Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1903-01-16
PROHIBITION VS.. LICENSE.
Letter from COL Albert Clarke. Sec.
retary Of the Home Market Club.

beg your pardon for not sooner
complying with your request for my
opinion as to the relative merits of
prohibition and of license and local
option. as | have witnessed the prac-
tical operation of both systems for
30 years in Vermont and 20 years in
Massachusetts.
With the exception of certain dras-
tic laws enacted in recent years for
the more effective enforcement of
| prohibition. but which were really no
part OF the system. and the chief ef-
feet of which was 10 bring it into dis
credit J am clearly of opinion that
so-called prohibition is for a whole
state much preferable to license.
! why ! say "so-called' is because the
laws in Maine, New Hampshire and
/ Vermont never prohibited the sale of
liquor. they regulated it. by providing
that authorized persons in each COM
munity might sell it for chemical. me
chanical and medicinal purposes: il
/ they had added one other use. name
! ly for beverages, / suppose no one
would have called them prohibitory.
The object of those laws was to dis.
/ courage drinking and that is why
agents We're not authorized to sell for
that purpose. Was the object ac-
complished? TO a great extent Yes
| Even in the cities and towns where
/ the law was most violated. il operat.
! ed to create and maintain a senti-
/ ment that drinking is disreputable.
and therefore it Kept the majority
of men and women from it, This
wholesome restraint does not prevail
under license, hence drinking is
/ much more common and excessive.
/ Without going into statistics it is a
! fact that notwithstanding all the fail
ures of prohibition. and the lax and
/ corrupt administration OF the law in
/ some places, as whole ii has dimin-
ishcd pauperism anil crime wherever
| it has been tried. and has therefore
/ lessened taxation and Increased the
material prosperity Of the people 1t
would have done more if it had been
/ better enforced
/ Recently. however an opinion has
! been growing thai . law which takes
away personal liberty is unnatural and
unwise and that it involves evils, such
as hypocrisy and perjury which are
| greater than the drink evil With
/ out attempting to deny these evils or
! 10 estimate their relative badness.
! call attention to the fact that they
/ exist under license. especially when
( coupled with local option 10 the same
/ extent. and license brings other evils
/ which are greater The present gen
/ Grafton in Vermont has not seen
them, except dimly at distance. and.
/ chatting under the evils charged 10
prohibition it has inclined to fly from
/ the Ills il has TO others that il knows
/ not Of But think that if all the
/ people of Vermont could look into the
saloon sections OF any of our license
/ cities and towns almost any evening,
/ and go into the municipal courts, es-
/ peclally on Monday morning. or see
how the hospitals. the houses OF cor
reCtion, the penitentiary and the aims
houses are thronged with people who
were carried there by the curse of
drink. they would speedily come to a
firm conclusion not 10 risk such re
suits in their state. If they could
also see the corruption of the police,
the blindness of witnesses. the black.
| m 9
misdemeanants and the degradation
of politics by the free use of liquor,
they would conclude that when the
hne house of some thrifty state >
attorney in Vermont has been pointed
to as proof of the failure OF prohibi-
ton, the whole story has not been
told, for there are others.
Now if there are people who feel
that this is not a free country unless
they can buy liquor as easily as they
can buy cigars; if there are people
who believe that the population and
business of Vermont will increase if
liquor is obtainable as easily there
as in Massachusetts and New York
if existing law cannot be executed be-
cause public opinion is not equal to
it; ii there is general unrest and a
determination TO make some kind of
a change, why not try to take a step
forward instead of a step backward
Everybody comedies that liquor is
dangerous if taken TO excess. This
being so, why license men who are
not generally the best in the commu-
nifty to sell it? Why increase the
danger of adulteration and excessive
use by eXacting a license so high that
it must be made up by extraordinary
means? Why leave an admitted
danger to be regulated by human
greed? Why expose the weaker
members of society, after they have
parted with some of their money
and some of their self-control as the
result of one drink, to the influence of
convivial companions and the encour-
agement or the bland willingness of
the man who is in the business to
make it pay? | have not seen the
Battell bill, and | have no very de-
finite knowledge of the South Caro-
lima dispensary law, but | understand
them to provide for the sale of liquor
by public officials only, thus eliminat-