Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1916-03-03

believe that with license in the statesI
around Vermont state prohibition will
regulate the liquor traffic in Vermont Il
She disagreed with the argument that
the annual voting on the question was|
disturbing element. The fact that
the question is widely discussed tends|
to make drinking unpopular. She|
agreed that the trend of the age isl
against the use of liquor, but condi-
tions that have brought this about
were made by local option. If the
Perry act is forced upon towns nat
urally license it viii not be enforced
in these towns, she concluded.
Mrs. G. H. Thompson, who closed
for the affirmative, said that the ar
guments that had been made by the
other side had a familiar tone. She
had heard them before. The Perry
bill advocates do not claim the Perry
bill is the last word, but 1t is step
forward. She named the towns in
which there is license and said that
the view of Windham county, dry
county, to let well enough alone, was
n very selfish one. She feared that To-
cal optionists were in bad company. If
enough of the states vote for state
prohibition it will bring about nation1
al prohibition. When nineteen-twen1
tieths Of the territory of any state
votes dry it is ready for stated
wide prohibition. The trend of tho
age is for prohibition as it makes IL
easy for man not to drink.
Mrs. Smith, closing for the negative
side, said that while the arguments OF
her predecessors on the local optloa
side might have been familiar to their
opponents she was sure what she hald
to say would not be, for she had new
er seen or heard what she was about
to express. She then proceeded 70
tackle the question locally The state
ment that arrests under local option
in Brattleboro exceeded those under
prohibition she was not sure was cor
rect. 1t is to be remembered that
many of the business changes made re-
Gently, notably the railroad improve
ment, brought into town a vast float
ing population, among whom many ar
rests were made for intoxication ana
one for murder. She touched upon DR..
Burnett g reference to the fact that
alcohol is not needed as a medicine,
but said a pharmacist told her that it
was essential as a solvent of various
drugs. Anything can be proven by
statistics, even the fact that there is
an excess of deaths in BrattlebOro
over births, but this is due to four
contributing factors-two hospitals, an
insane asylum and the Home for the
Aged, institutions in which many
deaths occur that are not of Brattle-
boro residents. She asked if the resi-
dents of town that normally votes
license would be earnest for prohi-
bition with the knowledge that the
farmer could deal in hard cider in
small or large quantities. She remind
ed her auditors that every blackberry
bush with a little sugar and water
forms a basis for the manufacture of
an Intoxicating beverage. Legislation
can never take the place of the indi-
vidual conscience.
Each side was given five minutes in
which to prepare rcbuttal and each
speaker was allowed three minutes in
which to reply to arguments of the OPP
posing side.
Mrs. Perry armed herself with a
huge bundle of petitions that she said
had been sent to the legislators asking
votes for state prohibition. These in
Guided petitions from the students and
faculty of the University of Vermont
and of Middlebury college.
Mrs. Rice spent her three minutes
in vigorous attack upon statistics
that had been presented by the other
| side.
DR.. Burnett, in reply to the criticism
of her statement that alcohol was nc
longer considered a medicine, said
that she had not said that it was not
necessary to make medicine. 1t had
the same relation to medicine that
hooks and eyes did to a dress They
are useful in making a dress, but they
are not the dress.
Mrs. Brown, replying to Mrs. Thomp
son S suggestion that the local option
lists are in bad company, said that SHE
did not consider Judge James M. Ty-
Ter, former Lieut.. Gov. Frank E
Howe, Alexander Dunnett and score
of others she named as bad company
She said that the petitions for divor
, ces i'll Kansas, the much touted dry
state, on the ground of intoxicatior
!: were greater in number than in mos
any of the wet states. She did not be
lieve in substituting for the presen
law law that at the best would b'
an unpromising experiment.
Mrs. Thompson concluded the affirm
alive arguments by asking series o
related questions of which the basi
was: Would the local optionists advo
cate local option if they believed Brat
I tleboro would have saloon Une-hali
one-third or even one-fourth of tn
time2
Mrs. Smith in reply said that sh
tty;p Do or fa ha
no legislation can take the place of tn
: individual conscience. Universal pre-
hibition, whether of liquor or of som'
thing else, is likely to destroy tina
: sense of individual responsibility whie
is the backbone of national intelli
y gence, and by so doing to work inca
culable harm. ""o"'''