Springfield globe-republic. (Springfield, Ohio) 1884-1887, 1886-12-18
Local Option in Ohio.
itor Of the Globe-RepublIc:

Yesterday received letter from gen
tleman residing in Licking county, calling
my attention 10 q two column article in the
NelC Era, attempting to criticise an article
which appeared in the GLOBE REPUBLIC of
December 4th, under the above caption, and
should have been E. e. D., for wrote the
article: | had not seen the article in the
Nete Era before receiving it from that gen
tlemen, and should not have noticed it, if |
request
The occasion of the writing of the article
which appeared in your paper was as fol-
lows: Petitions are circulated widely over
ing session of the legislature, praying that
body for the enactment of local option
law. was asked to sign such a petition
and 10 assist in its circulation. Before do
ing either, l thought proper to inquire into
the political character of the legislature
with the view of aScertaining the
probability or possibility of the pas
sage of such law. In the
sINiy-fOurth general assembly, every repre-
sentative from the counties of Hamilton
and CuyahOga considered himself instructed
by his constituency TO vote against such a
bill. SuppoSing the situation TO be the
same now, | wanted to see if there is suffi-
cient local option strength outside of these
two counties to enact such law. As a re
suit of my examination wrote the follow
ing, which appeared in your paper of De
cember 4th instant:
BY reference to the '-0hio Statistics of
1855" find that there arc five counties
which give very small democratic majori-
ties, and these five counties have placed six
democrats in the legislature where there
should be six republicans Stark county
having two members.
Here l give the democratic plurality in
each of these tive counties, and also the
prohibition vote, at the election in 1885,
electing the present legislature:
Clerm0nt cOunty--democratc plurality,
90, prohibition vote, 30T; Knox comfy
democratic plurality, 20, prohibition vote,
251; Morrow cOunty-demOcratic plurality,
lOS, prohibition vote. 255; Stark county
democratic plurality. lS0 prohibition vote,
5S4; Wayne cOunty-democratic plurality.
322. prohibition vote, 594; and pursuing
this matter to the senate. | am aStunished
TO find five senatorial districts electing six
senators in the same way As in the house,
viz: Ninth district, democratic plurality.
l66; prohibition vote, 413; Twelfth district,
democratic plurality. G2O; prohibition
vote, us; Fifteenth district, demo
cratic plurality, lq9. prohibi.
tion vote, LOSE; Sixteenth district,
democratic plurality. l2S; prohibition vote.
LOSE: Thirty-third district. democratic plu-
rality, /, l,4g6; prohibition vote. !. .9OS: Thirty
third district, democratic plurality, LIES:
prohibition vote, l.SS2 Thus. the house of
representatives has lost six republican mem
bers by third party manipulation. Ny in
formation is that had these six republicans
thus defeated, have been elected, it would
have given six votes in the tOuse to local
option. The same in the senate. with per
| hapS single exception.
And now for the NClC Era. 1t says
I'VE do not know who the writer is and
| therefore our comments cannot be cOnSid.
cred of a personal nature. and we are con,
strained to say that he either has failed Il
4 inform himself on the matter
about which he attempts to write
or else is guilty of deliberate and intention.
al falSehood." Pretty high talk. but in
keeping with the general character of that
Era. My authority for the facts and fig
| ures, is the ''OhiO Statistics for the veal
| 1885, published by authority of the genera
assembly of Ohio. The statement in re
gard To the pOlitica! character of the mem
! bership of the senate is found on pages 3s3
4-5-6-7-S-9: and Of the house. On pages 39C
and following; and whoever denies the cor
rectness of my statement would better firSt
Inform himself on the matter on which Le
attempts TO write" | challenge any mar
for the veriiication of my statement, and
have given the book and pages.
| set out to inquire whether the legiSla
ture. elected in 1885. in view Of its political
character, will or can pass local option
law. The facts stated convinced me thai
/ it cannot be done, and | have shown the
reasons why. Much the larger part of the
| temperance people of Ohio are republicans
Much the larger part of the third patty ar,
drawn off from the republican party. Ny
inference is inevitable, that the third party
manipulation" defeated the six republican.
| in the five counties named.
But hear the Era again. 1t says. The
counties named, with the exception of Nor
row, are old reliable democratic counties
and are never expected to elect a republican
member of the legislature"
Let us see. have before me the name:
of all the members of the legislatures Of
| 1850 and 1881, and of 1882 and 1883. q
i have not access at present TO the Legislature
Of 1884 and 1885, therefore cannot give it.
| In 1850 and 1881, CleTmOnt county had tive
members, the one a republican, l.. W
| Bishop, the other a democrat Ira Ferguson
| In 1882 and 1883. that county had but one
| representative-Ste Nelson, a republi
can. In lSSO-'SI-S2 -'S3, Knox county wa.
represented by W. NJ. Rooms, a republican
In all these years Morrow county was rep
resented by james Carlisle, a republican.
I In the same years Stark county was repre-
sented BY Thomas c. Snyder and Thoma,
| }. COnrad-bOth republicans. Wayne
| county, in 1880 and 1851. was represented
| by DR.. S. NJ. Armstrong, a democrat. and
| in lsS2 and 1883 by WIN. p. Van Dom, q
| republican. All ''Old reliable democratic
and are never expected to elect member
/ of the legislature" are they? Who is now
either ignorant or guilty of deliberate and
| intentional falSehOOd?" These are not my
words. They were applied to me by the
| Era. 1t is legitimate that | send then
back with interest.
In regard 10 the senatorial districts named
| they are not SO uniformly republican as the
five counties named, but they not infre-
quenly return republican senators.
Z. q. DIAL