The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1904-10-28
WHOLESALER RESTRICTED
TO RETAILERS ONL Y
Cannot Sell TO Others Than
Those Holding Licenses
No Decision on Appoint
ment of Commissioners

Montpelier, Oct. rs. The long expect
ed decision by the Vermont SuDreme
Court on the oonstitutionalitv of fhe H.
eense, local option law, enacted by the
legislature OF 1902, was rendered this
morning. Il j. not the sweeping tearing
down Of the instrument as was predict
led, II declares that the law is uncon
lsttutional In only one section, called
the cider section. The court further
layers that the unconstitutionality of
that section does not render the whole
instrument unconstitutional, and that
1.-THE section may be severed from the
trest and the remainder of the law ra.
main valid and constitutional. Judge
Watson read the opinion.
Regarding the right III wholesalers of
liquor, the court holds that 4 Wholesaler
EmaY not sell Intoxicating liquors to amy
but persons licensed To deal III intoxi-
leating liquors. The case i'll question.
that Of state vs. Angelo Scanlpini of
Barre, was brought up on the alleged
1 sale Of 4 pint of whiskev by Seampini,
the holder of fourth, or wholesalers.
4lieense, to John Docherty of Montpelier.
lwho was not licensed TO sell Intoxicating
liquors. Doeherty was al that time eity
sheriff of Montpelier.
The opinion, as read bY Judge Wat
Eson, occupied an houI If supreme courts
time this forenoon, the court room being
Ierowded. Briefly the court holds.
4 That the delegation Of powers to lii
license commissioners III tile legislature
lis constitutional
That the question Of eonstitntianality
lof the law On the point that commits
siOners shall be appointed from the two
leading parties il not properly under the
iudieature in this case, because of the
prohibitive feature If the act.
That the referendum On the law was
constitutional, citing the referendum of
1852 a. sahstantiation.
That ali the counts in the information
Eagainst Seampini, where question as to
proper negatiging of the assertion that
he did not hold license, are held to be-
Iall right
That On the question, Can d whole
salef sell pint d intoxicating liquor
To an unlicensed person2a the answer II
ssNo
Whether the license commissioners
should Be the exclusive prosecutors of
the law the court holds that they are
mot sole prosecutors but that states ats
torneys and grand Jurors are prosecuting
Ioflicers
The cider clause which is declared to
be discrimination and therefore invalid
land unconstitutional II as follows
Sec. al No person shall furnish or
Eselt or expose OF keep for sale any in-
toxieatimg liquor except as authorized III
this act but the provisions Of this aet
shall not apply to sales by the barrel
lbv the manufacturers thereof Of cider
, manufactured in this state, or 20 sales
Eby the barrel To farmers who raise APP
lples sufficient to make the cider which
they sell. ii ii il not 10 he drunk on the
lnremises Nor shall the provisions of
this net apply to sales by The makers
thereof 1T native Wines manufactured
lin this state and not to he drunk on the
! lpfemises of the maker; nor 90 the fur
lnishing of liquor by person in his pri-
! lyate dwelling, unless it be to an hahitual
ldrunkard. or unless such private dwelling
become place Of public resort
! While tho whole bench agrees on the
luneonstitufionalitye of this section, anna
Iiofitys Of the Judges agree that the see.
I tion may be severed from the remainder
! land Che act still remain constitutional.
Two other Barre cases state ys. Ian-
, llcani and state Ys. gomolh are similar
lto tie Scampiui case. The pro forma
Judgment of the lower court which over
Eftled the demurrer Is realiirmed and
Ithe cause femanded III the case ot
state ys. maaleton, Orange county, the
: same grounds are Set forth and the
leause reminded Judge Alunson had the
Halter ease.
Tho lawyers for the respondents il
{ 1.-The Seamnini case were Gordon & Jack
son. il. ~. Scott. William Nishart, and
iRichard A. Hoar Satte's Attorney Sen
! Iter was the prosecuting officer