The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1907-07-25
A MESSAGE TO MAINE
From Vermont and New Hampshire. Ii
cense Making More Drunkards and
Criminals,

AT the recent New England Institute
of the W. c. T. U. at Hampton Beach,
n. H., Rev. J. H. Robbins, superin.
tendent of the New Hampshire Anti
Saloon League, spoke on the Dangerous
Possibility. He said:
There are in Maine calling for re
submission the same two classes that
we had in Vermont and New Hamp
shire five years ago calling for license
laws.
l. The men who want the liquor
traffic licensed for their own profit or
convenience, men who are interested in
the traffic as dealers or patrons. Fol
that class we have no message. There
is no common ground from which to
start. Between this class-the various
allied liquor intereSts-anG the real
temperance forces Of the entire coun-
try, there is uncompromising war. The
whole liquor problem and fundamental
temperance principles are involved in
this war The true temperance forces
make no concessions and enter into no
alliances with the liquor interests in
town, city, State, or nation. On the
one hand it is fight to give the bever-
age liquor traffic, legal standing, rights,
permanency and power. On the other
it is fight of all the moral forces OF
the land, not simply to prevent the in
crease Of the liquor power, but it is an
aggressive warfare to break the entire
legal standing of the vicious traffic.
The strength and life of the beverage
liquor traffic, and ali it stands for, is in
the license system.
The real liquor interests of the coun-
try are clamoring for reSubmlsslon in
Maine, hoping thereby to get license.
The National Wholesale Liquor Deal
ers' Protective Bureau made the boast
that their organizatian captured Yer
mont and New Hampshire and they in
tend to capture Maine. At the annual
meeting of this Liquor Association in
Atlantic City last month, the publica-
ton committee reported $4,000 spent
in campaign literature last year and an
urgent call was issued for much larg-
er fund this year. They hope to sue
coed in Maine.
.. In the second place there is a
class of men in Maine, as we had in
Vermont and New Hampshire who
honestly think that the license system
will regulate and restrict the traffic so
that less liquor will be sold than under
violated and nulliied prohibition.
For that class of persons we have a
message:
The license laws of Vermont and
New Hampshire ought to be the best of
any in the Union-when these laws
were being framed, interested men of
every shade of sentiment were inves-
tigating the results of the operation of
all the license laws in all the States.
There was determination to get the
best; they had the experience of all
who had gone before. 1t is reasonable
10 assume that, considered all in all,
the license laws of Vermont and New
Hampshire are the best on record.
The laws of the two States are suf-
ticiently different to test the relative
merits of particular features. Both
are local option, so-called, that is, the
matter OF license or no license is sub
mitted to the voters at the polls. Yer
mont has straight vote in all the
cities and towns at the town meeting
every March. New Hampshire has a
vote in the towns every two years at
the November State elections; and in
the cities once in four years. We are,
therefore, trying the annual, biennial
and quadrennial plans. Ii there is any
merit IN the short term plan or the
long term plan we are getting it.
Vermont has the number of licenses
limited to / per 1000 of population.
New Hampshire has no limit as to
number and has them from one per
1000 to one for 200 Of population.
Vermont has strict prohibition when
town votes mo-" with only provi-
sion that local authority may permit
sale by druggists for medical use only
on a physicians prescription; while
New Hampshire is more liberal, the
license commissioners giving licenses
in no,license towns to hotels to sell
to bona ide guests and to drug stores
to sell on the mere signature OF the
purchaser that he is getting the liquor
for medicine.
In Vermont the law is under local
control by commissioners appointed by
county authority; while in New Hamp
shire the entire administration of the
law is in the hands of State board of
license commissioners appointed by the
governor and council.
1t is impossible to analyze the rela-
tive merits and dement's of these diff
ferences.
One class of observers say that if the
provisions are too strict in the no-li-
SOHoo toHIo VIC w III UC d ltdC-
ton to license vote. Others contend
that liberal conditions in no license
towns disgust temperance voters and
they let the town vote license and have
the name as we'll as the game"
When license advocates are COMPEL
ed to admit VIGOROUSLY bad conditions,
they charge it to some defective feat
ure of the law, rather than admit that
the trouble is inherent in the system it.
self. In New Hampshire they say
t'There are too many saloons;" in Yer
mont, 1.-THE limited number of saloons
gives the saloon men too strong a mo-
nopoly and they become independent
and manipulate the administration of
the law" In New Hampshire the State
officers cannot know all that is going
on locally and the local officers repu.
diate all responsibility and violations
are common and detections few. In
Vermont LEGAL officers have personal
and political interests and the eye
glasses get dusty-sometimes it is gold
dust,
SOME RESULTS.
An entire change of policy from
State. prohibition to local option license
has necessarily been somewhat revolu-
tionary in the resulting changes in con-
ditions. Some communities have voted
license and some no license. Some
towns have alternated from year to
year between license and no license.