News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1900-11-28

IIlOoS IONHS lHC SAFE Vi opium Is
larger accordingly than in larger
towns. The question is not a ques-
ton of morals; it is a question of ex-
pediency. We should pass law that
will allow a person to use his own
judgment. The revenue to be devised
is quite a question. Some think the
amount of fees in the bills toolarge,
others that it is too small, however,
it can be remedied at some future
time. The bill as a whole is above
criticism. The referendum of the bill
is a prominent feature. By the terms
of the bill it is constantly a referen-
dunn, as it may each year vote
whether it will allow the sale of IL
quOrs or not. If there is any wrong
done it car be corrected the next
election. This is the best feature of
the bill. Public opinion enforces the
law, not the officers. He said he
noticed the last census showed very
little advance. He would like to see
the state grow and not be at astand
still. We don't get any supportfrom
outside the state. Our hotel business
would increase largely if we had the
same laws of other states. The
large hotels on Lake Champlain
would have been built on this side if
they could have enjoyed the same
privileges. The friends of the bill are
men of high standing and in favor of
the enforcement of g laws.
Senator Dunnett said he wished to
reply to that part of the argument
which related to fees. The fees are
not large enough to make lawyers of
ability enforce the law. The law re-
garding disclosures are too arbitrary
and wrong, but this is not the proper
time to discuss it. The law of the
State of Vermont is not the laws
made by the Legislature. The law
has been handed down from ages and
established by our Supreme Court as
against public policy to disclose
names of compliments. My objec-
ton is that it is not a general law.
The prohibitory law says it will not
be sold while this bill says it should
be sold for drinking purposes. Ifnot
sold for drinking purposes it should
not be sold anywhere in the State.
It it should be sold it should be sold
in every town. The law should be
a general law. He objected to the
local option feature. He said he
could not vote for either a high IL
cense or local option law as a major
ity of his constituents were in favor
of the prohibitory law. He said a
neighbor of his has told him of the
enforcement of the law in Burlington
when he was sheriff, When the law
was enforced the pauper bill was less.
The law is well enforced in St. Johns
bury. When he used to come to
Montpelier when the law was not
enforced, the workingmen were then
a poorly dressed and dirty set of men
while the workingmen of his town
were well dressed, but since the law
was ENLARGED they appeared different.
He acknowledged the law does not
prohibit in all sections of the State,
especially on the west side. He wish
ed the law kept on the statute books
until the prohibitory law could be
enforced. Senator Clement wanted
to know how much longerhe wanted
the law so TO enforce, it had been on
the books rs years now. Senator
Dunnett said when public opinion
brought it about.
In the House Messrs. White of Rut-
land, Miller of Burlington, Buck of
Reading, George of St. Adams, Por-
ter of Wilmington, McFeeters of
Enosburg, were among those who
spoke in favor of the bill. Those who
spoke against it were Waterman of
Brattleboro, Fleetwood of Morris