Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1903-10-02
The Action of the BrattIeboro Board
of License Commissioners.

Of License ssioners.
The decisive action of the Brattle-
boro board of license commissioners
Fred w. Putnam, j. j. Eckles and
Frank II. Howard-in revoking four
liquor licenses for violation of the
law by selling to minors comes as a
local sensation, and has been the prin-
cipal theme of discussion during the
week. The ground taken by the board
is covered by these points:
Cd The advocates of the enact
ment of a license law maintained and
believed that such law would help
the cause of temperance by firmly con
trolling the sale Of liquor and reducing
the abuses of its consumption.
(2) To accomplish the purpose of
the law it must be strictly enforced,
just as its provisions read.
CD One of the strongest points of
the law is in its obvious intent to pre-
vent sales to minors.
The licensees in question were
charged with repeated sales to minors
their offence was proved beyond ques-
ton, and their only plea in extenuation
was that the minors had said they
were 81 years old. For the board to
have put any other Interpretation on
the law than that under which they
acted would have put the RESPONSE
bility on the buyer instead of on the
seller where it belongs.
(4) This was the first case of this
kind to come up under the new law
To this extent it was a test case and
will attract attention as such all over
the state. If the Brattleboro commits
sioners had put some construction of
their own on the law. instead of fol-
lowing its plain provisions, it would
have opened the way for other boards
in other towns to construe the law
to suit their own needs or ideas.
We believe the position of the
board, as here outlined to be the only
right one. and that its members should
have the strong and outspoken support
of public opinion in the action taken.
The licensees were given full oppor-
tunity under the new law to do a legal
business and reap a money return
therefrom. They were not satisfied to
keep within the bounds of the law. but,
in their greed. We're guilty of one of
the most demOralizing violations of
the law-and they ought to suffer the
penalty.
In further explanation of the course
Of the board. all of whose members
are believers in the principle of IL
cense. it should be said that it has
been the purpose of the board to
make careful enquiry of the police of
fCers, at least once each three months
of the way the licensed places were
conducting their business. At their
meeting for this purpose two weeks
ago complaints were lodged with the
| board. against the American and Brat
| tlehoro houses and the bottling com
pany. that sales were being made tc
minors. and the reports of the police
We're such as to compel the board tC
act. No complaint was lodged against
| the Melrose house, but when the
| boys, whose names had been given tC
the board, were called in and question
| ed evidence was secured which com
PEELED the same action to be taker
against the Melrose as against the
East village places.
At least three of the boys in ques
tion were under II years of age, anC
from their looks no one would believe
a statement that they We're 81.
1t was not a promising beginning il
citizenship for these or any other boys
to appear in court and defy the law b!
refusing to answer questions asked
of them. 1t should be noted, however
that these boys did not perjure them
selves, and that it is not true, as ha
been minated, that the licensee
were convicted on perjured evi
dence. The boys simply refused Il
answer questions, acting 'under ad
vice of counsel" as they. stated. Whel
they found what this meant, by beini
placed in contempt of court, the.
promptly purged themselves of thi
contempt and voluntarily gave the tes
timony desired.
Under the terms of the license Law
none of the licensees whose license
have been revoked can ever get anoth
err license in Vermont. And it is tn
understanding of the board that no i
censes can be issued in place of thos
revoked.