Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1885-08-27

WHEN Judge Hoddly reached int
liquor questioD,in his acceptance speech,
he said there was not a fence in Ohio
broad enough to hold him. He might
also have said there was not fence in
Ohio so big that he could not climb over
it. He has been on all sides of nearly
all the fences within third of centu>
ry. Notwithstanding his proffered bold4
ness III saying that he is in favor of liz
cense system and opposed to prohibition,
is it not very bold position after all. Gov
Hoadly is lawyer enough to know that
license is prohibited by the Constitu-
ton, and every attempt to change that
instrument in favor of license has been
failare, and it no doubt would be fall
ure again if tried. This was sufficient
reason for the refusal of Republicans to
vote with the Democrats at the last ses+
sion Of the Legislature in favor of liz
cense amendment.
1t had been voted upon and over
whelmingly defeated in 1888, and that
would be its fate, no doubt, if submitted
again. The proposition of Judge Hoadr
Fly, therefore, and of his party platform,
in favor of license is mere buncombe.
1t is dodge of the poorest kind. The
man, or the party, therefore, that favors
license and proposes prohibition means
nothing except to mislead the public.
rhe only practical method that has been
found to reach the liquor traffic under
cur present Constitution was the Scott
tax law. That was approved of or act
quisesced in by an overwhelming ma
majority of the people of Ohio.
1t was acquiesced in by large major
ity of those who conscientiouSly oppos+
license; it was accepted by large ma
iority of those engaged in the liquor Ou>
Siness, and it was approved 10y those
who are opposed to free trade in liquors,
and who believe it essential to society
and the State to regulate the traffic in
some way, and make it bear share of
the burden which it imposes.
Gov. HOadly tells US, and in his party
platform we are told, that the Scott law
was pronounced unconstitutional by the
supreme Court. But the public know
| that it was also pronounced constitu>
tiOnal by the Supreme Court. The only
difference is, the Court which was DEM
ocratic and which was bulldoZed into
making the decision had the last say.
The Court that pronounced it constitu-
tIonal was quite as able as the one that
| ,,rAnnnnaaH If N ba
Democratic Court was forced into ma
king the decision to serve party ends,
which it did not serve after all, while
the other Court was left free to decide
according to what it believed to be the
law. But even this decision did not
cover the law. 1t did not overrule the
principle upon which the law was based
There is ample room, therefore, for an
amended tax law, even without overru-
ling the forced decision of the Supreme
Court. This is the position of the Re+
publican party. 1t is pledged in its plat
form, if it carries the Legislature, to en-
act tax law that will be reasonable and
that will stand, and that will bring into
the treasures of the people S2.OOO,OOO d
year, Just as the Scott law did.
And now we arraign the Democratic
party for having, by methods that are
indefensble, broken down the Scott law,
stricken two millions year from the
revenue of the several cities and towns
and counties. Knowing the popularity
of the law, the Legislature, which was
overwhelmingly Democratic, did not
dare to repeal it. 1t had not the cOur.
age to do that, but the leaders of the
party in asneaking way caused the Su,
preme Court to prostitute itself. Every
city and town in the State has felt the
effects of this in increased taxes and en-
barrassed finances. And it is now the
turn of the people to speak, and it is their
privilege to turn this party out of pow
er, and elect in its place men who will
be prompt TO correct the wrongs that
have been committed. There is no use
wasting time talking about license. That
is out of the question, and no one in the
State knows this better, that Judge Hoad-
ly, who plants himself boldly upon Ii.
cense.-Cin. Com. Gazette.