The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1918-08-17
The Deadly Parallel.
(Rutland Herald.

Judge Charles ID. Daring informs the
Herald that its representative never heard
him make local option speech in his life
and explains his appearance before leg
islative committee in February. 1917, by
the claim that he merely insisted on the
same law for Burlington as for the rest of
Vermont
If the Judge is correct, the Herald has
done him serious injustice and he isl
clearly entitled to an apology. On looking
over its legislative files for February, 1917
however, it appears that the mistake was
natural enough.
Under date of Feb Sth, the Herald car
ried on its first page the story of hear
| ing before the temperance committees
| of the legislature on the Hunt bill, meas
ure aimed directly at the local option prin-
| ciple, which sought to place Burlington
and other college communities in the state
under special sort of prohibition.
| Among other things, the Herald's rep
resentatiye at Montpelier wired the fol-
lowing facts about the hearing:
| There We're sharp tits between Judge
| Darling and Clifford H Smith of the Anti
Saloon league, also between John H.
Mimms of Burlington and Mr. Smith,
the advantage remaining with the local
option forces.
Here was, at least, sharp line of de-
narration, 50 far as the correspondent
was concerned Let us see to what ex-
tent Judge Darlng's utterances justify
the conclusion. The report says further:
Judge Darling said he never voted for
license ia his life. but upheld the pres
ent law, because it gave the state the best
Temperance government it ever had
He deplored the attempt to subvert
the will of the voters of Burlington for
the sake of five or ten students out of
900 and challenged the advocates of the
Hunt bill to find a college boy in an open
saloon He said:
The direct primary was placed on the
statute books and it stands The people
for the second time have determined that
the local option law shall stand.
Eve can run our own business without
any help from the people out West OF
down South. We don't even need any
help from Danville.
Certain people have never liked it be
cause we got local option law They
want to get one more no-license town or
the map. If this law is passed, it vii
be because Burlington don't vote dry as
often as it ought to, and the people o.
| Burlington do most emphatically object
to having foisted on them despised Law
, that will be a thing of laughter. without
respect something that the public officer,
, can't enforce"
| Perhaps, as the respected Judge declares
people were wrong in calling this a loca
option speech, but certainly it Is goot
enough local option doctrine for the Her
/ aid and its readers, and it takes fair!
/ robust brand of local option to satisf,
/ them and us.
4 So we repeat that we are perfectly con
| tent to leave the task of harmonizing tina
: sort of a speech with support of the, Shep
E pard amendment, which not only pro
4 poses to foist on the people of Burling
) ton minority law. but proposes to plae'
tthe same in the federal constitution, thu
a fixing the principle of government by pro
oil hibitionsts or other extremists in tn
4 organic law of the country forever.
Because, il the prohihitionists are pei
: mitted to foist such a thing. not on
: on the people of Burlington but on tn
o people of Vermont. all sorts of wild-eye
o reformers can do likewise. and the rasul
: will be that the strong and simple ,fabri
: of the constitution will speedily becom
r a mass of fanatic legislation utterly IN
capable Of holding together as soverig
|, states and tending inevitably toward tn
v disintegration and destruction of the re
) public
There is not a fair issue of prohibition
f VS. regulation in this question. 1t come
$ to a question of majority rule and loca
n sef-government vs.. government by fanai
n ic minority.