Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1879-12-18
THE LIQUOW TAX QUESTION.
An Argument by Judge Thompson,
of HIllsbOrO.


A LOCAL OPTION LIQUOR LAW FOB OHIO, WITH
OUT CLAUSE ALLOWING THE PRIVILEGE OIL
THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS AS A BEV
ERAGE ON THE PAYMENT OF TAXES THEREFOR
But WITH A CLAUSE ALLOWING THE VOICE OF
VOTE OF WOMAN TO BE EQUAL TO THAT OF MA,
ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH LAW.
70 the Editor Of the Cincinnati Gazette:
HILLsBORO, o., December las your valu
able and influential Journal (Of which am anC
| have been Tor many years a daily reader hon
a letter written by me on "The constitution.
ality and expedienCy OF the 'Quinby Local Op
tiOn Bill" then pending for passage before tht
General Assembly Of Ohio, / now respectfully
ask that you extend to me the like courtesy o.
the publication Of this letter, intended to Oc,
cupy advanced grounds on the whole temper.
| ance question in our State, and to antagonizC
the grounds recently ably advocated in numer-
GUS articles in your journal on the right Of the
sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage on
the payment Of taxes for such privilege.
AS my opposition to your views will be at.
tempted to be expressed in courteous and plain
language, with all possible brevity, / shall give
utterance TO my honest convictions, in perfect
confidence that your liberation for an opposing
argument will not place me at any unjusi
disadvantage, even though your cause may be
made to appear the weaker OF the two.
AS the c0nstitutiOnality of a local option
liquor law for Ohio was not disputed in the de-
bates Of the last Legislature, and has never
been questioned by any respectable journal OF
Jurlst, and as the ecOnsttutiOnalty of other local
option laws in our State on various Othersub-
jects have been adjudged by our Supreme Court
to be constitutional, and have been decided by
the votes OF the electors in various instances TO
be eXpedient, l assume, as the predicate of my
argument, that the General Assembly has the
power, under the Constitution, to enact local
option liquor law with provisions similar to
those contained in the bill presented at the last
session, and in this assumption your journal
las have read your various artiCles) and my
SELF are agreed And now the question arises,
whether the proposition advocated in the Ca
zette to have a clause inserted in any local Op-
tiOn liquor act that may be passed by the Gen
eral Assembly to authorize any municipality
that may so decide, by a majority vote, to per-
NIT the sale therein Of intoxicating liquors as a
beverage on the payment of taxes ON the guam
tity sold, or as a fixed annual stipend by the
keeper Of the place where sold for such permit,
is constitutional and eXpedient or not.
Section Is of the schedule OF the Constitution
OF Ohio reads as follows:
"No license to traffic in intoxicating liquors
shall hereafter be granted in this State, but the
General Assembly may by law provide against
the evils resulting therefrom."
The trainers Of the Constitution, by the Ian
guage OF the above section, assume and declare
that evils, and nothing but evils, can result
from the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and, in
the same clear language, ordain that the GEN
aral Assembly may by law provide against
such evils,
In pursuance of this authority granted in the
Constitution, the Legislature Of the State has,
IN the exercise OF its wisdom, enacted various
statutes to provide against the evils resulting
from the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and has
declared that the violation Of any Of the pro-
hibitory provisions of such statutes regulating
the sale thereof shall be a criminal ofrense, pun
tshable by fine and imprisonment The Su-
preme Court has declared all these laws TO be
constitutional, and they have been, and are
constantly, executed, by the infiiction of fines
and Imprisonment of the citizens for the viola
tion OF the penal sections Of these statutes. 1t
will be observed that these statutes absolutely
prohibit and forbid the sale of liquors "(I in
any quantity to be drank on the premises, (2) to
minors, (3Tto drunkards, (A condemns the place
where sold, and (5) commands such place shall
be shut up and abated as nuisanCes, and de-
clares the violation of each one of all the pro-
hibit0ry sections of the laws to be q crime.n
These laws, to the exclusion of any other con-
clusion, declare commission of certain acts to
be a crime, for which the citizen shall be pun
ished, and just here the pivot question of the
argument arises, to-wit Can you make business
of crimes, or rather the commission Of lawless
crimes lawful business? You say to the public
that your eminent counsel, Matthews, Ramsey
Il Matthews so write and sustain themselves
in their opinion by the authority of the Supreme
Court.
In the written opinion of the eminent gentle
men (for whom personally and professionally l
cherish the very highest respect) addressed to
yOu October 25, 1879, they say: " In reply to your
note of this date we beg to advise you that a
law imposing specific tax upon the business
of selling Intoxicating liquors would be con-
stitutiOnal Such law would be a tax upon a
business, and would not be a license, etc. The
principles upon which such a tax could be sus-
tanned are set forth in the decision OF the case of
Meyer; treasurer, vs.. The Western Union Tele-
graph Company, Is Ohio State Reports, p. 52l."
What is this case? The syllabus Of the court
teaches us as follows:
"The Western Union Telegraph Company, a
organized under the laws of New
York, having its principal office and place of
business in the city and State of New York,
doing business also in the State of Ohio, receiY-
ing and transmitting telegraph messages be-
tween points lying within the state OF Ohio,
and at points in other States and countries, and
The corporation denies the constitutional right
Of the State Of Ohio to levy taxes upon its law
ful business, as above specified. The Supreme
Court, on this state of facts in this case decide
that the State of Ohio has constitutional right
10 assess and collect taxes on the earnings and
The profits Of foreign corporation doing a law |
lul business in the State Of Ohio. What analogy |
d there between this case and the case at bar, |
o lawyer phrase, and how can learned counsel |
iay that it is a case in point at all, to Justify
hem in writing to you that law imposing |
3pecifo tax upon the business Of selling intOxi-
,ating LIQUORS would be constitutional, when it |
s written in the Constitution and in the laws |
II the State, made in pursuance OF the special |
,lause of the Constitution on this subject that |
here shall not be any such business carried on |
n the State Of Ohio as the selling OF intoxieat- |
ng liquors as a beverage in the manner and /
node advocated by the Gazette, and that all |
uch selling shall be Crime2 Now, unless
minent counsel and the able writers of the |
l0Estte produce some authority or even some
ictum, in the history and volume Of the Chris
ian Jurisprudence OF the world, to the effect
hat any nation has ever attempted to collect
evenue from the commission OF crimes which
re forbidden by its own laws l shall stand by
he assertion that until the present Constitution
Ohio is abrogated and the laws enacted by
he Legislature on the liquor question are re-
ealed, you can not by any circumvention OF
)cal necessities and profit enact any law capa-
le of enforcement in one section Of which the
legislature defines and declares that certain
cts Of one citizen shall be a crime punishable
Y fine and imprisonment, and then in the next
sctiOn declares that by the payment 0f so much
lonsy as taxes another citizen may commit
lch acts, without even formal arraignment at
le bar Of criminal justice. Such law would
suicidal Of itself, by reason Of the conflict OF
S own remedies, and would in its operations
r0duce some fearful results.
For example, il the criminal laws OF the State
universal operation can be suspended in
leir enforcement in any one municipality BY a
ajority vote, and any particular crime forbid ,
an could be practiced by the payment Of
oney, l should have fearful apprehensiOns !
lat under the popular doctrine Of exclusive
an suffrage that the crimes Of bigamy or !
lligamy not much more damning in their ef-
cts on society than retail liquor selling, might
some wicked cities like Chicago and Louis
lie mot CineinnatD, be voted by majority to ;
e0ndoned for by money, and that such cities,
the temptation Of large revenues arising
ON the federation Of such social evils, might,
lake and river, establish the bedlam OF Salt
axe City. a local option liquor act is not in