Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1882-05-04
Ohio to the Front Again.

The contest which threatens to enter
largely into the political canvass of the
year in Ohio is to be considered apart
from the merits Of this legislation. 1t
is to presumed that the Legislature in
passing these restrictive measures rep
resented the wishes of majority of the
people of the State, and it is worth while
to ascertain whether the people will
sustain them. They are laws now, and
as such they should be enforced, and no
opposition to their enforcement can
have the countenance of sober people of
either party. The brewers and saloon
keepers make a mistake when they at
rect their fight against obedience to the
laws. If they consider them unjust or
injudicious, and if they believe that the
people of the State will not sustain
them, they would be justified in labor
ing to secure their repeal. This may be
their ultimate purpose, but in the mean
time they propose to defy the authority
vi lllC OtdIC duO SnOh IllstO bUCOC dSlo
can not be executed. The Republican
party ought not to shrink from meeting
an issue like that. The attitude of the
liquor dealers also suggests that this is
as good time as any other to test their
political power. Not only in Ohio, but
in nearly every other State, they exer-
else an influence altogether out of pro-
portion to their Importance as citizens,
and it is an influence that is far from
beneficial to politics or to society. If
they band together to nullify laws in
tended to suppress the evils growing out
of their business, or to prevent or repeal
legislation demanded by the better sen
timent of the people, it bebooyes the
people to meet the issue and decide
whether the liquor interest is to be ac-
cepted as controlling one in State poll
tics under any circumstances whatever
Until this question is settled, that of
modifying the existing laws should be
postponed.
The Republicans of Ohio are on the
right side in this controversy, and that
is reason enough for holding their
ground and facing the threatened con-
test. 1t will, no doubt, produce many
changes of votes, but the danger of los
ing the support of the Germans is prob
ably exaggerated. They are for the
most part law-abiding people, and
though strongly attached to their Gus
toms, and not likely to admit that beer
that should be suppressed by law, it is
hardly conceivable that they should fol-
low the brewers and saloon keepers in a
mass to the support of Democratic can
didates The tendency in that direction
may be strong in Cincinnati and few
other large towns. but the detection will
be offset by considerable gains from
those who sympathiZe with temperance
| legislation, while in the rural districts
the temperance sentiment may be raj
lied in force to the support of law and
order. But Whatever the result, the fight
is one from which the party can not
shrink now, and no compromise or con-
cession can be made which will not oc-
casion more loss than gain. If the liq-
upr question is to be uppermost in the
politics of the State in the coming con
| test, square issue should be made and
fought to the end. There is nothing of
supreme moment at stake, and the elec-
tion may at least be made the means of
ascertaining how the effective sentiment
of the State stands on this question
which has thus been forced to the front.
In. Y. Times.