The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1883-07-18

THE Columbus correspondent Of the
New York World thus illuminates the
ridiculous position of the Ohio Republi-
cans on the liquor question:
The Democratic party occupies pre-
cisely the same position this year that 1t
| did last, with reference to the temper
ance questiOn-OppOsitlOn to all sump-
tuaTy legislation and in favor of lie
ense system by amendment to the con-
stitutiOn. The Republicans in the last
Legislature attempted to fOrestall the
Democracy by the enactment of a law
| fixing a uniform license of 5000 on all
places where Intoxicating liquors are
sold, without reference to the location
or amount of business done, and with
out requiring the keepers Of drinking
places to observe any Of the laws of the
State as condition precedent to retain
| ing their licenses. Under the law as 1t
| stands no disOTderly house can be closed,
| because the license to sell and keep open
cannot be revoked, and although the
proprietor may be locked up for disOrd-
erly conduct, he can still keep his place
open by his agents under his license or
tax" as it is called.
This absurd evasion of the State con-
stitutiOn, which expressly fOTbids the
granting of license for the sale of in
tOXicating liquors, was held cOnStitu-
t1Onal by the Republican members of
the Supreme Court, two of whom were
candidates for election on platform
which asserted the law to be cOnstitu-
tiOnal. These two Judges had been ap-
pointed by Governor Foster to fill va
cancies on the bench, as is alleged, with
the understanding that they were to de-
eide favOrably to the law along with the
one Judge who last year dlssented from
the OpiniOn-fOur to One-Of the same
court, declaring a similar law uncOnsti-
tutiOnal on the ground that the pretend
ed tax was license and came within
the constitutional inhibition.
To still further cOmplicate their situa-
tiOn, the Republican Legislature sub
mitted three proposed amendments to
the liquor question. l. A license sys-
tenn. 2. Absolute prohibition of manu-
facture and sale. 3. The regulation of
the traffic by legislative enactments.
These are now before the people, and
the Republican Attorney General has
caused to be published an opinion to the
effect that voter may vote for all of
these amendments, or for two of them
or for one or for neither. Let us suppose
that under the opinion, which amounts
to a decision of the law officer of the
State, majority of all the voters of the
State shOulG vote for all three Of the
we would then have liq-
uOTs sold under license, the sale and
manufacture of liquors absolutely pro-
hibited, and legislative control, inelud-
local OptiOnl could not give clearer
idea of the contradictory position of the
Republican party on the liquor question
than this.
And it has its purpose. The Republi-
can leaders intend to declare themselves
in favor of license among those who
favor license; prohibition among those
who favor prohibition, and local option
among local OptiOnists. But just now
the leaders are alarmed over their
chance for working this scheme success
fully, from the fact that some forty or
fifty leading Methodist divines have is
sued a call for delegate convention to
meet in this city, consider the proposed
amendments and unite in favor of the
adoption of the prohibition amendment
and the rejection of the other two.
If this call is generally responded to
the Republicans will have an tissue" on
| their hands that they would gladly get
rid Of-an tissue" that will sink them
under 10000 majority"