Sacramento daily record-union., 1882-05-04
WHAT OHIO Has DONE.
The Pond Saloon Taxation Bill in the
Buckeye state.

The Pond bill, providing for taxing sa.
looms, passed by the House of Representa-
tives in Ohio, is now law. Il received
Sc votes, three Democrats voting for it
This law expressly declares that it shall
not be construed as authorizing or licensing
the sale of Intoxicating liquors the tax
being exacted solely as means for regulat.
ing the traffic, it being believed that the
tax provided and the bond required will
have the effect to materially reduce the
number OF saloons, and wipe out almost
entirely the most objectionable class.
Under the provisions of this law, every
dealer in Intoxicating drinks is required,
within thirty days from the date of its
passage, and in the first week OF each sue.
ceeding month OF May, to pay into the
County Treasury sum regulated by his
location. II not in nor within one mile Of
any village or city, the tax REQUIRED is
500; in a corporation OF less than 1000
population, or within one mile OF il. $3.50:
in one OF less than 0,000 or within one
mile thereof, 5000; within CITY of the
second class, with population of 10. 900
or more, or within two miles thereof. $3.50.
within any city of the first class, or within
two miles thereof, $500.
. In addition to such tax each retail dealer
is required to give bonds to the State in
the sum of $1,000. with two sureties. with
a description Of the premises wherein the
liquor is sold, and the name Of the owner
indorsed thereon The sureties shall be
approved by the Probate Judge, who shall
record the bonds and Endorsement and re.
ceive 81 fee therefor.
The failure or refusal Of any such retail
dealer to comply with the provisions of this
law subjects him to fine of from $500 to
81 900, or imprisonment for from thirty
days to one year, or both. Furnishing
liquor to one engaged in the traffic con.
trary to this Act subjects the person to a
fine of from $500 to 81, 600, or imprison.
ment from thirty days to one year, and all
Indebtedness or notes therefor based on
such sale are void.
Says an Ohio paper While this is not
license law, its effects, if enforced, will
be practically the same as license. That
is, the benefits will be the same but it af-
fords no protection such az weuld be af.
forded under license The tax, in cities
of the first class, is too low. II should
have been $500 instead OF $500, and per.
haps 81 ,000 would have been better than
either. The passage OF this law. without
the amendment or repeal of existing laws
relating to the sale of Intoxicating liquors,
places the statutes of the State in a singu-
lar position There is law which pro-
hibits the sale of intoxicating liquors to be
drank on the premises. True, it is not
enforced, but there it stands. The situa
tion is about as follows The law makes
it crime to retail intoxicating drinks, and
then it taxes such retail. Would it not be
better for the Legislature to repeal the old
lawl Would such action not strengthen
the new law?
There is not doubt but this new law
will result to the advantage of both the
public and the moro respectable class of
saloon keepers. If it is opposed at all it
will be by a class of dealers who keep re-
sorts for the worst elements of society.
Those who keep the more respectable class
of saloons-who do not encourage the In
temperate use of liquor, or make their
places shelter for thieves and vile char.
acters of every grade-should be quite as
anxious to see it enforced as will it's author
or any citizen of the State. With their
hearty cooperation the law may be made
effective, and there are many reasons for
believing that the better class of saloon
keepers will hail it as blessing, and
heartily aid in any reasonable efforts to SCI
cure obedience to it.