Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1902-07-25
WHAT CLEMENT WANTS.

| He introduced into the Senate during
the last session a bill known as the
Senate No Sc, "An act to regulate the
sale of Intoxicating liquors" He de-
clared it a high license, local option
| bill.
That bill was debated at length in
the Senate, Senator Clement taking a
leading part in the discussion He
did not offer or make a suggestion of
amendment; he pushed the bill to final
vote in just the form he introduced it.
In all the criticism that was made on
it, he stood by it, and it is fair to as
sumo now that that bill contains the
sum and substance of Mr.. Clements
idea of high license and local option.
1t is interesting to know just what he
does understand by the terms high Ii
cense and local option; just what kind
of a measure he would recommend if
he were governor; just the nature of
law we shall have upon our statute
books If Mr.. Clement succeeds in his
ambition
1t has always been assumed in dis
cussion of this question, that Massa-
chusetts has about as good a high IL
cense-local option law as can be found
Senator Clement undertook to copy
some features from the Massachusetts,
statute. 1t is interesting to compare
his measure with the Massachusetts
law.
The first section of Mr.. Clements
bill provides that when a town has
once gotten license, license shall con-
tinue until an effort be made to get
rid OF it. 1t is not, as in Massachu-
setts, to be voted upon every year,
the burden always coming as it should,
on the supporters of license. No, Mr..
Clement would have license forever,
after it was once established, until the
no-license element in a community
could rally strong enough to force the
issue again and carry town meeting
against it. The second section of
this bill provides that the board of
commissioners on excise shall be the
L
and the county clerk. Not over three
towns in any county could be repres-
ented on the board. In Wind
ham county today, Westminster, New
fame and Halifax would furnish the
board of excise commissioners; the
rest of the county would have nothing
to say about it. Rockingham and
Brattleboro would have no member on
the board. In Massachusetts it is
the board of excise commissioners
men of the town within and for the
town that have control of granting and
revoking licenses. Instead of giving
to the towns the control of the IL
censes, Clement would take that con-
troll away from them. From this bill
we see just what Clement means by
the term local option.
The amount to be paid for a license
for all classes, except drug stores, is
to be fixed by this board of excise
commissioners-as assistant judges and
county clerk, but the bill provides
what the minimum shall be. For a
first-class license for an open, full
fiedged saloon, selling liquors of all
kinds and in all quantities, the min
imum for towns of 5000 or more is
$500. In Massachusetts it is 81 900.
Under Clements bill, for towns of less
than $500 inhabitants, the minimum
for such a license is $10O. So if Brat
tleboro voted no license and Guilford
voted license, a saloon could be IL
censed at Algiers for 800.
Then, Clement would have saloons
known as the fifth class, which could
sell liquors of any kind, in any quanti-
ty, not to be drunk on the premises.
The minimum license is 800 for towns
the size of Brattleboro. That would
mean that for 500 license could be
procured in Brattleboro to sell whiskey
by the bottle or in a package, from
one-half pint to barrel. There are
no restrictions in the bill as to what
shall be termed the premises. A
man can rent the back part of a store
in which to sell bottled liquors under
the 800 license; the front part of the
store could be a reading room," and
there man could take the bottle of
whiskey he had bought and drink it.
That is high license according to Glenn
ent's notion.
Then he has the drug store license.
For S. he would license any drug
store, without limit as to number, to
sell liquor of any kind for medicinal,
mechanical and chemical purposes, to
such persons who may certify in writ
ing for what purpose they want it, That
reads very well, but the trouble is,
there is no penalty inflicted upon a
person who should lie about it in stat
ing what he wants it for In the
Massachusetts law is a provision as
to whom drug stores shall sell, and it
imposes a penalty of $40 upon any
body who makes a fraudulent certifi-
cate as to the purpose for which he
wants it. Clement does not make any
penalty for fraudulent certificate.
Neither are there any restrictions or
limitations or conditions as to what
shall constitute drug store. In fact,
his law only limits it to registered
pharmacists" so a grocery store could