Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1847-10-21
For the Journal.
Gentlemen nj The Lepisl1f,ire:


Yon are The sworn guardians Of the people.
Every member of the community, from the
highest to the lowest. has claims on your legis-
tive care. While you make laws for others the
Constitution is yonr own law, and you are bound
by the higher obligations of Christianity. A
humble class OF citizens have some just cause Of
complaints which it is in your power to redress.
Will you listen to our appeal? Confident that
you will, we approach you boldly, yet respect
fully. A law exists which we think imposes an
unjust and oppressive restriction on our liberty.
A portion Of the people choose TO follow the
occupation of traders. They gain living and
accumulate wealth by selling goods. OF these,
some establish themselves at certain locations
others travel about from place to place. One
invites you to his store to buy goods; another
offeis his goods at your door. Why should not
both these classes of traders be alike protected?
Why should one be encouraged and the other
frowned upon by your legislation? And espe-
cially, gentlemen. why should the richer class
be favored by restricting the poorer? There
are honest men OF moderate circumstances, who,
from i'll health and inability to labor and from
an unwillngness to throw themselves upon pub
lie charity for support wish to peddle. Why
will you not encourage them? Why should
they be hindered by law which almost amounts
to prohibition of peddling' Is there any NOR
al difference between peddllng and local trad
ing? Is one calculated to disturb the public
peace more than the other?
At the last session of the Legislature an act
was passed, greatly increasing the amount paid
for peddler's licences. That act operates agaiust
the peddey and in favor only OF single set of
men, the local merchants, and not tor " the COM
mon benefit, protection, and security of the peo-
ple.' Now, Gentlemen, ask you 10 open
the Constitution, at Part I. Art. z, and then de.
eide in view OF the unconstilutonallty of the
m ha
paid for peddler's licences ought not to have
been essened rather than increased. Then
move your finger, gentlemen, to Art. 9, and re-
member that we pay at least our fair proportion
OF taxes compared with the local merchants, and
decide whether we are not constitutiQnaliy ent-
tied to as great measure of liberty in The use
OF our smaller capital as they.
The moralist might well be surprised that
selling useful articles from place TO place should
be made crime. Bot how would his surprise
rise INTO astonishmcnt on comparing the severe
penalty OF lhis'crime with the mdness of some
other penalties. In the laws of the last session.
Immediately following the act of which we COM
plain, Is another act entitled "an act to prevent
Imposition and accident in the sale of medicine"
This act might well be entitled IAN act to pre-
vent the wanton and reckless exposure of human
life in the sale Of medicine And yet its pen-
allies are light compared with the peddlers
penalty. The two acts are put together as if to
teach the community that pcdding without Ii
cense is greater crime than selling poisonous
medicine with false label. The act relating
to medicine will probably be repealed. Why
should not the other be repealed with it? Why
should not an act which makes light of crime
bordering on murder, and an act which impresses
the seal OF crime on an innocent and even useful
practice, 60 out of the statute together?
Gentlemen OF the Senate and House of Rep
resentatiyes, amidst the many and interesting
subjects which come before you, do not forget
the PEDpLERs.