The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-12-01
Report of Special Committee on
the License Bills.


ferred house bills Nos. 316 and $3.50, entitled
." an act to regulate the sale of Intoxicating
liquors." respectfully submit the following
report We find that in a large proportion
of the towns of this state the sale of intoXi-
cants is entirely suppressed by the prohib-
itCry law, that in most others the sale is
restricted and outlawed- to secret
and obscure places and made no longer a
respectable tratiic-while in only a compare
lively few is the sale at all open, uncon-
cealed and notorious, and in none is that
sale as open and notorious, or its surround
ings as public and attractive, or the influence
growing out of the same as harmful, as under
license law. We are satisfied from the
proof before us that the claims made by the
friends of license, that as affecting the fea-
lures which restrain or limit the sales, or
prevent the existence of low, unlicensed
saloons, license law is in any sense self
enforcing law, are not supported by the
facts coming from the states now using it
nor from the history of our state, which for
many years before adopting the prohibtory
law tried every kind of license with barren
results. From the proofs which are before
us we are convinced that in states where
the license law prevails the enforcement of
its restrictive features are more difficult
than the enforcement of prohibitory law,
and that such would be the case in our own
state; and that as matter of fact the re-
strictive features of the license law in states
where IHdI pOllcN prevails are less carefully
observed and enforced and the infractons
of the same are much less frequently pub
lished than are the prohibitory features of
our present law in this state; and that such
would be the record here were we to adopt
license we are fully satisfied. 1t is not true,
as claimed by the friends of license, that
money is lavishly expended in the enforce
ment of the prohibitory law. On the con-
trary, the fact clearly appeared that the fees
attending the prosecution of this law are
less than in other cases of equal magnitude
and are indeed so small as to make its en-
forcement a charge upon the public spirit
and generosity of officers and attorneys who
are called upon to perform this duty. 1t is
not true, AS claimed by friends of license
that the enforcement of the prohibitory law
is heavy burden upon the state on the
contrary, it appeared by the testimony of our
state auditor before us that, unlike other
criminal statutes, this law is self-Supporting,
the revenue therefrom in fines, costs and
forfeited bonds fully equaling if not exceed
ing the expenditures. We are satisfied, from
facts testified to before us, that in the other
prohibition states, as well as our own, most
if not all acknowledge marked and consid-
cradle Improvement in lessened sales and
greater sobriety under prohibition. Nota-
bly, is this true of Kansas, where by re-
sponsible authority it has been stated that
the sales have been lessened nineteen
twentieths and the manufacture entirely
stayed 1t is not true, as claimed by the
friends of license, that many states have re-
Gently returned from prohibition to license.
Nebraska is the last which changed to Ii
cense in 1880, With this single exception no
prohibitory statute has been repealed since
1873. But the converse is true that the re-
cent changes have all been from license to
prohibition, viz: Kansas and South Caro-
lima in 1881, Iowa in 1884 and Rhode Island
in 1886, while Maine in 1884, after thirty
years of experience, wrote prohibition into
its organic law by majority of over 10000,
Kansas, Iowa and Rhode Island have all re-
Gently voted in favor of constitutional pro-
hibition. Dakota also seeks admission into
the sisterhood of states with a constitution
adopted by its people prohibiting the sale of
Intoxicating liquors. Hence we are forced
to the belief that the universal trend of
legislative enactment throughout the United
States is not from prohibition to license, but
clearly and emphatically from license to
prohibition. We believe that the third
party movement in favor of prohibition is
not an index that the people are desiring a
change back TO license, but, on the contrary,
it voices a large and growing sentiment in
favor of national prohibition while urging
better results under that law in states
where it already exists; and that the safe
and wise course for the state is to respect
that sentiment and enact all practical meas
ures to improve the execution of the pro-
hbitory law. No evidence, as claimed by
the friends of license has appeared before
us showing that in this state license finds
champions among temperance advocates
and workers, among the clergy, the re-
ligious press or the judges of our courts;
but, on the contrary, there have been abso-
lutte proofs of the opposite sentiments of a
practically unanimous and universal char
acter. In our opinion the only argument of
weight in favor of a license law is the rev.
enue therefrom obtained, and we are firm in
the conviction that the state cannot wisely
for this purpose debauch the public senti,
ment, corrupt our youth, and permit and
offer degradation and ruin to its citizens,
nor nurse for pecuniary consideration the
acknowledged source of nine-tenths of the
crime and pauperism which atiiicts our
state. We are not satisfied that license
has anywhere lessened the amount OF
liquor consumed to any appreciable extent,
nor done much, if anything, to lessen the
evils of intemperance or TO promote and es,
tablish habits of sobriety. In view of all
these facts we cannot therefore deem il
wise or iustifable to send such law to oui
people with the endorsement of this gen
eral assembly and thereby say to the coun
try at large that Vermont halts hesitateS
and steps backward, while its sister states
are moving forward in the line of temper
ance legislation. Therefore we say thai