The Eaton Democrat. (Eaton, Ohio) 1875-1903, 1883-08-16
foi tic bcaioCidt
The Scott Liquor E.uw.
CAMDEN, Aug. 9th, 1888.

CAMDEN, Aug. 9th, 1888.
A careful investigation of the Scott
law will clearly convince the most
that it amounts TO nothing
as a temperance measure. 1t pur:
ports to be "a bill further providing
against the evils resulting from the
traffic in Intoxicating liquors." when
in reality it does not reach any OF
those evils" of which it complains.
The proof of this is clear. Any one,
except a blind fanatic or whose e
son has been shipwrecked on the
shoals of bigotry, may know this by
a careful perusal of the essential fea-
lures of the law. AS many readers of
the DEMOCRAT have not read the law,
no doubt, consequently know but lit
tie or nothing about it, 1 will give its
most prominent features. Upon the
business of traficing in intoxicating
liquors there shall be assessed yearly
$500. If a person sell malt or vinous
liquors, or both, he shall pay $780,
The revenue resulting under the pro-
visions of this act are distributed as
follows, to-wit: Three-fourths of the
money paid into the county treasury
shall, upon the warrant of the County
Auditor, be paid into the treasury of
such corporation-one-half to the
credit of the police fund, and one-half
10 the credit of the general revenue
fund thereof; when there is no police
fund the entire three-fourths shall be
passed to the general revenue fund
thereof. The other fourth goes to the
poor fund of such county. IT'S de-
clared unlawful to sell liquors, wheth-
er distilled, malt or vinous, on the
first day of the week, commonly call
ed Sunday, except by a regular drug
gist, OH the written prescription of q
regular practicing physician for med
ical purposes only. BY ordinance,
the Council of any municipal corpo-
ration has the right to regulate and
control the sale of beer and native
wine ON Sunday. Section 6944 as a
mended April 3, 1881, and Section
gal of the Revised Statutes of Ohio
are repealed. The real estate on which
the business is conducted is security
for the tax and all fines resulting from
a non-performance of duty.
The above is a brief analysis of the
Scott law which is to be an important
factor in the approaching election
and 1 must confess, L utterly fail to
comprehend wherein it provides a
gainst the evils of intemperance. 1t
looks like it is q virtual repeal of the
Sunday law in localities while every
person who can pay $500 has the priv
lego of making oil the drunkards he
can. The saloon-keeper is now pro-
tected where he was unprotected be-
fore, for It's now lawful to sell to be
drank on the premises. AS a temper
ance measure the old law from 1881
to 1851, previous to the adoption OF
the present constitution, was far su-
perior. Under that law, a vender OF
liquors had to pay a small license, and
before he could obtain the same, had
to prove himself to be of good moral
character; while under the Scott law
any characterless disreputable person
can engage in the liquor traffic, pro-
vided lie can raise the required o.
mount of tax-$20O. Will some Re-
publican who "points with pride"
please state what evil the Scott law
corrects? Is the number of saloons
perceptibly diminished! Is there any
less drunkenness, crime or disorder!
Is there any less drinking? The to-
tal number of saloons may be fewer,
but don't that give a monopoly ofthe
business to those who have been more
fortunate-to those who are able to
pay the tax? Is not such legislation
in favor the richand against the poor!
Hoadly in his Hamilton speech says
".that which is intrinsically or E Sc
wrong and sinful, L should have no
compromise with at all. When q
thing is not immoral PER Sc, but only
when abused, then the duty ofthe cit
liens is 10 protect against the abuse,
but not the legitimate use of that
thing" Hoadly's exposition of the
subject is clear and correct. 1t is not
immoral PER Sc 10 traffic in liquors OF
drink them. The wrong consists in
the abuse. Liquors are manufactured
fol, wholesome and legitimate pur-
poses, and every person has q natural
~indefeasible right to properly. use
them, and whenever a Legislature at
tempts to take this right away from
him, it is called sumptuary legisla-
tion-opposed by the Democratic par
(which is prescribing what and
how much of any thing a person shall
drink. But when q person drinks too
much-abuses his right-transgresses
the laws of the land, offends decency
and morality, tits right to punish him,
Do the Republicans regard the traffic
in liquors immoral PER Sc? Do they
regard the Scott law as q finality, OF
is it a step toward prohibition? Is
5000 the maximum of the tax or is il
the minimum? The law is of extreme
doubtful constitutionality, but OF
course we must all run to the decis.
ions of that august tribunal. A man
is taxed according to the amount OF
his property. An importer of goods
pays duty on the value of goods i'm.
ported. A man who owns $4,000
worth of property pays ten times as
much tax as his neighbor who is worth
only $1,000. Besides the inequality
and unjustness of the law Judge Okey
in his dissenting opinion says, "as the
Act of 1888 provides, in effect, that
the persons who submit to q tax Of
$500 year, and give real estate Sc,
curity for its payment, either as own,
ers or by written consent of the own
ers, shall have the exclusive right oil
selling alcoholic liquors to be drank
as a beverage at the place where sold
which was the only privilege Sc.
cured by a liquor license under Ii.
cense laws-such act is plainly and
necessarily q license law, and as such
unconstitutional, and the intirmity
destroys the whole act" 1t operates
at least, as q license, aud if "the con
stitutionality of u statute depends. up
OH lis operation and effect, and not Oh
the form it may be made TO assume
as the Court decided i'll the case oftht
State VS.. l1ipp, it is clearly unconsti
tutional and should have been SO held
The constitution declares mo license
to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall
hereafter be granted in this State, bu
the General Assembly may provide
by law against evils resulting there,
q 1850 NJ. - -