Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1902-06-02
PROHIBITION VS.. LICENSE.
Editor of Monitor:

Editor of Monitor:
lam not politician but am receiv-
ing so many free copies of papers and
circular letters issued in the interests
of the different gubernatorial candi-
dates, and, as prohibition seems to be
the leading issue in the fight, l would
like through the medium of the NOM
TOR to say few words to the public
regarding that important question. L
say important, because it is of vast
Importance to the people of Vermont
whether the present law be CONT oued
or we have a free rum system. 1t is
of Importance to the wives and
mothers of Vermont whether their
husbands and sons are to have free
access to intoxicants in the many
saloons that will spring up under the
license system, or whether they are
to be in a measure restrained and
protected by prohibition. But, the
opposition says: "Prohibition does
not prohibit" And why? In 1881
was a deputy sheriff, and for some
attorney for Orleans county employed
me in nearly all his liquor prosecu-
tions and became pretty thoroughly
acquainted with the working of the
law. The greatest trouble the officials
of the law had to encounter then
and it yet prevails to some extent
was the Indifference of those calling
themselves temperance people, and
in favor of prohibition. For instance,
some leading citizen in a town would
write the States attorney that the
hotels in his town were selling liquor
illegally, and asking him to look after
it, then at the bottom of his letter
would say: "Please don't mention
my name" Then search warrant
being necessary for the officer, and
which required the signatures of
three voters in the town before a
justice was authorized in issuing it,
when taken to the man who had re-
quested the prosecution, he would
commence to excuse himself under
the plea that the seller was a friend
of his and he did not want to get him
mad at him (willing to stab him in
the back but not to his face), but Mr..
A, neighbor just over the hill, was a
temperance man and prohibitionist,
if the officer and attorney would go to
him he would sign it. Mr.. A would
quite likely send them to Mr.. B and ii
would be quite difficult to find three
men with sufficient moral courage to
publicly oppose the rumseller. Then
again at the hearing, every rummy
who knew of it would be there tC
make it as difficult and unpleasant as
possible for the prosecuting officer
while the temperance people would
be conspicuous by their absence
Prohibition is all right and will pro
hibit when it's supporters will come
forward to the support of the officials
in enforcing it. If, as Candidate
Clement claims, there would be less
liquor sold under high license thar
prohibition, why is it that the run
element almost universally favor hi
candidacy? But there is but small
danger of his becoming governor, o
to the present law, for it will remain
safe in the hands of our legisl ators o
with either Proctor Or Mccullough a
governcr-either would make a gov
ernor that would do honor to tn
office. But the average voter incline
to fair play and as there is prett
good evidence of private trading
Proctor's candidacy, Mccullough wi
receive the nomination.
G. w. MCGAFFEY.
GLoUer, w., Mau 2S, 1902.