The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1911-12-28
County Option

This paper cannot agree with Mas
ter G. +. Smih of the state Grange
that county option would be an i'm
proyement over the present local OPP
ton method of regulating the liquor
traffic The Journal recognizes as
keenly as does Mr. Smith the evils of
the saloon, and il rs as anxious as
he can be to see the number reduced
to the lowest possible limit, but it
fears that county option would result
in worse rather than better con-
dition Of affairs.
In our New England system of gov
eminent the township is the unit. In
some states the municipal govern
ment in the rural towns counts for
very little and the county authority
for great deal so that the county
comes much nearer to being the unit
than 1t does with us. The natural
form of opinion on the sale of liquor
in Vermont would be a town rather
than a county option.
If the voters lined up under coun-
ty option as they have for the past
few years under local option only
two counties, Bennington and Chit.
tenden, would be likely to be wet and
even those might be dry. Now that
would be very desirable condition
Of affairs II 1t really meant dry coun-
ties, for this paper would be glad to
see every saloon voted out of Yer
mont If public sentiment really war.
ranted such a policy. The trouble
With county option, however, is that
1t really amounts to prohibition under
another name Very many OF the
same reasons that made prohibition
Ineffective would apply to county op
ton. IL Warren and Waits6eld, Dux
bury, and Moretown made regula
tons for Montpelier and Barre, il
Huntington and Westford, Charlotte
and Jericho. prescribed regulations
for Burlington. IL Sherburne and
Tinmouth, Pawlet and Benson told
Rutland how its local affairs should
be run, II Peru and Pownal, Sears
burg and Sandgate. laid down the
law for Bennington, then we would
be likely TO see the same spirit o.
resentment aroused that overthrow
prohibition. Conditions are SO differ
ent In the cities and large villages
from those In sparsely settled town
ships, that the urban communit,
ought TO be allowed to settle for II
self the best method OF dealing witt
the liquor problem.
This year Montpelier has saloons
but In all probability 1t has ha,
enough Of the policy to last 1t TO
several years. However, II our cit
zens felt that the rural towns of tn
county were seeking to regulate GU
anairs their attitude would be quit
different
There is good reason to belley
that with county option the same oil
condition Of large number of III,
gal. unregulated saloons would b
found in the larger places as the
existed under prohibition. We d
not want that condition TO prevail 1
Montpelier again. Neither does Re,
nlnslon, nor Rutland, nor St Albanl
nor burlington care to see It one
more. With the county as a unit
Is more difficult to enforce the In,
as II Is easier to shift responsible
than IL Is 10 a municipality.
The whole question resolves itse
into one of ability to enforce n con,
= " option law. The Journal beliey,
mat such a law would result in N
. sprlnging up OF scores OF cheap div,
and joints that would be worse tina
conditions prevailing under licens
IL Is true that some people 20 fro
neighboring towns into a llcens
community to buy liquor but didn
I they do practically the same thln
under the old prohibitory law An
h wouldn't they do the same thing II,
der county option?
The Journal opposes county optio
because II believes that Il cannot \
/, enforced and because II believes m,
the cities should be permitted
4 solve their own problems.
4 Under local option more than %
out OF 2i6 towns and cities are dr.
every year. They enjoy the be,
Kind OF prohibition that they hay
ever known. Under county option
Is to be feared that the old farcil
conditions would prevail once NOR
Let us have n law that can be el
forced and respected. Montpell,
Journal