Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1904-09-01
NOT A CASE OF BAD FAITH.


bad faith against the Republicans two
years ago, and alleges that it isn't
safe to trust that party to keep the
law in force in future. Some OF Mr..
Davenport's statements are correct,
some are disingenuous and some are
altogether misleading-or worse.
To begin with, the Republican party
did not two years ago-and does not
this year-declare itself in favor of
local option as a principle. In the
platform OF 1902, it did favor the sub
mission of license and local option
act to the voters for the purpose OF
''ascertaining the will of the people
by direct vote on the acceptance
or rejection" OF such a law, and in case
Of acceptance such law to "become a
statute of the state in force In other
words, the question was handed over
20 the voters for decision, the legisla-
ture being merely requested to frame
a law that should answer to the plat
form outline and provide for fair
test vote. This year, without going
on record for or against local option,
the Republican party favors a "tull,
free and fair trial. of the present law
so amended as to put its principles
into proper effect. The Republican
party has not yet assumed the cham
pionship or the guardianship OF the
license local option policy in prefer
ence to other methods of handling the
traffic
The Republican legislature of 1902
set about its task in good faith. 4
special Joint committee of nine sena-
tors and sixteen representatives was
appointed to consider and report
measures relating TO the act to be sub
mitted. OF this committee, 20 were
Republicans and five Democrats. OF
the Republicans, some were naturally
in favor of prohibition as a policy, !
others of license, but there was no
on the part OF the former
to shirk the duty imposed on them,
as they saw it. Nor are Mr.. Daven-
ports charges that the prohibition |
acted secretly and in bad |
faith true in the least. On the con-
trary, to avoid any appearance of
and to give the license men
full opportunity to frame such an act |
rs fairly represented their views, the |
willingly turned this
duty over to a subcommittee OF five |
of Senators Russell and |
Downer and Representative Fletcher, |
and Representatives
O'Sullivan and Conland, Democrats,
all of them license men from prin-
ciple The bill they framed followed |
the Democratic or Conland bill quite |
closely 1t was reported in the tull |
Joint committee. We were in position |
to know exactly what took place then.
1t was at an evening session held in
the Senate chamber The policy OF /
the prohibitionist members remained |
unchanged so far as having
a hand in forming the license bill was
They offered only two
One related to a post
ponement of the date tor the reteren-
dunn, which the bill fixed early in
January, and the other provided that
men convicted of illegal selling under
prohibition could not become IL
Neither could have served
the purpose of prejudicing the meas
nre before the voters or in operation,
and both were promptly voted down
most of the prohibitionists joining.
In fact, it was well understood that
all objection to the license bill pro-
posed would take the form of endorse
ment of the Battell bill as a substitute.
This measure, in the opinion OF many
members, tulnlled the party pledge.
It provided for the sale of liquor as
a beverage and granted local option.
It arranged for the handling Of the
.rafiic at state stores instead of sa-
oons, and thus eliminated the saloon.
It's referendum was of the direct form
,alled for by the platform instead OF
he indirect one proposed by the
license bill. Such direct referendum
had been held constitutional in other
states, and Mr.. Davenport is quite
mistaken in saying that John Young,
president of the Vermont Bar associa-
ion, had given as his opinion that
such referendum would be uncon-
'titutional in this state-he said ex-
lctly the contrary. The prohibition
members of the committee and of
he assembly considered the act pro-
posed by the subcommittee, and
the referendum, as beyond