The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1882-09-14
TEMPERANCE Question IN Ohio

temperance \IueSC1On IN ONO.
1t is known generally that the Temper
ance question will enter largely into the
State contest now going on in Ohio, but its
Use form and the attitude of the two
great political parties to it, are not so IA
miliar to the public. We find perspicu-
Gus statement of the issue in a recent
speech delivered by Hon. John Sherman !, at
Columbus, in that State. 1t seems that the
Constitution of Ohio prohibits the granting
of license for the sale of liquors, and under
its sanction liquor sellingand drinking have
been practically free, yielding no revenue
to the State. yet causing much of the crime
which entails costs upon the State Treas
ury. The Legislature passed two laws,
one looking to the prohibition of liquor
selling on the Sabbath, known as the
''Smlth Bill" and the other, the ''Pond
Bill" providing for graduated tax on the
sale of Intoxicating liquors on the week
days. The Pond Bill was contested and
taken to the Supreme Court, where it was
pronounced unconstitutional, because that
instrument prohibits the granting of license
for the sale of liquors, and it was held that
where license could not be granted for
traffic, a tax could not be imposed. The
Sunday law is not observed, so that real
ly whiskey is practically free in Ohio, yield
ing no revenue, and under very little re-
straint.
In this canvass the Republicans in their
(tAI..
ing people of the State demand that by
specific taxation the traffic in intoxicating
liquors shall be made to bear its share of the
public burdens, and that the Constitution. in
so far as it may be an obstacle in the way Of
the exercise of the people, through their rep
resentatives, of practical control over the
liquor traffic to the end that the evils result
ing therefrom may be effectually provided
against, should be amended at the earliest
date allowed by law. Provided, that all laws
upon the statute books must be respected and
enforced until repealed by legislation or abro-
gated by legal authority"
This position of the Republicans meets the
issue squarely. 1t demands change in the
Constitution so as to subject the traffic in in
toxicating liquors to the restraint of legal
license and the imposition of tax for the
support of government.
The Democratic party, as usual, evades the
issue, by the following resolution: "That the
Democratic party has ever maintained and
lteadfastly adhered to the doctrine OF the
argest liberty consistent with the public
welfare, and is opposed to legislation merely
sumptuary."
This means anything that its advocates may
deem it expedlent to contend for, but the le-
Ultimate drift of it is, free whiskey and Sab
bath dissertation.
While the position of the two parties upon
this question, may cause some losses to the
Republicans in the larger cities where beer
saloons and liquor rooms are numerous, in the
rural districts where the people are free from
the combined efforts of the saloon keepers, the
gain will more than compensate for the loss
sustained in the cities. And if we mistake
not, the result in the State will show that the
intelligent people of that great Common
wealth will vindicate their own moral sense
by an overwhelming majority for the Repub-
lican ticket.