Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1902-07-25
NO. 80.

the total number of licenses shall not
exceed one for each 1000 inhabitants
or fraction thereof, provided, however
that these restrictions shall not ap-
ply to druggists licenses, and further
that the board of excise may in their
discretion grant additional licenses to
hotel keepers for temporary period
not to exceed six months" Now. let
us see what we could have in Brat
tleboro under Clements law. We
| could have just as many registered
pharmacists selling liquor, as chose to
get license at $5 apiece; no limit as
to their number. We would have sew
en- saloons straight; they might be
seven of the 800 kind or of the 5000
kind. Then we would have as many
hotel licenses as the board of excise
might see fit to grant. John Jones
would get a temporary license for
six months, then his clerk, George
Brown, could get Temporary" H.
cense for six months, and so get
through the year. The New York
Raines law shows how mushroom ho-
tells spring up to get around the liquor
law. Just imagine the number of ho-
tells we would have in Brattleboro,
Rutland, Burlington and st. Albans
under Clements law?
So Clement considers either 800 or
$500 high license" He regards this
unlimited power to grant licenses as
restriction" of the liquor traffic.
He calls such law as this a regula-
tion of the liquor traffic.
Then, in his bill he cuts the life
right out of the civil damage law. His
bill provides that a person injured in
person, property or means of support
by an intoxicated person, shall have
the right of action against the person
selling the liquor, but he limits it to
such a form of action as such an in
toxicated person would be liable to.
If man got drunk and smashed a
plate glass window, the owner of the
plate glass could recover damages of
the liquor seller. But if the husband
of wife and the father of family of
children got intoxicated and was kill
W W SOlhC 1INluOnL III consequence
of his intoxication, the widow and the
orphans are left without any remedy.
Every safeguard and every protection
is thrown around the rum seller and
none at all is vouchsafed TO the fam
lily of the man who drinks. This is
how Clement would restrict the liquor
traffic, and promote the cause of tenn
perance.
Candidate Clement has harangued
long and loud against the fee system
which obtains under the present pro-
hibitory statute. In his bill he pro-
vides for the punishment of illegal
liquor selling and prohibits the sale
by licensed saloons between certain
hours and on Sundays and on election
day. (He does not restrict it on legal
holidays as is done in Massachusetts,
But he lets the fee system stand He
does not cut down single item. He
does not change single line and all
the evil and chance for extortion that
exist, if they do exist in the present
law, are left in force by the Clement
bill.
There are very many sincere, hon
est, well-meaning citizens in Vermont
who believe in high license and local
option, and good many of them have
been misled by Clement. A few of
them still persist in following him.
Do they want this sort of law? Do
they believe measure of this kind
will promote temperance and sobriety?
Do they think this is restriction of the
liquor traffic?
Is it HIGH LICENSE or is it FREE
RUM?-