The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1916-03-02

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 Is 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 Brattieboro
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 BrattIe-
boro residents. She asked if the resi-
dents of a 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 q little sugar and water
forms a basis for the manufacture OF
m intoxicating beverage. Legislation
can never take the place of the indi-
yidual conscience.
| Each side was given five minutes in
which to prepare rebuttal 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 seat to the legislators asking
votes for state prohibition. These in
Guided petitions from the students and
faculty of the University of Vermont
and of Middleburv 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
/ eff her statement that alcohol was no
/ longer consideredj medicine, said
that she had not said that 1t was not
i necessary TO make medicine. It had
the same relation to medicine that
hooks and eyes did to dress They
are useful in making 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 NJ. Ty-
| Ter, former Lieut.. Gov Frank II.
Howe, Alexander Dunnett and score
of others she named as bad company.
She said that the petitions for divor-
ces in Kansas. the much touted drv
, state, on the ground of intoxieation
. were greater in number than in most
: any OF the wet states. She did nos be
iieve in substituting for the present
) law a law that at the best would be
. an unpromising experiment.
Mrs. Thompson concluded the affirm
, afive arguments by asking series OF
, related questions Of which the basis
: was: Would the local optionists advo-
: eate local option il the believed Brat
. tleboro would have saloon one-haif
; one-third or even onc-fourtb Of tle
: time2
t Mrs. Smith IN reply said that 81,
wished to repeat her statement thai
{ no legislation can take the place Of tn,
I individual conscience. Universal pro
e bihition, whether of liquor or of some
c thing else, IS likely to destroy tha
/ sense Of individual responsibility whiel
T IS the backbone of national lat III
c eence, and by So doing 70 work meal
c cIlable harm.