Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1899-11-30
ANOTHER BATCH OF CASES BEFORE
CHANCELLOR ROWeLL.
Van Ness House and Burlington Drug
Company Considered But no Decision
Rendered Several Other Impor-
tant Cases still Under Con-
sideration,

week in which States Attorney Ii. f..
Brown mas asked that temporary inJunc-
lions be issued against certain places uh
der the prJhbitory law, pending p,rna-
nent niunctions. There were about do .
zen cases Tor consideration. Among these
| were those of the Van Ness House ana
he I}ulington Drug company. In the
case Of the Van Ness House a hearing was
held under concessions made by cN-GuI.
y. \. Woodbury., its owner, who also ad .
dressed the court and made "A statemcrt
of his position in the matter. NO rullhS
was made in either the Van Ness or Bur
lngt1n Drug company cases. y lew TOM
porary injunctions were ordered and the
court was adjourned urdh "Wednesday,
vh,u Chancellor Row ell SAID hc hoped TO
dispose of the group OF drug store and ho-
tel cases argued before him last week. The
hearing aroused less interest than thosc
of last week for some reason ana the at
tendance was rot so large as on the pre-
Nious occasion.
Tho business of the hearing was opened
1T A. there having Eccu a little delay on
the uart of some of the attorneys IN the
eases. The first case called was mat oil
the state vs.. CX GOV. Urban y. Woodbury.
Herbert f.. Woodbury. and lictbcrt y.
clark of the Van Ness tlouse. No wit
ue.sc., had been subpo,uded by states A.
torupV Brown but a bill of concessions
was submitted EX-GoV. Woodbury. VINO
did not appear by attorney but sat win
the states attorney lSlu' Nl't IhliIliS' 80
dressed tn. court lie said;
EN-GOV. WOODBURY'S STATEMENT.
"lr Your Honor please, | would like to
say little somthing in regard TO thl9
case. / desire to call your attention 10
the difference between the allesatlohs ''t
| tI, iu the bill of comp. aint ana the Voluh-
> tary concessions which | made, Wnlch IS
, the evidence relied upon by the stat :
b attorney TO substantiatc his aLegauohs'
, In the bill he alleges that the proprietor
l and maragcrs of the Van Nncss House
= have kept on hand intoxicating liquors
II with intent to sell furnish ana give away
without authority and that they have also
sold, furnished and given away ihtoAlta'-
J. lug liquors without authority. | suppose
that those are the ordinary legal terms
. to use in bill of this kind; out there
is quite a difference botwcou those al
70 legations and the facts conced ID. There is
Il litc a difference between keeping Oh
hand with intent to sell and selling iiq-
, uors, and simpy allowing an association
- that is giving "A banquet in the mouse, tc
; use BASS ale or the table. had not sup
:, u..cd and do not now suppose, except SC
" aal'as the bringiny OF this bill would Dis
= close to me. that allowing an ASSOCIATION
of gentlemen to use ale or other lntoNl
Icants upon the table, was unlawful lol
them or subjected us to liability under th'
law. | have made some inquiries ara
icannot find that there have been NOR
than three or four occasions where ale ol
o other intoxicants have been used at ban
Iulets during the last three or four years
have in mind. far as | know
that the last one before TINS wa
about three years ago, at the Commercial
o, Travellers Association banquet ana I'M
one previous to that time was about iou
rs wears ago. when the Chittonden Count!
- Ban gave a banquet in honor of TWO o
y their distinguished members, upon III
- completion, think, of ~ years OF the1
- service. At that banquet the late dis
IN tinguished chief justice, and the presef'
distinguished chief justice were guests
s ana | understand they had wine upon tn
tables al that time. That was furnlShe
hy the committee OF the members of IN
Chittenden County Bar, after having as
icertained that it was against our rules I
80 furnish anything upon such occasions O
any other occasion | do not for me
IS n.ent th.ak that this distinguished bod
,r Of mon thought they were Niola'
f. hg the law or causing ME
nj uo 50. 1t has been said tha
al If we were not to allow these Things
~ be used at the banquet table that
la should be the sufferers financially
v DON'T suppose that one in ten Of the bar
n olcts that are held there have anythir
~. az the tables and don't suppose mat OF
rd iE ten would refuse to come there,
u- they were not d lowed TO have it, SO
l.. would hc 10 lndnCldl sdcIlIlCc loi W
is forbid persons using these things at II
f.. hanquets- if it was unlawful to do so. io
tn may take the profits of all the hanque
w. that were eyer held at the Van Me-
f.. House, and | don't suppose that tn
r would equal the profits that would ha'
r.ic bon made had We sod liquor there II
A. s'N molths. 1t is true That all this Tim
& for eighteen years, as the states attorn'
d. we'll knows everyone Knows who visi
I'M the hotel peop.e in this community kno'
ith that we have never had IA United Stat
IN license; that We have never kept with /
d. tent to sell ANY intoxicating liquors; tn
as. we have never sold any intoxicating ii
|ucrs th"re. 1t is well known that We 4
ilo not in the rum business. This is general
w understood. If We had desired to ma
Ic- profits from the furnishing of liquor
all We would not have taktu the indire
ut., method of doing it at banquets. Our go
ned sciences are not of that class that wou
ect be satisfied with any subterfuges or
60. direction with the traffic of intoNicatt
LIQUORS. ! should be no better satsti
ga than ] would to deal in it directly "A
veil make profit There has not been
mt time in the last eishteon years with I
icd exception of the last TWO years, when
ur- bar in the Van Ness House could not ha
hit; been run without much ntcrleiGnce,
mr. any from the officers. 1t is almost Il
M possible to estimate the profit that mig
at have been made by the traffic la into
b. as is the Van Ness House. 1t would be
Nd modest estimate to say fiVe or six tho
In sand dollars year; that with the incret
lot interest, which thrifty hnanc
would know how to obtain would ha
amounted to over a hundred thousand d
lars during the time | have run the Y
IN. Ness House. DO you suppose that the II
Of the law would have deferred me fr
making this money? No 1t is in resp
yoS- for the law and obedience to the dicta
IS Of conscience that has caused me to
'.Hp frain from making this large amount
ph' money The Van Ness house is sngu
l'i," i'm some respects to tho general run
hlE houses rs most men think that "A nc
should he allowed to keep and furnish
T"i. its guests a certain amount of intoXicat
S"' liquors.
a.: It seems to me, IL your Honor please,
"'i- regard to this nuisance law, that the
llIN tout of the legislature was TO counter
'h't tho subtertuges of the liquor dealers
"' saying that this law can be enfor
lANe before conviction and that 1t might
ore enforced without the knowledge of
IHsS parties who owned the premises. was
obedience to the necessity OF having sol
thing so stringent, impossible 10 ev
that the Violator of law, the person v
Il. tralicked in liquor, who makes his mo
strr by catering to the weaknesses OF N
NJ Il should be punished | can see how
llm, would be-must be the intent OF the
ans 1t was not the intent of the law tina
respecter of it should suffep-a per