Connecticut western news., 1889-12-11
WEDNESDAY, DEC. II. 1889.
THE LICENSE QUESTION.
SOME PHASES WHICH TT PRESENTS.

We never could see the justice ln charging hotelkeeper from s2OO to $500, or s1,OOO per year for license while druggist is charged only from SIP to $50 per year for license. Neither could we see the justice in voting no license, thus closing every bar in town, and then, instead of appointing a town agent, grant druggist license for nominal fee.
 It appears, ..by an article among the state items, that the women of Norfolk have set an example for their sisters in other no-hcense towns. We presume the Norfolk druggist has complied with the.terms or provisions of his license fu1ly ss we'll as the majority of drugg- ists do. Norfolk is not the only mo- license town in Connecticut where 1t seems unwise and undesirable to grant a druggist license, yet in many towns the men have not the moral backbone to oppose the granting of druggist license, therefore, they do, and will, shirk their duty unless the women unite with them, in fact take the lead, in opposing the granting of such licenses.
 We venture to say that in some cases the county commissioners would be glad to receive petitions similar to the one presented by the men and women of Norfolk. In some cases no doubt the commissioners are reluctant to grant druggist licenses. but inasmuch as no opposition is presented by the residents of those towns the commissioners naturally conclude the citizens are willing said licenses shall be issued. We believe the commissioners are anxious to discharge their duties but is it not expecting too much of them to render an intelligent and righteous decision when only one side of the case is presented ? Ought we to place the whole responsibility for druggist hcen- ses on the commissioners ? Should we not share the responsibility with them, at least inform them of our wishes in the cases brought before them The commissioners duties are 8 thankless task in many respects and certainly ought not to blame them for decision where we neglect to make our wishes known. Altogether too many men who vote no license, shrink from opposing the granting of a druggist license. We vent ure to say the women would not hesitate totexpress their convictions. Would 1t not be kindness to such unstable men to allow the women to vote on the license question ? It would certainly help such men out of their dilemma. If the women voted no license, you would soon discover they said what they meant, and meant what they said. We do not purpose at this time to advo- cate woman suffrage, although we think women are unjustly denied the ballot. Neither do we advocate that innocent and defenseless women and children shall suffer by the liquor traffic because they cannot protect themselves by the ballot.
 We do not champion the cause of the hotel-keepers against the druggists. We see no necessity for giving either party license. A town agent is the proper person to keep liquor for cases of necessity.
 One serious objection to granting druggist licenses is this, viz , expert ence proves that in the majority oi cases those who sell liquor contract the habit of drinking liquor. Druggists compound many prescriptions which contain poison, an overdose of which would instantly prove fatal. Druggists should certainly be clear-headed men. total abstinence men, free from contact with hquor and the constant temptation to drink it. Is it wise to place the sale of liquor in druggists hands and thus place your prescription compounder in the very midst oi temptation to drink intoxicants ?