The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1882-07-27
L. tn Eailure I


strongly that our present liquor law Is
allure and States Attorney Fem fraud,
The only reason given for these assertions
is that while the law makes all rumselling
except by the authorized agent aud for
certain authorized purposes crime some
Of the rumsellers have been prosecuted
and punished while others have been
shielded. We think 1t would be very
difficult for the Ref0rmer to poist to an ill.,
stance where any liquor seller has been
shielded. If the charge had been that
some sellers have been prosecuted while
others have not II would have been true,
that is true If the common report is cor
rect The law holds every man guiltless
until he is proved guilty, and we know
that every man who has been proved
guilty has been punished, eitherby fine or
imprisonment
But common report says there
are Others guilty Of selling who have not
been punished. Is it the fault of the
law? Evidently not Is it the fault of Mr.
Fem? We think Mr.. Fem has prosecut-
ed every case where complaint has been
made by responsible citizens with witness
SECS enough to make it reasonably certain
that conviction would follow. Ifthe ed
itor Of the Refmmer knows of any case OF
illegal selling and is ready to go upon the
stand and swear to the fact, or il he will
produce other competent witnesses to the
fact we have strong belief that the states
attorney will make no attempt to shield
ANYBODY. On the contrary we have faith
TO believe that the seller would find thai
the law is good for something and that
States Attorney Fem is ready to do ms
duty ~ point OF fact he is compelled to
prosecute under such circumstances or be
liable 10 fine.
The trouble seems to be not that the law
is failure and the states attorney also
but that the law is success and the pros
ecuting officer has made it so. 1t there
had been no convictions there would hav'
been no complaint from the Retormer. l.
there had been simply indictments by thu
grand jury and the cases allowed to remain
on the docket year after year until convic
ton was out of the question, as has beef
too often the case heretofore, there woul'
have been no complaint II is becaus
the shoe pinches, and for no other reasol
IN the world, that we have this comp amt
With the law as II is and Fem for prose
cutting officer any neighborhood In til
county can wholly suppress the sale
Iuauor, or IL not that, can drive II so ia
into the ground that it will never see day
, light
, As We said in recent issue the peopl
are disposed TO he reasonable in the mai
Ter and are not inclined to prosecute III
less liquor selling is carried to such an e'
tent as TO become public nuisance. A'
that anybody is shielded. The law make
no exceptions. The prosecuting officer
allowed little or 30 discretion, but aft'
all the execution OF the law rests mainl
with the people. No law will execute
selL la ease Of the liquor Law the pros
cutting officer can do little towards enior
ing it without the aid Of responsible Peep
|, to bring the complaint and furnish the e'
!, deuce.
II the Refcrmey, instead OF complaint
of the law or OF Mr.. Fem, had said th
the people Of Bennington who have be'
.. active in bringing liquor prosecutions ha'
acted ioolishly and maliciously IN the ms
Il ter il would have come nearer to what
/, think it intended 10 say. Whether y
: true or not Ne are not prepared to iudg
b, Some very good leyelheaded people ha
"a ben engaged IN !, aud the presumption
b. that they had sufficient reason for 80 d
\, Jag