Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1878-11-13

Adjourned.
House-Afternoon.
Unfinished JusiRess-lI. a. TO repeal an act
ating to the practice Of medicine and surgery,
approved Nov. d. 1876.
Mr.. HARRINGTON Of Halifax moved that the
bill be dismissed.
Mr. HOWE of Ludlow read some Of the pro-
visions of the act proposed to be repealed, claim
ing for the act that It was unconstitutional and
that its repeal is demanded by the people of the
state. II person in this state desires to summon
physician from New York or Boston, the pliysi-
clan so summoned must first obtain certificate
from the board Of censors rs provided under the
act, and while he Is doing that 1t may he too late
for the saving of the sick person. lie regarded
the law ~ nm insult to the intelligence Of the peo-
pie of the state, who are amply able to protect
themselves. lie gave an instance where physi-
clan of thirty years practice, from an adjoining
state, could not come into this state. when called
because he could not obtain certificate from the
board of censors although he was man of rec
ognized ability in his profession. The attempt
had been made in Massachusetts to pass such
law as this, but they never had been able to do So
He hoped we should now repeal what was clearly
an oppression and an abridgment Of the rights of
the people, lie was opposed to all class legisla-
ton, and this law one of the worst of that
kind, and he wanted II repealed.
Mr.. HARRINGTON Of Halifax protested against
the wholesale abuse that had been heaped upon
the medical profession. The physicians Of this
House have not seen fit to favor or oppose this
bill but he believed the law to be in the interest
of science.
Mr.. ELY-GODDARD Of West Fairlee favored
the motion to dismiss, claiming that the law was
for the protection of the people against imposition
from those not qualified to treat disease
MI MILD OF ,raltsou,y s'iu nc Wo.iu aloW
any man 70 orlhg around the SICK pea wnomso,
ever ne might see NJ 70 can; ne az not regard
,he Jaw as p.. ne ula no' regard
as vs'le'a.eu " 'lo.o'e wy suou U, tne people
hno M XIII yorid he nassed and ~ ,hn a "a
ro,peaiad ""' WV ~" 'e
Mr EATON of Danvi,le demanded the previons
question, which was seconded On the question
Shall tile bill be dismissed 2" Mr. Judevine of
Hardwick demanded the yeas and nays, which
were taken-ayes g. nays l35 So the motion to
dismiss was disagreed to-
The bill was then passed
Mr.. POLLARD of Windsor moved to reconsider
the vote refusing the thifd reading Oh H. 2Si, pro
V,u ig lor tne a,io"ance anu payment vi certain
c",lills us'u nnN Wy S S.a.e ,, .,.,-
i 49, ,,a doirad ,io ,,i,,oa a., H., i,," ~; w
~ I'M ,, Wv 1 o wy 1
uiuu''S " 'Nf''''" WY WY 'NP'''e" "s'Ns' '"o
Nj NJ; ppnt>crnN ~ p...l iii 10 .l, III,
nj M =, W. o.' VI nuui" , n.u IL ens vi.
snali pass !, il'de every Jonh,y cour. court Oh
auut W "iI'N t."ii"s Wi''N.i 0",uo ue'oIe
.le ool,i on o' 'h wy" s''' "'''e N""oi "
vi NJ ifEW, VnEp ~ C,,;,,ord ,ho,,.h, A., 49,.
nI a-r.h 81 ,'.ioiu .'Vusn' .lie pest
nl'ce 70 se'tie tilese e.an' Mas a, nvlno anu py
the luuses VI VIZ Ouun'N Noui' "ho Nno" MI 'ne
I,tieSt nv H. sss, A.,
Mr 'oDE, ~. oi l,"ru Nv, IN, iavoIea tue mo
l.l... ~.
anu thus ir ,,r SUN way " GU. oi t'e great
nuin9er Vi p,ils ,h'iou"oeu nere W pay 'he sum
''oie'" "'e',
The merits OF the bill were further discussed
by Mr.. Redington OF Rutland and Mr.. Miles of
Craitsbuiy. MI Eaton OF Danville demanded the
previous question, which was seconded. The
motion to reconsider was then reJected-ayes II;
nays %.
Mr. ALEXANDER of Guilford called M II DOB
to INCORPORATE the Guilford Seminary: the bill
was read the third time and passed
.Jojn, reso,,,iions-From the Sanate GRANTING tim
rso ~ tho Hail a. an % 80 w
80, tra,,;ab Cnr,;r. odr,ad ~ o.
Aisn gran,in, The cnmn,t,eas en- Tho ;naoua an ,a
H., visit tLo ins,ne nsvIn,n ar pra,,Iohnr, a,d
other asvinms. adon,ed in concurrence anu
.!,,,,,,,,,, 80
MT SohIlEh OF troy cilieu up H. no. I'd reg
uiate tle saie Oh intoxicating liquors
Mr. REDlNGTON of Rutland desired to discuss
the question ~ one of public policy, without any
regard to the question OF temperance, or any
other question save that of the public good IN
said he stood in harmony with the experience of
majority of the states of this uuion, and the
nations Of the world, and believed IL better for
the state to attempt TO regulate the sale rather
than TO attempt to prohibit which did not result
in prohibition. He recognized that this was
question of importance, and that we may give
the people an opportunity to say whether they
will approve the present prohibitory law, or will
attempt to regulate it by some such law as this
bill, this bill provided for its being submitted TO
the people for approval. lie claimed that more
liquor Is sold to-day in Vermont under the pro-
hibitory law than there would be il we had such
law as this. lie claimed that the sentiment OF
the people Of the state is against the execution Of
the present law. He therefore opposed the pres
ent law because it does not break up the sale of
liquors; because II is opposed by the sentiment
OF the people; and because it leads to perjury.
lie said that juries had decided that lager beer is
not intoxicating while he knew that it is intoxi-
eating and under the ridiculous decisions OF
juries lager beer is sold at almost all drug stores,
and that publicly. In cases where attempts
made to break up the sale OF liquors by the hotels
the hotels are closed up; but finally opened in re-
Spouse to popular demand. But the last and
greatest argument against the prohibitory law is
the immense cost to the state to execute it. The
liquor prosecutions cause a drain upon the state
treasury OF SsDOoo to $40 900 per year, and with