Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1876-12-01
IMPRISONMENT FOE TIE SECOND oyyrxc,


: that appeals are taken from Justice courts 1.
the county court, and by delays prevent th,
enforcement of the law ; that conviction
: can not be had for second offence so Iona
as the first offence is pending in the courts
/. . He believed this provision was a good one
, and necessary for the successful enforcement
of the provisions OF the law against selling
intoxicating drinks, and that it could be en-
forced. He cited the law of Maine as being
much more stringent than our own law, and
much more efficient in suppressing the
traffic.
Mr.. Martin. of Londonderry, said the bill
rs originally introduced provided for i'm
pflsonment for the first offence /; the COM
mlttee propose to amend so as to provide im-
prisonment for the second offence He be-
lieVed II we make the penalty imprisonment
ior the nrst offence 1t viii be more difficult to
enforce the law than if we adopt the amend
men Inc severity ofthe penalty led jurors to
! ue reiuctant IN the conviction of men when
If the penalty was not so severe there would
be less uQcertainty of conviction.
Mr.. Lord, of Chittenden. said We are en-
der about the penalties inflicted on the rum
seller, while We lnfict severe penalties upon
men who do far less damage to communi
ties. He referred to the large cost of our
/ courts. our poor-houses, our insane asylum.
mostly occasioned by the rumsellers. He
would have the bill amended so as to pro-
vide fine of $500 and six months impris-
onment for the first offence, and for the
second offence he would fine the seller 81 200
and ose year in State prison.
Mr.. Olmsteal, of Iownshend, was in favor
OF trying the experiment of Imprisonment
for the first offence. He did not believe the
| present penalties were such as to induce men
10 perJure themselves to screen the guilty
ones from punishment. but rather that pub
lie sentiment WAS not sufficiently awake to
the necessity Of sustaining TIE oihcers in the
enforcement of the law If the sale of
liquors is wrong. why not put such penal
ties upon the sale as viii punish the offend
ers : II the sale Is right. then we better re-
peal the law against it. Laws similar to this
are enforced III other States, and he thought
We could enforce it in Vermont. and he
wanted an opportunity to try it. Instead of
the penalty being too severe, it may be that
the penalty is not sufficiently severe, and
thus not enough of terror to the violators
OF this law. If the law against selling Ii
qTors is right, let US affix to it penalty suffi
ciently severe to deter men from violating
the law. He believed the prohibitory law a
wholesome law, and the violation of the law
Is a crime Of Observation-Disclosures heinous
than that Of the violation of almost any other
law on our statute books. If a man wilfully
steals from his neighbOr, he is branded as a
thiei FOR life but If lie sells my child intoxi-
eating drinks he is doing that which is worse
IN Its effects than the mere theft of few
paitry dollars he does that which is likely to
destroy my child for this world and the
next.
Mr.. Clark. of Stockbridse, said we should
not shrink from making laws for fear of laws
not tens enforced, but let us put proper
nm -l.4l int. I Al.
they are enforced
Mr.. Spaulding Of Barre, said We have a
ruln-shop IN place boys are enticed into
the shop and made drunken now if a man
scatters poison where dumb animals are
poisoned. we send the offender to State pris-
on. He thought it graver offence to poi
son our boys and young men than to poison
our domestic animals. and he was in favor of
a penalty equal to the offence. The largest
proportion Of the crimes and of poverty in
the State result from the sale of intoxicating
drinks, and there seemed to be a lack of con
slstency III allowing so much rum selling,
causing SO much misery III the State, and We
should aiiix such penalty as would prevent
the traffic
Mr. Burnap, of Calais, said it was TN easy
matter for man to pay a $40 or $50 fine for
Tie first and second offence, and 20 right
along about his business but seldom, if
ever, do We hear of conviction for q third
Hence. II nearly all our murders are COM
nltted under the influence OF drink let us
put penalty upon the sale of LIQUORS that
MI prevent their sale.
Mr.. Martin, of Londonderry. said it is when
he violator Of the law is trying to escape the
Pc naity OF imprisonment, that witnesses and
jurors are most likely to porjure themselves
20 screen the offender lie was willing to
sa tl,ff
second offence but he thought it not we'll to
% further tiAn that at this time. If impris-
'nment for the first offence would deter men
rom selling rum, he would heartily say YES
20 the provision but he did not believe that
uch would be the effect of such a law 1t
'ould be more difficult to convict rum
cllcr than if We make the penalty imprison-
ntnt FOR the second offence.
Mr. Blake. OF Barton, said the trouble now
; in finding man guilty of the third offence
Ne can easily tel whether there is an offence.
nd II we lmprison for the first offence, he
vii be more in fear Of the penalty than if he
las q chance to clear of Imprisonment
or the hrst and second offence, and never
each the third offence. Let US shut up the
um shops at once, and not permit the evils
esultIug from them. There is work enough
@ be done IN the State. and let those who
re now violating the law by selling liquor
urn their hand to some legitimate employ
nent
lIr. Blodgett. Of St Johnsbury, said the
proposed by the committee was
me step in advance, and he was in favor of
he amendment, and of the bill
Nr. Batchelder, of Arlington, had often
Prosecuted hquor sellers. and never yet de-
ended one, and he believed this bill n good
me when amended as proposed by the COM
nittee.
Mr. Randall, of Hydepark, said that the
'eople have not sustained the execution of
lie law in the past and he did not believe
hey would do so in the future because it vas
HGde more severe. Faithful officers, who
lave fearlessly executed the liquor law, have
,. en- dropped at the next election, showing
Lat the people did not sustain the execution
# the law.
Mr. Woodbridge, ofvergennes, favored the
amendment proposed 10y the committee, be-
Huse lie believed the law would be more
fectually enforced than under the original
H. He referred to the execution of the law
il the city OF Burlington, where perhaps
more effort had been made to enforce the
aw than anywhere else in Vermont Yet it
: only spasmcdicilly enforced. The low
,roggeries eau be closed but when it comes
% closing the bars of the hotels and keeping
hem closed it is a different matter. 1t has
lcen iouud almost impossible to imprison
iqunr seller for the third offence, and it
would be as difficult to convict Of a first
,ifence with the penalty of Imprisonment at
ached to it. lie said il Is a living fact that
men Will 60 before our courts and hold up
heir hands and take an oath, and then make
in liquor cases that they would
never make in regard to any other law or
my other offence. He was sorry that men
would so violate their oaths, but the facts are
iltent to every lawyer in the State. He b.
ieved this amendment was in the interest of
temperance and of the law lie had never
been afraid to do right. and he was conf
dent that he was right III this matter. He
believed 1t his duty TO his State to take the
position he did, and was ready to stand by 1t
before the people
Mr.. French. of Woodstock. said we must
see if the public sentiment is far enough adj
vanced to sustain imprisonment for the first
offence. We have difficulties enough tomeet
v it'll now in the enforcement of the law but
we must not go further than public senti-
ment will sustain us. He believed the COM
munity would sustain Imprisonment for the
second offence but if we fix that penalty
for the first offence, he feared that by the
next session of the legislature, in two years
from now, there would be such reaction as
that the whole law will be repealed. We
better accept this advance of one step, and
be satisfied with imprisonment for second
offence until we are certain that public senti-
ment demands the utmost penalty of i'm
prisonment for first offence.
On the question of adopting the first
amendment proposed by the committee, to
strike out the words and shall also be I'M
prisoned in the county Jail not less than one
month nor more than two months" for tho
first offence, Mr.. Peck, of Ira demanded
the yeas and nays which were taken-ayes
one hundred and thirteen. nays one hundred.
So the amendment was agreed to.
The second amendment proposed by the
committee to change the bill SO as to make
the penalty for second offence - imprion-
ment for one month, was then considered,
and agreed to-ayes one hundred and one,
navs ninety-eight.