The daily tribune., 1909-03-25
FROM the HISTORY
OF STATE OF VERMONT
(Continued from Yesterday

Perhaps the most obnoxious provi.
sion Of the prohibitory law was the
so-called "1pjunction Proceeding. :"
This was briefly as follows:
ONE person. responsible or ire
sponsible. might make statement to
a proseou uting officer that he thought
liquor was kept in acertain place.
The prosecuting officer must then 60
to the judge, without notifying the
parties interested. and obtain tempo
rary injunction against the property
to the effect that liquor should not
be kept there. and make the own ers.
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. II the judge or prosecuting
officer thought. or pretend ed to think
after the Issue of this injunction that
liquor wss still kept in such place.
the parties epjcinsd could be brought
before the Judge and fined or impris-
oned, or both, at his discretion with
out hearing before jury. Such
injunction was permanent. and ran
against the defendant. and II other
persons interested in the building or
premises, their servants. agents,
lessees AID assigns. 1t WAS in the
nature of an incumbrance upon the
premises. and subsequent purchase rs
we're bound to know and obey 10
Under this law, the Supreme co urt
of the state held that person who
did not live in Vermont, provided he
wa. the owner of real estate there,
might be found guilty of maintain.
ing q nuisance, and guilty Of con-
tempt of court, IL his agent or
lessee, although without his knowl>
edge, and contrary to his express
directions suffered Intoxicating liquors
to be disposed of on his premises.
Under this law, as sometimes hap
pened. an innocent purchaser Of an en-.
Joined property who was entirely ig.
norant of the injunction. might be
and subjected to a heavy
penalty for the mere giving of
small quantity of wine to sick
friend.
To stimulate prosecutions under the
prohibition law, the courts and prose-
cutting officers were given a share Of
the fines, and their fees were made
contingent on securing conviction.
These provisions opened an immsns,
field to corruption, and the records of
the courts show that the opportunity
30 presented was not often neg lected.
So expert did the court officers become
that the fines were fixed at the maxi
mum which the defendant could stand
without driving 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 re.
suming his business, the Illicit seller
had carried 1t on long enough to stand
another fine. lie WAS re arrested and
mulcted agnip, for the benefit of the
officers. To illustrate by an instance:
A liquor dealer at Middlebury. who
has been convicted. was told by the
Justice that lie should fine. him 5000
The man said that this would force
him I O shut up business. The prose-
cutting officer took him 20 one side,
and. after a consultation between
them, the fine WAS fixed at $50, SO he
could 60 back to selling again.
This WAS common practice. N this
and other ways the law was so mani.
pulated as 10 fill tho pockets Of the
officers at the expense Of the state,
and perfe,t mAchi merry for official
blackmsil was provided.
Tor half century--for longer
period than any other state-Ver.
mont struggled with the problem Of
prohibition und endured these inquis-
itorial and tryannioal laws aud all to
no purpose. It wss not because there
was not law enough, and severity
enough, that the law failed with
all the ingenious machinery espeola l.