Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1902-10-30

differ materially IN those lhlpoIlah'
provisions that tend toward effective
ness. The scheme OF all is the farm
ing OUT of the privilege Of liquor sell
ing for any and all purposes to per-
sons who pay certain specified sums
therefor. the state prescribing certain
restrictions that shall govern the
selling and taking all possible means
to insure obedience to these regula-
tions. The state realizes from the
sales of licenses; the licensee recoups
himself from the public as he can.
The Clement bill represents the
views of Mr.. Clement, who brought
the liquor issue to the front this year
The Russell and Fletcher bills are
straight Republican measures, offered
in pursuance of the party pledge TO
submit such an act to the people. The
Democratic bill was framed by G. IL.
Davenport of Brattleboro, who has not
only wide general information on the
subject, but who made careful special
investigation TO prepare himself for
this task.
To consider some Of the features of
the several license bills;-
/. License fees. For full priyi-
leges-the sale of liquors of any kind,
to be drunk on the premises-the fees
fixed by the different bills are -
Clement bill, $1,000, or $500 for
towns of less than 1000 or more than
500 population.
Russell bill, $1,000.
Fletcher bill, minimum $1,000.
Democratic bill, $500 to Sl2o0, as
the licensing board may designate.
The Clement bill has six classes of
licenses, Russell's has three, Fleteher's
has seven and the Democratic measure
has six. These classes relate to diff
ferent privileges granted the seller, for
which different fees are charged. For
wholesale dealers, the fees are -
Clement bill, $500.
Russell bill, $500.
Fletcher bill, minimum $500.
Democratic bill, $1,000.
For druggists license, the fees are -
Clement bill. $40.
Russell bill, 500.
Fletcher bill, minimum $50
Democratic bill, s..
1t will be noted that the trainers
have very different ideas OF the value
OF these license privileges.
As to disposition of the license
funds, the Clement bill gives one-half
to the state and one-half to the town in
which the license is granted; Russell
makes the same division on a three
fourths and one-fourth basis; Fletcher
coverts all the fund TO the use of the
state, three-fourths to be added to and
divided with the state highway fund
the Democrats give one-half to the
state to be disposed in the same way, |
and hold one-half to the use OF the
town.
As to granting the licenses, Clement
places the control in the hands of a
county licensing board elected on the
county ticket; Russell makes the
selectmen, village trustees or alder
men the board; Fletcher authorizes
the mayors Of cities to appoint a BIZ
partisan board and in towns the
selectmen are in control; the Demo-
Gratis have a similar plan, except that
the bipartisan board is appointed by
the alderman in cities and by select
men in towns.
The penalties for infringement of
restrictions by licenses vary. Glenn
ent prescribes a, fine of $50 70 $500
or Imprisonment of not more than
six months, or both, and forfeiture OF
license. Russell has a $500 fine or
one years Imprisonment and for
feiture OF license. Fletchers fine is
$50 to $500 and Imprisonment Of one
to six months. The Democrats make
the fine $500 minimum and imprison-
ment three to six months. The
Clement, Fletcher and Democratic
bills require the licensee to provide
$1,000 bond Russell asks for $1,000
bond. This bond is actionable against
to recover fines or private damages.
The Fletcher bill contemplates one
licensed drug store in every town.
The Democratic bill provides a
system of state inspection OF LIQUORS
and gives local option Tor the sale of
malt liquors only.
The Clement and Democratic bills
provide for licensing summer hotels
a part Of the year.
The Democratic bill has a system
of officers oaths relating to enforce