The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1883-01-28
In Trouble.

The Republicans OF Ohio are IN q dilein-
ma they were defeated 10 disastrously
hast year-and defeated, as they suppose,
because OF their attempt 10 regulate si'e
nouor traffic-that they are trying to de-
wise scheme whereby they may save the
marty from defeat this year. II they yie'u
to the clamor Of the liquor-dcalers the tenn
pcrancc-men will desert the party. III tney
attempt TO fan in with the measures p'o-
posed by the temperance-men' the "luo'-
dealers will desert them in 1883, as they
did In 1882. II they shirk the question:
both sides will be dissatisfied and on e'ec-
tion.day there will be many absences from
the yoting.placcs.
A few days ago number OF the leading
Republicans met together In Columbus, ahd
had n pow-wow. There were speeches
made. long and short. and letters written
and read. Governor FOSTER, Lieutenant
Governor RICHARDS, Senator SHERMAN
General NASH, General MOVES, CHARLES ii.
SRosvESoR, and others, were either present
or else participated in the conference oy iet-
ter. AS far, however, as we can learn from
the published reports OF what was said
and done, there was no conclusion reacheo
which was even by the participants re-
parded rs at all satisfactory. There was
too much diversity Of opinion as TO what
was most expedient. A few counsehed
war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt'
Others proposed to LET the party down easy
nv submitting to the people nothing more
than the question OF the repeal OF the con-
stitu,ional provision which forbids any
licenses to be granted in Ohio Tor the
a,le OF liquor. Mr.. SHERMAN doubted
whether any constitutional law taxing
,,ouor-seIlers could be framed so long
no ,bis rroyision remains in the Constitu-
tiou of Ohio. MuRAT HALsTEAD is one OF
the Fabians who propose to settle this year
only one questionable one last above men,
tioned-that is, as to removing that provi-
sion from the Constitution. This, how
over, he confesses to be merely prelimi-
nary question. Having disposed OF the
obstructive constitutional provision, Mr..
UAIsTsAp would proceed TO tax liquor
dealers as they are taxed in Virginia ana
other States, where there is no attempt 10
prohibit the liquor-traflic, but merely an
attempt TO regulate IL.
By the way, the constitutional provision
so much talked Of, and to get rid OF which
some OF the Ohio Republicans now pur-
pose to devote all their efforts, affords re-
markable example OF an invention return
ed to plague the inventor. II has operated
exactly contrary to the manner in which II
was intended and expected to operate. 1t
provides that no license to sell liquors
shall be granted in Ohio, the object Of
course being to prohibit absolutely the sale
OF liquors in that State. But the re-
suit has been, as we have said, to
legallze liquor-selling all over that State
by anybody and everybody who chooses to
engage in it, and to guarantee this privi-
lege to everybody without any considera-
ton, The state receives not dime for
the privilege. All that the supposed pro-
hibitory feature of her Constitution does
is TO relieve the liquor-sellers Of that tenn
perance State from all taxation upon their
occupation.
Whatever else the Republicans may do,
we presume that they VIII at least unite
upon the policy OF making the liquor-deal-
ers pay part of the expenses Of the gov
eminent OF the State.