658 



OHIO. 



said original separate section of said Article XV shall 

 be repealed. 



SEC. 2. That at said election on said second Tues- 

 day in October, A. n. 1883, a proposition to amend the 

 Constitution by an additional separate section to said 

 Article XV shall also be submitted in the words and 

 figures following, to wit : The General Assembly may 

 by law restrict and prohibit the traffic in spirituous, 

 vinous, and malt liquors, or may impose a special tax 

 on persons engaged therein, or may by law provide 

 for submitting to the electors of State, counties, town- 

 ships, cities, and incorporated villages at special elec- 

 tions, the option of prohibiting the traffic in spirituous, 

 vinous, and malt liquors therein, to be determined by 

 a majority of all the electors voting at such an elec- 

 tion, and shall provide for the enforcement of such 

 option by appropriate legislation. 



While the House was passing this proposi- 

 tion, the Senate adopted another in the follow- 

 ing form : 



That the additional section to Article XVI of the 

 Constitution, as described in section 18 of the schedule 

 thereto, be so amended as to read as follows : And 

 said additional section to Article XVI of the Constitu- 

 tion as described in section 18 of the schedule thereto 

 be repealed. 



SECTION 18. The General Assembly of the State of 

 Ohio shall have absolute power to legislate concern- 

 ing the manufacture and sale of spirituous, vinous, and 

 malt liquors in the State of Ohio. It may provide 

 against the evils resulting therefrom, and regulate, re- 

 strain, tax, license, or prohibit by law the manufacture 

 or sale thereof. 



The House resolution came up in the Senate 

 several weeks later, was amended to conform 

 to the proposition originally passed by the Sen- 

 ate, and in this form was passed. The House 

 disagreed to the amendment and the measure 

 went to a committee of conference, where it re- 

 mained at the adjournment of the Legislature. 



At the beginning of the session a bill was 

 introduced in the Senate by Mr. Pond, provid- 

 ing for the taxation of the traffic in intoxicating 

 liquors. The leading features of the bill were 

 taxation and the filing of a bond, but there 

 were a number of other regulations tending to 

 restrict and embarrass the traffic. The annual 

 tax on each dealer, in cities of the first class, 

 was placed at $300; in cities of the second 

 class, having a population of 10,000 or more, 

 $250 ; in villages or cities, with a population 

 between 2,000 and 10,000, the tax was put at 

 $200 ; in villages having less than 2,000 popu- 

 lation, $150 ; and in all parts of the State out- 

 side a village or city and its surrounding belt, 

 as designated in the law, the dealer was re- 

 quired to pay $100 the tax to be paid into 

 the County Treasury, upon the certificate of 

 the County Auditor. 



Every person engaged in the traffic was re- 

 quired to file with the Probate Court his penal 

 bond in the sum of $1,000, with two freehold- 

 ers as sureties, the fee to the Probate Judge 

 being $2. 



To engage or continue in the traffic without 

 filing the required bond, or after the bond has 

 been declared forfeited, subjected the offender 

 to a fine of $500 to $1,000, or imprisonment 

 in the county jail from thirty days to a year, 

 or both fine and imprisonment. 



The bill was reported by the Committee on 

 the Judiciary early in March, amended so as to 

 declare that the tax was not a license, and 

 then passed by a bare constitutional vote of 17 

 to 15. It lay in the House nearly a month, 

 and was then passed by a vote of 56 to 40. 



Almost immediately after the bill became a 

 law, the municipal elections came on. The 

 Germans were indignant at the passage of the 

 bill, and at the progress made with the Smith 

 Sunday bill, which also became, a law within 

 a few days. The liquor-dealers in the large 

 cities organized for the election, and the result 

 was an overwhelming defeat of the Republi- 

 cans in the larger cities of the State. That 

 only served to consolidate the anti-liquor ele- 

 ment in the Legislature. The Smith Sunday 

 bill was passed, and an attempt to modify the 

 more stringent features of the Pond bill was 

 defeated. 



CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ACT. During 

 the discussion in the Legislature over the Pond 

 bill, the question of its constitutionality was 

 frequently raised. After its passage there was 

 a general desire that this question should be 

 disposed of at the earliest possible moment. A 

 case was made in Crawford County and sent at 

 once to the Supreme Court, which immediately 

 took it under advisement. The decision of the 

 court was given May 30th, by Chief-Justice 

 Okey, declaring the Pond law unconstitutional. 

 The Court held 



1. The constitutionality of a statute depends upon 

 its operation and effect, and not upon the form it may 

 be made to assume. 



2. A license is permission granted by some compe- 

 tent authority to do an act which, without such per- 

 mission, would be illegal. 



3. The act of April 5, 1882, entitled " An act more 

 effectually to provide against the evils resulting from 

 the traffic in intoxicating liquors " (79 Ohio Laws, 66), 

 which requires every person engaged or engaging in 

 such traffic to pay a specified sum of money annually, 

 and execute a bond as therein required, and also pro- 

 vides that " every person who shall engage or con- 

 tinue in such traffic without having executed the 

 bond, or after his bond shall have been adjudged for- 

 feited, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor," is in 

 operation and effect a license within the inhibition of 

 the section of the Constitution which provides that 

 " no license to traffic in intoxicating liquors shall 

 hereafter be granted in this State." 



During the session of the Legislature some 

 excitement was caused by the charge that par- 

 ties in the interest of a Cincinnati railway 

 company had attempted to bribe legislators. 

 An investigating committee reported that two 

 of the members of the House had been guilty 

 of misconduct and should be censured, and 

 that two persons not members had violated the 

 laws in attempting to bribe members. The 

 grand jury of Franklin County found indict- 

 ments against the two members and one of the 

 alleged lobbyists. Neither of the cases catne 

 up for trial during the year, but at the first 

 term of the court in 1883 the cases against the 

 members failed, there being no evidence offered 

 in support of the charges. 



The Legislature adjourned, April 17th, until 



