The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1886-09-16
ALLIANCE SAL0ONISTS
Petition tho U. S Court 10 a-ovest suc.
preston Of Their Business.
A Case of Supreme Interest to the Entire
State of Oblo---What the Petition
Alleges In the Matter.

The Cleveland Leader Of this morning
has the following in regard to the new
turn of aff3iTs in the Alliance prohiOi
tion question::
A determined effort Is being made by
the saloOnists of Alliance to prevent the
suppression Of their business. Several Of
them are charged with the violation Of
an ordinance prohibiting the sale Of
liquor, AMI the Ingenuity 4 several law
yeTs Is being severely taxed 70 devise
some scheme to free them from the grip
of the law A vain appeal to the Slate
Co1rtJ was followed, yesterday, by a0
action begun In the United States Cir
cult Court II was in the form Of an
application for an injunction to prevent
the village authorities from enforcing
the pFohibitory ordinance. The latter
was passed In accordance with the local
option feature Of the Dow law The case
will test section Of the law that has
not heretofore been considered. 1t Is the
section that municipal corporations
may, IL IL is so decTeed at an election,
prohibit absolutely the sale Of liquor
within their limits. E15 rs.
The saloon keepers selected William
Tanner, Sr., to act as plaintiff In the
suit. The defendants are r. G. Williams,
Matthew Early, Joshua Cassidy, A. L.
JOhnsOhD, Levi Hill and Jonathan
Myers, the members of the village ooun-
Gil; o. NJ COxen, mayor, and Dennis
Smeltz, marshal. Tanner states In his
petition that he has been
THE KEEPER OF A SALOON
for over twenty years. He has acquired
real estate and greatly improved the
property for the purpose of dealing in
| liquor. The good will of his numerous
patrons is also considered of great Pc
cuniaTy value. His investment In the
business Is estimated at $4,000, and
| Tanner says that If his saloon is closed
the property will depTeciate In value to
the amount of 81 500 On August 20 the
village council passed an ordinance de-
signed TO Prohibit ale, beer and porter
houses and other places where intOXi-
eating liquors are sold"
| The ordinance took effect on Septem-
her T. 1t is stated in the petition that
the regulation was adopted in pursu-
ance of che Dow law, which was passed
by the Legislature last May. On July
90 Tanner paid the Treasurer Of Stark
county 800, The Dow law tax for six
months, II bhe law should be declared
unconstitutional the money will be re-
turued TO him. The village council
without awaiting the decision of the
SUprf me Court, or providing means to
reimburse Tanner for the cOnfscatiOn
Of his property, promptly took steps to
enforce the ordinance.
TANNER WAS PLACED UNDER ARREST
for violation of its provisions, and un-
less relief is secured In the United
States courts, he says, the penalty for
the Offense will be imposed upon him.
He says In the petition that he Is sub
ject not only to the penalty prescribed
by the ordinance, but by section 6942
of the Revised Statutes of Ohio 1t be-
comes the duty Of the courts to close
no his saloon as q common nuisance.
His property Is therefore liable to con-
fiscation without process of law, and
no provision has been made, by either
the Legislature or the Alliance Council,
to compensate him for his loss. With
the seizure Of his property would come
the loss of the good will of his patrons
which he considers Of great value, and
he would be put In disgrace for carry,
ing on business which, until the pas.
sage of the ordinance, had been lawful
Tanner states that he was induced ia
enter the business because T. was rec.
Ognized by the State law as being legal
and that were his saloon suppressed he
would suffer irreparable damage, fol-
which he has no adequate remedy al
law. The petition prOnounces the Dow
law and the ordinance unconstitutional
for the reason that they conflict with
) section of the fourteenth amendment
to the Constitution of the United States
The section reads as follows:
PIECE OF THE CONSTITUTION.
"All persons born or naturaIizad in
! the United States, and subject to the jur
isdiction thereof, are citizens of the
! United States and Of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or en-.
; force any law which shall abTidge the
I privileges or immunities Of citizens Of
the United States; nor shall any State
deprive any person of life, liberty OF
property without due process of law
: noE deny to any person within Its juris
. diction the equal protection of the
laws"
The village Is violating the Constitu
ton because 1t contemplated theseizurC
of his property without compensation
leaving him without remedy at law
The village is said to have AIKEN nc
steps to refund the 800 paid under the
Dow law, aud at the same time prohibits
by ordinance his use OF his own property
as permitted by the former. The cOurI
was therefore asked to issue an inj0nc.
tiOn perpetually restraining the village
from enforcing the ordinance and from
: In any manner confiscating Tanners
property without due process of law.
The matter was called to the attention
Of Judge Welker, and 1t was decided tC
postpone the hearing for a week. 1t ie
very desirable that the question should
be presented before Judge Jackson, Of
the United States Circuit Court, as he
may be called upon to consider like
suits In any part Of his circuit, which
includes parts Of four States. The sc
tion is based on the recent decision Of
. United States Judge Brewer, of Kansas
who held that the State could not seize
liquor dealers property without com
penssting him for the loss. The case
will be submitted to the court on briefs,
which will be filed by next Thursday
night. The Alliance saloons will re.
main closed while the question Is pend.
Ing In court.
Attorneys Miller & POmerine, of Can
ton, and Estep, Dickey & Squires, OF
Cleveland, represent the plaintiff.
/