ed to
a five years' term as a judge of the superior court of Cincinnati.
He is now in the meridian of his intellectual strength, and will,
in all human probability, attain higher distinction.

The rest of the ticket was soon completed by the nomination of
strong candidates for each of the offices to be filled at that
election.

From the beginning of this canvass it was known that the result
was doubtful, not only on national issues, but, on the recent
legislation in Ohio, on the much mooted liquor question.

The "Scott" law imposed a tax on dealers in liquors and beer, and
also proposed two temperance amendments which were submitted to
the people. The constitution of Ohio declares that "no license to
traffic in intoxicating liquors shall hereafter be grated in this
state, but the general assembly may, by law, provide against evils
resulting therefrom."

As to the status of the legislation in Ohio in 1883, I said during
this canvass that, under this provision, the legislature of Ohio
for thirty years had, from time to time, passed laws to prevent
the evils that arose from the sale of intoxicating liquors, but
without effect. The constitution so limited the powers of the
general assembly that it could only pass prohibitory and punitive
laws. It could not regulate by money license the sale of liquors.
Both parties joined in this kind of legislation, but it was safe
to say that all the laws on the subject were substantially nullified
by popular opinion, or by inability in cities and large towns to
enforce them. Thus, in Ohio, we had, for more than thirty years,
free whisky, without restraint, without taxation, to a degree that
probably did not exist in any other state of the Union, or any
other Christian or civilized country. Two years before, the
Republican party, in convention at Cleveland, declared itself in
favor of an amendment to the constitution which would give the
general assembly full legislative power over the traffic, free from
the restraint of the old constitution. The legislature, instead
of acting upon this proposition, postponed it, and passed what was
known as the Pond bill. The supreme court declared that law
unconstitutional, as being within the meaning of the inhibition of
the constitution. Thus, at the previous election, the Republican
party appeared before the people of the state when they were
discontented alike with the action of the general assembly and of
Congress for its failure to