The Democratic press. [volume] (Ravenna, O. [Ohio]) 1868-1901, 1883-07-26

Judge SpaIdIng ON the Scott Law.
Editors Plain Dealer:
We are apt to forget that our Legis-
lature is not like the English Parlia-
ment, OMNIPOTENT.
The Constitution of 1851, in Article |
l, Section 20, has this provision "All |
powers, not herein delegated, remain |
with the people"
Have the people at any time entrust- |
ed the Legislature with power to tax
the trade or profession of a citizen |
We Will inquire.
1t is said, in Section of the Bill of |
Rights, that "all men have certain in |
aIienable rights, among. which are
those of enjoying and defending life
and liberty; acquiring, possessing and pro-
teeting property"
In Article II of the Constitution the
whole taxing power of the General
Assembly is laid down in clear and
explicit terms. In the first place, in
Section l, 1t is said that 1.-the lovying
of taxes by the poll !" (that is by the
head), sis grievous and oppressive,
therefore the General Assembly shall
never IeUy poll tax"
In Section it is provided that claws
shall be passed taxing, by uniform, rule,
all moneys, credits, investments in
bonds, stocks, Joint stock companies
or otherwise; and also all real and
personal property according to its true
value in money!
In Section it is made the duty of
the General Assembly to provide by
law for taxing the notes and bills dis
counted or purchased, moneys loaned
and all other property, effects or dues
of every description, of all banks now
existing or hereafter created, and of
all bankers, so that all property en-
ployed in banking shall always bear
burden of taxation equal to that i'm
posed on the property of individuals" ;"
In Section 4 it Is provided that the
General Assembly shall raise revenue
sufficient to defray the expenses of the
State for each year ,and also sufficient
sum to pay the interest on the State
debt.
In Section it is declared that mo
tax shall be levied except in pursuance
of law"
/. In Article Is is provision, made a
part of the Constitution by a special
vote of the people, which reads as fol-
lows: No license to traffic in intoX-
icating liquors shall hereafter be grant
ed in this State, but the General AS
sembly may, by law, provide against
the evils resulting therefrom." Thus
far for the Constitutional law of Ohio.
On the 18th day of April, 1888, the
General Assembly of Ohio enacted as
follows:
An ACT
further providing against the evils re-
sulting from the traffic in intoxicating
liquors.
Section l. Be it enacted by the Gen.
eral Assembly Of the State of Ohio,
That upon the business Of trafficing in
intoxicating liquor, there shall be as
sessed yearly and shall be paid into the
county treasury by every person engaged
therein, as hereinafter provided, and for
each place where such business is car
ried on by or for such person, THE SUM
OF TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS, pr0Uided
it such business continues through the
year, to wit, from the second Monday
in April exclusively in the tratficing
in malt or vinOus liquor, or both, such
assessment shall be but one-half the
foregoing sum.
maintain that this Scott " law is
unconstitutiona and should have been
declared void by the Supreme Court.
Upon it's face it purports to be a tax
upon the occupation or business of one
class of the citizens of Ohio.
But the Supreme Court says "it is
we'll settled that burdens in the form
of license taxes may be imposed upon
certain classes of business which in
their nature are injurious to the public
welfare" In reply to that say the
Constitution has prohibited the impo-
sition of Hcense-ta1 =" upon the buSi-
ness of trafficing in intoxicating liq-
uors" in explicit terms; but if the
Constitution was silent on this subject
1 should still insist that such legisla-
ton could not be properly sanctioned.
The taxing power entrusted by the
people to the General Assembly no.
where, by implication even, autherises
this last named body to assess a tax
upon one class of community not COM
mon to all. Take, for instance, my
own profession. There are IN it mis-
cradle scavengers, no doubt, who are,
like the one recently 20 lged in the
penitentiary, the pest of society, but
could the Legislature in its discretion
regulate the practice of the law by
assessing an annual tax upon the BleB,-
bers Of the bar in the several counties?
But, says the Supreme Court, 1.-The
right to traffic in Intoxicating liquors,
for the purpose of drinking. before the
passage of the Scott law, was the COM
mon right of each aud every citizen of
the State. 1t so remained after its pas
sage"
Then for what purpose, I ask In all
conscience, is the liquor vender re-
quired to pay his two hundred dollars?
1t is not tax, because the Constitu-
ton requires all taxes to be assessed
upon property and to be made general
1t is not license, because the man
who pays nothing has just as good a
right to sell ardent spirits as the one
who has paid his two hundred dollars.
at is q license tGx,' says the Court!! !!
| Some thirty years ago the Supreme
Court sitting in Holmes county made
| a decision in a liquor case about as
sensible as that in the Scott law case.
A tavern keeper was fined twenty
five dollars for selling liquor without a
license. The case came by certiorarl
and writ of error, before Judges Avery
and Spalding, of the Supreme Court.
The Judge who announced the decis-
ion inquired of the Prosecuting Attor-
ney if it anywhere appeared in the
papers, whether the whisky sold was
good or bad? "Oh, your honor" said
the attorney, sue admit it Was good. D
"Then," said the Judge, the Court
will reverse the decision imposing the
fine."
This may have been substantial JUS
tIce, but II WAS BAD LAW. r. P. s.
---~ss--
| IT would keep young Mr.. Thurman