Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1904-03-10
LICENSE AND LOCAL OPTION.

| The opinions quoted on another page.
throughout Vermont in opposition to Ii
ccnsc. show widely differing interprcth-
tons of the causes leading to That result.
as we'll as varying views regarding the
probable effect of the popular verdict on
the retention of the local option law it.
self. Some of our contemporaries regard
the scaling down Of the license
vote in all sections of the State "A
vindicatiOn of the local option law. which
gives each community the right to have
license or not rs "A majority of tho voters
may decide, while others ask how long
ii takes to give a bad law fair trial.
The supreme question in connection with
the whole subject. of course. is whether
or not the popular verdict will lead to AN
organized effort the coming fall to secure
Legislative action looking to the substtu-
ton of State control for local option
Whatever views one may hold with ref
crence to the merits or dement's of our
present local option law as compared
with State prohibition or some other form
|
which everybody must recognize and
which can be discussed in non-partisan
manner.
It will he useless to try to appeal the
| local option law, unless the opponents
of that method of control of the traffic
in intoxicating liquor are able to propose
as substitute system on which they
time there is no unanimty of opinion
among tho distinc,ively anti-saloon forces
| in Vermont as regards a substitute for
local option Therein lies tho weakness
Of the auti-local option forces
While there arc widely varying shades
of opinion among the opponents of our
present liquor legislation. those opposed
to local option can be divided into two
distinctive classes: One class desires a
return to State prohibition: the other
class wants State control without prohi-
htiun The prohibitionists want IL modih-
cation of our former legislation which
gave place to local option. The other
wing, who would probably call them
solves the liberals. advocate a system
of state control that will meet the de-
mand for the sale OF intoxicating liquor
as a beverage. and still eliminate the
element OF personal gain from the traf-
: ic.
These two classes represent two irrcc-
onclablc principles as to the manner
in which the sale of intoxicating liquor
should ho regarded by law, the rcspcc-
tive merits OF which it is not necessary
to consider in this connection. Both
classes Include men Of strong couvic-
tons az well rs of ability to advocate
their principles: and so far as express, Il
opinions are concerned neither side has
manifested disposition to yield to the
other.
| Looking at the question from the posi-
ton of an unprejudiced observer, We see
no promise of hope that these two wings
of the anti-local option interests will be
able to combine on any proposition to
place before the people during the coming
campaign In the event Of such failure
to unite on a programme 1t is to he taken
for granted that the local option law
will be amended in several important
particulars and that the fair trial" will
be continued for two years.
| If at any time conditions under local
option become so bad as to drive together
the two classes of opponents of the pres
cnt law mentioned, then II is pretty
safe to say that state control of some
form will be substituted for the existing
method of regulating tho liquor traffic