The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1904-08-11

reckone1 from the effect it has on the
general public with regard to the con-
sumption of liquor. The Journal
makes the assertion without fear of
honest controversion, that the amount
of liquor drunk now per week in Mont
pelier and Washington county as a
whole is largely in excess of the
amount drunk under prohibition.
Men, and especially young men.
who had not formed the habit of
drinking before are now seen fire.
quently in saloons and are apparent
" getting the idea that ii is the very
proper thing to have something in the
line of liquor by them all Of the time;
mon who before drank but seldom are
now seen frequently in q condition,
bordering on intoxication, and men
who were drinking regularly before
are drinking heavily now.
The Journal is sure that no disin-
terested person will care to contro-
vert the statement that there is
more drunkenness seen on the streets
of Montpelier now than before the
licensed saloons were opened here.
Perhaps Montpelier has only nine
liquor sellers who have paid the I'm
tied Stsets for the privilege of selling
and had nineteen previously, but there
can be no question that vastly more
liquor is being sold by the 8 than
formerly by the 10. There is no basis
at all for Mr.. Davenport's statement
that towns that have legal traffic
now had even greater lawless one
before. The Journal does not main
tain that Montpelier was an ideally
managed town, so far as the liquor
question was concerned. when prohib-
istion was in force, but-espec-
tally in the later yesrs-it does
maintain that, there is far more liquor
sold here now than during the palmy
days Of the traffic by the agency or
other places; aud if the people are
searching for an effective temperance
law, sales and consumption of liquor
are to be taken into consideration
first Of all. Mr.. Davenport has
right to believe as he pleases about
the consumption of liquor in Montpe-
lier, but the Journal believes that
Montpelier people are not exceptional
/ ly hard drinkers, and that observa.
tions here in Montpelier will be rea.
sonably accurate for the State.
Montpelier has not tried the prohib-
ition side OF local option, but some
other towns have. The experience of
Rutland under the dry" side of the
law has apparently been very unsatis-
factory. Since that phase of the
question has not come directly within
the Journals range of observation it
prefers not to speak for itself until it
knows for itself. 1t is not the in
general statement without the specific
supporting facts at hand even though
it thinks best not to nee them. If MIR.
Davenport desires actual figures and
lusbhuC6S uuu6T In6 mean OF GApGn-
ditures by iaboring classes, snfferings
of families, and non-payment of living
bills, if he will come to Montpelier,
the court records, the records of the
overseer of the poor and various other
evidence will be presented to him that
will satisfy him that the statements
were founded upon fact.
The limitations of space forbids
further discussion of Mr.. Davenport's
communication at this time, but in
closing the Journal desires to call at
tention to Mr.. Davenports reference
to the Norwegian system Of control
ling the liquor traffic. Evidently Mr..
Davenport is in error-probably he
made lnistake-for the State store
system as proposedin the BattelI bill
is more nearly comparable to the Nor
wegian system than to any other sys-
tenn in existence, while the the Nor
wegian system is very unlike the pres
ent license law, the local option feature
being practically the only similar one.