Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1906-02-23

drinking was one cause of the crimes for
which half OF tnem were committed, and
the first cause of 81 per cent. That
committee has found through the charity
organizations of some 80 cities that the
poverty of 25 per cent of the applicants
for relief is traceable to drink, and that
81 per cent of the inmates of aims
houses are there through drink The
great loss from the drink habit is not,
however, that incurred through the in
creased public cost of supporting Grim
mails and paupers. This is but incidental
when compared TO the loss to the drinker
himself, to his family and to his en-
ployer.
The lamest argument offered in support
Of the LIQUOR traffic is the economic argu-
ment. The new force for temperance
today is the economic force. A century
ago men went on strike for the sake
of getting their liquor rations. Labor
unions once provided drinks at their
meetings. Now the unions stand for
sobriety. Members do not want their
savings used to provide lfuor for drunken
companions. Many unions refuse sick
benefits to those III through drink The
unions see that drunken comrades are
the worst enemies to the success of a
strike, and that labor unions must stand for
sobriety If they are to have public appro-
baton. Railroads and other great cor
porations insist upon temperate en-
ployes Five-sixths of the 1000 establish
ments from which the committee of
sought information look into the habits
of their men and one-fourth of them
prohibit drinking. The keenness of com
petition, the greater use of machinery.
like that which brings call for men to
drive troieys instead of horses, bring
new necessity for a clear head and close
application. Both laborers and employers
are coming to realize that the saloon is
against sound business principles.
The business consideration is not how
ever, first in this matter. We have now
clean, wholesome town. DO we want
to keep 1t so? We can II we want 1t
has been possible to say at earlier cleo
tions that we could not, because If we
did vote no license here. 1t would simply
mean that the business would be moved
across the river and out of our control,
we bearing the cost, New Hampshire
getting the revenue, and nobody exercis-
ing control.
The significant fact of the past year,
as concerns the local liquor situation,
has been the closing of the island saloon,
through the courtesy and sense of fair
ness of the New Hampshire license com
missioners. Their action meant that
If we want a clean town and do
all we can toward making one, they will
not suffer our work to be undone from
the New Hampshire shore. Although
we have no control on the other side OF
the river, our vote for or against license
at the town meeting will practically be
a vote to decide conditions on both sides
of the river If we grant licenses here.
they will be granted there. If we vote
no license here and enforce the law,
we may expect to see the island kept
free from liquor selling.
Just one thing Is required to insure n
clean town for another year 1t is that
every man cast his vote. The danger
is that over confidence Of some and in
difference of others may bring loss OF
no license votes, and we have none to
spare. We want not only majority,
but one so emphatic as to indicate a
settled policy of the town.
The majority for license in 1908. when
the question was first up was 173. The
next year 1t was 16. Last year the ma =
iority for no license was 149. The no
license vote has gained over $50 each
year. We have set this pace and It
would be disgrace to fall behind it this
year when the conditions would lead one
to expect greater gain than ever be-
fore. I've must carry the town by more
than 300. We shall If we see that every
freeman casts his vote