The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1895-11-08
the REFoRMER: BRArrLEgoRo VT FRIDAY NOVEMBER 1895
samples Of prohibitory Argument.


For "logic that is logic" the viii
: mington Times takes the record sine
} tho time of the zone boss shay" whel
} it asserts that the 434 federal license
for the sale of liquor in Vermont, o
one for, each 1873 inhabitants, proves tina
less liquor by two thirds is sold in Yer
mont than in Massachusetts wher'
! licenses are limited to one for caci
thousand Of population in those places
where under the local option system
they are allowed at all. 1t is possible
that some people may believe the fac
to be as tho Times states, but to asser
that it is proved by the figures i.
simply to say that the more places
there are for rumseling the less the
rum sold. The Times objects first that
the Reformer in its comment" assumes
that all those who have government
licenses are rumsellers. ~ So does the
law of Vermont, which declares the
possession of such license prima
facie proof of violation of the prohi-
bitory law. Next, the Times asserts -
though where in the world it gets its
figures it don't tell-that % per cent.
of the whole number deal only in
'soft drinks as those manufactured
by Eddy a. Co., Of Brattleboro, and
pf,fh efrn - h,,f hn In
truth is that none but those who dea
in intoXicants have to pay the federal
tax, and the man who pays one speci-
fled tax can sell anything in the way
of malt liquors, or for another specified
tax anything in the way of distilled
liquors,so far as the federal govern
ment is concerned. II isn't at all
likely that many men are paying it as
an act of charity. The only state
prosecution for selling the Eddy a.
Co., beer resulted in an acquittal by |
order of the court. The next step in |
the Times logic is, that included in
the 434 licenses in Vermont are town
agents which is not true; the list
them and refers only to those
who are prima facie violations of the
state law-"and druggists who are
to sell for medicinal purposes
only" The druggist who sells drop
for any purpose is made criminal by
the law of Vermont, and in license or
ocal option states he is required to
,ay a license, though very small one
n Massachusetts, even if hisbusiness is
strictly limited to medicinal purposes,
10 that the inclusion in the list is per
ectIy fair for comparison of the work.
ngs of the different systems. The only
logic" that can stand a moments
bought of which the Times is guilty. I
$ where it argues that the limited
lumber of dealers who pay the heavy :
ak required in Massachusetts are \
nder the necessity of pushing the .
usiness to the utmost, while, pre- !
those in Vermont who pay n
My the federal tax and conduct the c
ratfic more or less secretly, are content :
18th comparatively small business. 7
here is unquestionably something to
4 is, so that the number of liquor sell
lg places are by no means an exact !,
leasure of the amount of selling done, y
ut it comes nearer being one than any S
fnc hn oh snf ~ iN-
Ugh license system, while open to the = =
ojection named, is that it SO restricts +
he number of sellers that they can be A
ore carefully watched and prevented II
ON doing the kind of business that y y
lght to be prevented, like selling to u
inors or confirmed drunkards, the Is
Try kind that flourishes most and So
orks its deepest decentralization under u
e subterranean methods which pro h,
bition involves. In Massachusetts m
e dealer runs the risk of FORGETTING Ct
S license, if he does any of this kind r;
business: he is not afraid 4,
refuse any body who ought not to er
sold a drink, and his money in az
rest is large enough to make it an " "
ject for him to prevent illegal, inn to
oper or unlicensed selling by others 70
While the liquor problem is one ",
at is full of difficulty and from NJ
itch no entirely satisfactory results fir,
n be got by any system, the fact re- tn
Tins that prohibition" is the worst DO
all methods of dealing with it. be
Use fundamentally wrong in prin-
lie. wa