Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1902-12-11
A Friend OF the R.t + 'un protssts
against Certain features Of tho
Pending Bill.
To the Editor Of the Free Press:

TO the Editor Of the Free Press:
As a republican, who favored the re-
Terence of the liquor question to the vot-
| ers Tor settlement, / desire to protest
against certain features of the license bill,
ne" pending in the Legislature. l wish to
emphasize TWO objections which have AL
ready been touched upon In your columns.
| FIRSTLY, it is unfair to the voters TO have
the town meeting called in january. right
IN midwinttr when the SHOWS and storms
are upon us, and when large numbers Of
voters are liable to be kept from the polls
| on account Of bad weather.
1t is also an unreasonable burden upon
the voters to be calico together in Janu-
AIRY, when the vote can as we'll be taken
at the annual meeting in March. only a
few weeks later. There is no necessity of
| having two meetings so close together in
point OF time--as January and March.
I ne entire matter can DE voted upon and
all the machinery of high license set in
motion at the March meeting in case the
vote IS yes So no time is gained .i,
the meeting in January. II is therefore
an unnecessary haste.
DO the advocates of the bill think that
they VIII score point by having the pop
ular vote in the dead OF winter thus prob
ably keeping away from the polls many
voters in the country? That is hardly
commcndable view to take
The people should have time - consider
ana discuss maturely a question of so
much Importance. Such unsecmly haste
does not Comport with the dignity and
magnitude of the subject.
Secondly the bill is radically at fault in
this, that it takes effect in 1901 even If the
people vote against il. But the advocates
of the bill say that there viii be another
Legislature convened before the law takes
chect and that body can repeal the law
II might be done, but how do we know
Ia, 1 la,
vote unanimous for is repeal and the
senate had no majority therefor, or was
evenly divided, that body could block the
wheels of legislation and make a farce
OF the popular vote, the so-Called rofcren-
dunn. The same is true of the house in
case the senate voted for its repeal.
That is hamlet with Hamlet omitted
referendum with the referendum omit
ted. Our legislators ought not to put the
popular vote in position where il can
be so easily betrayed. The republicans
arc in honor bound TO submit tho qucs-
ton of lie eH.c to the people for settlement
But they are under no obligations TO pass
license law. The platform implicitly ex-
clunes doing more than pass rcforen-
dum. But this bill has in il such posi-
hilites, so antagonistic to referendum
that it is not safe to look upon it as a
substitute for one.
However if it was made to take effect at
a much later date. say 1905 or 1910 in case
the people voted no." then ii would be
reasonable to look al il as a method simp-
ly to get at the will of the people or as a
referendum
1t would be just as good a bubble to
tNade the constitutional question which
has been raised as is the present bill and
II gives the people such ample time and
opportunity to undo all mischief that il is
safe and reasonable to regard it simply
as referendum. And this ought to salts
fy the local option heart. II an honest
effort Is being made to get at the will of
the people and no more, there can be no
objection to the change above suggested
Let the Legislature take time and examine
the matter and not be hurried along too
fast
OBSERVER
Colchester December /, 1902.
FAVORS THE BATTELL BILL
To the Editor of the Free Press: