Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1903-01-02

the state has the right to regulate a
traffic in dangerous commodity. We
all admit it. This bill admits it. Nor
is there any need, when addressing in
tellgent people, to argue that the state
has a right to restrict the traffic in any
commodity which is not only dangerous
in itself but which sows the seed of an
ever increasing peril. because of the
appetite it breeds and the disease 1t
spreads. | take this to be a self-evdent
proposition.
Now, we all know that when mans
livelihood depends upon the selling of
goods, it also depends upon his selling
Just as much of his commodity to Just
as many people as is by any means pos
sible. The man who deals in liquor is
no exception to this rule. However
we'll intentioned he may be: however
good his impulses, the cold hard fact re-
mains that he sells liquor to make
money; and that he will sell Just as
much of it as he can, to just as many
people as he can, in order that he may
make just as much money as he can.
This has been the experience of every
age and every nation.
No exception will be made in the case
of the wholesale and retail trade in
liquors in the state of Vermont. Let
private individuals open stores for the
sale of Intoxicating liquors, and you in
augurate the most effective machine that
can be devised for increasing the distri-
button and consumption of these liquors.
! Put tax of one thousand dollars per
year upon their business, and you fur
nish an increased incentive for extending
the business. Let these private stores
become absorbed or organized, as they
almost certainly would be absorbed or
/ organized by the manufacturers or
wholesale dealers, and you will see this
machine worked to Its utmost capacity.
| ask you frankly if this be not reas-
enable? Is not the result which
have indicated exactly the result that
we should expect when Intoxicating
/ liquor becomes the subject of open bar
ter and sale: Furthermore, is not this
exactly the result obtained by those
communities which have tolerated the
sale of intOXicants as a matter of private
business?
70 Illustrate it in the case of an imagi-
nary commodity about which we can
have no prejudice. suppose substance
existed which great many people
thought to be necessary for their use.
Ler US suppose this substance to be
harmless when used properly; but when
used unwisely or too laVlshly to have the
power of introducing some grievOus
/ disease like consumption into the com
munity. Suppose, further, that the use
of this commodity bred Il subtle and
treacherOus tendency toward its abuse.
just at present the world is engaged in
a great fight with consumption. Wise
and skilful men are occupied in prevent
ing its spread by cOntagiOn, in eradica-
ting its earlier stages from the infected,
in alternating the sufferings of those in
whom the disease is seated. Now sup
pose, | say, it TO be shown that this COM
modify, for or against which there is no
other prejudice. were evidently instru-
mental in causing consumption, should
we not at once refuse to put the distribu-
ton of it into the hands of man whose
livelihood depended upon his distribut-
ing just as much of it as he could?
think so.
! But the argument against the private
sale of liquor is not less strong. Granted
for the moment that it may be needful
in medical practice and in the arts
granted, further, that it may be innocent
within certain limits when used as a
beverage-a thing which | am not pre-
pared to concede except for the sake of
argument-still the facts remains that in
view of the enormous evil flowing from
ii we cannot afford to have its distribu-
ton pushed. | never yet met sane
man who dared TO deny the evil that
comes from the abuse of alcohol. | do
not think | ever met one who would
deny that Its free and unlimited supply
to all who wanted it tended toincreasets
abuse. Yet it is seriously proposed to
the people of Vermont that they put the
work OF distributing alcoholic drink into
the hands of men whose object shall be
to sell just as much as they can, just as
often as they can. say then In the
first place that the foundation upon which
this structure stands is unsOund, because
it is unreasonable. But like most things
that are opposed to common sense, 1t Is
also opposed by general experience.
If the sale of liquor as a matter OF
private enterprise be II good thing, why
, should Norway and Sweden, after long
trial of it, have felt compelled to adopt
an opposite policy-a policy which
strOve as its first object to eliminate the
element of private gain? If you should
ask scientific expert like Mr.. Wiesel
gren, he would reply that it was because
"under the old system the very marrow
of the nation was sapped. Moral and
physical degradation, insanity, poverty,
and crime, family ties broken up, brutal
habts-all those grim legions that ever