Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1872-11-20

the traffic in intoxicating liquors, respectfully
report
That they hive considered the same, and have
failed to SEQ sufficient advantage in the proposed
change of the law tO Justify the experiment
When a law has been long enough 10 force TO be
understood. it is believed to be bad policy to make
a change. unless the law has proved TO he de-
hcient or defective in the purposes for which 10
was created, or another, more perfect or efcclual
is offered in its place. The changes proposed by
this bill, except in one particular, are not deemed
Of great importance. and not sufficient to justify
the change Bot there is one radical change in
the bill which docs not commend itself TO the
Committee. The present law provides Tor the
election Of q commissioner BY the ireemen Of the
county, whose Jurisdiction extends through the
county, and whose duty it is to appoint an agent
in each town for the sale Of liquor for the various
purposes authorized by law thus making the
Of the law, through the county,
az least, reasonably uniform. This bill proposes
that the sclcctmen Of each town may appoint
some suitable person TO sell liquor Tor the pur-
poses contemplated by the law. There are two
prominent objections t. this part Of the bill in
the minds of the committee. One objection i.
that it will bring into The administration Of town
affairs a fruitful source Of contention upon sub.
iect, upon which, unhpppily there is too great a
diversity Of opinion, and in the election ni the
selectmen the fitness Of The candidate, for the
important duties of their Office in the minds of
the electors, will be made 20 Yield % their pccu-
liar nnti1u- prc,ldicc and partiHlltcs, upon this
one absorbing and exciting question. The other
objection is, that h will result in a want Of uni-
lorm'y 100 The administration NJ the law ln
one town. while The board ol so'eetmen may Dc
friendly % the law, and 90 faithful execution OF
b. and 20 that end will appoint ma agent who
will We like faithful iu his duties boo thai respect.
10 an adjoining town there may DE board of
sclcctmcn whose principles 10 regard t1 the law
" hang 50 loosely about them tlat they will
appoint AN agent Of as et-y virtue as themselves.
and thus nulliiy an the objects and pnrplsss of
the law. For these reasons briefly stated, and
Tor others NOT stated, the committee are OF thc
opinion thai the bin olght not 70 paa-.
WILLIAM llFHrn,
for ConnUYo.
and thercupon tie third reading of the bil
was refused.
From com. 900 Highways uUiu-t n 3lG. m
addition to see 10 chap. Is, y So rchtu. t
Highways; third reading refused
From com. 0n highways. in favor 90 u 3i3
10 amendment ol clap. -, S., relating tl re-
pairs 81 highway and bridges passed
From general cIm., 30 favor of II. Co. 90 proc
tect fish in the mill pond ndrcscryoir OF ROYAL
luel, Of Weather-held passed.
From com. on Judiciary, against n. 3O3. ia
amendment Of see 40, chap. -, g. Sc relating Oh
county oh'ttN Nll leiuiu- refused
Prom com. ou judiciary, 10 favor ri $ II. On
rcpcdan act relating TO billiard table. read Third
umc ana passed
Alr. 0mnger' ol F@ch9m, called up II. lSj, 81
protect fish 90 Perch Pond 10 The town ul
Puwnhl read third time and passed.
Mr.. Armstrong, Of Castleton, moved O. recon-
slider the vote taken TINS morning, passing IT
$50, u prevent the spread OF small pOS. saying
that q now appears that see. ! chap 90, g. s.,
suitably protects the public without further lcgis
iation Oh the subject.
The provisions OF the bul We're discussed by
Mes~fs. Pingree OF Hartford DAVIS oi Reading,
Waterman oi llylepork, NAnger % Peaoham
W hecler Of Weathersheld, W hlic1mh ut Ludl0w,
B1ttum OF New Haven, Cook OF Mendon, Circuit
OF Newport and Childs OF WallingIord and thC
motion 10 reconsider was agreed ~, and Che
question recurring, snail the PM pN.' Mr.
sherman OF Dover, lyed that the hi'l Pee dis
missed which was agrced TO-
From com ON Judiciary against II 2l9, re.at-
ing 10 the rate OF Interest. The merits of Tho
bin were discussed, (it providing that amy rate
may be agreed % 10 writing, not % exceed 3 ID
per cent? hy Mr.. Pingree, Of Hartford wien
on suggestion of Mr.. liaskius Of imuIchor0
that TIE hii had not been considered in commit
tee, on motion of Mr.. liebard Of Chelsea, th,
bll was rec1mmittod u CON. on judiciary.
Mr. pitkin. of Montpelier. called up tie replr
of the com on mileage and debenurc,; and the
report a. amended hy the committee was read boz
fulL
Mr. Field Of Springfield moved 10 amend III,