USA > Ohio > History of Ohio; the rise and progress of an American state, Volume Four > Part 36
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36
The local option principle was extended to residence districts in cities and villages by an act passed April 18, 1904 (97 Ohio Laws, 87), known as the “Brannock Law," which provided that whenever forty per cent of the electors of a residence district of a municipal corporation petitioned the mayor, or a Common Pleas judge of the county, for the privilege to determine by ballot whether the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage should be prohibited within the limits of such district, it became the duty of such mayor or judge to order a special election to be held in such resi- dence district. If a majority of the votes at the elec- tion were in favor of prohibiting the sale, then after
JOHN M. PATTISON
Born in Owensville, Clermont county, Ohio, June 13, 1847; at the age of fourteen enlisted in the Ohio National Guard, and at seventeen entered the service of the United States as a soldier in the Civil War, continuing until December, 1865; graduated from Ohio Wesleyan Uni- versity at Delaware, 1869, and admitted to the bar, 1872; elected member of the Ohio House of Representatives, 1873, and afterward State Senator; engaged in the insur- ance business, becoming president of the Union Central Life Insurance Company; elected to Congress, 1890; elected Governor, 1905, and inaugurated January 8, 1906; died June 18, 1906.
536
THE RISE AND PROGRE
ПОЛІТТАЯ M ИHOU
thereder fannithmo risnog momstotommerwowhatdær the 6 of interoitshoid sit ai botailas nostivolto ogsentsovf& be pr hibitenwithune ws the Sea beca the duty asvelas WooinQ imot sterben sadaniatodososcon ther for. 29 to 9200H oido off fo Tedmom botools
days Isto doin Want to fobiapiq gnimoped deaniand sons becan
unlaw.oder Bien or give away any intoxicating logerogromtil Beib used as a beverage, or to keep a place where such liquors wer kept for sale, given away or furnished The penal:) for a violation of the act was a fine of not more than $200 or less than $50 for the first offense. For th second offense the fine was not more than $500 0 less than $100, and for every subsequent offense the fine was not less than $200 and imprisonment not more than sixty days or less than ten days. Another elec- tion might be petitioned for and ordered after the expiration of two years from a preceding election.
The local option prin Hle was extended to residence districts in cities and villages by an act passed Apri! 18, 1904 (97 Ohio Laws, 87), known ar the "Brannor! Law," which provided that whenever forty per cent of the electors of a residence district of a municipal corporation petitioned the mayor, or a Common Pleas judge of the county, for the privilege to determine by ballot whether the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage should be prohibited within the limits of such district, it became the duty of such mayor or judge to order a special election to be held in such resi- dence district. If a majority of the votes at the elec- tion were in favor of prohibiting the sale, then after
---
11 10
brod
8 .180
1019919
Ditsioq
537
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
thirty days from the date of the election, it became thereafter unlawful within the district to sell, furnish or give away intoxicating liquors as a beverage, or keep a place where such liquors were sold, given away or furnished for beverage purposes.
The penalties were a fine of not more than $200 or less than $50 for the first offense, and for a subsequent offense not more than $500 or less that $100; and the court was required, upon conviction of a second or subsequent offense, either to order the place closed or abated as a nuisance or require the offender to give bond in $1,000 that he would not sell, furnish or give away, within the district, intoxicating liquors as a beverage. Another election might be had, in the same way, after the expiration of two years from the date of a preceding election.
The "Brannock Law" was repealed and another residential local option law enacted in its place, known as the "Jones Law," March 22, 1906 (98 Ohio Laws, 68), which provided that whenever a majority of the electors of any residence district of a municipal cor- poration signed a petition in favor of prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, in such dis- trict, and filed the same with the mayor, or with any judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the county, they should examine and decide upon its sufficiency. If a majority of the voters of the district, as shown by the petition, were in favor of prohibiting the sale, it became, after thirty days from the decision, unlawful there- after, in the district, to sell, give away or furnish intoxi- cating liquors as a beverage or keep a place where the
538
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
same were sold, given away or furnished. The penal- ties were similar to those provided in the "Brannock Law."
Whenever, after the expiration of two years, a majority of the electors of a residence district in which the sale had been prohibited, signed a petition and presented the same as in the first instance against prohibition in the district, the effect of the first petition was nullified.
An amendment to the "Jones Law," passed March II, 1908 (99 Ohio Laws, 53), permitted the extension of an existing prohibitory residence district by adding territory by petition in the same way as the original district had been established.
The county was made the unit for local option by an act passed March 5, 1908 (99 Ohio Laws, 35), known as the "Rose Law," which provided that whenever thirty-five per cent of the electors of a county peti- tioned the county commissioners or a Common Pleas judge of the county for the privilege to determine by ballot whether the sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage should be prohibited in the county, such com- missioners or judges were required to order a special election for the purpose. If a majority of the votes cast at the election were in favor of prohibition, then from and after thirty days from the date of the election, it became unlawful to sell, furnish, give away or other- wise deal in intoxicating liquors as a beverage, or keep or use a place where the same were sold, given away, furnished or otherwise dealt in, in the county. The penalties were not more than $200 or less than $50 for the first offense, and for any subsequent offense not
539
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
more than $500 or less than $200, and the court was required in case of a conviction of a second or subse- quent offense to give bond in the sum of $1,000 not to sell, furnish or give away, in the county, any intoxi- cating liquor in violation of law. Another election might be had after three years by petition in the same manner as in the first instance.
rt But the effect and operation of the township local option law, the "Beal Law," and the "Jones Law" were not affected by the operation of the "Rose Law." noThe sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday was, for the first time, prohibited by an act passed February 8, 1815 (2 Chase's Stat. 867), to the effect that any tavern keeper or other person, who sold or bartered any spirituous liquors, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday (except to travelers on a journey), should be fined five dollars.
„ ¡¡ In the revision of the statutes relating to crimes and punishments, passed May 5, 1877 (74 Ohio Laws, 269), the exception as to travelers was omitted.
The Sunday law was so amended April 9, 1881 (78 Ohio Laws, 126), as to provide that whoever sold or bartered any spirituous liquors on Sunday, except upon the written prescription of a practicing physician, should be fined not more than fifty dollars. .(On April 15, 1882 (79 Ohio Laws, 128), it was again amended so that it applied to intoxicating liquors, whether distilled, malt or vinous, instead of merely to spirituous liquors as theretofore.
Again it was so amended, April 17, 1883 (80 Ohio Laws, 167), as to confine the exception to regular drug- gists, on the written prescription of a regular practicing
540
THE RISE AND PROGRESS
physician, for medical purposes only, and the penalty for selling or keeping open a place where on other days intoxicating liquors were sold, was a fine not exceeding $100 and imprisonment not exceeding thirty days.
An act passed April 14, 1884 (81 Ohio Laws, 205), defined the word "place," as applied to hotels and eating houses, to mean the room or part of room where liquors were usually sold or exposed for sale.
By an act passed April 14, 1888 (85 Ohio Laws, 260), the penalty was changed to a fine not exceeding $100 and not less than $25 and imprisonment not less than
CBW ten days and not exceeding thirty days.
In the act passed April 3, 1902 (95 Ohio Laws, 87), the "Beal Law," the penalty was so changed that the offender, for the first offense, should be fined not exceed- ing $100 and not less than $25, and for each subsequent offense be fined not more than $200 or imprisoned not less than ten or more than thirty days, or both.
Many acts have been placed upon the statute books, in the line of regulation and restraint of the traffic in intoxicating liquors, beginning after the adoption of the Constitution of 1851, and increasing in number and frequency with the passing of the years.
Among the more important of these were the follow- ing: On March 10, 1864 (I Sayler's Stat. 524), an act was passed to suppress the sale of liquors upon days of election. It was made unlawful to sell, barter or give away, or keep open places where, on other days, liquors were sold, any spirituous, vinous or malt liquors on the day of any election, under penalty of a fine of not less than five or more than one hundred
541
OF AN AMERICAN STATE
dollars and imprisonment for a period of ten days; and mayors of municipal corporations were required to issue their proclamations warning the inhabitants of the provisions of the act. An act was passed February 23, 1906 (98 Ohio Laws, 12), known as the "search and seizure act," which authorized magistrates to issue warrants for the search of places and seizure of intoxi- cating liquors and the destruction of the same. By an act passed March 12, 1909 (100 Ohio Laws, 90), a method was provided, by a proceeding in the Court of Common Pleas, whereby a place where the sales of intoxicating liquors was carried on might, upon proof that the same was conducted in a disorderly or disreputable manner, be abated as a nuisance.
More than fifty offenses, having relation to the sale and use of intoxicating liquors, which had been created from time to time, were, in the general revision of the statutes adopted in 1910, collated and gathered under Chapter 17, of Part Fourth, Title One, of the General Code, entitled "Offenses Relating to Intoxicating Liquors."
15CHIP
1
MA BOUND TO TH
BINDERY DEC 18 1941 PLEASE
IND
ER
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.