Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1883-08-09

than - per annum, the court In fiXinl
the amount, 'having proper regard 70
the applicants place Of business"
paper called license was issued to sucl
tavern keeper by the clerk of the court
on payment Ofhis fee of fifty cents there
for
Nothing is clearer than that the priv
ilege secured to tavern keeper, unde
the act of 1881, was neither exclusive
unrestricted, nor beyond Legislative con
troll. That there was an attempt, ever
indirectly, to grant any exclusive pOwel
TO deal i'm liquors is not pretended, fol
the right, existing i'm all persons, to sci
TO another liquors of any sort, in any
quantity not less than one quart, whert
the liquor was not to be drank at the
place where sold, was untouched by
any statute then in force. That such
privilege was not unrestricted is mani.
fest, for if such tavern keeper permitted
any kind of riOting, reveling, intOXica.
ton, or drunkenness on his premises,
he was subject to criminal prosecution
and his license was revoked. And that
legislative control existed can not be
doubted, for the general assembly might
not only deny the power to issue licen-
ses in the future, but revoke all existing
licenses. Him VS.. The State, Ohio ST.,
10; COOley's Con. l.. 18th ed. 343.
Such, in substance, was the condition
of the statute law, in relation to the
traffic in intoxicating liquors, at the time
stated-that is i'm March 1881, when the
convention which framed the cOnstitu-
ton finished its labors. The result of
1lnf In
the right to traffic in liquors was not in
terms granted or authorized to be grant
ed to anybody, yet the effect of the stat
ute was to reserve to licensed tavern
keepers the exclusive right to sell spirit
uOus liquors to be drank at the place
where sold, while the right of all per-
sons to deal in liquors, in such other
way as they might see proper, was left
practically undisturbed. The subject of
such traffic was, however, agitated
throughout the state during the winter
of 1850, and large number of the men,
bers of the constitutional convention,
and majority of the members of the
general assembly, then in session, were
to such license system. The
submitted to the people for
their ratification the constitution which
had been framed and also submitted to
a separate vote the following provision,
which was to become part of the Or
ganic law if ratified: mo license to
traffic in Intoxicating liquors shall here
after be granted in this state, but the
general assembly may provide by law
against evils resulting therefrom.n
section Is. The separate pro-
vision, as well as the constitution, hav-
ing been ratified by the people, such
provision became part of the
organic law. Meanwhile, the general
had, on March IL, 1851, re-
pealed 50 much of the act of 1881 as op-
Grated as a license to sell liquor. Him
vs.. The State, supra. This left in force
the penal provisions of the act Of 1881
the exception in favor of tavern
keepers, so that thereafter it was
penal offense for any person to sell spirit
uous liquors to be drank at the place
where sold.
For more than thirty years after the
adoption of the constitution no statute
in principle like the act of 1883 was
passed. This, of course, is not conclu-
sive against the existence of the power
so to legislate; but it must be remem-
hered that during all that time the SUBJ
ect was constantly agitated, and the alb
,ence of legislation of this character af-
fOrds evidence that the general opinion
was against the authority to pass such
IN act; and the constitutional provision
means the same thing to-day that it
meant when it was adopted. That the
Early opinion against the existence of
such power.was correct, is proposition
% which fully assent. In providing
hat license to traffic in intoxicating
liquors should not be granted, the evil
to exist and sought to be rem
died was not the granting of licenses
Is applied to every kind of business. In
Iced, the express prohibition of liquor
icense recognizes power in the general
over, the general subject. Ac-
Ordingly, as stated in the opinion of
he majority, "burdens in the form of
license taxes may be imposed on certain
lasses of business, which, in their ma
ure, are injurious to the public welfare"
And see 38 Ohio St., 225; Com. VS.. Ba-
on, IL Bush, 2l0; Southern l.. Rev. n.
J., "A. Nor was it supposed to be an
vii, when the constitution was framed,
hat men obtaining license which ex-
mpted them from punishment for sell
ing liquor by the drink were required
0 produce evidence of good moral char
cter, nor that the price Of the license
7as regulated by the amOuntOf business
one. nor that license, being granted
lone to tavern keepers were confined
0 a small number or class of persons.
suta the evil supposed to exist, and \
gainst which the constitutional provis-
IN was directed, was the sale, by any
erson, of spirituous liquors by the
rink, for that was the license, and all
here was of it-that was the privilege,
nd the only privilege with. respect to
quOrs, secured by such license. And
his being true, it is too clear for argu-
tent that if it was sought by such con
titutional provision to cut offsuch priv
ege to the few, much more was it in
ended to absolutely deny it to the
lany. The notion that the exclusive
ght of one man or o class of men to
arry on business Is implied in a Ii
anse, is utterly fallacious. A license
lay be confined by the law making
over to class or limited number Of
or it may extend to all who
ill comply. with the conditions i'm
osed. Take,the case of a peddler who
esires to travel throughout the state
goods, wares, and merchan-
Use. He is required to pay money, the
mount being determined by his mode
travel, whether on foot on horseback,
+ in wagon, boat, or railroad car; but
nybody who tenders the required sum
entitled to license, and may enforce
ne issuing of the same Rev Stats |