The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1883-08-07

" "~vVvVOVs
fHtF 4" 20 '"uf- sa ST. iit1''1 III
- z % II. q = -....i..
- T-TTz-FF 77-rT = TT77 -=7-7T = II
: AUGUST Z, 1889.
:. !.
tipping houses. and d dealer in liquors
was taxed, in addition to the license fee
exacted By the general government, 10
the same way as q grocer or like dealer,
and not otherwise. fbe leading and far
most important statntofy inhibition then |
In force. was the provision, which was.
directed against the sale Of spirtuous
liquors by theGdrink. Bvforce of that
provision. which had retained substan-
italy the same form, during our entire
existence as state and portion OF our
existence as territory-a period, in
deed, Of ninety years-it was crime,
and punishable as such, for any one not
licensed to sell spirituons liquors by the
drink; and, Of course, since 1851, the
inhibition has been general, for mo- IL
tcense could d.oonstjtn,ionalIy exfstf Tru6
lin, portione Of the State the provision
lssainstFsuch ssies, liks. that against pro.
fame swearing, and some others, was not
strictly enforced, but In other parts OF
the State it was enforced. and official re.
ports will show that the convictions ID
the Safe, outside of the large cities,
for such illegal sales have, for several
years, greatly outnumbered the convic.
tions for any other offense.
And this historical review brings me
to the consideration of the act OF 1888
$50 Ohio l. l64), and to- the determi-
nation of the question as to its consti-
tutionaIity. The act provides for an as
sessment upon the business of traffic
ing in intoxicating liquors. - ,5.s T.
The amount of this assessments two
hundred dollars year where the person
is engaged in the general traffic in liq.
uors, and one hundred dollars q year
where the traffic j, confined to malt and
vinous liquors. The persons 80 assessed
are those who carry on such traffic 10
premises OF which they are owners, and
those who, not being owners, carry on
such traffic on the premises OF others
With their consent In writing. All 9th.
ers carrying on such traffic. are engaged
in an unlawful business, and punishable
criminally therefor. The statutes i'm
90 ing restrictions upon the traffic re-
main, in their general features, the same
as before the passage Of the act Of 1888,
except in certain par tticuiars. Municipal
corporations have, under this act, power
to prohibit, whereas before they only
had power to regulate, beer, ale, porter
and trlppling houses; but II is provided
that "if any municipal corporation shall
prohibit, ale, beer, and porter houses
within the limits Of such corporation, 3
ratable proportion Of the tax paid by
the proprietors thereof for the uuexpired
portion OF the year, shall be returned to
such proprietors, 80. This provision
was doubtless suggested hy the remarks
of Ba,tley. j. in Hirn ps The State,
supra, in which he speaks of refunding
in cdse Of the revocation Of l:quor Ii
'cense. Power 8. ems also to be. granted
to municipal. corporations to sup nd
the operation of The statute prohibiting
the sales Ut liquors on Sunday. Blu. the
great and important change mpte in tie
Legislation on the subject. is that the
provision against the sale of spirituous
liquors by the drink, which hal remain.
ed 10 force so long that no man now
living can remember when it wa, enact
ed. is in terms repealed by the act of
1881. II that act is valid, it will here
a'ter he as lawful for one taxed as q
dealer in liquors to sell brandy TO be
druuk as beverage at the place where
it is sold, as to sell wine for medicinal
or even sacrament,l purposes and if It
is true that there are five thousand such
tsxd persons, it follows ths. there are
five Thousand places in Ono where spir.
itnous liqi,rs are lawfully sold by the
drink, whereas for more than thirty years
before the passage Of thi, act, there had
not been one such place in all the State
These remarks are made in no censor
lou, spirit. but solely for the purpose OF
showing that the act under consideration
is, in its operation and effect, a license
Law. for agree that the legislature is
the sole Judge as to the form and even
justice OF it's legislation, il no provision
OF the Constitution is infringed.
In the discussion of The Stats us. Hipp,
and also in the consideration of these
cases, it was ably and zeaIously argned
that the trainers of the Constitution,
who prepared the provision here under
consideration, and the people who rati-
fed it, must have had in their minds the
license granted and issued under the act
OF 1881, and none other, and hence that
statute upon the subject which did not
in terms provide for granting and issuing
such license, in substantially the same
way as un Ter the act of 1881. cannot
be in conflict with the constitutional pro.
vision against licenses THIS view was
evidently adopted by the Gener I As.
sembly. as a fair Interpretation Of the
Constitution, in the passage of the &C:
of 1888 But that this construction OF
the Constitution would render the inhi-
bition practically nugatory. and there.
fore is erroneous, was distinctly decided
in TIE &1te -. RiPp. and | Understand
the msjority opinion to approve that de
cision, and to reject the view of the Con-
sti,utional provision which seems to
have met the approval of the legislature.
True, the Judge delivering the opinion
refers to passages in The State -. Hipp.
in which the act Of 1882 is said to be
with certain exceptions) prohibitory
liquor law as to all dealers failing to-
comply with its terms, and it ia claimed
that this was the ground Upon which the
act Of 1882 wss held to be invalid. But
with great respect for the opinion of the
maj ,rity. l must be permitted to say
that this is very misleading. We never
had in this State prohibitory liquor
law. The act Of 1882 permitted the
sale Of liquors for medicinal and me-
chanical purposes. and that act was pro.
hibitory, with these exceptions, as to all
persons who failed to comply with its
terms; but every person had the right
to comply with the conditions, and there
by obtain the privilege OF freely traffic.
ing In liquors, with the restrictions i'm
posed by the statute. The act of 1888