Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1915-09-29
COMMUNITY RIGHTS

failure. The Monitor might ask Itself |
the question whether Orleans county |
would be any better with change to
some other law. Perhaps the people |
who live in Rutland and Bennington
counties know more about conditions
there than the residents of Barton.
A change would not affect Orleans
county, but it would make decided
difference in some other localities
where the home residents do not want
a change. -Brattleboro Reformer.
The Monitor is not so sure that the
local option law is failure as it is
that a good prohibition law would be
an improvement.
Orleans county might not be better
off under the Perry prohibition law.
Yet the Monitor believes it would be.
from the very fact that Island Pond.
an hours drive with an automobile
from our larger towns. is source of an
noyance It's bars provide convenient
base of supply. It is about five miles
from Orleans county's nearest town to
the bars of Island Pond. The banishing
of the saloon in this place would, the
Monitor believes. prove benefit to
Orleans county and for this reason the
Monitor believes that statewide prohi-
bition would directly benefit US.
The Reformer believes the people of
communities. referring particularly to
Bennington and Rutland counties. can
best Judge what is good for them, and
that outside interference, from Orleans
county in this instance, is not desired
or best. On general terms this state
ment cannot be denied. On the other
hand there are particular cases in
which Orleans county has always
interfered with the affairs of Rutland
and Bennington counties, and no one
denied it's right to do so, and vice
versa.
The Monitor has already cited many
instances in which the state as a whole
takes hand to regulate affairs in a
certain section. against that communi-
tvs wishes, perhaps. Especially is
this principle carried out when the
thing struck at is so generally admit
ted to be bad as is the legalized sale Of
intoxicants as beverage.
AS matter of fact the Monitor
believes Orleans county has as much
and as good right to have it's say as
to whether Rutland and Bennington
counties shall have legalized saloons as
it has to say that those counties shall
not have gambling at their ball games,
even if those counties do not enforce
to the letter the gambling laws. which
rumor says they do not
The Brattleboro contemporary may
not remember that the state land
Orleans county helped) stepped into a
certain railroad question in Brattleboro
and decided the controversy contrary
to the desires of Brattleboro. Is the
Monitor correct and does the Reformer
deny the right of the state in this
matter?
The Reformer may recall that Wind
ham county at one time asked to have
variation CT the fish and game laws
for it's benefit. While the community
desired the change and conditions are
different from those in Orleans county,
the state said, "No" Windham county
sports must fish when Orleans County
sports fish. Does the Reformer deny
the states right to override the com
munity's desire in this instance?
A recent news report from ST. Johns
bury tells of fatal automobile acci
dent. The car and its occupants are
reported to have been to Island Pont
and were bringing liquor to ST. johns
bury. too much of which was apparent
ly on the inside of the man killed. Al
accident in Orleans county which ma,
prove fatal is said to nave been caused
by legalized Island Pond booze Viii
the Brattleboro contemporary CLAIM
Orleans and Caledonia counties do no
suffer from the local option system?
The Monitor claims it would hay,
been better by far for the same iquo
that caused these accidents to hav,
been obtained illegally than that tn,
state of Vermont sanction and becom,
a colleague with a business that cause
death and destruction and suffering
not alone in the community where the
business is located, but over a wide ra
dius of territory.
Will The Reformer explain what fun
damental right Island Pond and tn,
state have to legalize this kind of
business?
Thora ara ot least fo1r oufopoob;I