reduce taxes, and so we were badly
beaten by the staying from the polls of 70,000 Republican voters.

The causes of this defeat were apparent to every intelligent man.
The general assembly, however, at the next session, met the temperance
question in a different spirit. It submitted to the people two
proposed amendments to the constitution, one providing for full
legislative control over the traffic in spirits, and the other
providing for the absolute prohibition of the traffic. Pending
the action of the people on these two amendments, the legislature
provided by a law, called the Scott law, for a tax of $200 annually
on the sale of spirituous liquors and $100 on the sale of beer.
This law was held to be constitutional by the supreme court of
Ohio. This action of the legislature had been approved by the
Republican state convention.

Upon the question thus presented there was a division of opinion
in the Republican party. On the one hand, a large body of Republicans,
mostly Germans in the large cities, regarded this legislation as
an attempt to interfere with their habit of drinking beer, which
they regarded as a harmless beverage. On the other hand, the
disciples of total abstinence were opposed to the "Scott" law as
a license to sell and drink intoxicating liquors, which license,
they alleged, was wrong and against public policy. They were for
prohibition outright; they regarded the tax law as a covenant with
hell, and nominated a ticket to represent their principles. The
Democratic party occupied a position of opposition to every
proposition about the liquor laws. They placed in nomination, as
their candidate for governor, George H. Hoadley, an eminent lawyer,
and able speaker and a man of good character and standing. He had
been an earnest Republican during and since the war, but had followed
the wake of Chase, and joined the Democratic party.

The tariff issue also entered into this canvass. The farmers of
Ohio complained that the duty on wool had been reduced, while the
duties on woolen goods were increased; that protection was given
to the manufacturer and denied to the farmer. A great outcry was
made by Democratic orators and newspapers in farming communities
against this injustice, and I was selected as the leader and author
of it. Handbills were freely demonstrated by the Democratic
committee in public places, denouncing me as the wicked destroyer
of the sheep industry of Ohio farmers. I replie