The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1886-10-13
Wanted--.A Different Law.
Correspondence st. Albans Messenger.

Correspondence st. Albans Messenger
1t is claimed by many of our managing
republicans that our temperance laws are
all that could be required, and they gravely
inquire why the people do not enforce them.
The reason is plain. First. a prosecution
requires such labor and skill that none but
an experienced member of the bar can suc-
coed with one. Secondly the law has been
so changed since 1852, that no person except
the states attorney can get any pay, and he
not enough to reinunerate him for the extra
labor, if he saw fit to undertake it, Thirdly
that the leaders through the rummy infu-
ence, manage to have every prosecuting
office, from the highest to the lowest, filed
by some one at least Indifferent on that sub
ject. And as they would be boycotted and
abused by powerful influence, they will
not prosecute unless compelled to do so.
The first proposition is self-evdent. The
second is equally clear, when we examine
the changes made. The first change made
was so quiet and still that none but those
engaged in prosecutions noticed it. When
the law was passed in 1852, an offender in
one town might be prosecuted before JUS
tice in another town in the same county.
This was soon changed by adding two or
three other minor offences with it, and re-
quiring the trial to be had in the town
wherein the offence was committed, where
with the assistance of their clique, they
could pack a jury, and corrupt the wit
nesses By the act of 1852 under the search
and seizure clause, sec. 18th, the only
clause under which a private citizen can
commence prosecution without the inter-
vention of an informing officer, the penalty
$50, and the respondent could not appeal in
any case without giving security for the pay
ment of fines and costs, and likewise give a
bond with sureties that he would not again
violate the act during the tendency of the
appeal. All this is changed now. BY the cor
responding section of Revised Statute, 1918,
no fine whatever is inflicted and no penalty
unless to take their worthless liquor and
give it to the town or destroy it. Under Sec.
2S21, the process is nearly the same, the
liquor can be taken, and the owner impris-
oned, but no fine or costs to the prosecutor.
1t is supposed by many that the prosecutor
gets one-fourth the fine in all cases, but on
careful examination of the statute it will be
seen that under Sec. 3S10 against common
seller, or manufacturer where the fine is
500 or 5000, the prosecutor gets no part of
the fine. Also in 1916 and II when an in
intoxicated person discoses; same in 1881
as carriers, etc, and 3S32, as an agent act
ing for another where the fine is 500 or
$500, the prosecutor gets no part. Also
under 1886, 1910 and 1913, relating to nui-
sances, wherein the penalty is from $50 to
500, no part goes to the prosecutor. 1t is
shown by the above that whoever manages
the legislation on the subject intends to
cheat the people. That is to have larger
penalties, but no way to have them inflicted.
And some legislation to remedy that evil
should he had at the coming session. or the
controlling party in the state will be held
justly responsible for it. This is the way
this matter stands, as it appears to
RETIRED MEMBER OF THE BAR.