Year: 1872

The excise bill which was passed by the Connecticut house yesterday contains in it's eighth section Q provision similar to the famous Ohio Law. This law rep resents the best practical device for legis- latlon on the liquor question. It holds the seller of liquor responsible, Sa q ciVil action, for all injuries committed by req son of the intoxicati0n of the drinker. a

 The history of the law in Ohio seems to show the good effects of the principle it embodies. The Ohio law was originally passed about the year 1854; and, as it then stood, provided for criminal actions against the seller for the consequences of intoxication, and established heavy pen alties; but no remedy by civil actions was given. The law remained in this form till 1870, when a short amendment was added permitting a civil action to be brought by wife or relative or any other person, injured Sin person, property, or means of support by reason of the intOx- ication of any persons. The action lies not only against the seller of the liquor but also aginst the owner of the building in which it is sold and the stringency of the rule is carried almost to the verge of unconstitutionality by permitting judge ment in the case to be rendered against the landlord without making him party to the suit: and also making the judge ment in such cases against the real estate of the debtor, not for ten years, as in oth- CT cases, but until paid Ohio law, from being practically dead letter, suddenly assumed a wonderful potency in the state by reason of this brief amendment. Not only was check put upon irresponsibleli li- quor selling everywhere; but even the most respectable dealers are forced to & strict circumspection; for it was found that owners of hotels and saloons were afraid to lease them to persons who would sell any liquor on the premises. The law worked admirably in Ohio, and had come to be such success that the Illinois legisla- ture framed one after it, and passed it in the very opening of the session last winter. The last New York legislature had tenn perance majority and would undoubtedly have passed the Ohio law if fair play had been shown. But some democratic mem- Der, taking advantage of thin house one evening toward the close of the session, had another bill substituted, in place of the one framed after the Illinois statute, which thus fell down too late in the session to be revived. The neglect was the less guarded against because the New York legislature had already, at the earnest pe- titlon of temperance societies, passed the act known as the ''Local option law" But as this was afterward vetoed by Gov enor Hoffman, the temperance majority in the legislature went for nothing.

 The "Ohio Act" is the most logical of all temperance laws. It makes a man re. sponsible simply for consequences prov ed to flow from his own act; and certainly this cannot be complained of. The liquor interest holds, of course, as one of it's doc trines, that no injury results from selling intoxicating drinks. Only let it prove this in court, and no action lies. The state in passing the Ohio law simply takes up the rum-seller on his own issue, and gives him fair chance to argue it. The most excellent practical results from the law in Ohio, and it's successful, though very brief, history in Illinois, strongly commend this form of legislation, which nroeeaedss ap the ythsazHp that lq4 4ssh,nBA should hold all men resposible for the consequences of exercising these as we'll as all other rights. Harford Post.