Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1836-11-30


Ithas been made question by some,
whether the Legislature has constitu-5
tionaI right to enact on this subject, pro-
hibitory law. But If we. have not this
right, the provision Of our national or
state constitution, can be pointed out, in
which that right has been surrendered
But your committee have vet to learn
where the essential attribute Of every gov
ernment,--self-preservation,- been
parted with by US, so that we cannot de-
fend ourselves against corruption and ru-
in, by interdicting what is incompatible
with public virtue and happiness and
safety.
But we remark further, that unless our
present laws on this subject are tissue
of usurpation, and all unconstitutional and
null, we have beyond controversy, the
right Of entire Introduction. For if we
have authority 10 say that no man shall
sell s2irituous liquors unless he pays five
dollars for a license, we may say that no
one shall do it unless he pays five hun
dred dollars and if five hundred, then,
we may say FIVE thousand. We may
thus prohibit indirectly, by fixing the
price Of q license so high thai it will be for
no mans interest, and within the scope Of
no mans means, to pay it. But, it is one
Of the plainest and best settled principles
of law and ethics and common sense, that
what man may not do directly, he may
not do indirectly. And where no consti-
tutional provision is involved, the doctrine
which holds true Of an individual is true
Of Legislative body. If then, the whole
system Of licenses in this state and in all
the states Of this country, be not unconsti-
tutional and a downright usurpation,-
and the validity Of the system, has never,
that we are aware OF, been called in ques-
tion,-we may prohibit directly by max
ing it penal to sell; or by fixing the Zee
for license so high that no man either
will or can buy.
There are some, however, who appear
to labor under the Misrepresentation. that
a prohibitory law would be an encroach-
ment on the rights OF the community, and
chargeable with injustice and oppression.
But no individual has rights at war with
the public safety and welfare. 1t is
principle Of law well settled, and every
where recognized, that no man is at liber-
ty to use even his own property in such
manner as to essentially injure others, or
to become a public nuisance On the
ground that the public good is to limit the
rights, and to regulate and control the con-
duct of the members Of society, our entire
system Of jurisprudence proceeds A
man may, to be sure, do whatever he
plesses, so long as he does not injure 9TH
er individuals or the public. But when
he passes this limit his rights cease
Now, then, If vending ardent spirits is
noxious to his fellow-men, and at war
with the vital interests of the public, no
man has a right to embark in the business.
Why has not a man as perfect right to
convert his tenement intoa gaming house,
or his farm into a race-course, as to open
a grog shop, or store for the sale Of ar
dent spirits Your Committee are utter
" unable to discover what there is so Pc
culiarly sacred and inviolable in this
traffic, that It ought to be exempted from
the lot of other vicious and baneful prac-
tees, on which the law does not hesitate
to lay its hand
In proof that the measure proposed is
no ir1practicable and visionary project,
the committee beg leave to refer you to
what has actually been done in that part of
Massachusetts,, denominated the Old Col
ony, containing population of 10000
people, where the traffic in all its forms,
has been eftctually stopped, not indeed by
the action of the Legislature, but by the
county commissioners, with whom the
power Of granting or Withholding licen-
ses, is entrusted. The results ofthe meas
IRE have been in every view, auspicious.
This isevinced by the increased, and more
decided appreciation Of the community.
shown by their election by augmented
majorities Of commissioners known to be
in favor of this course; and by the calen-
ders Of their courts of civil and criminal
justice-cases of the latter kind having be-
come all but extinct. And If a regulation
of this character can be carried into effect
there, We see no reason why statute en-
bracing the same principles, could not be
carried into effect here, characterized as
this state has always been by Difference
for law and a general spirit Of subordina-
ton to its prescriptions.
All which is respectfully submitted.
LYMAN FITCH, for Com.