The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1895-10-16


ings are disgusting. Treachery, ingratitude
and cowardice are displayed. For 1t Is GER
tainly cowardioe to select the victims in
this manner while so many out-and-out
rumsellers are unframed. Had these legis-
lators desired to perform some service
towards upholdng the prohibtory law,
the manly course for them would have been
to have attempted to secure the conviction
of the common criminals, guilty of selling
freely to everybody and everything; then
to have secured the conviction Of the lesser
violators."
The important errors of fact in the
foregoing are the allegations that " fl l.
grant violations of the prohibitory law
are going on every day in the
week, Sunday included, in Washington
county," and that "these offenses are
scarcely ever molested, and still less of
ten severely punished "; that the case
of Titcomb and Warren is " simply one
of persecution" that some of these
guess, after accepting the generous
hospitality sic] of their entertainers,
turn upon them and subject them TO
prosecution as common criminals"
However it may be in other counties,
we believe that it is strictly true that
since the " revolution in 1891, every
offense, fragrant or otherwise, against
the prohibitory law, in Washington
county, that has been defined with
sufficient clearness to warrant prosecu-
ton, has been faithfully and impair
TALLY - and successfully prosecuted.
This has not been done spasmodically,
or in spite, or in spirit of persecution,
but firmly and persistently, in obedience
to conscientious and patriotic de-
termination to enforce the laws, by a
states attorney mindful of the obliga-
tons of his official oath, and singularly
judicious and capable and dispassionate
in the performance of his duty.
The states attorney, at the first
meeting of the grand jury after the af-
fair at Roxbury, in his statement to
that body of offenses in general that
had been brought to his notice, men,
toned the case of the fish commission
ers' acts at Roxbury, as his duty and
his oath required him to do. The
grand jury took the matter up and,
after careful consideration, by unani-
nous vote directed the states attorney
to prosecute the fish commissioners.
This statement of the facts disposes
of the absurd charge of persecution"
and also the ridiculous Indictment of
the "guests" of the commissioners for
treachery, ingratitude and coward
ice," after accepting the generous
hospitality of their hosts.
The Banners confusion of ideas, in
respect of the moral phases of the
case, seems to grow out of its misappre-
hension OF the facts. 1t has never been
aquestion of prosecuting the commits
sioners for awbreaking, "while the
persistent violators proceed unmo-
Tested" On the contrary, under the
circu instances as they exist in Wash.
ington county, the question was, How
shall the common criminals, guilty
of selling freely to everybody and every
thing" be prosecuted hereafter, with
out exposure to the complaint of out
rageous discrimination, if these men,
public officials of standing and infu-
ence, charged with very conspicuous,
fragrant and exasperating disregard of
both the letter and spirit of the law,
and public sentiment as well, shall be
unmolested? Together with the plain
fact of violation of the prohib-
itory law, this was the question, as
it appeared to the grand jury of Wash
ington county, eighteen Of it's best cit
liens, acting under solemn oath, and
their answer was an order to the states
attorney to prosecute.
What can be said of the idea that
confounds with private hospitality the
furnishing of liquid refreshments, 10 q
public place, by public officials, to the
members of the legislative body that
had been asked for large appropriations
Or that seems to regard as a proper
matter of felicitation the circumstance
that there was "no debauchery" on
the occasion? Or that could see in the
incident nothing to shock a decent,
sober and order loving community ~?
Very likely the Banner has become as
thoroughly convinced of the absurdity
of its views of this matter as the COM
missioners have of the phenomenal
folly of the act itself. The contempt
rary is right in saying that the prosecu-
ton is in accordance with law. Its
criticisms seem to be the result of a mis-
understanding of some of the facts and
attendant circumstances, misappre-
hension of the moral phases of the