Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1844-12-20
CONVENTION.
For the Wntchman nnd Journal.

Mr.. EDIToR-l was somewhat surprised on the
18th inst at some of the arguments, (if such they
may be Called adduced against the suppression of
the sale of Intoxicating liquors by the agency of
the County Commissioners to be elected under the
late law on licenses. One was that if all licenses
should be refused, the law would be evaded, and
the liquor supplied by clandostine arrangements
But is it a sound reason against the operation of a
law, that it may or will be eunded? Should we
have no law against stealing, because one might
borrow an article of property Of another, for the
purpose of converting it to his own use and then
escape the penalty Of the law, by merely answer
ing in all action of rouer?
:. 1t was said, in substance, that the law will
riolafed by actual, open sales But is it good logic
to say that because a law is violated, therefore we
should have no law? Apply this in the case of
theft. Here is a man convicted of steuling-well,
says the judge, as he pronounces sentence upon
him, the law against theft ought to be repealed
you men violate it,
3. Men will not submit 10 the majority, if they
should elect board that would refuse all licenses
But will not County far famed for its democra-
cy as Washington, yield quietly to the voice Of the
majority? 1t would contradict its professions to
do Otherwise.
4. But men will not be coerced. You must en-
ploy moral suasion. These moral reforms cannot
be promotedby any other means But what coer-
cioR is there in refusing to authorize men to do
wrong and mischief? But you bling in the power
Of the law against having men do as they please
Yes-and so you do in preventing them from the
commission Of theft murder, or any other crime or
injury to community. Moral suasion is the main
thing, no doubt, which prevents crime, but law
must come to its aid in certain cases.
5. But it is unconstitutional to prevent men from
selling ardent spirits. Before any law exists or
the subject, they have all perfect natural right tc
sell this article, the same as they have any article
of provisions. Yes, they have the same right to sell
this article, as a beverage that they would have tc
sell poisoned meat before the existence Of law OF
the subject. What is the difference between pois
oning men with meat, or doing it with drink AnC
why make it criminal to sell poisoned provision.
and license the sale of poisonous drinks The
truth is men have Just the same natural right (prio
to the existence Of law to sell intoxicating drinks
thatthey have to steal or sell poisoned meat anC
no more. There is no natural right, and should no
be any legal right, to nure the community Tor oul
own benefit And if certain individuals will 90 t.
Boston, or elsewhere, to obtain liquid poison, in
case it is not kept for them in the County, why
them and them alone let the responsibility rest
The County, the people will not share the response
blity of doing them and their families an injury
There are only two arguments in favor of the sale
of such drnks-appetite and money-the former
principally with the buyer, the latter with the sell
err. Let the people say, whether the peace, morals
thrift and happiness Of the community better
and stronger arguments than these.
TEETOTAL4LER.