The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1883-06-21
rFor the Jackson Standard j


ments to the Constitution. The judicial
amendment is all right, and should re-
ceive the affirmative vote of every voter
irrespective of any political preferences.
With regard to the two proposed amend
ments on the temperance question, the
second is fair, square proposition, and
should receive the votes of all who de-
sire entire and absolute prohibition.
The only difficulty is in regard to the
first of these amendments. The effect of
the adoption of this amendment, is to
render license possible, and prohibition
impossible. 1t takes away the present
constitutional inhibition, and provides
for regulation only, and by strong impli-
cation at least, forbids prohibition. Now
this regulation may be attempted by Ii
cense, taxation, or any other device that
the General Assembly may resort to !;
that is the drink traffic may be regulated
but not prohibited.
The language of this proposition is
adroit, seductive and misleading Many
suppose that it means simply to give the
General Assembly full power to legislate
people already talk about what they are
pleased to call Legislative control" when
in fact it is only legislative control to
regulate, and not to prohibit. If legisla-
tive control was intended, why limit this
control to regulation only-why not ex-
tend it to prohi6itio11 also? If legislative
control was the object, why not simply
| oh 70 tho if11ti al
vision without any further amendment,
and so remit the whole subject matter to
to the General Assembly which would
then have the power to deal with it by
regulation, taxation, prohibition or any
other means as it might deem advisable
or proper??
Much stress is laid on the word "shall,'
in the belief that under their oaths to
support the Constitution, the members of
the General Assembly would feel them
selves obliged to provide for some sort of
regulation, but this proposition leaves
the matter too vague and indefinite, and
allows them to satisfy themselves with
any trivial legislation in the line of pre-
tended regulation, and permits them to
|
tionable method of regulation that could
be devised.
L am not discussing the principle of
taxing the liquor traffic, as to whether
such taxation is right or wrong, polite
or impolitic-I am stating the inevitable
result of the adoption of the first pro-
posed amendment. This proposition is
| o1oor1u iy, tho in+a Of hn drink
sellers, because if adopted, it removes the
present constitutional barrier, renders
license possible which is now impossible
and shuts the door against prohibition.
Many persons think that the present
provision in the Constitution authorizes
such legislation as would close every
drink shop in the State, while others
think it should be supplemented so as to
confer on the General Assembly full
power to provide against the evils result
ing from the use of and traffic in intoXi-
eating liquors, by taxation, prohibition OF
any other means except to license it; and
this, apprehend, is what most temper
ance men desire.
The next best thing is simply to remove
|
remit the whole subject to the General
Assembly. The worst thing is to adopt
the first proposition, and for the reasons
already given; that it is in the interests
of the drink-sellers, and that it renders
license not only possible but probable
and prohibition impossible.
do not for a moment suppose that
either of these propositions will be adopt
ed. The people will not, by the adoption
of the first proposition, relinquish what
they already have, in order to obtain an
uncertainty which might be used to thei1
disadvantage.
AS to the prohibition party as separate
one idea, that it would refuse to unite
with any other temperance party even on
an isolated clean-cut prohibitory PROPOSE
tion, even though no other issue were
presented. It must do everything by
itself, or it will do nothing; and since ii
will not assimilate or affiliate with any
other party to accomplish just what it is
unable to do by itself, it is so far, and by
SO much, an obstacle and an enemy tC
temperance reform.
The democratic party, as a whole, is
opposed to prohibition-opposed to any
sumptuary law; (Which it defines to be
any restraint on the drink-trafic0 and is
constantly pandering to the dram sellers,
the distilleries, and the breWeries, for
their support.
The republican party does not want to
license the traffic, but proposes to tax it.
This may possibly answer for regulation,
and should be vigorously and vigorously
applied until something more effectual
can be provided. In the mean time, and
while the people are deprived of their
power to some extent by constitutional
provision, they ought without regard to
parties, to suppress the evils of the traffic,
and should exercise that right by appro-
pirate legislation whenever they see fit
to do so. The same may be claimed as to
| licensing the traffic, but the claim cannot
be allowed, for as the traffic is nOraily q
crime and should be so legally, the cases
are not parallel; and what is wrong per
Sc, cannot be made right by legislation.
My conclusion is that every republican
and every temperance man ought to vote
against the first proposition, and for the
second. The latter may not carry but a
large vote in it's favor would stimulate
public opinion, and hasten the day when
prohibition will become possible.
j. w. LoNGBoN.