Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1902-12-12
THE HIGH LICENSE BILL,
The Action of the Minority Explained
and Defended by the Member from
Westminster

Westminster Dec S, 1902.
To the editor of The Phoenix
Dear Sir
The criticisms. open or implied, made
upon the course of the anti-license MEM
bers of the Legislature in regard to the
recent local-option act seem to call for
some explanation. Even our county
newspapers, which have stood for the
present law, have INDUCED in some APP
parent criticism of the action of our own
county members instead of upholding
that action, as ii seems to them ought
to have been done. These men were
upon the ground and consequently had
better knowledge of the situation than
persons at a distance could have. Every
one of them acted upon conviction of
what was best under the existing crcum-
stances, and ought to be credited with
clear intention to support the present
prohibitory law and also to maintain
the integrity of the Republican party to
which they belong. 1t is understood
that IL of the % members are supporters
of the present law. But several of the
number took the position which The
Phhnix has advocated that the Battell
bill did not meet the request of the Re
publican platform; was not what the
people of the state expected-and
though they might personally have pre-
ferred that bill rather than the majority
bill, as 1t is styled. did not feel called
upon to vote for its substitution Some
OF them voted against the substitution !;
some did not vote at all, not wishing
to vote against their friends upon the
committee, and those who did vote for
| 1t did so upon the ground that they de-
| sired to uphold the temperance element
| upon the committee who might well be
| supposed best to hold the situation in
| hand. Most of the prohibitory leaders
were upon that committee
hn ron1 taC4 80
upon the substitution of the Battell bill,
| as the reporters and newspapers have
| represented, but upon the referendum.
| Here, so far as can be gathered, was
| the real lineup: 102 for the straight
| referendum, 127 for the time referendum.
| The concession since made by the license
| party proves clearly the rightfulness OF
the stand taken upon this point. Had
| the proposition made by Mr.. Dunklee OF
| Vernon on that eventful Friday evening
| when the vote was taken been made
earlier, by the committee, or otherwise
so as to have been well considered, il
would not have suffered the fate 1t did
as is most conclusively shown by its
adoption i'm substance now by the license
party. There would have been no fighi
| over the referendum. Mr.. Dunklee sug
| gested it. 1t was moved by the mem
Der from Fairlee. But IL was received
with sneers and laughter by the licens,
|
of the state, not even The Phoenix, Scent
to have had any idea that II was othel
than Il piece of nonsense or obstruction
and 1t was stabbed in the house of II.
friends because it's real design and effec
was not perceived. Perhaps this is no
to be wondered at, for it came suddenl!
and there was no time to perceive I'll
real bearing. But reflection has showi
to both sides its fairness and utility, an,
so the concession has been made that /
the people vote no, the local option Law
shall not go into effect until 1906. Thi
provision has been adopted. 1t is evi
IDENTIFY case wherein the perception o
the follower has been clearer than tina
OF the leader.
In regard to the figures taken from
the st. Adams Messenger with intent t
! show that it was simply the members o
} the House who supported the Battell bill
with very little support of the people
J it is enough to say that every represen
tative from a large town city wa
! chosen to support a license law; tina
but for the small towns they could hav
carried what measure they pleased, an
: ii is to be hoped, If not expected, tina
the vote in February will show tina
these 102 representatives have the voter
behind them, and that a goodly numbe
r of those who voted the opposite wa
. have not. To this end the hearty sur
port of all the anti-license newspaper
e in the state ought to be given.
The outcome to the prohibitory sid
. is fully as favorable as could have bee
expected. The local option law propose
is doubtless, upon the whole, thong
[ there are Objectionable features in
A as stringent as any that has been adop
ed anywhere, it being in some respect
r an improvement on the Massachusett
J. law. The point made by your Putne
correspondent of last week was we
r answered by The Phoenix in saying ths
h those provisions to which he objecte
r are the precise provisions of the Massi
n chusetts law, and no one has heard
8 any complaint on that score in that stat
: The town of Mortified, as set forth
: your issue of last week. is having an e.
perience of how a license law work
n from which we would wish to be
s livered. However good a local optic
+ law may be, 1t is not the belief of Il
s party that has supported the prese
u law that If 1t shall come into effe
I by vote of the people 1t will add to II
reputation or the virtue or the welfa
Ie of the people of Vermont. Fifty yea
re of prohibition have made our peop
$, among the most noted for energy, s
briefly and intelligence. We cannot s
sr that the result from long years of
" cense in other states is better than tn
ii of ours under prohibition.
Yours,
ri HENRY A. GOODHUE