The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1883-05-01
THE SCOTT LAW.
Judge Hoadlcy Speaks Out With
out EQuivOcatiOD on It's Con-
Stitutionality.
Cincinnati Commercial.


A reporter called on. Hon. George
yesterday and asked him Whist
do you think of the Scott law as q con-
stltutional measurep' The reply was as
have not read the Scott law careful
ley, and have only that general knowl-
edge of its contents which is furnished
to any reader OF the newspapers Of the
day. 1t may he constitutional in par'
and unconstitutional in part. For in-
stance, that portion which repeals the
Smith law or makes Sahhath-breaking
or sSabhatbskeeping 4matter ot'-locat
option to he settled bp the municipal
au horities in cities and villages, seems
to me so separate from and independent
OF the general taxation Of the liquor
traffic that / csn easily conceive that il
might he treated as two bills, or even
more than two, in the light of the Con-
sli'u'ion.
Again, understand that this law re-
peals The clanse against tippliDg, or sell
ing to he drank on the. premises. This
legislation Sc, ms to me eminently wise,
for it repesls law which has proved in
capable OF enforcement. This, there
fore. may be treated independently OF
the sui jec, Of taxation Of the liquor
traffic But when you ask me whether
the Gene al Assembly OF The State OF
Ohio has power totax when it has not
the power 10 license this traffic, answer
that such taxa,ion cannot he imposed
under the present Con ~titution of Ohio
The reason for this answer is that the
msEda,e. of the Constitution is to tax
call real and personal property accord
ing to The true value in money" An.
other clause OF the c institution is that
"private property shall ever be held in.
violate" but liable to he taken for public
uses upon first making compensation
therefor to the cwper in money. The
right 10 sell and use property are Of the
essence OF property itself, and The spe
cifc taxation Of the right to sell pror-
erly is the taxation of the property, but
not according to its true value in mon
ev."
The Russell License Bill taxes the use
of property. Possibly this may be sus-
tained4 as being within the Just exercise
of the licensing power, although am
inclined to think that the Russell. bill, be.
ing one for the iaisng Of general reve
nue., its license charge for the.use OF We
hicles Is in conflict with the conslitu.
tional manda e to tax "according to the
true value in money"
The Scott Bill, however, cannot he
sustained under any power TO license,
Tor. the powerio license the traffic il liq
uors is deuied by the Constitution. This,
then, presents the bare case OF an az
tempt 10 tax property in one Ct its rela-
tions, and without the free exercise of
which it cannot be said to be 'ibviolate;
and this taxation is imposed by the
charge of specific sum, whereas The
Constitution requires the taxation OF all
property to he according to the true
value in money!"
The case will become very clear if one
will only imagine tax law passed re-
quiring farmers to pay five dollars per
acre for the privilege of cultivsting their
farms or selling the produce thereof, af-
ter making full payment Of taxes upon
its true value in money. Ii would not
take very many minutes for any Supreme
Court that ever sat 10 the State Of Ohio
To find out that such tax is not the
constitutional lax upon property. snd is
inhibited by the Constitution. And ye,
there is absolutely no difference in prin.
ciple between the tsx have supposed
upon the right to cultivate farms or sell
their produce, and the Scott bill tax on
liquor. except that plausible argument
might be made that the Legislature have
the right to license farming and charge
license fees, whereas the Constitution
forhids the licensing of the traffic in in
toxicatiDg liquors.