The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1880-02-12
From Lawrence County.

10 the EDITOR OF tne SIanuaru!
This neighborhood say Blaine ofced =
River falling slowly, but all q Tor
large boats are still running. 9cuC-
The members of the colored l. LIlllu-
[. O. O. F., commenced their FefPen1-
last night-closes tonight. WeeA
Commenced showing last nights ~ III l
| w dIIen COunUy VIE Calieu before the
court, made no defense and were fined
the least possible amount and costs.
But what do we find? That one man
ont of dozen is fined, while the others
escape. Why permit that one more
than the others? The amount Of it is
this, that while the law depends on
the action of individuals in this man
ner it will be spasmodic and inefficient
On the other hand If town or mu-
nicipality were by a clear majority to
exclude the nuisance, the local au-
thority would be brought at once to
bear on them, and they would be
promptly expelled.
The next question, Why is such a
measure as local option needed? This
requires the very shortest answer. 1t
is needed in order to partially at least
suppress the evils Of intemperance
arising from the sale of Intoxicating
liquor; as the Constitution says, ''the
evils arising therefrom." The Con-
stitution recognizes that their sale is
an evil, and evil continually. The
Legislature, as we have recited, pro-
vides stringent remedies, making such
sale a nuisance and crime. The
statistics of Ohio prove that four
fifths of the crimes of violence arise
from Intoxicating liquors; that in
frmaries and the jails have thousands
Of victims of intemperence, nine
tenths of which proceed from the sale
of Intoxicating liquor; in fine, that the
''evils arising therefrom" are so enor-
nous that families are ruined, society
disgraced, and the State taxed mill
ions of dollars for the support of the
evil" Any law which could be en-
forced against it would be blessing
to the State But ''local option"
though untried, seems the only kind
of law which we are likely to enforce.
1t has been proposed to tax the grog-
shops by way of getting an income
from them, but that would not sup
press them, and certainly the idea of
taxing a crime is monstrous. That
the law should declare certain acts a
crime and a nuisance and then tax
them as business, seems to me as
great an absurdity as the human mind
can conceive of. You can not suppress
gambling houses and houses of i'll
fame, would it not be we'll to tax
them as a business, and then put
them on a level with the dry goods
merchant and grocer! Neither the
Legislature nor the courts are likely
to adopt such a theory of social life.
We come now to the question, why
should local option be denied? Ger
tainly we can not tell, and we have
heard no reason. The proposition is
to allow towns and municipalities
to vote on the question whether they
will allow the retail of Intoxicating
liquors within their bounds; that Is,
to allow local self-government. No
thing can be more simple and nothing
more democratic or republican. The
principle lies at the very foundation
Of our government From the State
to the school district, it is in every
thing else adopted. 1t is not ques-
ton whether business shall be al
lowed or suppressed. The law has al
ready settled that when it made the
sale of intoxicating liquors to be
drank on the premises" an offense and
nuisance. That is settled, as a gen.
eral principle, just as it is in regard to
gambling. 1t is not proposed to give
the township power to establish new
principle or to interfere with any law
full business. 1t is only proposed to
give the towns a more effective mode
of enforcing the law. As it now
stands, the law must, in the nature of
things, be enforced by individuals who
must hunt up evidence, and go at an
expense of time and money. But if {
certain township can by a majority