Windham County reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1901-1906, 1903-09-25

but fine or $50 to $780, cOllectable Ou
of the bond, for every offense, and ex
clusion forever afterward anywhere il
Vermont from the business" for a mai
who has had a license revoked TO
cause cannot only never get anothe
for himself (Sec. 15) but he can neve
be employed in licensed place (Sec
4D. The old trick under prohibition
of bogus lease, &C., is effectually
barred. The English of it is simply
that if a man won't sell liquor prop.
erly he can't sell it at ALL if the COM
munity can't confine its sale within
proper bounds it can stop it entirely.
Such examples as this in Brattle-
boro will be of tremendous usefulness
all over the state. In the meantime
there is a large sum to the town treas
ury and state highway fund from both
forfeiture and fines whereas under
prohibition it was a constant out &c
except for political plunderers.
AS to the defects, while our law is
the best in existence,-and / ground
the statement on a careful eXamina-
tion of the laws of every state while
preparing the Conland bill,-it con-
tains a few holes which need to be
plugged before it can have the fair
trial which you have so well said it
ought to have. These defects, or the
chief ones. are due TO the fact that the
law had to pass in it's making through
the hands of it's enemies, men who
didn't really want it at all, but felt
bound by their party platform pledged
to enact something and hoped more or
less definitely, that something wouldn't
work.
The worst of these defects is the
lack of any provision for a disclosure
in a prosecution for drunkenness, so
that, as has been repeatedly seen in
the flood of cases in our police court,
an offender may pass through the mill
again and again with no chance of
finding who violated the law in selling
to him. This is due to the repeal Of
the whole of chapter 1877, and as the
bill was reported by the temperance
committee they left no penalty for
drunkenness itself! What DR.. Con-
land proposed was the repeal by sec
tions of the injunction and nuisance
procedures, the town agency and the
barbaric provision empowering a court
to compel disclosure to suit it, but
leaving the disclosure procedure it.
self better and more effective by sim
ply being made under the full penal
ties for perjury.
A second grave defect is the elimina-
tion of section 43 of the Conland bill
which proposed to give the license
board power to rescind any license,
even if it couldn't prove criminality,
INt- Itr,v he 20 f1r he
unexpired time.
The need of this power has been
painfully apparent in the case of the
Flat street concern. That license was
granted only on the solemn assurance
of the other two men that 0. H. Ellis
had nothing to do with it. as was even
then rumored. The truth has since
then been plainly apparent. But to le-
gally prove he was the owner and not
a mere employee, as claimed, was a
very dubious matter. Expostulations
and warnings against the way things
were being conducted did no good
brought only denials and practical de-
fiance; until the board was about de-
cided to risk the attempt to prove that
the license had been gained under false
and So on primary
was voidable, when proof the
board had long been seeking with re-
gard to minors made this risk unneces-
sary.
The board has had a difficult job
and has done it well and thoroughly and
to it and its counsel, Mr.. Fits and
States Attorney Schwenk, the commu-
nifty owes a deep debt of thanks.
There are several other defects, less
serious, in the statute which l would
discuss if space permitted but it seems |
imely to point out these, which our |
ocal experience has also sharply de- |
7eloped, to the end that good citizens |
should see the need of putting this law |
nto right and consistent shape, the |
shape that it's friends want, not its |
enemies impose, and a fair comparison |
hen be made of its practical workings I
With those of prohibition.
C. H. DAVENPORT.