The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-02-20


in principle, whether it is too stringent or
not stringent enough, or whether another
description of license law would be better
for the state or as favorable for the cause
of temperance, we need not now inquire.
The discussion OF these questions are for
eign to our purpose. We can hardly be-
lieve, however, that the members of the |
Rutland county temperance society really |
believe what their resolutions make them |
say they believe. Let us examine, for a
moment, the first three of their resolutions;
and we propose to examine them from a
radical temperance standpoint. We shall
do this, moreover, as one standing in the
position of those who cordially approve of
the present Vermont law, as 1t would be
amended by the nuisance act" so-caled.
The first resolution declares, "That the
traffic in intoxicating liquors is NAHUM in
sc, "and not criminal simply because pro-
hibited" Is this so ? The distinction be-
tween acts which are crimes of themselves
and those which become so because they
are prohibited Is well understood. Web
ster illustrates the distinction between vice
and crime thus Vice is that which
"springs from the inordinate indulgence of
the natural appetites, which are in them
selves iunoccut," and specifies intcmpe-
rance as a vice, and murder, forgery, ETC.,
as crimes. Further, the traffic in intoxi-
LII, t., ,>r,,I,;h;toI k,,
neither is it by law. If the traffic is a
crime of itself, without regard to statutory
provisions, why do law makers commence
all enactments, for its partial prohibition,
by declaring 1t prohibited" except, etc.
Do they take this course in reference
to those acts universally regarded as malum
in seq Can there be found on our statute
books prohibition of murder, forgery,
perjury or larcenyp Not one. The law
simply provides penalty for the commits
sion of these crimes. With the liquor law
it is different. Certain acts are there ex
pressly prohibited and a penalty attached
| for the commission of said acts. All law
human and divine recognize the traffic in
| liquor as legitimate to a certain extent, and
only denounce penalties against the abuse
of the traffic or in the traffic as prohib-
tied by statute. Further, if the tlafiic is a
crime mdlum in sc, then no human enact
meat can make it anything but criminal,
and every sale by town agent is crime,
and the agent a criminal. Is not this alb
surd ? Yet the resolution is to this effect.
The second and third resolutions declare,
THAT the laws of trade are better pro-
election against the evils of intemperance
81 than either stringent license or local OPP
:" ton laws and that all experience
shows, and legal harmony demands that
"crime should be prohibited instead OF
regulated Which is to say, that the
cause of temperance would be better sub.
served by the open, unrestrained sale OF
intoxicating liquor than by the most strin.
gent license law, or even by our so called
prohibitory law with the nuisance act
amendment. For what is or would be the
"prohibitory" law but the most stringent
kind of license law a.? Crime cannot b,
licensed, SO the courts say, but our law lie
galizes and licenses certain agents to trafli
in Intoxicating liquors. License does no
necessarily imply the payment of none.
for privilege. 1t simply means the RICH
or liberty to perform certain acts. An,
the Vermont law prohibits one persol
from trGi. i and licenses another. d.
these men iroan to say that the unrestrict
ed, unregdlated sale of liquor would be
'better protection against the evils of in
temperance" than the present law, or an
other law having for its object the regula
, ton of its sale They do so say, but W
can hardly believe that they mean it. The
also say that the traffic in intoxicatin
, liquor-for they refer to this when SPEAK
ing of crime-should not "be regulated.
Do they mean to be so understood ? TIL
r present law only attempts to regulate. TIL
object of the nuisance act" was only I
Il, make that regulation more stringent. Doe
experience show and legal harmony d.
mand" that the office of town agent shoul
}. be abolished, and that it should be illeg
+ to sell wine, or other intoxicating liquo
n for medicinal, mechanical, chemical {
|, sacramental purposes Must these article
l. one and all, be banished from the repertol
e of the physician and chemist, from Il
l. shop and church This is what the res
is luton says, do they mean it If the So
le is not regulated" so that wine, alcoho
lie etc., can be lawfully obtained, then
D, sale must be prohibited even, for these
10 Ultimate purposes, or it must be unrestrai
Or ed, unregulated, indiscriminate. We dou
lie whether any man is willing to go to IL
g extent, yet the Rutland county temperan
o. society SO declare. Doubtless they mea
~ well, but they are sadly at fault in the II
tie of language.
err
re Another Job.