Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1885-08-14
TnE SCOTT LIQUOR LAW.
Was 1t Unconstitutional or Not-Tha
Is the Question.


The oppnenls to the defnnct Scott lov
declare that tax npon liquor selling is
effect license and therefore nnconsulu
lional. In that case any md every la
levying tax upon the traffic would be ~
constitutional. Is that the intent of IL
constitution? We do not think so. TIL,
constitution says:
No license 10 traffic in intoxicating hguo,
shall hereafter be granted in This stale b.
The general assembly may By iaw propid
against the eriis resulting ihe1efrom.
Tha! is all there Is upon the subject 1,
the constitution, and, II VIII he observed
the language is not prohibitory OF the traf
fic or Intended 80 to be. 1t does not max,
the traffic unlawful. In effect, the consli
tuition recognizes the traffic as lawful
business with some bad features requiring
regulation. II does not say the business
shall not be carried on in the state. 1t doe
not intend that it shall not be, or expec
that it will not lie conducted. The mani
fest Intention was to leave the question
in vocuo for future consideration by th,
people, and the legislature was therefor
instructed not to give the traffic, by license
status IL conld not otherwise obtain.
By granting license, which is permission
the legislature would declare in the Gas,
of liquor selling that ii was lawful ami
proper business, which il does not do in
the case of selling groceries or editing q
newspaper. Any such protection or rec
ognition by the legislature the constitution
prohibited. Having in effect recognized
the lawful existence Of the traffic, the
people turned il over to the legislature to
regulate. "But the general assembly," etc
The word "but" never had greater OF
more apparent Significance than as used in
the above connection. As there used il
admits the existence and lawfulness of the
traffic, and bases what follows upon these
conceded fncts From these considera-
tons II IL arpnrent that the traffic needed
no permission or license to enable thos,
engaged in il TO do business. Is il likely
that the legislature would seek to licensr
business that din't require any licens,
and which under the constitntion conldn'i
have any license? Why, then, declare, a,
the opponents of the Scott law do, that 'in
effect" the tax law licensed business thai
DIDN'T need and couldn't get license2
Why, then, insist that the legislature in
tended TO perpetrste an ahsurdity and an
impossibility at the same time, when there
| was nothing in the Scott act 10 show that
they'so intended? The whole theory Of
the supreme court decision IL based upon
the assumption that in levying the tax
the Legislature gave the traffic recogni-
tion and standing it did not have before.
| ls there any warrant for that assumption?
| There Ia not. Does the levying of a tax
upon the business or stock of merchant
give him permission to do business? Ger
tainly not. And why not? Because he
does not need any such permission. Un-
der the constitution does the saloon
keeper need any permission that is not re-
qnired OF the merchant? To say that he
does would be absurd. A tax upon the
one ia therefore no more in the nature Of
a license than tax upon the other. Cor.
oliary to this is the proposition that If
tax upon the stock or business of a mer-
chant-fOr In effect they nre the same
thing-i is lawful 70 is the tax levied upon
the stock oil a saloon keeper. If any fur
ther proof was needed of the fact that the
liquor traffic WAS already enjoying all
the recognition and privileges accorded to
any other business, before the passage of
the Scott law which is alleged to give
license or permission to transact that bus
iness, IL is found in the fact that corpora
tions were chartered before that for manu-.
facture and sale of liquors. Who Ia there
that will pretend to say that these corpora
tions were then and are now doing an un-
lawful bnsiness-ihaI their charters were
given in defiance OF the constr uton and are
nvalidaied by the last decision of the
court? Not only were they inferentially
doing lawful business, but specifically go.
for the enacting clause of the criminal
code declares that there are no crimes in
this state except as certain acts are made
80 by statute, and the selling oil liquor, ex-
cept 10 dr,ink,rds and to minors to be
drank ON the premises. was not made n
statutory offense. The evidence nll goes to
show tha. for the legislature in any way
to attempt 10 legilimatize the traffic
would he work of supereroga,ion, for il
is already licensed az fully as any other
business. Looking at the case in this
light il appears absurd TO hold that the
Scott law was license law, or that any
mere tax law would have the effect OF
licensing what was already fully premis-
sible.