held that the constitution protected the traffic, and only allowed attacks to be made against the evils resulting from it. When the constitution was adopted, temperance men supposed that full power was given to the legislature to prohibit the traffic, as that was the only way possible to provide against the evils; in other words, that the evils were incident to, and always and everywhere concented with, the existence of the traffic.

In 1870 the General Assembly gave to cities and incorporated villages the power to regulate, restrain, and prohibit ale, beer, and porter houses, and places of notorious and habitual resort for tippling or intemperance.

In pursuance of this authority the town council of McConnellsville, in Morgan county, passed a stringent prohibitory ordinance against tippling shops. Prosecutions were had under it, and appeals were taken to the Supreme Court. To the surprise of every body and the mortification of the liquor-sellers, the constitutionality and legality of the ordinance were affirmed. This McConnellsville ordinance became a pattern or model for other incorporated villages. The later rulings of the Supreme Court gave to the General Assembly the constitutional authority to entirely prohibit the traffic and does not limit its power to the evils resulting from it.

In 1881 a law was passed called "The Stubbs Bill," prohibiting the sale of spiritous liquors on Sunday; the penalty for a violation was a fine of $50. This is substantially a dead letter, as Sunday is a principal day for carousals, especially in the large cities.

In 1883 the "Scott Law was enacted. It's object was to get a revenue from the traffic. It imposed an annual tax for the privilege of selling beer and wine, and $200 for the sale of whisky. The tax was made a lien upon the premises when

sold.

This tax was to be collected, like other taxes, by the

County Treasurer, one-fourth to go into the poor fund, and the balance distributed to the cities and villages where the traffic was carried on. It also prohibited selling on Sunday, and gave to municipal corporations the power to regulate and control the sale of beer and native wine on Sunday. Selling to minors or intoxicated persons or to persons in the habit of becoming intoxicated, was prohibited under the penalty of a fine from $25 to $100 and imprisonment from five to thirty days.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid into the county treasuries by the liquor-sellers in obedience to the requirements of this law. The constitutionality of this law was questioned, and, to test it, cases were taken to the Supreme Court. The court held that the tax was virtually a license, and therefore unconstitutional,

In 1866 "The Dow Law was enacted. It was substantialy a re-enactment of "The Scott Law." Of course its constitutionality was questioned, and cases were taken to the Supreme Court. The political composition of the court had been changed from a majority of Democrats to a majority of Republicans, and, as the Republican party had committed itself fully in favor of the measure, the Republican judges sustained the law. Now, in Ohio, everybody is permitted to engage in the traffic upon the payment of the tax. The amount is the same in city and country, whether the sales are large or small. The beer tax is $100 and the whisky tax is $200 per annum, and is a lien upon the premises where sold. The manifest object of the "no license" clause in the constitution was, to outlaw the liquor traffic and prevent getting a revenue from it. By this tax law a large revenue is secured, which quite reconciles a large number of tax payers. It is in effect a universal license to everybody, without regard to qualifications, who can pay the tax. The large brewers, for the sake of furnishing their beer, pay the tax of the saloon keeper.

The constitutionality of the McConnellsville ordinance having been sustained, incorporated villages may, by their councils, prohibit the liquor traffic within their jurisdictions.

In many villages the councils are submitting the question to the electors and are being governed by the decision. There is no local option for those living outside of a municipality. The General Assembly of the State may, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, entirely prohibit the liquor traffic without any amendment to the Constitution. As the State can now derive a large revenue from the traffic, the sentiment is strong to keep things as they are.

one.

The struggle for prohibition in Ohio will be a protracted Her native population is largely in favor of entire prohibition. The distilling and brewing interests are very great. There is a very large foreign population, and all political parties court their patronage. The large revenue derived from taxation of the traffic goes very far to quiet and reconcile the people with the saloons. In 1883 two propositions were submitted to a vote of the electors, namely: "License," or "Prohibition." A vote for a restoration of the "License System" was very small; of those who voted on the question "Prohibition" had a large majority. As it required a majority of all the votes given for the highest candidates on the tickets cast at the election, it failed by a very small majority. By a fair construction of the law and an honest count, prohibition carried by more than thirty thousand majority.

INDIANA.

LICENSE SYSTEM.

The first law passed by the legislature of Indiana for the regulation of the liquor traffic was enacted in 1807, which provided that no person should "keep any public inn or tavern, ale house, or public house of entertainment at any place within the territory unless such person shall first obtain permission or license from the Court of Common Pleas, etc," and providing the length of time such permission should continue with appropriate penalties for its violation, including forfeiture in some cases. It also contained a provision that the Governor should issue a proclamation prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors to the Indians within thirty miles of any council, treaty, or conference. In 1813 the law was amended so as to require clerks to furnish lists of taverns to the grand juries, and allowing them to grant temporary permits during the vacation of their courts. A bond was also required conditioned for the good behavior of those holding permits or licenses to deal in intoxicating liquors. In 1817 a law was passed prohibiting the sale of liquors on Sunday, (except to travelers). In 1818 the selling of liquor to be drank on the premises where sold was prohibited under appropriate penalties. Also, prohibiting gaming, rioting, or disorderly conduct about such premises. The act further prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors to minors, apprentices, or servants, or to persons in a state of intoxication, and provided further that no debt contracted for liquor above five dollars should be collectable by law.

In 1820 an act was passed requiring tavern keepers to set up for one whole day, "the bill of prices," and punishing severely any person charging more than was allowed by law.

In 1824 it was provided that any person applying for license should produce the certificate of twelve respectable freeholders that the applicant was of good moral character. In 1825 the number of respectable free holders signing the applicant's certificate of "good moral character" was increased to twenty-four. In 1828 the license was permitted to be issued to others than tavern keepers, which marked the beginning of the era of saloons and "tippling houses" in Indiana. The law was amended in 1831 providing for the collection of taxes from the keepers of "tippling house" or saloons by the municipal authorities in incorporated towns or cities. The license act was so amended in 1832 as to require the certificate by twenty-four freeholders, not only of good moral character of the applicant therefor (if a tavern-keeper), but an assurance that it would be for the benefit and convenience of travelers and conducive to the public good. The act required the applicant to show that he owned or rented a good house of at least three rooms with four good stalls, two beds and bedding more than are used by the family. The license was not transferable.

One section of the act provided for license to other persons than tavern-keepers, similar to previous acts. From 1834 to 1873 a number of special acts were passed allowing towns and cities to issue licenses to retailers of spirituous liquors.

By act of 1837, the board of county commissioners were required to levy a tax upon liquor dealers of not less than fifteen nor more than one hundred dollars. In 1838 an act was passed making it unlawful to keep a tippling house within the bounds of any incorporated town without a town license for a sum at the discretion of the corporation authorities not less than twenty-five dollars for the benefit of a public school fund for such town. In 1839 it was provided in the act for levying taxes that the commissioner should issue on each license to retail spirituous liquors not less than twenty-five