Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1884-11-06
Decision OF the Supreme Court on the
Sc0ft Law.

Decision OF the Supreme Court on the
Scott Law. 7r
The Supreme Court rendered decis-
ion upon the Scott law cases submitted
for its consideration one week ago That
decision is that the enactment is contrary
to the Constitution of the State, and
therefore invalid. There was no such
feverish desire to know the result as
was manifested Oh former occasions
when the same question was to be de-
cided. A few interested persons were in
che court chamber, but standing room was
not at premium. lf
Chief Justice Johnson after announc-
ing the decision OF. the Court in several
minor cases, gave way to Judge 0key
who briefly announced that the case of
Ohio on relation of George w. -Conrey vs.
David Sinks, Treasurer of Miami county,
mandamus, had been decided by tue ma
jority of the Court in favor of the de-
fendant. This was a petitioR in maDda-
mus to compel the Treasurer to receive
the liquor assessment. which be refused
to do Oh the ground that the law was
unconstitutional. The Court held that
such was the case and refused to grant
the writ of mandamus.
Judge Okey also said that in the cases
of Morris Mayer VS.. George Beck. Treas
urer of Franklin county, John Brodber-
ger vs.. Charles A. Miller. Treasurer Of
Hamilton county, and Charles Missar ct
al. VS.. H. A. Whitbeck. Treasurer of Guy
ahoga ceunty. all of which had been af-
frmed by the District Court making the
tax collectable, the judgment of thslower
Court had been reversed. He said the
ground for reversing these decisions was
the same as in the Sinks ease-the un>
constitutionslity of the law. lc.i
Chief Justice johnson announced that
he and Judge MeIlvaine dissented from
the opinion of the majority of the Court.
and would in due time give dissenting
opinion. i7" s-i7fi
The syllabus is as follows:
The State of Ohio on relation of John
w. Conrey VS.. David Sinks. Treasurer
of Miami county. MaDdamus. By
the Court, Okey. Owen and FOlles
(Judges) concurriRg- i.s ..i,
1. The act of 1883. commonly called
amended in 1854 (S1 Ohio Laws, 204), so
So - far
tate occupied by . tenant who Is dealer
in liquors, is in effect q license law with
in the inhibition Of the 18th section Of
the schedule to the Constitution which
provides that mo license to traffic in in
toxicating liquors shall hereafter be
granted in this State.' and is therefore
void. The State W. Hipp. 50 Ohio State
199, and Bulzman W. Whitbeek, decided
by this Court June II, 1884, followed and
-aE9-a lsaeau fI1-ra
2. Inasmuch as it is plainly unreason-
able and improbable that the General
Assembly would have passed the Scott
law with the provision giving lien for
the tax on premises occupied by tenants,
eliminated therefrom, the whole act, so
far AS il provides fer an assessment or
tax, is unconstitutional and void. The
State vs. Frame and Benner Bauder.
80, Ohio State, 800, oyerruled. Writ of
refused. Johnson C. j. and
McIlvaine J. dissented.
1t will be seen by reading the syllabus
given above that the majority OF the
Court holds the law to be unconstita-
tioual on account of its license or lien
feature. The opinion of the majority,
Judges Okey, Follett and Owen, was
furnished the press this afternoon, but
it is quite lengthy and contains nothing
but what is contained in the above. In
it the Judges assign their reasons for
holding the law to be unconstitutional
and reafirm the opinions herstofore
given by Judge 0ksy in the Pond and
Scott law cases. .,s5
The cases were argued before the
Court by all of the attorneys on the tive
first, whether the State has
4 right under the constitution 10 tax or
make assessments on the liquor traffic.
and second, whether the making of these
comes under the inhibition
,f the constitution against license. These
were not considered at all
,y the majority of the court. Their de-
.ision really says thst inasmuch as the
,ourt last June declared one section OF
he law invalid. hence the act is uncon-
titutional. They also argue that the
.ct would never have been passed by the
legislature IL It's iein feature had been
eft out. This Is in brief the synopsis OF
he opinion of the majority.
Judges johnson and McIlyaine will
'ery probably argue in their dissenting
,pinion the view Of the case expressed
.boye, rs they hold that the majority
ave second time lodged the real ques-
ion, and have not acted upon the queS-
ion whether the State has right or not
o make assessments on the liquor traf>
e. They will give their views ON this
ssue, rs they bold that 1t was the real
uestion to come before the court and
hat it was not the proviHce OF the court
0 act upon the question In backhanded
gay. Their dissenting opinions will not
Q given out for several days, owing to
udge johnson having . sore hand
Dispatch, Oct. -.