Morning journal and courier., 1883-06-28
Thursday, June 2S. 1883.
THE OHIO LIQUOR LAW.

THE OHIO LIQUOR LAW.
 The Supreme court of Ohio has decided that the Scott liquor law is constitutional. The constitution of Ohio declares that ''no license in intoxicating liquors shall be grant ed in this State, but the general assembly may by law provide against the evils result ing therefrom." The legislature of 1882 passed a law known as the Pond law, which was set aside soon after it's enactment as be- ing in effect license law, though one of it's sections declared that the act should not ''be construed or held to authorize or license in any way the sale of intoxicating liquors" In it's decision concerning the Pond law the court pointed out that as selling liquor was not prohibited by the constitution its sale was not unlawful when not forbidden by statute, and that while the legislature could not license the traffic it could tax it. The chief feature of the Pond law was the impo- sition of tax of $500 on all keepers of liq- uor saloons. The present law imposes 8 tax of $1OO year on the sale of wine and beer, and $2O0 on the sale of wine, beer and liquors, and provides that in case dealer gives up the ibusiness during the year pro rata share of the tax paid shall be refunded. The act was carefully framed with view to meeting the objections of the Supreme court to the provisions of the Pond law.
 The decision in favor of the Scott law will encourage the Republicans, who boldly and consistently stood by their principles without waiting for the decision of the court. Judge Foraker, the Republican candidate for gov ernor, is reported as saying: ''It's only what expected. I have been of the opin ion all along that the law is constitutional. I read with care the briefs on both sides, and while the points made against the law were able, was satisfied they were not well taken This is wholly independent of any per sonal interest in the question. I have not had so keen personal interest in the ques- tion as many imagine, for have not regard ed 1t as important to the campaign. My idea has been that it is the principle of taxing the liquor traffic that was at stake and not this the situation, though they were not surprised by the decision, for the attorneys for the saloon keepers who were fighting the law gave up hope some time ago. As the New York Times says: The decision leaves the Democratic party in asomewhat awkward po- sition with regard to the main issue of the canvass. It anticipated making considerable capital out of failure of the law to stand the constitutional test, and the heav- fest charge has been drawn from it's campaign guns. The practical effect of the law will be to draw considerable revenue for the State, from the liquor traffic, without imposing any serions burden upon il, and to that extent tightening the pressure of gene9al taxation. This result will naturally workfn favor of the Republicans. Moreover, 1t will be set down to their credit that in spite of the re- strictions of the constitution they have de- vised practical method of regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors and deriving a revenue from it, which is in itself moderate and reasonable.
 The law finds it's greatest opposition among the Germans and smaller saloon keepers. Liquor selling has been unre- stricted for so long in Ohio-more than swenty-fve years-that it is hard for those who have engaged in it to see the need of now.