Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1853-02-03

lie says our statement that his argument Was
Mr. Vail before the legislative committee, " Is
substantially false" and that myself and Mr..
Burnham knew it to be false when we published
it. As to Mr.. Bumham, he knew nothing of
the matter, and had no concern with the state
ment, whatever; nor did he ever read it until
aftersthe paper was published.
"One Of the people, says, that the editor of
the Repository, hne,o this statement g to be
false Does the gentleman pretend that he
kno,Us what we knov, and what we do not know,
better than we do, ourself! We heard Mr.
Vail argument before the committee, both eve
nngs, and according to our best recollection and
knowledge, we affirm again, that in our opinion,
there was very striking similarity, between his
argument before the committee, and the argu-
ment in the Patriot, both in the points objected
to, the nature Of the objections, the arrangement,
and the expressions. 1t was substantially Mr..
Wallis argument. Perhaps, Mr.. V. did not
write the article in question but, if he did not,
it must have been written by some apt scholar of
his, who heard him before the committee. We
are willing to leave this matter to the members
of the committee, Or to other responsible gentle
men who heard it; but is it quite becoming in
One Of the people, to charge us with blank
falsehood, because we expressed our opinion that
there was very close similarity between the
twol
He may say it is g false" as much as he plea
SEES, hut our opinion on this matter, remains IN
changed. We know that the two productions
were substantially the same, and also that Mr..
Vail did write the argument in the Patriot, u
gainst the Vermont Liquor Law.
Again, he charges US with stating what we
kae,c to be false" in saying this law does not
authorize the search or seizure Of any man S
person, Or property, without warrant, except on
some public show or fair ground, &C., simply be-
cause, by mistake, we happened to leave out the
word & near" before " on" The diffaren is
between on" such grounds and " on or near. 81
He is welcome to all he can make out of this
"Snappng up of inconsiderate tribes y
though it sis entirely false" to say, we knee
it at the time. We did not happen to think
! then, that the word " near' was in that clause
of the law. Alas, what quibblng
We would refer to the article of Common
Sense in the last Patriot, for vindication o
our view Of the safety of towns, with regard to
agents appointed to sell liquor for medicinal
purposes, &c.
1t is not necessary that every statute should
expressly provide for u jury. as the constitution
and our general law make sufficient provisions Of
this kind; nor, do one half of our laws against
crimes, make any express provisions for jury,
whatever.
We maintain that section IL, does make a
provision for Il trial in all cases. If the respond.
ent does not appear, but suffers default. that
is another matter This act says, " said Liquor
shall be destroyed" &C., land the owner Oh
keeper of such liquor shall pay to said town
hne OF twenty dollars and costs, if, in The opinion
Q, sa'd Jus"ce, sad liquor l0as kept or dtpositec
for the purpose Of sale, contrary 10 The precision,
Of this dct.o How can the Justice be of thi,
"opinion, unless there is trial and suf6cien
evidence presented, to convince him that the i;
quor was Kept and intended for the purpose 0
sale! Ii the justice Or jury is of the opinio,
that The liquor was not intended for sale, pray