monster, Intem
perance, so that it is done under the sane
tion of law.
Prohibition at present, or for man!
years-if ever, we regard as an imprae
ticability. If we have the power, unde
the Constitution, to tax it to death, let u
, tax it. The traffic has always levied
! monstrous tax upon the pockets of tn
people, and it is about time that Kin
Alcohol was paying some of it back. w
have little faith, however, that a Law
could be passed in our Legislature to i'm
] ~, S.
= to restrain the traffic by our laws designe
e to have that effect, our idea is, that W
0 must regulate the traffic; and this w
: would do, if the Constitution ofour Stat
f was not a barrier to it, by stringent
y well regulated license law. But our ten
5 perance brother at our elbow says: car
: you going to vote for license ?'' we al
swer, ''No.n We would annex the loc,
option to this license law and let the vol
: be taken: GLicense?" or 'sNo License
a We would vote No License every tim,
and If a majority of the voters in OF
county voted with US, then there shoul
: be no license and no liquor sold in Il
= county; but, if we were beaten on tt
= vote, then restrict the sale under jud
cious license, with proper bonds an
heavy penalties for violations.
We would not confne the license
e whisky, brandy, rum, etc., but we wou
e require license with equal restrain
/. for the traffic in ale, beer and wine; f
n the traffic and use OF these beverages
e not less pernictous in its effects tha
the stronger drinks, and they stand grea
IS ly in the way of the success of the ter
/ perance cause.