The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-02-22

OF the session.
Mr.. CardwelI said that he had offered the
resolution in perfect good faith, and with
no intention Of killing time, as the member
from Rockbridge seemed to think. He
thought it unfair and unjust for the other
side to regard every proposition which
came from his side in that light,
Mr.. Frazier did not mean to impugn the
motives OF the member from Hanover. He
opposed the resolution because the session
was nearly exhausted, and he thought il
was the duty Of the Legislature 10 lose as
little time as possible, in order that the
business before II might be disposed Of.
Mr.. b. a. Davis hoped the resolution
would pass unanimously. He spoke warmly
OF the life and services OF Washington.
and thought the House could very well
afford TO show this much respect 10 his
memory.
Mr.. Giddings opposed the resolution.
lie thought the greatest respect that could
be shown the memory of Washington was
to follow his example in regard TO duty.
and stay here to look after the public in
terests.
The resolution was agreed to-ayes, A. /;
noes, 40.
GENERAL LOCAL OPTION.
at | O'Clock yesterday the House re-
sumed the consideration Of the general
local-OptiOn bill (which l. being amended
and perfected where ii left of Friday.
The lengthy discussion which ensued
developed the fact that while the bill is re-
garded with favor by large majority Of
the members il has some enemies.
Mr.. Stubbs offered an amendment to
come in after the substitute for the lst
section, which was made necessary by the
adoption Of the substitute. CThis amend
ment was withdrawn, and afterwards OF
fercd at another stage OF the proceedings y
Mr.. Mayo was Of the opinion that the
efforts OF the friends OF the bill to amend
it would kill il. He did not believe that
the House would ever pass bill which
allowed 4 county Judge to order special
elections upon the petition OF every man
in the county. He was opposed TO that
feature of the bill, because ii would entail
too great IN expense upon the people.
The bill as il came from the committee was
simple and feasible, and he favored ii IN
that form.
Mr. Stubs explained the necessity for
special elections. Before the next regular
election liquOr-licenses for the ensuing
twelve months will have been issued in all
thr counties and corporations Of the State.
Mr.. Tinsley, while he did not claim to be
a temperance man. favored the bill. He
favored il because it was left to the people
10 say whether or not they would avail
themselves Of its provisions. But he did
not wish in this matter 10 do rs some OF the
members OF the House did after saying all
H. e, Ia. tnt,
He had had all he wanted TO drink fOr the
past forty years, and he didn't propose TO
call the pending question on the rising gen
Grafton.
Mr.. Hanger expressed himself as being
opposed to all local-opton laws. lie was
opposed to the policy Of enacting law to
become a law when ratified by the people.
1t had been decided in other states to be
constitutional, but he didn't think ii was
good law. The proposed legislation would
disjoint the entire revenue law and create
a deficiency of several hundred thousand
dollars. How is this deficiency to be made
up? Would anybody vote to increase the
tax on property
Mr.. Tinsley Gnterrupting) thought he
would. Stop the liquor traffic. and perhaps
we will nave more property.
Mr. Hanger, continuing, said he re-
gardcd intemperance as great curse. but
this bill was no remedy for it, The at
tempt TO stop the consumption Of liquor
would be futile 1t would still be drank
and the revenue on il lost. I'm conclusion.
Mr.. Hanger said he felt no interest in any
OF the amendments which had been offered,
as he intended TO vote against the bill.
Mr.. Amos DickcrSOn agreed with Nr.
Hanger. He believed such law would
not only decrease the revenue, but encou-
rage Illicit traffic in liquor.
Mr.. Lakewood here offered an amEnd-
ment providing that in any county or dis
tIict where local option is adopted that the
amount Of revenue derived from liquor IL
censeS eor the preceding year shall be as
certained. and that this amount shall be
made up By 4 tax on other property.
Mr.. FRAZIER was an advocate OF local OPP
ton. He was opposed to any amendments
TO the bill.
Mr.. StubbS opposed Mr.. ETsslewood's
1t would defeat the objects
OF tie bill.
M. Stuart: How would YOU supply the
deficiency IN the reyeEueS
NJ. Stubs. in reply. said that the preya-
lenec OF losal option throughout the state
would OF Itself supply the deficiency. In
elsqucnt terms he invited the opponents OF
tsc bill 10 20 to the Auditors Office and
examine che accounts OF criminal expenses ;
70 10 tle penitenriary and TO the lunatic
asvlumS OF the Stste; look at the crowded
condition OF those institutions, and then
find ont to what extent liquor is response
be for these things. He did not believe
that the prohibition OF the sale Of liquor
would decrease the revenues.
Mr.. Pollard earnestly opposed the amend
ment OF Mr.. Lakewood. and said that the
objection raised to the bin, that il it be-
comes operative the State would lose a
large revenue. was no new objection. and
did not originate in the fertile mind OF Mr..
Lakewood. The same objection was made
10 somewhat similar legislation in England,
when Mr.. Gladstone, who advocated the
measure, said i'm effect that the objection
was puerilc and untcnablc; that England
could raise all the revenue she needed from
sober people. and by legislation promotiye
OF morality, rather than by licensing trade
that all statistics and experience show pro-
notes crime ana pauperism.
Mr.. Pollard showed that the Legislature
has the constitutional right to pass law to
be operative in any county Oniy when
adopted by majority Of the voters OF such
county. lie read from the decision OF the
Court Of Appeals OF this state in the case
Of Bull. &c. rs. Read and others, IL Grat-
tan, page ~, where the court declared that
TO hold the contrary view was to disregard
all proper distinctions and involved an
uttcr confusion OF ideas on the subject.
Mr.. Pollard gained and held throughout
his remarks the attention OF a tired House,
Mr.. stuart had listened with great inter
est 10 Mr.. Stubbs's idea a. 10 the good re-
suits which would follow the enactment ol
this law. As an answer he would cite the
experience 81 Kansas.
Mr. Stubbs wanted the figures.
Mr. Stuart conld not say positively a. Z