Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1900-03-07
Committee Will Not Re-
port Until Next Week.
Enemies Of Bill Say Il Is Un-
constitutional.
Farmers Institutes 90 on Record
Against II.
Especial Correspondcnce.)

Especial Correspondence
Columbus, March 7.--Arguments in
favor of the Clark local option bill and
against it were presented before the
Senate judiciary committee on Tues
day evening. The audience was very
large aud very partisan. Each point
made by the advocates OF the measure
was greeted with the heartiest of ap-
plause, while the arguments of its op-
ponents were received with incredulous
silence or even with feminine glggles.
Mr. Clark, the author Of the bill,
General s. H. Hurst of Chillicothe,
Philip Reentinger Of Cincinnati and S.
II. Todd of Wakeman, Huron county,
spoke in favor of tho bill, and Judge
Russell Of Meigs, A. W. krumm of this
city and III. r, Probaace Of Cincinnati
opposed it. Those favoring the pas
sage Of the proposed law based their
arguments chiefly upon the intrinsic
merit Of the bill, while its opponents
raised the question of its constitution
ality. The committee will probably
not take tinal action until next week.
From the best information obtainable
1t seems altogether probable that the
bill will be recommended as drawn and
that 1t will be passed by the Senate.
The argument was opened last even
ing by Mr.. Clark. He explained his
bill section by section and urged that
it's provisions are in strict accordance
with the principles Of democratic gov
ernment and that their enactment into
law would be to the best interest OF
the people of every municipality of the
stats He said that the signatures up
ON the petitions which are being re
ceiyed against the bills passage would
not bear scrutiny, that there Is much
repetition of names. Mr.. Clark made
an eloquent address and he was fire.
quently applauded.
He was followed by General Hurst,
who made a good old-fashioned tenn
perance speech.
Mr., Krumm, with much solemnity,
said that he had not been asked to
sueak until few hours previous to
the meeting and that he had therefore
written 1t all out. He begged the
law makers not to persecute those en-
gagged in the liquor traffic and urged
that the enactment of the bill in ques-
ton into law would be the most glar-
ing sort Of class legislation. He
thought that the trainers of the meas
urc and its friends are aiming ut ulti.
mate prohibition of the sale of liquor
In the state Of Ohio.
Judge Russell declined to discuss tho
merit of the bills provisions, although
from his opening remarks, 1t may fair
ly be Judged that he believes the sale
Of alcoholic stin,ulants and the drink
| Ing OF them an evil. He argued that
The proposed law, II 1t becomes an ne
tual one, will be unconstitutional upon
1 the gr,und, broadly stated that 1t seeks
, to convict men upon reputation. He
said that no court ia the land would
declare such law constitutional and
urged that certain sections be elimi-
mated. Judge Russell said that he had
tried to point all this out to Mr.. Clark
before but that he hac been deprived
OF the opportunity. Mr.. Clark said he
hadn't; Judge Russell said he had. aud
there was a little excitement and a
good deal Of giggling. Judge Russell's
argument that the provisions Of the bill
are not in accordance with the prln-
ciplea of the constitution was substan-
TALLY the same as that made by him In
the House at the time of its passage
therc.
He was ably seconded by Mr.. Pro
lbaace, who thought the proposed law