OHIO. 



643 



The Republican State Convention was held 

 in Toledo July 27 and 28. J. B. Foraker was 

 renominated for Governor, and W. C. Lyon, of 

 Newark, was nominated for Lieutenant-Gov- 

 ernor. The platform declared in favor of pro- 

 tection to American industries and labor, fa- 

 vored the restriction of pauper and criminal 

 immigration, asked Congress to supervise the 

 election of congressmen in the South to the 

 end that a full vote and a fair count might be 

 secured, demanded the restoration of the tariff 

 of 1867 on wool, favored liberal pensions for 

 Union veterans and the making of public im- 

 provements as a means of disposing of the 

 Treasury surplus, demanded that the public 

 domain be reserved for actual settlers, con- 

 demned the false pretenses of President Cleve- 

 land on the civil-service question, and de- 

 manded the enforcement of the law, expressed 

 sympathy for Ireland, condemned the action of 

 President Cleveland in vetoing pension bills, 

 asked for the passage of laws to protect the 

 users of patents, approved the administration 

 of Gov. Foraker and his action regarding the 

 rebel flags, condemned the election crimes per- 

 petrated by the Democrats in Cincinnati and 

 Columbus, sustained the Dow law, favored the 

 passage of laws to prevent discrimination by 

 railroads, and recommended John Sherman to 

 the consideration of the Republicans of the 

 nation as a candidate for President in 1888. 



Each of the conventions nominated a full 

 State ticket in addition to the candidates for 

 Governor and Lieutenant-Governor. The can- 

 vass was very bitter between the Republican 

 and Democratic leaders, national questions be- 

 ing mingled with several State and local ques- 

 tions, on which feeling was high. The excite- 

 ment was increased toward the close of the 

 campaign by the introduction of Gov. Gordon, 

 of Georgia, to speak for Mr. Powell. The elec- 

 tion, Nov. 8, resulted in the following vote for 

 Governor: Foraker, Republican, 356,534; Pow- 

 ell, Democrat, 333,205 ; Seitz, Union Labor, 

 24,711 ; Sharp, Prohibition, 29,700; Foraker's 

 plurality, 23,329. For the other offices the 

 Republican candidates had pluralities ranging 

 from 28,000 to 31,000. A Legislature was 

 also elected, the result being as follows: 



The Legislature. The adjourned session of the 

 sixty-seventh General Assembly began January 

 4, and ended March 21. Very few measures 

 of general importance were passed. The most 

 important were an act repealing the so-called 

 black laws, an act amending the Dow law so 

 as to prevent the sale of liquor in quantities of 

 one gallon or more by the agent of the manu- 

 facturer without paying the tax, an act pro- 

 viding for the relief of indigent Union sol- 

 diers and sailors, their widows and minor 



children, an act giving wives the right to 

 buy and sell property without the consent of 

 their husbands and more clearly defining the 

 property-rights of the husband and wife, and 

 an act extending the provisions of the regis- 

 tration law to the cities of Toledo, Columbus, 

 and Dayton. 



The Liquor Question. At the first session of the 

 sixty-seventh General Assembly in 1886, a law 

 was passed known as the Dow law, imposing 

 special taxes on manufacturers and dealers in 

 intoxicating liquors. The constitutionality of 

 the law was assailed on the ground that it vio- 

 lated the provision of the Constitution prohib- 

 iting the licensing of the liquor-traffic. The 

 Supreme Court decided the law constitutional 

 in two cases before it, January 5, the following 

 being the syllabus of the decisions : 



Mary F. Anderson vs. Joseph W. Brewster ft al. 

 Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton County. Dick- 

 man, J. 



1. Under the second section of the statute of May 14, 

 1886, known as the Dow law (83 Ohio L., 157), a 

 valid lien is created upon the real property when the 

 tenant holds under a lease, written or parol, made 

 after the passage of the statute. 



2. The assessment imposed by the first section of 

 the statute is not in conflict with the second section 

 of the twelfth article of the Constitution. 



3. The statute, so far as it provides for an assess- 

 ment or tax upon the business of trafficking in intoxi- 

 cating liquors is not, in effect, a license law, and not 

 within the inhibition of the eighteenth section of the 

 schedule to the Constitution. 



Judgment affirmed. Owen, C. J., and Follctt, J., 

 dissent. 



Leo Adler et al vs. II. N. Whitbeck, Treasurer. 

 Error to the Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County. Min- 

 shall, J. 



1. It is competent to the General Assembly of the 

 State to impo.se a tax on the business of trafficking in 

 intoxicating liquors as a means of providing against 

 evils resulting therefrom. 



2. Neither the tax so imposed, nor a provision that 

 the same shall attach as a lien on the property in 

 which it is conducted, constitutes a license within the 

 meaning of section 9 of Article XV of the Constitution. 



3. Tlfe statute imposing the tax may provide for its 

 collection by the treasurer of the county as other 

 taxes are collected, may impose penalties for its non- 

 payment, and for the refusal of a person engaged^ in 

 the business, on the demand of the assessor, to sign 

 and verity the statement of the return ; and, for an 

 injury done him in his property, such provisions do 

 not deprive tbe citizen of the due course of law se- 

 cured to him by section 16 of the bill of rights, nor 

 are they inhibited by the fourteenth amendment to 

 the Constitution of the United States. 



4. The Legislature mav, in providing against evils 

 resulting from the traffic in intoxicating liquors, 

 levy a tax upon such forms of the traffic as in its wis- 

 dom it may seem best without infringing the consti- 

 tutional requirements (section 26, Article II), that all 

 laws of a general nature shall be uniform in their op- 

 eration throughout the State. 



5. The act of the General Assembly passed May 

 14, 1886. providing against the evils resulting from 

 the traffic in intoxicating liquors (83 Ohio L., 157) is 

 not in any of these respects in conflict with the Con- 

 stitution of the State nor of the United States, and is 

 a valid law. 



The judgment is affirmed, without prejudice t the 

 right o'f any of the plaintiffs to prosecute a sq>:initi> 

 action for relief against any erroneous or wrongful re- 

 turn that may have been made by the assessor as to 

 his business. Owen, C. J., and Follett, J., dissent. 



