Litchfield enquirer., 1877-11-15
The SpIFituous Liquor Traf1Tc and the Suppression Of ies Man.
 fold EVIla.

ford Advocafs:
 Prohibition of the saIeof spirituous or Intoxicating liquors by the state is total. ly different thing from prohibition of such sale by any town or by the electors there Of in town meeting assembled. To the former I am opposed, for we tired it from 1854 until 1872. and it proved in all our cities. and ether great centers of popula- ton. wuesa than useiess. It brought on us besides the evil of numberless grog shops, another evil of the greatest magni- tnde, to wit, that of having a penal law violafed with impunity. The moment this is done there is no security for life or property, and the very foundations of civilization are undermined and rendered unsafe. What say of the State general ly, I affirm was true of this prosperous and, in many respects, interesting town, in which wTth my family, took up my abode in the fall of 1854, soon after the initiation of the prohibitory policy, and where has been my home (with the exception of few months) to this day. During this period. to wit, eighteen years of prohibition and four of license. gTOg has in our beautiful village been obtrud- ing its miscreaftd front upon us where ever ve went Why has this been so? I affirm 1t has not been for want of law, and abundance of it. I affirm that prohibi- ton by the State had attached to it sanc- tions and penalties just as severe and CO., gent as prohibition by the town has now, and also affirm that license when intro dnced was subjected to restrictions and qualifications tall accompanied with pen aIties as severe as those attached to pro. hibitionl, which, had they been enforced, ~wrvRlI hawa pa1rs<.uI fha evil raau1kinO Q from the same to a minimum quantity. Bat neither nnder prohibition nor under license has this been attempted, and yet one of the speakers at the great assembly holden in the Town Hall last Sunday af- ternOon expressed emphatically the opin- ion that the mere existence of these sanc- tiOns and penalties would alright the grog vendors in our midst out of their dens and make them as harmless as so many doves. If mere penalties are adapted to produce such wonderful result, why had they not some effect in Stamford under prohi- bition from 1854 to 1872? and under li- cense from 1872 to this date? Let us at- tend to the reason or cause that produced this state of things, as thereby we can de. rive from the past most valuable instruc- ton for the present and future. affirm that neither the act of 1854 nor that of 1872, contains adequate provisions for its own enforcement The latter has in it many prohibitions to which Severe penal ties are attached, and therefore the two acts are alike subject to the above remark. Both acts left crimes committed by viola ting their provisions to be dealt with and punished by such agencies only as the law provides for all other crimes, such as as-- sault and battery, theft. burglary, and the like. These agencies are grand jurors, constables, justices of the peace, states at- tOr1eys. petty jurors, and judges or courts. It is true that the General Assembly not long since made provision for the ap~ pointment of an agent in each county to attend to violations of the license law, with regulations for cOmpensating him for his services 70 miserably inadequate ss to make the whole thing little better than farce. One man.to hunt up and punish all violations of our license law in the county of FairfeldI Impossible, unless he were possessed of the attribute of om- nipresence, and then he would have hard time of it. But as the gentleman who holds this office for this county is one of our fellow citizens, he can, and no doubt will, take an effective part in executing the will of our people, so emphatically ex- pressed on the first Monday of last month. From the prohibitory law no revenue could arise. Not so with the license law, from which large revenue accrued-not less than e quarter of 6 million of dollars annually--and this, the act of 1872 pro- vides should be paid over to the towns respectively. The effect of this was to put the general prohibition of 1854. and the numerous prohibitions of the act of '72 in exactly the same category; that is to say, without cent in the state treasury that could be appropriated for the en- fOrcement of either. Had the legislature appropriated annually from twenty five to fifty thousand dollars, and put the same into competent executive hands to enforce fully the act of that year, (and in my opinion such an appropriation would have contributed in a high degree to the pub lie welfare) every grog shop in the state . could have been shut up and kept shut up till 1872. Had the act of the last date ordered the revenue there arising to be paid into the state treasury the means for enforcing its prohibition would have been ample, and the detection and punishment for violating it's penal enactments made certain. But in drawing up and passing these acts there was displayed little of true statesmanship, and a great deal more of zeal than sense or knowledge, conse- quently both enactments served to illus trate the truth of the axiom, "What is everybOdy's business is nobody's." No notice was taken of shameless violations of law in either case, and in both solemn enactments by the only law-making pow er known to our state government were spurned and trampled under foot. am on principle, opposed to enacting any law that either cannot, or is not likely, to be enforced. am for that reason vehement. ly opposed to any such legislation as the act of 1854. provided it is to be treated as that was up to 1872, and as for the act of that year. called the license act. it has, in my judgment. been fraught with nothing but mischief. l have struggled hard, sup ported by devoted friends. to get rid of it fOl several years, but in vain. It is i'm possible for me to regard it with any sen. timent less intense than that of 0bhor- renee. But notwithstanding these views, I can, with perfect consistency, vote as I did at the late town meeting for prohibi. ton by the town, being what is called To. cal option. For no such proposition can be carried unless public sentiment calls for 1t, and will sustain it, or in other words, make it effective. But when we have such an overwhelming display of in- dlguation, not to say of wrath, as we had on a recent occasion. on account of the monstrOus evils with which this communi. ty has been so long toTmented, can there be any doubt as t0 their extirpation. To realize this all important object, we must act, aud must do so vigorously, judi ciOusly aud perscUeringty. And here let me whisper in the ear of some of my friends the suggestion. You cannot put down grog with oratory." Grog is like a cat which you may throw up as high as the steeple and it will be seen to land on its feet and will spit in your face. or rath- CT act as if it was about to. Nor can join another orator in expressing commisera. tiOn for these grog vendors. Let them first repent of their sins as,we all should, and next ''do works meet for repentance, " or in other words abandon now and for ever this abominable traffic, and then will extend to them the right hand of fel- lowship and do all can to promote their welfare
 Stamford, Oct. 3lst. 1877. T. s. .