The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-11-10
What Vermont Has Learned
 From Prohibition Period.

he secured liquor, and if he did not so disclose he could be committed to jail. Under this provision, persons have been kept in jail for months because they failed to make satisfactory disclos- ure. Before person so committed could obtain his discharge, he must, under oath, testify to different facts than those to which he testified be- fore his commitment, and tho question naturally arises as to which time he told the truth. The law thus invited perjury.
 These proceedings put a weapon in the hands of the malicious for satisfys ing personal grudges. Any man found drunk, or stimulating drunkenness, could declare that he obtained his drink from anyone with whom he might be at en- mity, and his word was by law a proof superior to any denials or testimony by friends that the accused might ofs fer. No citizen. prsTate or otherwise. was wholly safe from a charge of this Kind, and the penalty was very severe. Under this statute a liquor seller dare not refuse to sell or give liquors to d drunkArd or a minor because of the fear that such a drunkard or minor might make "disclosure" out of re- venge, and subject him to prosecution.
 Injunction.
 Perhaps the most obnoxious provis- ion of the prohibitory law was the so- called Injunction Proceeding" This was briefly as follows:
 Some person, responsible or irrespon- sible, might make a statement to prosecuting officer that he thought liquor was kept in a certain pIa c The prosecuting officer must then go to the judge, without notify Ing the parties interested. and obtain temporary injunction against the fA 4A< As.. should not be kept there. and make the owners. occupants, and all persons who had anything to do with the possession Of the property, parties. All this was without hearing or notice of any kind If the judge or prosecuting officer thought, or pretended to think, after the issue of this injunction that liquor was still Kept in such place, the par ties snJoined could be brought before the judge and fined or imprisoned, or both. at his discretion. without q hear Ing before jury. Such injunction was permanent. and ran against the defen dant. and all other persons interested In the building or premises, their ser wants. agents. lessees and assign. It was In the nature of an incurbranee upon the premises, and subsequent pur- chasers were bound to know and obey ik Under this law, the Supreme court oH the state held that a person who did not live in Vermont, provided he was the owner of real estate there might be found guilty of maintaining nuisance. and guilty of contempt of court, if his agent or lessee, although without his knowledge, and contrary to his express directions. suffered in- toxtcattng liquors co be disposed of on his premises. Under this law as some times happened, an innocent purchaser or an enJoined property. who was en- tirely ignorant of the injunction, might be convicted and subjected to a heavy penalty for the mere giving of a small quantity of wine to sick friend.
 Three Convictions Fer One Offenwe
 The law allowed three convictions for one offense-cne of selling liquor, one. for keeping the same liquor with in- tent to sell. and one for maintafnine. nuisance by having the same Iiquor on hand 60 sell.
 Convictions Rewarded by Feea ana
 Share of The Fines.
 To stimulate prosecutions under the law, the courts ane prosecuting of- ficers were given a share of the fines and their fees were made contingent on securing conviction. These pro- visions opened an immense field to cor ruption. and the records of the courts ] show that the, opportunity so present. | ed was not often neglected So expert  did the court officers become that the fines were fixed at the maximum which the defendant could stand without driy- ing him out of business. Care was | taken not to do that. They were too shrewd to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. When. after resuming his business. the Illicit seller had carried it on long enough to stand another fine, he was re-arrested and mulcted again, for the benefit of the officers To illustrate by an instance: liquor dealer at Middlebury, who had been convicted, was told by the justice that he should fine him $200. The man said that this would force him to shut up business. The prosecuting officer took him to one side, and, after a consulta- tion between them, the fine was fixed at $50 so he could go back to selling again. This was common practice. Tn this and other ways the law was so manipulated as to fill the pockets of the officers at the expense of the state.