Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1840-10-07


ting the numbel who shall sell them Has
the government Of Vermont any right to
limi, the sale Of wheat OF wool, to any Civ
en- number Of the citizens Of the State
On the other hand, If the trade 10 poisonous
drinks be gross immortality, then nothing
/ can be palmer than that government has
no more right TO license that trade than to
license horse-racing, or lottery selling. both
! Of which latter practices together would be
productive OF small evils compared with
| The former.
As to the fact, il is all delusion to sup
Ipose that the amount sold and used is les
sened BY limiting the xunaber Of those who
sell. The sanction Of the government, by
giving character to the business, goes much
farther TO e.rfend the amount, than any sup
posed inconvenience does to contract it,
So far as my own observation extends, those
who wish to buy have no difficulty 10 pro-
curing all they want, as far as they have
means for paying.
now come TO the principal objection
raised against the repeal of the existing
license law in Vermont. Il is said that
The repeal arould amount to universal
license. This proceeds, of course, on the
supposition that the main object of the
existing law is 10 interdict the traffic. But
this view presents another absurdity, or al
lesst an egregious inconsistency, At the rery
| first glance. For, if the object be interdic-
zion, why not make the work efectuol?
Why not set the license at so high price
that none could purchase il and have any
profits left2 The right to fix one price i'm
plies the right to fix another. If govern
ment has right to require ten dollars, it
has right to require ten thousand. The
fact, then, that il does not fix the price SO
high as 10 amount to any Introduction, is
primo facie evidence that general intsrdic-
ton IL not the object. The most that can
possibly be made of it towards giving it
the semblance Of interdiction is, il is made
t. appear 70 limit the numbers of those who
sel1 without any provision or power, if il
has any design, to limit the quantities sold
and c0nssmsd, or the numbers of those
who bay and use. At the same time il
may appear TO regulate the character of
those Who cell, the effect of which has been
shown to be altogether pernicious, inasmuch
IS i clothes the busiaess of poison selling,
and those Uho carry il on, with respect1-
billy. Thus It is perfectly plain thar if
the object be Introduction, the practical OPP
GRAFTON does not take single step towards
the aft0inSeefst Of that object.
But, allowing the object to be interdic-
ton, il BY ne means follows that the repeal
would be universal license--or any IL |
cease 1t oil. If the practical working of
the present system amounted to an effectual
Introduction, there would be more PLAUSIBLE
ity in the prstension that the repeal would |
be license and in that osse-. le-s would |
be but few probably who would ask for |
repeal. But no sueh thing can be made TO
appear; and there is no view Of the case as |
il exists, as il ever has existed, or as il ever
will exist, which goes to show 10 the least
that the repeal would be license. Sup
pose that, under some prete1t or another, |
the Legislature of Vermont had been induc-
ed TO do the strange and monsirous thing,
to place on the statute book law requiring
that in every town IN the State, where the |
public convenience or the inclination of in
dividuals seemed to require il, there should
be licensed some individual, or individuals
some man, or men. Of ''property and I
standing" il you please-to keep brothel.
or brothels. Now whatever he ob;ecf sf|
such law might be, can il be supposed dat
its repeal would be q virtual license for .he /
universal practice Of lewdness No. The
wrong step has already been taken, ID grant
ing the license. The repeal would only be
retracing that wrong step. Whoever after
wards retail poison, or practice lewdness,
90 i on their own responsibility, without
any license from God or man. 1t is not for
eoyernment to license either the one oftLese
SINS OF the other-either partially or gener-
ally.
While thus speak, would not be under
stood to impugn the motives of those who
originated the license law. / believe that
those who know more about the origin oft
than ! do, suppose that the original object
was to limit the sale. Twas brought into
existence at time when the traffic was not
considered to be an immortality, except, at
most, 10 immediate connection with drunk
enness. Now am disposed 10 concede ey-
erything to the hearts Of those who devised
such remedy-but think at the same time
| have shown clearly that they sadly mis-.