The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1883-07-28
SECOND AmENDMENT ONLY,

| We give worthy citizen hearing on
the second amendmenG, without endors-
Ing or being reeponsible.-ED DEM.1
The following communication is al
most entirely the production of Rev. +.
NJ. lams, of Mansfield, o., and deserves a
careful perusal and thought from every
voter:
The action of the General Assembly of
ONO wisely refers to the people of the
state the great problem of modern civil
| izatlOn, the proper disposition of the
liquor traffic. However bound by party
ties or party interests in other respects,
In TINS matter every voter in every par
~ Is at perfect liberty to vote as judg-
| ment, conscience and due regard for the
| welfare OF society may require. Other
issues may appeal TO the voter as DEM
0erat, or as Republican,, or as deVO-
tee OF some other party; this appeals to
him as citizen of this great state, zeal
Gus for her honor and good name.
1t is crisis in the history of Ohio.
The vote on these amendments will set
tie the policy of the state on temperance
legislation, for one generation at least,
anu mat policy, no matter what it NAV
be, will affect, for veal or woe, vast
majority OF the people. As the ballot of
each voter. inscribed for or against this
or that ameniment, drops silently into
the ballot nOX, ~ viii move the shin of
state In this direction 0r mat, and affect
as mlBlLy, thOuSil un5eeu potency,
millions OF human lives.
That we may decide these questions
wisely let us look at the facts. As the
constitution now stands, the Assembly
Is expressly forbidden to license the
traffic in Intoxicating liquors, but is au-
thOrized to pass laws to provide against
the evils resulting therefrOm. In the
exercise of this authority the last AS
sembly passed the Scott law, taxing the
traffic. That law the Supreme Court
prOnOunces to be constitutional. If,
therefore, the citizens of Ohio desire to
tolerate the traffic-taxing it and other
wise controlling 1t at their pleasure
the constitution as 1t is, without any
amendment, Is sufficient, while it for
bids license, it cOnfers full power of
Legislative control, to tax and regulate.
The first proposed amendment repeals
the no-license clause of the present con
stitutiOn, and then provides that the
General Assembly shall regulate the
traffic in Intoxicating liquors, 80 as to
provide against the evils resulting there
trOm; and the power to levy taxes or as
sessmentS thereon Is not limited. I'm
der the constitution as it now stands,
the General Assembly has precisely the
same power to regulate. tax, and assess
the traffic which the first amendment
proven by the decision of the Supreme
Court in the case of the Scott law. But
the adoption of the first amendment, by
repeating the nO-licenSe clause, would
also empower the General Assembly to
license the traffic, thereby making the
state partner in the business. If,
therefore, the citizens of Ohio desireIto
authorize the traffic by licensing it, in
stead of merely tOleTating 1t and taxing
thpU go m nIs *
that desire by adopting the first amend
ment- A vote for the first amendment
1s vote for license, pure and simple,
and those who cast such vote are the
practical supporters of the liquor traffic.
The proposed second amendment be-
gins like the first one, by repeating the
nO-liSense clause of the present eOnsti-
tuition, but substitutes for it the follow
ing: "The manufacturer of and traffic
in intoxicating liquors to be used as a
beverage are forever prohibited; and the
General Assembly shall provide by law
for the enforcement of this provision"
This Is clear prohibition OF the traffic as
a beverage. 1t does not meddle with
the manufacture and sale of intOxieat-
ing liquors for legitimate uses-medi-
clnal, mechanical and scientific-but it
does put away forever the whole drink
traffic from the lowest saloon up to the
distillery and brewery. If, therefore,
the citizens of Ohio desire to see this
gigantic curse removed, they can. re-
move it by adopting the second amend |
ment only. Under the first amendment,
If adopted, the traffic may claim and |
receive positive protection under the |
form of license, The friends of the |
liquor traffic will vote very largely for |
the first proposition; but not one of |
them Will vote for the second amend |
ment. They are willing to pay a round |
sum for license for the sake of the re- |
spectability and protection it will give |
to the traffic. A license system is, and |
always has been, the demand of the |
liquor interests. Let no temperance |
man deceive himself. The liquor inter- |
ests of Ohio will support the first pro-
position vigorously, and those temper |
anee men who vote for that proposition |
will thereby aid them Just to that ex- |
tent, to commit the State to a license |
policy. The true interests of temper |
ance and virtue demand the defeat of |
the first amendment. Let every tenn |
peranee man AMI lover of good order.
vote for the second amendment only, and
If we do not gain prohibition, we shall at |
least avoid the crime and shame of that |
blot on Christian civilizatiOn-the LIQUOR |
license System-while we still retain
our present power to tax and cripple the |
deadly seOurge.
Wh0m the gods would destroy they |
first make mad" The dram sellers, |
backed up by some lawyers who love
money more than the souls and bodies |
Of men, are fighting the high tax law. |
This will open the eyes of the "high |
tax" and "high license" temperance
men and make PrOhibitiOnists Of them. !
The dram sellers are right. The saloon
business Is either legitimate business
or 1t Is not. If it is, it should be treated
like any other legitimate business; il IL
Is not, then 1T should be treated like any
other nuisance or crime. To require |
business to pay for the damage it is |
necessarily doing to men, women and
children, is unworthy civilized gov
ernment. The only thing to do is to |
prohibit. Then vote for the second |
amendment only. COMPILER.