Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1885-09-17


whose party Is anthoritatively stated to
be not Tor and not against Prohibition,
aud wholly taking this position, Is put
Into the place Of the sandwich man of
politics, and who Is under obligation to
carry las other sandwich men dol a
iplacafd to be read over the Rhine In Gin
eInnati against Prohibition, and another
behind to be read in oberlin for Prohi-
Mr.. Sherman indicts the Supreme
Court Of Ohio for having nullified the
Scott law by a partisan judicial de-
eision,n y .They promised the liquor
dealers decision refunding the tax col
lected, but got out of this by another
partisan decision. he slG', By their
acts the Scott law is o dead letter, and
according to their partisan judicial de-
cisions there is no power In the Legisla-
ture TO either prohibit orltax the sale of
liquor.n "s'-Erpl I
And his astonishing and shameful
remedy is, to- nullify these so-called
| partisan Judicial decisions" by the
election of Republican Judges that will
construe the constitution of the State on
the side of temperance and good ORDER
There was once Sherman in Ohio, and
his name Is dear to every lawyer In the
State, who adorning the bench Of the
Supreme Court Of Ohio, would have
been chosen for the purpose of deciding
iin any particulardirection, and who, if
teleeted would have refused to sit In q
case in which he had expressed pre-
vious opinion. This great and good
mans son now unblushingly appeals for
the election of a partisan judiciary, and
challenges the present Court for parti-
sanship whose conduct is in thehighest
degree creditable to that dignifed and
Impartial body, because it SO scrupu-
lously avoided the suspicion OF appear
ance of partisanship. What did the
Supreme Court of Ohio do? How did IL
treat the Scott law question? That
question has been before it four times.
First, In the case of King vs Cappeller,
it refused to decide because the ques-
tion argued was not presented by the
record. See A o. S. 2lS. Second, in
the case of of Butzman VS. Whitbeck, Al
i 0. s. 223, it decided that, the Scott law
was license law so far as it provided
for lien on real estate, and unconstitu-
: ttional in amy other respect, because the
question argued was not presented by
the record, Thirdly, in the case of the
] tStatevs Sinks, Al o. s. 245, the question
being at last presented by the record
the Court held the Scott law wholly un-
constitutional because, in legal effect,
it was a license law, without deciding
because the law did not, require it)
whether any other law could be passed
I for the taxation of the traffic in intoxi-
: eating liquors; and fourthly,r the court
has decided in a case, which sstill
pending OH q petition for rrehearing,
} that the money paid under the Scott
law can not be recovered back.
One Of The ablest and purest men in
Ohio, a member of the Supreme Court
E who was largely concerned in these de-
j cisions, has, since they were rendered
: the curreht political debate to indulge
for d moment in tie sorrow feelat the
! loss of one of the best lawyers iof the
, present age; one of the5Ttruest friends
! and one of the noblestu gentlemen IN
2 OHIO iho'T TM5,Jgdge John w W. sO)kkey. nam Ia b
: On this record I claim for the Su
> preme Court Of. Ohio the indorsemen
: Of every Just and righ thinking man II
Z the State. 1tthas proceeded with dig
: nifty and acted with. prudence and wis
u INDIGNANT IT, hoo randarod no tnarti
y san indicial decis;on;, whatavpar. re
~ mains fnr tha paw t,onrt T to he create,
d IN the neonla lif fheviin9nrse Mr. Sher
y man IS speech, to indulge in what h
action viz. the constrnction Of The Con
= stitution of the State in favor Of wha
d ha calls .ttam naroyy and onnd orders
t-iwhereas II III Dar1 ocratic % rartv @ s,,ccee,
# In 9TH ai,,ina n didates fnr IndUas
81 the constifntion will he CONSUMED In nc
= ooulance' with law. and, NOT bv any paI
II tisan rule whatever, The Constitution
y Of the State of Ohio, regarding taxatio
y to be upon property, according to it
S,1 money value. 0 forbids, bya strong i'm
l1i 1iplicationt the arbitrary taxation of am
I'd of the functions of property. a The taxa
tion of the sale of LIQUOR. is Just as con
80 stitutional, and lust as unconstitutions
y as the taxation Of the sale Of a farm 4
+ a railroad n The Supreme Court of tn
- United States has twice decided tbs
u u the taxation of the sale of, property is
% % taxation of the property ITSELF Brow
u VS. MARYLAND II Wheaton, 4l9; .Welto
=. VI Missouri! 9i United States, 275.H9 z
txb tits familiar law. as leyeryi lawye
"a knows that under the law of wills th
gift ofthe income arising from propert
g : Is Isl eift Of The property Itself. For thes
If " reasons It has always seemed clear /
- Inv mind that this taxation Of he sal
u of fliduor. as if It were ain entity or sui