McCook weekly tribune. (McCook, Neb.) 188?-1886, 1884-12-25

At last the supreme court hA
knocked the Scott liquor tax law lnte
smithereens by declaring it unconstt
tutional. Prescriptions as 1t may
seem in Iaymen to criticise the learned
Judges who made the decision, there
are. nevertheless, very many IN peer.
brewing, beer-selling, and, one mlgh'
add. beer-swilling Cincinnati VINO
deeply deplore and vigorously dls-
approye of that decision. Had tne
court been unanimous in its DECISION
it's act would have been respectfully
regretted, and that would have been
the end of it. But it was not unanl-
nous. Three democratic judges con-
Cured in the opinion that it was I'M
constitutional. Two republican judges
dissented, but they gave no dissenting
opinion. Their departure from this
timed hOnored custom of giving
reason for their dissent has been at
tributed by republican paper at Co
lumbus to the supposed fact that the
decision of the majority of the court
was agreed upon, and their opinion
was written out, before the minority
were notified, and that after they were
notified the decision of the court was
speedily promulgated. The Judges
s,f the supreme court have not thought
fit to say whether or not this suspicion
was well grounded, and probably they
will remain silent ON that point. Here
in Cincinnati the common people.
without respect to party, criticize the
court for holding back their decision
on the case since last August, and
then selecting the eve of the presiden-
tial election for announcing it. Re-
publicans charge the court with being
actuated by partisan motives, and say
that the decision was intended to be
a sort OF campaign document. Demo-
Gratis who regret the decision speak of
the conduct of the court as damaging
blunder. Many men among the demo-
Gratis, principally lawyers, say the
decision was Il sound one. AS to tho
salOOn-keepers and brewers, the ma
iority of them are pleased with the
result. A very respectable minority
of them deeply regret the decision and
greatly dread the consequences. The
Out-and-out prohibitionists all rejoice
over it. They have always been OPP
posed to the Scott law; and to any
and every other law that countenanced
the traffic in intoxicating liquors in any
shape. As everybody knows, the con-
stitution of the state of Ohio forbids
licensing of traffic in Intoxicating
liquors, but authorizes the legislature
to provide measures for regulating the
traffic in liquors, and providing against
the 'evils arising therefrom. The
statutes of Ohio before the enactment
of the Scott law were virtually pro-
hibitory, but they were not generally
enforced. In fact, they were defied
in all the great cities. Most of the
qnasi-prohibitory laws were repealed
by the Scott law. There were one or
two unimpOrtant exceptions in which
former laws ON the subject were en-
bodied in the Scott law. Now arises
the qeustion, since it has been de-
clared unconstitutional, whether that
act of the supreme court does not re-
Tlve all of these stringent laws that
he Scott law repealed. And if it does
'evive them, the next query is whether
he people of Ohio in their present
emper will not be more generally
Inclined to enforce these stringent
avs. The feeling that the liquor traffic
hould be subject to stringent restric-
ion and regulation has been growing
apidly in Ohio. That the wiping out
# the Scott law, which was popular
aw in Cincinnati, and for that matter
n the whole state, will intensity that
ceiling, is pretty generally believed.
everybody expects now, with more
r less dread, several years agitation
the liquor question in Ohio, and no.
ody can fortell where it will end.
he Scott law was framed to avoid
ne form which proved fatal to it's
PREDECESSOR, 1.-The Pound law'-that
license. 1t was on the very same
round-namely, that it was virtually
license law-that the supreme court
st Thursday decided the Scott law
nconstitutional.-Neo0 York Cor. Bos-
10 Herald.