Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1854-01-06


of liquor contrary to law, are very artful at
lodges. To sell n cracker, or to show
striped pig for sixpencc, and to allow the
customer to drink some rum for nothing, and
such like cvasions, are proverbial. To cure
that mischief, the law of 1853 allowed no one
&C to furnish or give away, by himself, clerk,
servant, or agent" Intoxicating drink. Every
one, if he got it in the State, must buy it of
the authorized agent, and con6nc its use TO
himself. The agent was bound to be satisfied
that 1t was bought for a purpose prescribed
In the statute, viz for chemical, medicinal,
or mechanical purposes. So positive were
the terms OF the law, that, If any one "a mem
her ola family, or physician even, if nc were
not the authorized agcnt) were to furnish an
other intoxicating drink, no matter how small
the amount, nor how great the emergency, it
would require a great stretch of intcrpreta
ton to protect him from the penalties of the
law, if called to an account for its violation.
The LIST section of the act of 1853, qualities
the meaning of the words '.eire array in the
act of 1859, and leaves private families, under
certain limitations, to freezer exercise of in
dividual Judgment Within their own precincts.
BY the law of 1882, before one could be al
lowed an appeal. from a judgement against
him by Il justice of the peace, he must give
prosecute his appeal to effect; and another
sure bond for 5000, that he would not violate
any of the provisions of the act while the ap-
peal was pending. The amendment of 1883,
leaves the penal sum of the first bond to the
discretion of the court, as is done in other
cases, and dispenscs with the second bond
altogether.
, Where liquor was seized on warrant from
a justice, as under suspicion Of hp!ng intend
ed for sale, and the owner, if known, was
| ordered to appear if he did not appear,
or did not satisfy the justice that it was
: by the law protected from destruction, the
; justice was to cause it to be Destroyed
( Further IF he had an " opinion " that it
: was intended for sale unlawfully, he was tc
fine the owner $20a costs. Certainly, that
Y regulation, lift did not exactly cross the rule
, of assuming a man to be innocent till he il
$ proved guilty, looked that way so strongly, as
r to arouse dissatisfaction in the minds o
many,---cyc among those disposed to favor
. the law. The 4th section of the act of 1855.
aims to relieve the law of that objection anc
the 9Th section repeats the provision for filming
' the owner if he fails to appear.
: by the 18th section of the law of 1852, til,
!. person claiming the liquor which had bccI
seized under suspicion of being intended fol
sale, and condemned by the justice, could ap
+, peal from that decision but to make his ap
!, peal hold, he must first give a sure bond io1
- 5000, to prosecute his appeal to effect. |
= then, the final decision went against him, ant
r the liquor exceeded five gallons, he was to b,
=. considered " a common seller of Intoxicating
liquor" and subjected to the penalties of thu
law accordingly, besides having the liquor
- destroyed. BY the law Of 1858. that provis
ion is repealed. Also Cider is now allowed t.
- be made and sold freely. though it il not tt
3 be furnished to places of public resort, nor tt
!, habitual drunkards, under any circumstances
There are some other alterations, and som,
additions but as they concern points abou
which there cannot be much difference o
=, opinion, we omit notice of them. 1t s"""e tt
- us that, so far, there must be a very genera
approval of the amendments, as tending t.
~ free the law from some provisions which wer
felt to be, even by many of those WHO wer
= friendly to the general purposes of the law
~ very harsh in their character, and calculated
y to make enemies rather than friends, while Il
the same time they were Of no special benefit
q We hear indeed of but little objection to them
% But one, called Mr.. Mner's amendment, lh
~ being the mover of it in the IIouse) has beef
10 less favored. By some it is strongly disnp
proved Of.
The law of 1852 contained, of necessity
&c various directions for the guidance of sue
" public officers as must have to do with its Ell
q lorccmcnt. But for some reason it was fcl
4 by the makers of the law of 1852, that thos
,e officers were not to be left, so far as regard
r that law, under the same sanctions and res
c. possibilities which are expected to intluenc
3, them where other laws are concerned. 4
IL insure their faithfulness, most Of them {
in dozen or there abouts) were seyerally subjccte
at to heavy fine of from $500 to $500, if the
i'll refused or neglected to perform their duties
" Sections % and %, which contained thos
ed provisions, by Mr.. Miners amendment wei
IL repealed.
tie For the life erru:, we cannot Ta1t sec why Nj
of Miner should be ashamed of his amcndwen
en- nor why any spectacle Is 10. be feared fro
it. Why should not the officers who al
in trusted to enforce all other Laws of the Stat
dc civil and criminal, be trusted to enforce til
got law' We can see no good to arise from co
icy fering such notoriety Tor privilege, if 81
rot one Things that is the better term) on la
ur regulating the sale of intoxicating drink
1se But we see much evil from an implicati'
that public officer is not solemGly bound
of perform all his duties with the strictest il
di- Partially; and from laying down distinction
di- by which any one can be tempted to feel hin