Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1855-02-02

D
boards were also authorised, as in
1871, 10 license inns and whaling
houses, in which the sale of wine
aud all distilled spurious liquors was
prohibited.
This law was an improvement upr
on the one repealed, and remained
on the statute book till 1850. Fou-
years in succession, the voters in
town and freemen's meetings through
out the entire State, expressed their
opinions on this question, at the bal
lot box. Every year the vote was
against licensing. In 1913, owing 10
a mistake, the vote was proclaimed
the other way. la one town giving
a large majority agains, licensing, the
constable returned that majority IN
favor OF it. The vote of the State
was so nearly balanced that this mis-
take gave a majority Of few votes
in its favor. The natural conse-
quences followed. During this year,
the State was flooded with rum.
In 1850, an act was pas sed, re-
pealIng all former laws, and provid-
ing for the sale OF intoxicating liquor
for medicinal, chemical and mechan-
cal purposes only, and, with the ex-
ception of cider, prohibiting their
sale for all other objects. This is
believed to be the FIST absolute pro-
hibitory law enacted by any of the
States. 1t takes precedence of the
Maine Law which passed in 1851.
Ii was not however equal to that law,
because il wanted its stringent pro-
visions 10 insure its execution.
This law was also repealed in
1852 and new one passed, entitled
IAN act to prevent the sale of intox-
icating liquors for the purpose of
drinking" This law, as originally
passed, was more stringent than the
Maine law. All persons were pro-
hibited from manufacturing, selling,
furnishing, or giving away any spir-
itous, or intoxicating liquor, except
the manufacturer of cider, who was
permitted to make and sell the same
iii quantities of not less than five
gallons, for medicinal, chemical,
mechanical and culinary purposes
only. The time of this acts going
into operation was submitted to the
freeman. The act was to take eff
feet on the second Tuesday of March
1853, unless a majority of the free
men, at meetings to be holden in
every town in the State for that
purpose, voted i" No" In that case
it was to take effect on the first
Monday of December following,
which would he after another ses-
sion of the General Assembly
This act was intended by its friends,
to accomplish the object of its en-
actment. 1t was so stringent and
so comprehensive in its provisions,
that 1t walked up au opposition, not
encountered by any previous law.
The lines between its friends and
its opponents were distinctly drawn.
The votares of Bacchus were most
thoroughly aroused. They saw
their God in danger. Their strong
est champions took the field, and
the State was probably, never be-
fore, so thoroughly canvassed. No
arguments, no means were spared
to defeat the law, by delaying its
taking effect, till another session of
the General Assembly. But the
vote was taken. The result was a
deaided majority in favor of the
laws taking effect at the earliest
period.
Though foiled, the opposition to
the law was continued. In 1858,
the Legislature passed an act, which
very much crippled the law of 1852.
BY that act, construction is given
to the words, "give away" which,
in many cases, defeats the enforce
ment of the law. The repeal of the
Odd and 25th sections, known as
the Minor amendments, was, to say
the least, unfortunate.
At the last session Of the Legisla-
ture, the committee to whom the
subject was referred, with much
care and labor, prepared a bill in
addition to and amendment of, the
present law. Its provisions were
judicious. The amendments were
very necessary, and commended
themselves to all friendly to the law.
Without them, some portions Of it
cannot be enforced with safety
NO apprehenslons were nn'ar,a'ned.
but that they would readily pass
both branches of the Legislature
The Senate passed them. But
" horrible diclu," they were defeat
cd in the House
We can wait another year. But
the labor of that committee must
not be lost. The friends of prohi-
bition must see to 1t, that no such
failure occurs next year. Ii it be
really intended "to prevent the sale
of Intoxicating liquors for the pur-
pose of drinking" why not perfect
the law SO that the object may be at
once attained
In tracing the progress Of the
temperance reformation, the Wash
ingtonian movement deserves partic-
ular notice. Previous to this, there
was but little done for inebriates.
The doctrine seemed to be, that their
case was hopeless, and that all eff
forts TO save them were useless. They
were treated AS lost. But this or
ganization, which, remarkable as il