The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1916-03-04
Saturday, March 4, 1915.
SOME OF THE lowRRows

Our friends, the prohibitionists,
have been SO badly worsted in the
argument over the Perry bill that
some OF them have lost their temper
and vent their feelings by personal
attacks on those who disagree with
them.
Some of the prohibition campaign
speakers In Vermont have referred to
local optionists as "low-browed thugs
tools of the whiskey trust" traitors
in the army of decency" etc, etc.
speaker at local gathering de-
clared with emphasis that he was UNI
able to find among the supporters OF
local option on record the name OF
anybody of any importance or stand
ing, or words to that effect. Here are
few letters in support of local OPP
tion that he must have overlooked.
From Hon. Fred A. Rowland of
Montpelier, president OF the National
Life, the largest fiduciary corporation
in Vermont:
Montpelier, VT, Feb. 10, 1916.
Il am opposed to the Perry bill be-
cause believe the present law allows
an adequate expression Of public senti-
ment on the liquor question and that
the results under the present local OPP
tion statute are more satisfactory
than they were under the old prohibit
tory law. While | have always voted
against license in Montpelier, / be-
lieve the law is working very salts
factorily and should not be changed"
Fred A. Rowland.
From Hon. o. NJ. Barber of Benning.
ton:
United States Court
of Customs Appeals,
Washington, ID. G.
IT have settled conviction that the
present Local Option law is much bet
ter for Vermont than will be the So
called Perry act, if it is adopted"
Respectfully,
o. NJ. Barber.
From Rev. Nelson Kellogg, pastor
of ST. Michael's Episcopal church at
Brattleboro:. ,,s,g,s..s.s ...,,......,
Brattleboro, VT, Feb 20, 1916.
so far as can see the present
Local Option plan works pretty well
all around"
a., ,,., Nelson Kellogg,
From Or. J. N Allen. leading ply
stefan of st. Johnsbury: n, .taistes
''''' St Joinsbury, vti,'Feb 20, 1915 |
Il ain heartily in sympathy with
the present law and shall regard it
as calamity If changed to prohibit !
ton. saw the working of the oldJ
law for 20 years and Of the present |
one since its enaction and nothing
could make us want to see the old,
conditions re established. ] think
that poll of the professional men,
including many Of the clergy, in this |
vicinity would favor the present law. |
We have kept rum out of this Sec
ton under it. other sections can if |
they wish. The old law never kept |
1t cut of any section and the new
one will be equally ineffective in my
opinion. l sincerely hope that we
will not go back to the Matchmaking |
condition of 20 years ago. Officers
whose duty it was to enforce the old |
law, appeared to suddenly become |
opulent after year or two in Office"
J. NJ. Allen.
From Former City Judge Merrill of |
Rutland:
Much as | dislike the undoubted |
evils of the drink habit, regard the |
evils OF a prohibition law as greater in |
the net results, especially in the larger
municipalities of Vermont. AS a
prosecuting officer, city judge and
lawyer, had plenty of opportunity to
estimate the workings of the old law.
l maintain that the local option law of
this state has met with signal success
the claims OF its advocates and friends
and that for Vermont to return to pro-
hibition would be a serious mistake"
James A. Merrill, Rutland