The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-04-20
THE OHIO LIQUOR LAW.

provides that a tax of 5000 year
shall be paid by every one engaged
in the traffic in intoxicants, except
that where beer and wine only are sold the
sum shall be but one hundred dollars. The
written consent of the owner of the building
must be had by any saloon tenant, and if
occupancy of building is continued without
such written consent the tenant is liable to a
fine of from $25 to 800, or to Imprisonment
in the county Jail for ten days, or both at
continuance by tenant upon premises with
out the owners consent is to be construed
as a separate offense. Saloon-keepers are re-
euired to furnish to the auditor of the
county a proper return of their places and
kind of business, and for failure or falsehood
in such return the assessment may be
increased from $175 to $3.50 year. The
revenues and fines accruing from the pro-
visions of the act are to be d1vded-three-
fourths going into the general fund, or, if
there is police fund, one-half OF the three
fourths into that fund, while the remaining
fourth goes into the poor fund of the county.
The sale of liquors in saloons on Sunday is
made illegal; but municipal corporations are
permitted 10 regulate the sale of beer and
wine on that day. and they are also given
the power to regulate, restrain and prohibit
ale, beer and porter-houses, and places of
habitual resort for tippling and intem-
perance. But if any municipal corporation
shall prohibit ale, beer and porter-houses
within the limits of such corporation rata
BILE proportion of the TAX paid by the pro.
prietors thereof for the unexpired portion of
the time shall be returned to the proprietors.
These are the principal provisions of this
act, which, it is hoped, will avoid the con-
stitutonal objections upon which the Pond
law was overthrow by the Supreme Court.
1t is to be noted that in the division of the
fund arising from its operations the Legisa-
ture of Ohio has recognized the relations of
| the liquor traffic to the criminal and pauper
public expenditures, and proposes that, to
some degree at least, the business shall bear
a share of the special burdens it imposes upon
the taxpayers.
The passage of this bill has occasioned no
lnconsiderable excitement in the State, ard
particularly in Cincinnati. 1t is of interest
to note the almost universal opposition to
the law on behalf of those engaged in the
liquor traffic, in view of the resolutions these
men adopt and the loud assertions they
make in favor of any kind of license law
and the payment of any reasonable fee.
Among a number of interviews published in
yesterdays Cincinnati Commercial Gazette,
there is one from Mr.. Herman Lackman.
stated to be lone of the most prominent
brewers in the city," Mr. Lackman is op-
tax too high, and that it should
be placed upon the amount of business
transacted, thus making its operation more
equitable to the smaller dealers. Yet after
expressing this opposition, Mr.. Lackman
frankly says:
"My experience runs that many of the
saloon-keepers are neither in favor of tax or
license. They simply want TO pay nothing
at all. 1t seems so funny to me that they
are always talking about license, Just as
though they were generally in favor of it.
Now, the question of licensing saloons was
submitted to the people of Ohio twice, and
twice it was defeated The temperance peo-
pie alone did not do that. Saloon-keepers.
many of them, | know, that voted against
license because--well, they were not willing
to run the risk of paying tax at some future
time. And if license were submitted again
before the people of the State it would again
be defeated, and for the same reasons. This
talk about the Republican party being fanat-
ical is all nonsense. The Democrats are just
as bad Temperance has nothing to do par
ticularly more with one party than the
other"
We commend the words of Mr.. Lackman
to careful consideration. He tells the truth
and tells it frankly; a truth demonstrated by
the history of the liquor traffic at all times
and under all circumstances. Saoon-keep-
ers are not in favor of paying anything if
they can help it, and it is not human nature
to expect them to be. Therefore it is an
assumption of a virtue simply from necessity
when they talk of favoring tax. They
favor tax when there is danger
of something worse, but nnder
no other consideration. And it is we'll, also,
to note what Mr.. Lackman says as to the
relations of parties to the temperance qnes-
ton. The regulation Of the liquor traffic is
not partisan question, and should not be
made one, especially not by action of the
liquor men, as they very foolishly did in
this State, and, as they will find out, sooner
or later, greatly to their damage.
Rev. DR.. Walden, leading prohibitionist,
accepts the Scott law as the best practicable
thing now attainable, and, while it is not
what he desires, he does not think it wise to