The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1884-04-16

dered under cover of law for what was in
fact an act of common humanity. There
is no excuse for them, they have said.
There is the law. They know its prohi-
billions, its penalties, and its provisions
for supplying all reasonable wants. So
let them take the consequences. We do
not bring these things up as reasons why
DIR. Nichols should not be nominated.
We choose to make our fight against him
on other grounds. As matter OF NOR
ais, and as citizen, he is entitled to
whatever of extenuation his restricting
care and caution may have imposed upon
the traffic; but it is weak, futile and in
consistent thus to seek to extenuate and
to brush away objections to actions which
are clearly beyond the pale of law, and
for which other people, who do not enjoy
the exemptions which local influences
and official position bring, have been ruth
lessly prosecuted. 1t is rather an occa-
sion for confession than for palliation.
The time, the circumstances, do not re-
lieve the alleged extenuating circum-
stances entirely from suspicion of inter
ested motives. But it is good time for
directing attention to some features of
the prohibitory law, and inquiring if it is
not susceptible of amendments that shall
not impair its efficiency, but shall relieve
it of some of the legal scandals that
grow out of some of its provisions. In
this connection, we ask attention to the
following comments of the Rutland Her.
aid on a case recently occurring in that
county:
| Estate Us. f. A. Morse; bonds chancered to
| a nominal sum for sufficient reasons shown.
| This was the announcement of the court report
| on Wednesday morning. The facts were that
Mr.. Morse, respectable druggist of West Rut-
land, sold some liquor in case of emergency,
like sickness, or injuries caused by violence,
and while technically guilty Of violation OF
the prohibitory law, had really acted in obedi-
ence to the dictates of humanity The action
| of the court in this case was in the spirit OF
public equity and justice, but the shameful
| thing Is that the people have not moral pluck
enough to say in the statute what they really
| feel; IL the law expressly authorized druggists
in cases of emergency of this sort to sell liquor
it would be altogether better than to compel
| the court to evade or nullify the law in order
| to escape the inflction Of penalty that would
| be entirely legal and would be a violation Of
decent public justice. Now our liquor agencies
| close at an early hour; in cases of sudden
emergency at night, where physician orders
alcoholic stimulant for patient, a druggist
ought to be licensed to sell. In other cases
| where the sick or injured person may be dis
| tant from liquor agency and yet near drug
| gist, it is an inexcusable public hardship to re-
| fuse the druggist permission to sell liquor. Al
| a matter of fact, nine-tenths of the liquor
ordered by physicians for their patients is fur
nished by druggists, for the simple reason thai
sickness and serious injuries cannot wait tC
seek liquor agency when it is distant, and
certainly cannot find liquor agency oper
after nine o'clock at night Why not amend
the law so as to legalize druggists sales or
| doctors orders in these emergency cases, in
stead of acting disingenuousy, as we do now, OF
| this subject in court. Legally Mr.. Morse wa,
| subject to a fine, but it would have been al
outrage to have fined him for selling liquor il
an emergency case of sickness or injury ant
| so the court consented practically to evade Of
nullify the consequences of the law by reducing
| his bonds to a few cents. Better to say wha
we mean in the statute than emasculate thu
| statute in court because it does say more thai
| we mean. A druggists license might be issued
| limiting sales to cases of sickness certified tt
by reputable physician who had persona
| charge of the case. This would save the drug
| gist from unjust prosecution and save the cour
from practically multiplying the law"