The Democratic banner. (Mt. Vernon, Ohio) 1898-192?, 1914-09-08
; Arguments
Are FILED.
For And Against The -Four
Proposals
To Amend The Constitution
Of Ohio
To Be Voted On At The
> Coming Election
What The DFys And Vets
Have To Say
Equal Suffrage And Property
Classification Presented
Equal Suffrage And Property
Classification Presented

Columbus, Sept. 5-Arguments for
and against the four constitutional
amendments which will be submitted
to the people of the state at the No
vember election, were filed with Secre-
tary of State Graves by the committees
appointed by Governor Cox to prepare
them, Friday. Copies of the arguments
in pamphlet form will be mailed to
each voter by the secretary of state.
Argument of Drys
The drys, in their argument for the
state prohibition amendment, declare
ut is losing financial policy to IL
cense saloons, make drunkards and
criminals to be supported by public
expense. This is why the tax rate
averages higher in wet territory than
dry territory. The amendment will
prohibit the beverage liquor traffic af-
Or May, 1916. This gives the dealer
/ me to sell his stock. With the same
\ oney invested in useful business, pub
records show five times as many
\ sople will be employed. "It is de-
Jared that there was 145S saloon vic
ms in the Ohio penitentiary, Aug. 49,
per cent of all imprisoned. ohio
lFy means crimes reduced, prosperity
creased and happier homes" The
bmmittee was composed of j. Knox
Montgomery, w. F. Perry, R. r. Jen-
ms, John W. Winn and Wayne B.
7heeler.
Argument of Vets
The Ohio vets, in their argument
against the prohibition amendment,
declare that "the underlying principle
of statewide prohibition is the insult
ing proposition that a man is incapable
of self-government in the use of Ii
quor." 1t is further asserted that law
cannot change the personal habits or
desires of men. Prohibition will meet
with its usual failure in Ohio" The
committee declares that thousands will
be thrown out of employment and mil
lions of dollars worth of property
confscated if prohibition prevails. Pro
hibition is termed an Immoral end"
Graham F. Hunt and Eugene Helm, of
Cincinnati, and John Roehm, of Day.
ton, prepared the argument.
"SIeepers" Pointed Out
In their argument against the wet
amendment, which seeks to prevent
the enactment of law for statewide
nd tn he
county local option law, the drys say
that mo civilized government ever
adopted a constitution preventing the
people from further prohibiting recog
nized evils. Eminent jurists point out
the following 'sleepers' in the wet
amendment: 1t makes wet all town
ships having no municipalities; il
nullifies laws against Sunday selling
sale to minors, drunkards and similar
laws. Good citizens should oppose the
brewers amendment which bars mora
progress"
Suffrage Arguments
The argument for the women's suf
frage amendment was prepared by DR.
w. o. Thompson, of Columbus; l.. ]
Tabor, of Barnesville; W. H. Kilpat
rick, of Warren; Thomas Mcnamara
of Youngstown, and A. H. Hatton, o
Cleveland. 1t declares that women arr
a part of the people. essentially inter
ested in questions of public policy an,
are as liable to be affected by injustic,
as are men. Woman has proven he
efficiency and the ballot will give he
the legal means of self-protection, |
declared
The argument against woman sui
frage bears the signature of Mrs. II
f. Talbot, of Dayton; Clara Markesou
y of Columbus, and Lucy Price, of Cleve
land. They declare that equal sui
frage has not brought about better cor