The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1900-12-05
The First Battle,

Commenting on "the defeat of the
so-called referendum BILL" which it
pronounces complete and decisive in
both houses" the Herald and Ne,0s,
whose editor was one of the official
reporters of legislative proceedings,
says sit failed to receive the measure
of support that its friends predicted in
either chamber" aud continues:
"Though the bill was we'll handled in
some ways, it was badly botched in
others. The plan of holding caucuses
of the opponents of prohibition to
frame and consider bill--excellent in
theory-did not work we'll in practice.
A considerable number OF members,
favoring the submission of stringent
local option act to the people, were not
prepared to enter these caucuses and
thus be in honor bound to the support
of such a measure as the majority
therein might dictate. The result was
that the radicals controlled the eau
| cuses and dictated measure in many
respects unsatisfactory to the conserva-
| tives waiting outside. 1t was, in effect,
plicity of rumholes to many commuui-
ties. The druggists license fee was
merely nominal. There was no re-
striction as to gaming and none as to
the location of saloons at a distance
from churches and schools.
After the bill had been introduced in
its faulty form, it was Of course too late
to amend it. Any attempt to do 80
was a confession of error, fatal to sue
cess, if any hope existed at all. OPP
ponents of the license idea riddled it
numerically and no defense was pos
sible. The referendum provision did
not prove a saving grace for it. The
number who would have voted to submit
more peri ct measure to the people is
unknown. AS it was, the bill got very
few votes in either house that would
not have been cast Tor a straight
license local option bill. The straw
votes in various towns had tendency
to discourage those believers in pro
hibition who mt first favored submission
in the belief that the result would be an
endorsement of the present law which
would fix it more firmly than ever.
But the truth is that the majority OF
our law makers were opposed to the Ii
cense idea itself and no amount OF
furnishing would make it acceptable to
them. They looked on license as evil
and unwise, and, if necessary, were
willing to stand between it and the
possible desires of majority of voters
in favor of it. The license sentiment
showed heavy gains, but still lacked
much of majority. What the effec
OF the next two years agitation and dis
cussion will be remains to be seen. i
the tide moves as fast as in the las
two, it will mean license. But it may
turn the other way in equal degree
This will almost certainly be the grea
and overshadowing issue in the mex
state election.
The foregoing is a candid ant
straightforward statement of the case
of the "so-called referendum" recent,
before the Legislature, by an edito
who has favored the license system o.
regulating the sale of Intoxicating liq
uors, and who has supported the prop
osition to submit the question of the Ii
cense or the prohibition system to tn
action of the voters of the entire State
1t is commended to the attention o
Rutland Herald. The JOURNALS opin
ion, confirmed by the issue of the re-
cent contest before the Legislature, ha
been that in thorough-going public
discussion of this question the existing
system of regulating the sale of liquor
would be immensely strengthened ant
the issue of referendum would be it,
triumphant confirmation.