Bennington banner and reformer. (Bennington, Vt.) 1903-19??, 1903-01-29
OPPOSES THE LAW.
Rev c. R. Seymour Writes Letter In Opposition
To License.

10 License.
Mr. Editor:
The time is almost at band when the
people of Vermont will place the seal
Of approval or disapproval upon the
new license bill. The act will be Of
great moral significance. Some of US
for some time past have justified our
selves in leaving the matter of temper
ance to the politicians, who have
passed it as a football from faction to
faction. 1t vas thought wise to let
them play the game out while we were
absorbed in Forward Movement"
which promises healthier views on all
questions Of moral welfare. But the
time has come when men OF mature
conviction should speak and say
whether it seems to them a proper
thing to legalize the saloon.
Let the real issue stand clear. 1t by
no means rests in the shortcomings Of
the prohibitory law. Is the law weak
in points? Let it be amended. II, as
some contend, it invades the chartered
rights or liberties OF individuals, let
certain of its provisions bs altered.
Its penalties are weak; let them be
strengthened. 1t would be we'll,
doubtless, if that penalty of the new
bill Of $500 for a first offence we're
transferred bodily to the probibitory
statute. But as to the principle Of
prohibition Ebich has been sustained
by our higher courts, it is no invasion
Of liberty but one of its needed securi-
tiles.
Nor is the main question the better
regulation of a traffic. To this end tho
license regime might at some time and
place be superior to the prohibitory.
Which is better for Vermont is a mat
ter Of dispute. We In Bennington are
content to be compared in cleanliness
With license villages over our western
border, and even with those south of
u.s. The people down in Massachusetts
are rot Of mind In large towns and
cities they swing back and forth from
one nolicy to another, satisfied with
neither. Local option there, with its
yearly fight, yields but a Facilitating
result. We are quite assured, how
ever, by one class of testimony. The
large majority Of the men who give
time and strength 10 the moral welfare
Of the people of the Bay state favor
prohibition. 1--WE are safer ard
stronger, they say, sin those years
when the vote has been for no H.
cense. But, We repeat, the better or
worsa reputation marks no permanent
settlement Of the question.
Revenue, again, should not command
serious attention so long as one dollar
acquired, according to the careful es-
innate of Hon Carroll D. Wright,
costs, directly ard indirectly, twenty
one dollars
What concerns US is the moral decis
ion saloon or no saloon. And the
sane qualities relied upon in making
10 nv tAN hhlJ BAdIduAGo VI Lub tu-
forcemeut Of any law of this nature.
and high grade citizenship
are in demand. A city that will allow
of laxiJy under the prohibit0ry rule
will permit the regulative features of a
license law 10 be violated. What is
required at this moment is a high de-
cisiop, as staunch as the decalogue,
by a corresponding effort to
measure enforcement up to the plane |
of the law.
The coming vote then has this sig
nificaocs DO the people of Vermont |
desire to legalize a nuisance? / am |
aware that one of our citizens has |
written with what seems to me amaz-
ing effrontery that saloon is not a
nuisance. There are few men who |
would so choose to fly in the face of |
common intelligence for the sake of |
gaining minor point. He may have |
beeu thinking of places where liquor is |
sold only for useful purposes. A sa-
loon is not only nuisance bot pro- |
life source Of trains Of nuisapces, un-
limited. To legslize this thing is to !
take a long step downward from the |
plane of clean government, as many Of |
bur Massachusetts brethren have con
fessed that, acco. ding to the data at |
hand we can do nothing better than |
cling to the prohibitory law, give en-
erRy to it's perfection and enforcement.
To do otherwise will be to yield weakly |
10 a degenerate, merciless and de-
business.
g. r, Seymour.
tutlr o1- af |