Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1902-10-31
LEGISLATIVE NOTES.


The bill introduced by Mr.. Battell,
of Middlebury, providing for State
monopoly of the liquor traffic through a
system of dispensaries or stores, embodies
q principle that deserves careful con-
sideraton in the final settlement of this
veXatious question, says the Montpelier
Argus.
There is much to be said in favor of
government control of the liquor bust.
ness. In every case except under
absolutely free rum there must be some
that this monopoly, admittedly danger
Gus, might better be held by the state;
that the state can exercise a more rigid
and effective supervision over its own
officials than it can over private parties
to whom licenses may have been granted.
The system has been tried in Scan
dinavia, where 1t originated, and in
South Carolina. 1t has proved efficient
and promoting sobriety. 1t has been
highly commended by publicists who
have investigated it.
Whether it is the system best fitted for
discussion and careful consideration.
We cannot expect that ideal liquor legis-
lation will be enacted at this session.
Prohibitlonists have been working over
tI,o,r la,, ffN- I,.1f
ing it at every session, aud yet have been
unable to make measure that met
popular approval.
If the license men cannot find some
satisfactory settlement of the question in
less than 30 years they ought to be will
ing to give up.
1t has been settled by long and dis
agreeable experience that prohibition is
not the satisfactory way to deal with
this question in Vermont. The alterna-
tive, which has been advocated for many
years, is local option. That is the only
thing people have discussed as substitute
for prohibition. If it is tried and found
unsatisfactory We shall not have to
return to prohibition. We shall have
the idea embodied in Mr. Battell's bill to
test.
The Randolph Herald says: "Of the
several plans thus far proposed, Mr..
Battelis most nearly meets our idea.
We do not, however, favor some of his
propositions, such as the licensing of
druggists and of hotels.
We believe that the state of Vermont
can directly control the purchase and
sale of all the liquors used in the state,
at all places and for all purposes.
Not only do we believe it possible, but in
our opinion it can be done with far less
danger and far better results than to
hand the traffic over to private parties.
We are opposed to the grog- shop run
for the personal profit of the proprietor.
A person who holds licence for which
he has paid several hundred or thousand
dollars must first sell enough liquor to
pay for that license, then enough to pay
his running expenses, then enough more
to swell his profits as much as possible.
The temptation is great to dispense all
the liquor he can without regard to its
effect on the community. Though
bound TO degree by legal restrictions,
he can often infringe them without real
danger, and practise shows that he does
this in many instances. He can afford
to take risks anyway, when it means
dollars to him. Then the licensee and
his aids are not commonly men of high
sense of moral responsibility, such as
really should handle this dangerous
traffic. The license saloon is in practice
a public offence by reason of many
things done therein aside from the mere
selling or drinking of liquor.
On the other hand, we believe that
liquor can be dispensed in a proper way
by carefully selecting men, who serve
on salary only, and are not dependent
on the amount of their sales for liveli-
hood.