Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1883-07-05
The Supreme Court Decision On the
Scatf aw

scott Law.
The full text of the decision on the
Scott law, prepared by Judge Mc1lvaine,
has been made public. 1t is legal doc
ument of great clearness and force, and
bears upon its face the fact that it is
based upon the soundest principles of
law. Every objection to the law
is ably met and disposed of in the
most convincing style, by the distin-
guished jurist who rendered the opinion.
The Court held that the authority to eR-
act such a law is included in the geuer-
al grant of legislative power, and that
said grant is not limited or restrained
by any other section of the Constitution
The grant of power is, however, strength
ened by a section of the Constitution
which authorizes the Legislature "to
provide against evils resulting" from
the traffic in Intoxicating liquors. The
next question is whether the anti-license
inhibition conflicts with the law under
consideration, and this raises the query
whether the tax proposed is in the form
of "A license. Upon this point the Court
said:
A license is essentially ths granting
of ii special privilege to one OF more per
sons, not enjoyed by Persons generally,
or at least, not enjoyed by class of cit
liens to which the license belongs. A
common right is not the right of license
law. The removal of individual disS.
biities is not the granting of = license
The right Ia traffic in intoxicating
liquors for the purpose OF drinking be
fore the passage of the Scott law was
the common right of each and every cit
iZen Of the State. 1t SO remained after
its passage. No citizen or class of citi-
Zens is required by this latute to per
form any condition before the right to
trffic shall rest in him. The right was
not taken away from him. How then
can it be said that the right TO so traffic
is a special privilege to any one un ler
this statute?
We think this statute is no more Ii
cenSe law than was section of the Ii
quOr law of 1871. which provided That
it snail be unlawful for any person Oh
persons, by agent or otherwise, to sell
Intoxicating liquors to minors, unless
upon a written order of their parents
guardilIis, or family physician Surely
it cannot dc cOntendtd that that section
granted Il license to traffic in intoxica-
ting liquors.
The tax, instead Of being a license, is
d mere restriction. The business is left
free for every one 10 engage in subject
to the payment of the tax imposed
The law licenses nothing. 1t merely
finds business ia existence and impos.
es Il special tax upon it, just as other
laws impose a special tax upon hacks
certain entertainments, hacksters, and
dealers In any merchandise Sold from
canal boats, vessels, cars, or wharves
it matters not whether it is called tax
OF a license aGd there will always be
more or less confusion of terms. The
receipt which the United States revenue
officers give to a saloon keeper upon the
payment of his tax is commonly called a
license though it is nothing of the kind
AS to the section of the law requiring
saloon keepers to get permit from the
owner of The building in which they do
business, the court held that it did not
apply "to lessees in possession under a
lease executed before the passage of the
act"