The Hocking sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1871-1906, 1889-01-31
JUDGE sLOUGH's DECISION.
Local Prohibition Sustained.

At the late term Of the Court
of Common Pleas Of Perry coun
ty. Ohio, Basil Gordon and An
drew J. Noe were separately in
dlcted for selling Intoxicating H.
qnors in Pleasant township, in
that county, in violation of The
.sIocal option law;' majority OF
the electors Of hat township hav-
ing voted, under that law, against
the sale of Intoxicating liquors in
that township.
The defendants counsel filed
demurrers TO the indictments,
claiming that the law upon which
the indictments are founded is
unconstitutional, for The reasons
alleged that il is IN direct conflict
with Section % of Article 2 of the
constitution of Ohio, in the FOL
lowing particulars: First, that
it is a law of general nature and
hot of uniform operation through
out the State; and, second. that
the law delegates 10 the voters OF
the township the power to Iegis
late and determine what shall he
a crime within their townships !;
said Section rs providing that
"all laws of a general nature
shall have a uniform operation
throughout the Siate," and that
mo act. except such as relates TO
the public schools, shall he passed
10 take effect upon the approval
Of any other authority than the
General Assembly. except as
otherwise provided in this corr
stl!ution."
The constitutional question. 50
raised, was fully ana very ably
argued by counsel on both sides,
(Messrs. Ferguson and Re,allic
for the demurrer and Prosecuting
Attorney Donahue and Reuben
Butler against). Judge Slough
being on the bench.
Judge S!ough's decision Of The
question sustaiRs the law. hold
ing it constitutional, upon the
grounds: FIRST, that, by the act
itself, the Legislature passed upon
the policy-the prGprletv. the
utility, the expediency, the ne
cessiiy of the law; The same moi
being submitted at all to the 70
tiers of township. Second, that.
by the act itself, The law took ef-
feet. in present., upon its passage
by the Legislature, and not upon
the election and approval Of The
voters Of the township. Third,
that the law has uniform ope-
ration throughout the State, in
that it is applicable alike 10 each
and all the townships of the State
in its provisions for elections. etc.
for, and against, prohibition of
the liquor traffic therein; and in
that it denounces as a crime the
selling of intoxicating liquors in
violation of prohibition, any |
where in the Stale, and provides
the same penalty for that offense
wheresOever committed within |
the Slate.
The Judge held. s!so. that the
slocal option act" was clearly
authorized by Section IS Of the
10 our State constitution
which provides that ",he Gener.
al Assembly may. by law. pro-
vide against the evils resulting
from the traffic in intoxicating
liquors" The Legislature pos
sessing all the legislative powers
of the State, not prohibited by
the Constitution, (See Article 2,
Section of Constitution of Ohio,
aud Baker VS.. Cincinnati. 1lih
U. s. Rep. 534 542. Gholson j.
and being the sole Judge Of what
legislative measures are NeceS-
sary 10 "provide against the evils
resulting from the traffic in IN
,oxica;ing liquors - and such
Iraffic beng essentially and pc
culiarly subject for 'se exercise
by the Legislature of its powers
Of police legislation. the Legisla
.ure is fully and clearly author
zed by Section Is OF the Schedule
% provide, by the aci in question.
or every organized township in
he Slate, the mode and means
local prohibition may
,e adopted by ;he township for
he maintenance OF public order,
ETC., therein and, TO provide the
penalty prescribed in the act for .
'iolating township prohibition :
,nvwh here IN ti,c State l.
The case has gone direct to the
n