The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1909-01-07

preached On the selection of commission
crs by those Interested in the business.
Mr. Kinsley OF Rutland said that In
his opinion IL was not a question Of the
politics Of the commissioners, but of the
men themselves.
Mr.. Fish Of Vergennes believed that
the law had been admirably worked in
towns voting for no license, but the
trouble with the law was all found in
the towns voting license. He believed
the proposed measure removed the liquor
question from legislation that would
have tendency to be detrimental to
the best interests. He knew that the
commissioner would have to be a man
with backbone. lie favored the com
mittee's bill.
Mr.. Howe Of Sc. Johnsbury was not
in favor Of the state license board. He
said this state commissioner with the
backbone Of four men would be so strong
that he would have to have a clerk and
n stcnographer, and with three license
commissioners in every license town, il
would make about 50 men besides the
members Of the state commission, look
ing over about 10 liquor sellers, to say
nothing Of as many spoilers as the
commissioner might choose TO put in
business. He thought the need Of super
vision was in the places where illegal
selling was going on.
Mr.. Miller of Bethel made strong
speech against the proposed measure,
saying that this prodigious commissioner
would have TO perform a physical inn
possibility in appointing al the COM
missioners in the various towns voting
license during the working days from
tho March meeting TO May l, giving the
liquor sellers % reasonable time to adj
yertise their applications In the news
papers and provide time for the hear
ings. Besides the rush OF work would
necessarily lead him toAccept the opin-
ion and selection of certain commission
ers in different towns. II would have
tendency to have the question all set
tied when the commissioner in his rush
arrived in town.
Mr.. Howe Of Bennington called atten-
ton TO the clause In the bill which gave
the state commissioner veto power over
the local commissioners in towns voting
license where it was self evident that
the licensec would have to rely on
towns for enough trade to
keep II going. He referred TO the Mid
dlesex saloon as an example and TO
vote for license in Glastonbury to 2
in favor OF license.
The vote on Mr.. Leary's amendment
was taken viva yoce and il was appar-
emtly close. Mr.. Williams declared the
amendent lost. He than started TO read
the remainder Of the first section or
two Of the Leary amendent and Mr..
DeBoer rose to point Of order say
ing that the amendment Of Mr.. Lesry
had been killed and the effect made use
less the other section out OF order at
they were germane TO the subject af.
ter the amendment was dead
It was just about this time that Mr.
Leary began to look unpleasant as be
had introduced but one amendment and
It had not been acted upon as a whole
rs he believed When the question OF
the third reading Of the bill was stated
sir. Howe of Benainxton said that he
also wanted TO o1er an amendment cut
ing out that section Of the bill empower
"a tne sfate COMMISSIONER 10 employ
agents. He said believed that the state
had had enough Of the spotter business.
At this juncture Mr.. DeBoer arose and
himself. He said the commit.
5ee had spent much time on the bin and
10 many amendments had been offered
from both sides Of the House that no
BODY seemed to know whether the meat !
If the bills was gone or not. He made |
i motion to have the bill lie and be
made, special order for this morning. |
fhe motion was carried by a standing |
1ote. Then Mr.. DeBoer moved to adj. |
ourn. II was at this time that Mr.. |
leary started for Mr.. Williams to re-
ieye his mind, and the two engaged in
IN earnest conversation for some min
Ites.