The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1886-07-17
THE TEMPERANC E QUESTION In
OHIO.
BY REV. A. R1TCHIE, PHI. ID.

The following article by Rev. DR.. Richie,
of Cincinnati, may be read with profit in con-
nection with DIR. Beane's communication on
the Dow law.-ED.
The anomalous mo License" clause
in our State constitution has been fruit
full for thirty-fve years of lawsuits
and misrepresentation as to the true
condition of our State on the temper
ance question. And now that the Dow
bill-a substantial reproduction Of the
old Scott law-has passed, it occurs to
me as good time to present to your
readers the exact status of the question
in the State.
Previous to 1851 license prevailed; no
saloon was permitted to open without
license, and it occurred to the tenn
perance people that if clause could be
inserted in the constitution preventing
license, then the sale of liquor would
forever be prohibited in the State.
This would have been true if the clause
had read No license or permission of
any kind shall be granted to traffic in
Intoxicating liquors hereafter in this
State" But the clause adopted nnfort-
unately read: mo license to traffic in
Intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be
granted in this State, but the General
Assembly may, by law, provide against
evils resulting therefrom." By implica-
ton the traffic received in this the
right to exist without license, subject
to such restraints as the General As
sembly might provide by law.
The decision of the Supreme Court
has been on this line until the present
time, with single exception. The first
decision was by Judge Thurman, sus-
tanning the law of 1854, which forbade
the sale of liquor to be drunk on the
premises, in which he broadly limited
that restraint could not be carried to
the extent of prohibition. The decision
sustaining the law of 1859 and the Nc
Connellsville ordinance passed under
it, maintained the right :" to regulate,
restrain and prohibit" not the entire
traffic, but ''ale, beer and porter-houses
and places of notorious or habitual re-
sort for tipping and intemperance."
This was a step in advance, but still
not prohibition. Judge Johnston, how
ever, in 1888, in sustaining the consti-
nationality of the Scott law, said: IF
in the Judgment of the General Assem-
bly, it be necessary, in order to prevent
evils resulting from the traffic, that the
sale and use of intoxicating liquors as
a beverage be absolutely prohibited, we
can see no constitutional ground upon
which such exercise Of it's judgment
and discretion can be reviewed by the
courts of the State" The political
complexion of the court having, how
ever, been changed, it decided the law
unconstitutional not, however, on the
ground that the legislature had exceed
ed its restraining power, but on the
ground that it was de facto license
law, the saloon-keeper being entirely
dependent on the property-owner
whether he could open or not, as pro
vided in the lien clause. On the same
principle the Pond law had been de-
cided unconstitutional, as it made the
payment of the tax essential to carry
ing on the traffic.
The Dow bill, now law, was care
fully drawn to avoid these objections.
The lien clause remains, but the con-
sent of the landlord is not made neces-
sary to opening saloon; the refusal to
pay the tax would not close it, though