Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1880-01-08
spectnI Tnx on Linuors.

Nne STATE journal, on several 0cCa-
sions during the past year, has urged
upon the public and the Legislature the
propriety of leYying special taxes on
the sale Of intoxicating liquors. 1t Is
a little strange that the objections to
this proposition come mainly from two
classes Of persons; the extreme prohi-
bitionists and the dealers in liquors.
! These two classes embrace not exceed
! ing three per cent. of the population
4 yet they seem TO possess sufficient in
huencoto control 97 per cent, at least
so far as practical action is cORcerRed.
These classes Of persons, together with
the great body Of the temperance. peO-
pie, united in voting into the present
Constitution the clOuae prohibiting the
issue Of q license to traffic in iatoxica-
ting drinks. aa ..t..
That clause in the Consultation
has been from the beginning, and
is now, worse than dead letter. The
temperance people regarded it as a con
stitutional disability, imposed upon
the business; while dealers In intoxica-
ting liquors regarded 1t as free trade
measure, and as creating a privileged
class, they, the liqaor dOalaFs, and their
heirs, successors and assigns, to be the
perpetual beneficiaries.
Why should dealers in liquors be per-
mitted to eGcape their just proportion
Of taxation? That they have so es-
capped, during period of twenty-eight
years, is patent to every man who has
given the subject half an hOur's thought.
Of course, the saloon keeper, in all of
our cities and villages, is compelled to
pay as much rent as the dealer In dry
goods, groceries, provisions or clothing.
But the fact is notorious that the saloon
keeper need not have, and does not
have, an invested capital equal to per
cent. of that Of his next door neighbOr
who deals in the prime necessaries of
life; and yet the dealer in drinks, day
after day, and week after week, receives
more money over the counter than the
vender Of dry goods and groceries-the
latter, meantime, paying tenfold more
taxes than the former.
Now, the question arises, is this ex-
cess of taxation upon one class, and the |
practical exemption of another class
from taxation, just, fair and honest |
VIII the people Of Ohio suffer this in
justice and inequality to exist much
longer for the sake Of a mere abstrac-
tionP aF
This question is becoming one of
great practical moment, especially in
all the cities and larger villages; and
we are pleased to note that it Is receiY-
ing proper attention at the hands Of the
press, and of other thoughtful persons.
The Cincinnati Gazette, in recent
issue, says: "The proposition to tax
the trade in spirit drinks is PROPOSE
5ion to tax thatwhiCh isn0wIpractically
free, and has been practically free in at
least all the large towns in Ohio ever
since the no license Constitution was
adopted. tits to lay a revenue tax on
I traffic which can afford to pay It, and
which adds much to the criminal and
Dauper expenses, to make it help defray I
hem. The question seems to be be-
,ween this regulating revenue measure,
ind free trade, and a drinking place
wherever hulking fellow can make I
aborer's wages by It. The proposition I
hat this taxing would be authorizing a I
rhine, seems to be a kind of Pontius q
PLATE handwashing While permitting i
he evil to expand to its worst" I
The Constitutional rule of levying 3
axes on all property according to its i
rue value in money" can never be ap- K
lied so as to do justice as between re- b
all liquor dealers and the holders of /,
ther species of property. The best 4
egal authorities in Ohio have declared a
hat the Legislature possesses the power d
0 levy special taxes upon this traffic; F
nd as fully nine-tenths Of the people a
re satisfied of the iustness of such a
leasure, why should it not be adopted?
r Columbus Journal.