Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1902-12-11
conse fees and fines.

cense fees and fines
Now / firmly believe that the liquor
| business ought to be under the direct
control OF the State, and so managed that
1t should not contribute either to the
revenues OF the state or to the enrich
ment of individuals. However, If we can
not have that plan and must work under
a high license system | would not offer
n premium TO towns, to induce them by
hope of revenue, to vote for license. On
the contrary, | would give every dollar
OF license fees to the State, except the
necessary expenses in the management Of
the same. and this is practically what the
license bill rs passed by the house is ex-
pected to accomplish, AZ understand il.
1t may need to be amended In some
particulars, but the principle that when
n town votes upon the question Of license
it should not be swsyed by the induce
mont of heavy gains to its treasury from
license fees. believe, Is a sound one Nor
do I see that it works special injustice to
tho larger towns in case that they should
vote for license.
II is acknowledged by all that most OF
the smaller towns would vote against
license and in that case there is no doubt
that the dram shops" Clements own
Word) in the larger towns, where license
WAS adopted would receive a large meas
ure of patronage from people irr><he pro-
hibition towns Such ocins the case is
ii any more than fair that some portion
of the profits accruing to towns or city
granting licenses, should Re returned TO
the towns that have contributed towards
ii.
Again, If the fees were given mainly
to the town that issued licenses, it would
be a temptation to small towns to vote
for license in certain eases simply for
the revenue that they would receive from
adjoining towns. l can think of many
groups Of towns so situated that If one
town of few hundred Inhabitants
voted for license and four or
1--WE others around it voted no license. a
large trade would come from the pro-
iibiton towns to the licensed places or
places in the little town. Thus the towns
that voted to go dry would experience
many of the evils of the traffic, especi-
ally II the license were OF the second class
so that liquor could be brought by the
bottleful into their towns, and they would
he powerless 20 prevent the same. and
an see no way to even matters up in
such cases.
Give the main part of all fees to the
state and you remove this temptation and
equaize things to a great extent II the
whole State contributes to a fund | do
not see why the whole State should not
have a share in it's profits if there are
any.
| would like to add a word in regard to
the referendum. / do not sec now anyone
who examines the matter carefully can
fail to see that the referendum of the
minority bill is in exact accordance with
the resolution adopted by the Republican
party, while the referendum OF the ma
iority bill /. substantially that of the
boiling party.
| believe that great majority OF the
people would be glad to see the matter
settled in some way a once. but with the
referendum now adopted this can only be
in case the majority Of the people votes
yes!
The great cry OF the majority is that
the minority way i. unconstitutional but
IL so, how can it be constitutional to pass
any kind of local option law?
As John Young says: THE logic of the
sion that the expediencv Of a general law
of the whole State, as the expediency Of
local statute to the voters Of the To-
cality to be affected thereby"
All We ask is to have chance to vote
on this law so that if We say yes" it will
mean yes and if We say no it will
mean no" And if the members of differ
ont political parties in the State are as
ready and willing 10 refer the matter to
the people and abide their verdict rs they
have claimed to be, why should anyone
raise the question of its constitutionality
Why not trust the people and not be look
ing for any loop hole to crawl out at
il beaten?
Fayston, December l, 1900.