Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1903-10-15

| such gravity that the license is declared
forfeited, the board shall thereupon bring
the matter to the attention of the town
grand juror or the States attorney, who
shall prosecute the offender before court
of competent jurisdiction"
There are certain people who blame
the license commissioners because they
complied with their oaths of office to en-
force the provisions of the license laws;
and it is not improbable that these very
individuals were among those who insist
ed during the referendum campaign that
q license law would enforce itself. The
result shows, however, that instead of
being DESTROYS of giving the people in
each community chance to say whether
or not Intoxicating liquors should be sold
as beverage therein they were in reality
simply working to remove restrictions on
the sale of the ardent. They now have
a license law and they are not willing
to live up to the terms of even that mild
restriction which would prevent selling
whskey TO minors, a provision that is
one of the features of the law in practi-
cally every license State
The situation in Brattleboro is attract
ing attention beyond the confines of this
State. The Springfield Republican, which
worked early and late for the substitution
of local option for State prohibition in
Vermont, has this to say with reference
to the problem confronting the people
of Brattleboro:
The circulation at Brattleboro of a
petition asking the license commissioners
of that town to reconsider their action
in revolving the licenses of two places
is singularly ill-advised. The commits
sions action, concerning which not a
breath of suspicion was heard, called
forth chorus of commentator from
many of the lawabding citizens ana
papers of the State. The Brattleboro
board was held up as an example to some
of their Weakened brethren. Now to
have citizens of their own town virtually
discredit their action by asking them to
reconsider their decision is discoura ging
to the last degree, if the petition is being
signed by men whose names add any
weight to such a request The ground
taken by the petitioners is that there
was no intention on the part of licensees
to sell to minors, the ages of the boys
being msrepresented to them. This kind
of didn't know it was loaded excuse
is too silly to consider. The fewer citi-
Gems who sigr this appeal the better it
. 49,. - 49, ~ -, ~
i'r1 i' h.or ,.a7i,. ,,,i.i,,,oa5 .to 80;
, TONERS will he given leave to withdraw.
\ view similar to that of the Massa-
chusetts contemporary is taken by the
, Erattleboro Phoenix, a supporter Of pro-
,u;.i.., ..,,4.,, ..,,.,,,,,.- ,,,.,, ,h- -it,,,
+ i"''''N'' van - NN'i'''' '''' i' ~
ton as follows:
In every instance where comment has
been made the action of the commisSion-
crs has been strongly endorsed, and by
' mono more strongly than by those papers
T which are aVowcd supporters of the prin-
, cipe of license. In every case the fact
! Is recognized that the license law is on
| trial and that failure to enforce its pro-
visions Will result in making it just as
, much farce "a license men claimed
the prohibitory law to be. There is nc
8 room for doubt that from a legal point
of view. the Brlttleboro commissioners
were right in their decision. Under the
, terms Of the law they had no alterna-
= tive except to revoke the licenses. All
court decisions show that they could not
Y read into it's provisions any interpreted
tion of their own.
But aside from this the really essential
= point in the commissioners decision is
! that it places the responsibility for sales
= on the seller and not on the buyer, as
= the law Enthusiastically contemplates. II
- is perfectly plain to anyone who reads
4 tho law carefully that it was the inton-
{ tion of the Trainers to restrict the sale
& SONS. n" provision Win r"EaIu 10 SS'ic