Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1883-08-30

tainly knew all thi and yet he talks IL
cense law as though one could be picked
up at his bidding. II us true that un
der the first amendment submitted, anC
to be voted on this fall, should it be rat
ified. the Legislature would be author
lied to enact license law; but Judge
Hoadly tells us in his Piqua speech that
he will not vote for that amendment
and in this he is backed by the Liquor
Dealers Convention, which met in To
ledO ON the 9th inst. | suppose theil
reasons are that it gives authority to tax
as well as license the traffic.
Judge Hoadly, in his Plqua speech
tells his hearers that the Senate last
winter passed constitutional amend
ment (which was a square license prop.
oSitiOn," and denounced the Republi
cans of the House for voting against it.
but did not tell them that this PROPOSE
tion came to the House some three OF
four days after the first amendment,
which authorizes the granting of Ii
cense as we'll as taxation, had been sub
mitted to the people for their ratiica-
tion or rejection. Judge Hoadly knew
very we'll that the Republicans of the
House, whatever their views were ON
the subject, could not vote to submit a
proposition which was substantially
covered in one already submitted with
out stultifying themselves. They were
willing to let their record rest on this
subject, as il was made on the Bargar
proposition days before either of the
amendments were submitted.
The Democratic party in their plat
form declare also i'll favor of license,
and against sumptuary laws, two propo-
sitions rather incOngruouS. But that
don't matter. If they had declared in
favor of the first proposed amendment,
and showed a desire and willingness to
make it possible under the Constitution
to get license law then some confidence
might be placed in their sincerity. Two
years must necessarily pass away before
another amendment can be submitted,
yet Judge Hoadly and the leaders of the
Democratic party would demOlish the
tax system, which is working so accept
ably and efficiently. long before there is
any possibility of testing or adopting
the license system, which they propose.
1t seems to me that all this talk about a
license system is pretensp, the real OBJ
ject being return to free trade and let
the traffic go scot free.
1t is amusing to hear our Democratic
friends talk about ''sumptuary laws" and
personal liberty of the citizen The
law of 1854, passed by the Democratic
party, provided that liquor should not
be drank on the premises where sold. If
it were the seller should be fined or put
in prison, or both, at the discretion of
the Court Now, the result of this law
was that every person who drank glass
of liquor became an alder, if not an abet-
ter. with the saloon-keeper in the viola
tiOn of the law, or take his glass out on
the street or in an alley and drink it.
How was that for "sumptuary law"
and, where was the personal liberty of
the citizen" to drink when and where he
pleased? This was "sumptuary" law !;
and, If it had not been Il dead letter,
might have broken up the retail trade
at saloons to great extent. l only
mention it to show the bunc0mbe of the
Democratic party in the harangues
about "sdmptuary laws" and personal
liberty of the citizen.
1t is alleged that, while the tax law
may be good for revenue, it has not de-
ere sed the number of saloons in the
State. If this were so it would show
that the saloons are not oppressed by
the tax. But this is net SO. Statistics
show that, under the OF GRAFTON of the
law, over one thousand saloons have
been closed in the State. If it had not
been for the payment of the tax for
many others by the brewers Judge
II Al,Y', al1 frN ho nh. fol
mortgages on their fixtures and house
hold goods to keep themselves safe. more
would have been closed. Judge HOadly
gives us in his Hamilton speech one of
the reasons why he is opposed to the
tax system and in favor of license. He
saws: II believe in license system be
cause know that the control which So
ciety exercises over the abuses of the
traffic is far greater under judicious
license system than under the Scott
Bill"
| would like to know what control so
ciety could have over the abuse of the
traffic under the license system. "Un-
der the old licence system in Ohio" Mr..
Hoadly says: "lf man kept a bad and
disorderly house he could not get his IL
uor to children, minors or drunkards,
when he came before the Court of Com
mon Pleas for renewal of his license,
would be liable to have his license taken
away"
Now, that was rather light punish
ment for keeping disOrderly house and
selling liquor to children, drunkards and
persons in the habit of getting drunk.
The Scott Law provides that if a man
sells to minor or person who is in
the habit of getting drunk, or who is
drunk, shall be fined not less than S25
and put in Jail not less than five days.
And, again, there is not an additional
society can pat on the traffic
under the license system, except that
under license system i, could take
away the license of the salOOn-keeper
and shut up his saloon for the infraction
of law, and under the tax system it can
only shut it up, there being no license to
take away. This is about the difference
there is between tweedledum and twee-
dledee. If Judge Hoadly wants laws
still more restrictive, that plants the
iron heel on offenders" as he declared at
Hamilton, he can have them under the
tax system, and the Constitution, AS it
now stands, will not be in his way ei
ther. But don't let us do as 4EsUp's dog
did let go Of the ham of meat for the
shadow that we can never get.
TIE New York Tribune hits the nail
on the head when 1t SAYS: Two con
combine to make the Demo
cratic leaders very gloomy as they think
of 'S4. These are, first. their inability
to elect the old ticket; second, their ina
bility to prevent any new ticket that
they may agree on from being defeated"
THE Boston Post rebukeS one of its
Democratic cotemporaries in The fol -
lowing convincing style: THE voice of
the Memphis Avalanche is still for
HaOpnpE in 1891 If thn 4 AValnuphp