Litchfield enquirer., 1874-12-24

inconyeniencies, not the least of which
 consisted in the fact that the electors of Fl no atOwil,5 however overwhelming the ma
 iotity should be, could at once deliver the
 same from the evils of the liquor traffic
 Thaywould4 hags to wait for such con
 summation till the expiration of most, if
 not all. of the ensuing year. The legisla-
 tures having made up their minds to hand
 over the subject to the electors for thelr
 action at each annual town meeting, wise-
 ly concluded to clear the deck, which was
 effsctaally done by the provision now ad |varted to- ss azaT e-s ,.5as < Il N..p But there Is another alteration I which should not escape notice, as it has
 considerable bearing on the question now before us, and that Is the provision that
 authorizes the electors at any annual town
 meeting by major vote given by ballot
 to determine that all licenses shall be hm-
 itetht to the sale of ale, lRger beer and
 Raine wine, not including spirituous and
 Intoxicating liquors, for which more ia
 vorabie terms are accorded, than to E-
 censes including all Such hlimited licenses Ibeing granted the sale of the former will
 be and become lawful. and the latter uti-
 lawful. slod al hssssoozg ListaiI35asl H. And Yet another to be adverted to
 asitis of deep interest, though of no par ticular bearing on thei topic now under
 consiaerations II appears at the close of
 section 12 of the act Of sthe last session land is in these wordss ssNor shall such I tperson (that is any one kcensed) sell, ex-
 eAangeor give away toeany one, impure
 spirisuous or adultefasea liquors, ale or
 lager beer Any violation of this provi-.
 sipn would make the party liable to be saed on his bond. II doubt whether there isa single gFog shop in Connecticut which does not violate the condition of his bond
 several times day by selling impure I whisley, usually strychninized, and I do I not hesitate to say that every proprietor who does this spuFns the sacred iniunc- l tion, t'thou shall not kill. si As the hghtn- fings and thunders of Mount Sinai do not
 seem to produce any impression on such
 characters. the legislature deemed it wise
 to make provision for givingIa shock to l the pocket nerves of each and all of them | and this they did by the clause cited - $ Having thus deduced from the two acts,
 and particularly from the last. all the ele- ments essential to a proper appreciation Of this subject, add few remarks in support of the opinion expressed at the oPening of this article. They are as fol ldws: L- &-5-+~ @- ...- < I I Not a shadow of authority can be found in either act for calling a special town meeting to reconsider and reverse the determination of the electors at any annual town meeting. It is true that there IS tf' be found on the pages of the 1 seAtute book provision Colder 1t is believ- ed than the declaration of independence) te the effect that special town meetings 1 nay be convened when the selectmen nay deem it necessary, or on application oK twenty inhabitants qualified to vote in 1 sid meeting," but this only relates to meetings to be held to take into consi- deration affairs strictly municipal, such as the opening of new roads, feparation of old provisions for the support of the poor, and otker like matters and has no appli- cation to 2 case like the present. The vo- taries of the alcoholic traffic ill your town must have resorted to this old regulation for calling the late special town meeting, but if they do not find that they have na,s Rssn ,asrsading s 1. on pretty slippery ground. II. But reiterate the remark that the power conferred on. the electors i'll this l connection is not municipal ID it's charac- ter, for a higher and much more import ant reason. Even if your special town l meeting was lawfully called, it had no jurisdiction to act on this subject. The power conferred on your electors and ex- erclsed by them at your annual meeting,
 was legislative in it's character. It was a power granted by the general assembly for a special purpose, to be exercised on particular day and in the precise manner | indicated. It is part of the very power exercised by the assembly itself for long course. of years under and by means of the act of 1854. to wit: Prohibition. In the late acts, that body in substance said, we will no longer exercise that power general ly, we will try license; but as the will of | the people ought ever to govern, we will empower the annual town meetings to prohihit shah the electors see fit to do so.
 maintain that the moment your annual, town meeting passed the vote to which you call my attention. prohibition for the ensuing year in Greenwich was re-enacted
 by legislative authority, and. 8 special town meeting can no more set 1t aside than they could repeal the act of '54 were | it now in full force
 III And here we ask, would it have
 been In the power of the annual meeting,
 after the annunciation of the vote, to re- consider the subject and set aside the de- cision of the electorial body? Who could
 make such motion? It is the settled
 rule of all dehberative assemblies that no one can do so but member who voted
 with the maj jority. But in
 this case the vote was taken | by ballot, yea or may, and no one can tell who voted the former or who the latter Shall some one be permitted to rise in his place and state that being de votee of grog he had in the exuberancy
 of his zeal voted to prohibit it, and on that basis make the suggested motion? Such an exhibition would strikingly illus
 trate the absurdity of this claim. But
 suppose the motion made and entertained
 how should the vote have been taken? By
 ballot? And if so, how long should the
 polls have been kept open? Or will it be claimed that it would have been Tn the
 power of one or two scores of electors on
 the heel of the meeting to take a snap judgment on the whole body and blow np their determination sky high? No thing can fe more certain that it was not Tn the power of annual meeting to set
 aside Its own vote and If so what are we
 to think of logic directed to prove that a special town meeting can do what the an-
 auat meeting could nots 9F
 | ". l submit that of the reasons which
 led to the introduction of the ballot un-
 der and by virtue of the act of the present year, one of the most important was the determination of the legislature to make
 the vote or decision of the electors at the
 annual meeting final The force of this
 consideration is greatly enhanced by three | particulars. First, the sense of the elec-
 tors voting to be ascertained with certain
 ty, and this could be best done by the
 ballot. Second. ample opportunity se- tcured to every elector to vote who chooses 1 to do so. and third, wite provision for
 having the vote if successful, take effect
 Tn future. Your people were called on to
 say, by ballot, whether prohibition should
 he the law in Greenwich for the entire
 year, from and after the 31st day of the
 ahen current mouth, and having respond
 ed yea by majority. there was no more power to set aside that result than they would have to annul any other ballot at the same meeting. Q. g.. the choice of .
 town clerk, or any or all of the board of