The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1910-08-11
PRESS COMMENT
What the Newspapers Of Vermont
and Other States Are Saying
About Topics of Interest to
Journal Readers.
PROHIBITION FOR VERMONT.
(BartOn Monitor.

Barton Monltor.)
Anent the discussion in the Ver-
mont press since the Prohibition
party placed in nomination their can
didates for State office, and the add
ed zest given to the agitation by the
announcement of selected commit
tee by the anti-saloon league to draw
up and present a prohibitory law to
the Legislature next fall, the Monitor
desires to add its mite. First, let
us say that the Monitor stands for
prohibition, and a prohibition law for
Vermont, and will attempt to make
clear it's position.
AS we understand the inherent
principle of government, it is estab-
lished for the benefit, protection and
security of the people at large. With
this fundamental truth in mind we
cannot see how the licensed sale of
liquors as a beverage works for the
benefit, protection or security of the
common people at large when it is
conceded by practically all mankind,
abstainers, moderate consumers and
heavy drinkers alike, that no actual
benefit comes to the consumer him
self, his family or his offspring, from
alcoholic liquors when used as a bev-
erage. Science proves and statistics
show that alcoholic beverages are
harmful to the body and mind. What
man comedies, science proves, and
statistics verify, must be admitted.
Indeed the Monitor believes that
the legalizing of the sale of alcoholic
liquors might, along this line of
| thinking, be almost termed unconsti-
tutional, for we cannot show that the
| Legislature can legalize anything
that is detrimental to the public
health and safety.
Viewed in this light, the matter
comes down to that of personal lib
erty, privileges and rights On this
ground, many claim that prohibition
is an interference in private affairs.
| If this be true, then how can the
State Legislature say to the village
of St. Johnsbury that it shall not
| furnish or the citizens use water from
a certain supply? The defense was
made along the very line that the &C.
ton was a violation of personal lib
erty of the citizens and that the board
of health or State had no right to
punish those who used the water
Chief Judge John w. Rowell said in
his decision:
AS to personal liberty, our Bill Of
Rights declares that government is
or ought to be instituted for the COM
mon benefit, protection and security
of the people, nation, or community
and not for the particular emolu
ment or advantage of any single
man, family or set of men in thai
community"
He further said that the Legisla'
lture had the right to enact and en-
L
ulations as would protect the health
and safety of the greatest number O.
lpeople.
Arguing along the lines of loca
option, St. Johnsbury might, if she
chose to do so and she did, use water
that was detrimental to the public
health and safety of the people a
large. The State allows no local OPP
ton or personal privilege to stand il
the way here.
The Monitor must admit that thu
conditions under many prohibition
laws are not ideal and that in some
leases license may work to better ad
Vantage than prohibition, but the
Monitor does not believe in the prin'
ciple of licensing the sale of liquors
as beverage and for that reason
stands for prohibition law, the best
that can be devised.