Spirit of the age. [volume] (Woodstock, Vt.) 1845-1913, 1896-05-16


disreputable red.nOsed men behind bars.
Barkeepers are not usually intemperate-if
they were they could not keep bars-and they
are as rule hardly more responsible for the
selling than are the glasses they handle.
They are poor men working for small pay.
The real rumseller-the man who really man
ages the business and gets the money-is
somewhere behind them, and Is perhaps never
heard of. And again, a second real rumseller
Is not nfreQuently behind both, 10 the person
OF the land owner who gets an exorbitant
rent because Of the nature Of the traffic and
the risk be runs. Hotel keepers and drug.
gists are also usually rumsellers and good
citizens to boot-and still the prOhibitiOnists
howl away about the ''rumseller" as II he
were a mysterious monster whom civilized
people never saw. Some OF the best men In
every community, In Vermont and all over
the world, are rumsellers. Burlington Is In
this respect like other towns.
1t is now in order for the Burlington Free
Press to retract its statements.
From the Rutland Herald for August 10,
1885.
A Letter From Gov. Woodbury..
estate of Vermont.
Executive Department,
Burlington,
August I, 1898.
"Editor of the Rutland Herdld:-
81 am much surprised at the editorial In
tOday's issue of your paper headed "GOv-
ernor Woodbury. as Rumseller." l have
owned the Van Ness house tor IA years and
during that time there has been no intOXi-
eating liquor kept in or about it, nor have
during that time been engaged directly or in
directly in the liquor traffic in the Van Ness
house or In any other place. If the guests of
the Van Ness house have persuaded any of
my employees to act as their agents to pro-
cure liquor for them such employees must
have obtained 1t outside Of the Van Ness
house, and they acted upon their own re-
sponsibility and at their own peril. You ac-
cuse me of owning too rumholes and run.
ming one. You designate me as "Rumseller
Woodbury." and in other words accuse me OF
being common criminal. / am willingto
endure in silence ordinary newspaper criti-
cisms, but my personal self-respect and my
respect for the high Office in which the good
people of the state Of Vermont have placed
me, and my desire that the fair name OF Yer
mont should not be traduced and discredited
abroad, forbid my passing in silence the
highly libelOus article referred to. there
fore ask you to make complete and i'm
mediate retraction in your paper, falling In
which shall adopt legal means to bring you
to account for your outrageous libel.
'Iours very truly.
"URBAN A. WOODBURY."
lie HERALD HDub Julb itttcl IdtuCI puL-
Zling. Gov. Woodbury. says that he is not a
rumseler and demands retraction of the
HERALD's statement that he was, and at the
same time speaks of rumselling by his ser
wants as II he would not deny the truth of
the charge that they were guilty. The HER
AID never charged anything but selling by
servants. 1t offered proof in certain cases,
continued. Now, if Gov. Woodbury. will
admit the truth of this-if he will admit that
his servants have sold liquor as the HERALD
says they dld-lhere Is nothing left to dispute
about. His letter goes to show that he Is
ready to admit that, or, at any rate, that he
will not undertake to deny 1t. A local article
from the Burlington News. printed else.
where, which is likely enough to have had
the governors sanction, speaks in the same
way.
Assuming that The selling by servants Is
admitted. how does the case stand! Here Is
the Vermont statute covering the point
"If a person by himself, clerk, servant or
agent, sells, furnishes or gives away, or
owns, keeps or possesses with intent to sell,
cider, in violation of law, he shall forfeit for
each Oflense to the state, upon the first con-
viction not less than five nor more than
one hundred dollars, and may also be inn
prisoned, in the discretion of the court, not
moro than thirty days; upon the second and
each Subsequent cOnVlctiuh, uot icss tuau Ien
nor more than two hundred dollars for each
Otfense, and shall also be imprisoned not less
than one month nor more than one year."
Now, this statute Is simply tremendous In
its terms. 1t was intended to reach precisely
such cases as we have under consideration,
and under it men have been convicted and
punished for selling liquor when they were
In intent and act as innocent as unborn
babies. 1t Is not necessary for man TO
know that his servant makes the sale or to
direct or approve the selling. The sale itself
| ends the wOrsted. OF course the servant acts
at his peril and may be punished, but so the
master may also be punished. If the SER
| want, acting as servant, sells rum, both SER
want and master are rumsellers under the
| law.
OF course 1t is easy to imagine cases In which
servant at the Van Ness house sold liquor
without putting any moral responsibility up
on the landlord, and perhaps without creating
any legal responsibility In that direction.
But the cases charged by the HERALD are
different. We charged, and proved in detail,
| that servants In the ordinary performance OF
their work furnished rum to guests without
demur and that repeatedly. When guest
in hotel rings his bell he summons the land.
lord. The landlord answers in the regular
way, by boy, and the boy takes and fills an
order for liquor. Taking an filling orders in
that way is a part of the regular duty OF hotel
| servants dlI OVER luc WOlNu nuu uC WouN W
queer lawyer who said that the landlord
was not responsible for the regular, ordinary
action of servant In such case, even II
there were no special statute concerning It.
And the same thing is true with regard to
liquor served at the tables-the servants
represent the house-the landlord. The
Van Ness house has had bottles OF liquor
opened In the dining room and served tt
guests as openly as tea and coffee are served
| and that n great MANY times.
Gov. Woodbury. says that liquor sold mus
have been obtained out of the house. Unless
he had wine press and a distillery and {
brewery on the premises that must be true
But It makes not the smallest difference
whether the liquor is brought In by the ounc'
or hogshead.
Gov. Woodbury's letter sounds as II HI
thought we had charged him with per sonall,
buying and selling and handling liquor. W.
never intended to intimate anything OF thu
sort. We charged that his servants hat
furnished liquor to guests In their rooms ant
on the public tables, and that not once Of
twice but continually and year after year
II Gov. Woodbury. will admit the truth O.
that. as his letter indicates he may, we hav'
nothing more to say.
AS to retractiOn, the HERALD made IT.
statements upon what seemed indisputaDl'
evidence, but it is ready to cheerfully ant
promptly retract anything it said the momen
Gov. Woodbury. or anybody else shows u
that It is untrue. Without new light, how
ever, we can find nothing to retract. As L
the general statement the HERALD might a
we'll 'sretract" the multiplication table.
And word further: The HERALD ha
no fight with Gov. Woodbury. except as !
!, may be forced to fight in sef.defense. 1t ha
charged him with no wrongdoing i9 sayina!
that he sold liquor; such selling, is onl.
made an Offense by en- outrageous law, ant
it is the law and not the governor that tn
HERALD attacks. The governor indicates
commendable sollcitude for the good nam
Of the state. The HERALD joins him heartily
But 1t Is well to remember that 1t Il not wha
the HERALD says nor what Gov. Woodbur.
, says nor what any newspaper or men sa
} that tell the story. II, is what Gov. Wood
, of them perfectly we'll meaning and SINGER
y got the prohibitory law on the statute.
: and others have kept II there and upheld II
: Nothing has injured the state so much. II
Q hard for people living here to understan
bow much The thing in its operation