St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1904-07-20

them and that the machinery of the law
would not operate against them until
they had been drunk once so as to be
classed among those to whom sales are
forbidden, all which any thinking man
can see to be natural and probable.
Further that the hard drinkers naturally
believed at first what prohibitionists
have so long been telling them, that the
new law meant Ioosening of all restraint,
and acted accordingly. It is because
they and the old-time lawless sellers
have found out that the new law erects
much the stronger guards against them
that by the hundreds and thousands
they appeared in the mo" column last
March, and that they are being conf
IDENTIFY counted upon to help repeal it.
It was stated, as the conclusion of the
Committee of Fifty, after its extended
investigation, and not as an original
discovery of mine, as Mr.. Morrow init
mates, that these figures of arrests for
drunkenness must always be viewed with
extreme caution, because they are SO
much a matter of police caprice that any
thing can be proved by them" This is
obvious, and also that such figures to
have any value whatever must be of the
utmost comprehensiveness. It is not
only the way of Mr.. Morrow but of all
his predecessors in advocacy of prohibi-
ton, so far as l have ever observed. to
always take some particular or excep-
tional result of this police caprice" as
their basis of argument, carefully ignor-
ing figures for states, as a whole, like
Massachusetts, and Michigan. Aside
from the "police caprice" the absurdity
ought to be manifest, where the traffic
is now concentrated in one town that
was formerly spread over half dozen,
of combining any comparison to that one
town.
Mr.. Morrow tries to break the force of
these figures, showing such progressive
improvement by asserting that "the
record of DRINKS has been purposely and
materially kept down" by making prose
cutions in the latter part of the year for
disturbance of the peace" instead of
"intoxication." Very likely this may be
true in particular cases; but there are no
sufficient records in existence anywhere
to show how far the same thing was
done under prohibition, and there was
no classification relating to the matter
in the state treasurer's Office last year,
though the fair presumption is that
everything that could be charged up to
theliquor law was collected in town cost
bills against the state. The probability
also is that Auditor Graham's figures of
liquor offenses" under prohibition in
cluded less Of these prosecutions for dds
turbance of the peace" than last year;
but nothing certain can be asserted about
it. With the opening of the present
license year engaged clerk in the State
Treasurer's Office to keep a classified
record. if possible, from the town cost
bills, of the kinds of offenses and at the
end of the year we will be able to talk
intelligently about it.
Mr.. Morrow also says "the general
public knows full we'll that not more
than one drunk in five is arrested" How
was it under prohibition? The only
evidence we have on this branch of the
subject is the general testimony of local
officials which seems reasona BILE on the
''new broom" principle-that a much
larger proportion have been arrested
under the new than under the old law.
At any rate it is evidence that must
stand until it is met by something more
than loose and general assertion, capable
of neither proof nor disproof.
Mr. Morrow does not deny that there
were SIS liquor sellers paying the United
States special tax under prohibition, as
both the Congregational church commit
tee and myself found. But he SAYS there
are 314 now, instead of 3O6 as I count
ed and 29S according to the church COM
mittee; the difference is doubtless ex-
planned by the different dates on which
the counts were made. He says there
are 21 town containing illegal sellers,
instead of IL as found; his error is in
| counting all but the Yes" towns, ignor.
ing the ten or dozen medicinal druggist
licenses in other towns.
He says the malt liquor (federaD IL
censes are not fair criterion for judg-
ment" because many dealers holding
them were selling within the state law
| under prohibition. Yes, and nine tenths
of them making it a cover for other sales.
The federal law remains the same in this
| respect as it has been for years. while the
state law has included in its 300 licenses,
or thereabouts, all dealers in beverages
that contain one per cent or more of al
cohol. So the distinction counts just the
| opposite from what Mr.. Morrow seems
| so claim.
The simple fact, which there is no
| lodging or twisting away from, is that
| according to the internalrevenue records
| the new law has decreased the number
OF rumsellers by nearly half. Mr.. Nor
| row essays a sort of twist by seeking
| to discredit the internal revenue record
with the assertion that Uncle Sam "has
fno penalty if a seller pays up when
caught" Even if true, this would not
| AFFECT the essential tact OF the great pro-
| portionate reduction effected; but it can.
not be true without gross maladminis
| tration. The federal statute imposes
| 81 900 fine and months to two years
imprisonment for selling distilled liquors
without paying the tax and $40 tic
$500 fine for so selling malt liquors; the
collector is required under penalty of loss
of salary, to report every case discover
ed to the district attorney, and the
latter must prosecute, or if he finds in
sufhciency of evidence or any Other
reason for not doing so, must submit tn.
case and his reasons to the commissions
of internal revenue. Mr.. Morrow tell.
of three cases where the records indicat,
that the offenders were let off on pay
ing the tax, doubtless all cases wher,
the commissioner found special reasons
for clemency. We all know the cases ar
very rare where sellers will risk thu
severity of the federal law, and the sever
| fu of + f1aV To- 4, .,