The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1883-06-14

the constitution by the right judgment of
the people of the state, is itself right in
principle, and we can never afford to re-
peal it, except as we put in its place a
provision for the entire prohibition of the
traffic. One great fallacy in the reasoning
on the temperance question to-day, is a
mistake like this, that the reason why
rum has had so much power and has done
so much evil work in our state within the
last thirty years, is because of the no-li-
cense clause in our constitution. We
brand this as falsehood invented in the
interests of rum itself, and palmed off in
the newspapers ofthe day the large num-
Der of which are under the control of
liquor mem as an argument to deceive
temperance people, and make them dis
satisfied with the no-license clause in the
constitution. Liquor men want this no.
license clause stricken out, that thus they
may have their traffic licensed and pro-
tected by law. And in order to get tenn
perance men to vote with them for the
repeal of this no-license clause, they hold
out the absurd idea that the no-license
clause is responsible for thirty years of
whisky rule. o What an absurd fallacy
to be palmed off as temperance argu-
ment! The real reason why rum has
ruled in the last thirty years, is not be-
cause of the no-license clause, but because
our legislatures have not used the power
given them under the present constitu-
tion to legislate against the liquor traffic,
and because the people have not enforced
the laws we have. And the remedy for
all these years past, is not to turn about
now to license, legalize and protect the
traffic, but to enforce rightly the laws we
have, and to secure better laws that shall
utterly prohibit t...is trade in sin forever.
Having noticed the no-license clause of
our present constitution, we come now to
notice the two amendments to the consti-
tuition proposed by our last legislature, to
be voted upon by the people at the cleo
tion next October. These proposed amend
ments are both on the temperance ques-
tion, and yet they are entirely separate
as though they were on different subjects
and there can be no question
of the legal right of every voter to vote
for or against both amendments, or for
one and against the other. 1t seems to
some of us the essence of inconsistency
that any man should want to vote for
both these propositions, since they are so
to each other. Yet if any
man is minded to vote for both, no one
can question his legal right to do it, how
ever much we may doubt his consistency.
Both these propositions involve the re-
ent constitution. What now do they
propose in it's stead? The first PROPOSE
tion reads as follows:
''The General Assembly shall regulate the
against evils resulting therefrom; and its power
to levy taxes or assessments thereon is not lin
tied by any provision of this constitution"
In other words, it proposes to give the
legislature unlimited power to legislate
concerning the liquor traffic, except that
it cannot prohibit. Under this amend
ment the legislature may license, tax, or
regulate in any form or to any degree it
chooses, but it can only ''regulate'-ith has
no authority to prohibit. Under the
present constitution some forms of local
prohibition in towns and villages have
been possible, and have been pronounced
by the supreme court constitutional
For instance, the McConnelsville Ordi-
nance stood unchallenged as to its consti-
tutionality for twenty-three years, until
the legislature practically repealed it.
And during its existence as law, it was
very efficient in the towns and villages
that took advantage of its provisions to
adopt local prohibition. But whatever
power the present constitution gives for
local prohibition, this first proposition
would take away, placing as it does all
power in the hands of the legislature, and
specifying that they can only regulate"
the traffic. In plain words, this first
proposition proposes to put the control Of
the liquor traffic in the hands of the leg
islature, and it very carefully lets dorm
for them the bars on the road to license,
so that they may license the traffic if they
will, but it just as carefully puts up the
bars on the road to prohibition so that
however strong temperance legislature
we might elect, they could not prohibit,
since this first amendment would limit
their power to the regulation" of the
traffic. Is there any doubt whether such
an iniquitous proposition as this is on
Gods side or against Him, or whether the
man who advocates and votes for such a
proposition is gathering with God or
scattering abroad?
The legislative control idea is the blind
est thing in policy and the most unjust
thing in principle. Men talk of it as d
policy measure. They say, 1--WE want
to get the temperance question out Of
politics, by putting it in the hands of the
Legislature" This is surely the very way
to get the temperance question into poll
tics, and to keep it there as fermenting
political question from year to year
through all the future. This first propo-
sition would settle nothing. One Assem-
bly, would adopt certain measures of reg
ulation that the next Assembly would re-
scind. Every two years We would have
great political battle for mem
bers of the Legislature that would legis-
late to suit us (as nearly as the Constitu-
ton allowe0 on this question. This first
proposition, which was designed to take
the temperance question out of politics,
will if adopted keep the temperance ques-
ton as the fermenting political question
of all future campaigns, so that no gov
ernmental question that may arise, how
ever important, can receive its just share
of attention, because the yexed temper
nee question will never be settled.
Then, too, we say that legislative con-
- do1orofipr If Icoc oil