Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1886-03-24
Lacal-0ption election in Rockbridge.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LOCAL OPTION LAW.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
LOCAL-OPTION LAW.
Judge Houston, of Rockbridge, on the 18th
inst issued an order for an election in that
22nd Of April, the number of signatures for
an election being 1850, 700 more than is
necessary under the provision requiring
that the number Of signatures shall be
equal to one-fourth of the votes cast at the
last November election. The localoption
county committee, of which Rev. D. G.
Irwin is chairman, has issued an address
to the voters of that county, from which we
extract the following analysis showing the
purpose and intent of the local-option law
as understood by that committee -
of wines and liquors or their expectation
and sale outside of the county or district
voting against license.
End. 1t does not prohibit their importa-
ton by any individual for his own use.
3rd. 1t is not sumptuary law to restrain
any person in the use of liquor. 1t only
proposes to withdraw the facilities now fur
nished. under our licenses system, for
drinking aud to withhold the, temptations
now everywhere presented to drink and to
form habits of drinking.
4th. A sufficient number of petitioners
having been obtained in each magisterial
district, the election is ordered to be held
for the whole county. The effect of the
vote will be as follows:
(A.) Ifthere shall be majority of all the
votes cast AT THIS ELECTION against license,
then no license can be granted anywhere in
the county. This majority may come from
only part of the districts, but in any case
carries the whole county against license
OBJ If, however, a majority in the whole
county should vote fol license, and yet, one
or more of the districts should give a ma
.jority of votes against license, then in the
districts voting against it no license can be
granted, but only in those giving a majority
of votes for it.
9Th. The law, if adopted, prohibits the
sale in the county by manufacturers as
we'll as at saloons.
9th. If a majority of vo,es should be cast
for license in the county OF district, then no
other votes can be taken on the question
within two years of this election.
18th. The expenses Of this and all subse-
quent elections are to be pail out of the
State treasury and not in any case by the
petitioners.
9Th. While one-fourth of the number of
voters at the last November election is re-
quired On the petition to secure the order
for an election, a majority of the votes cast
in this election, only, is required to deter
mine the question, and no regard is had to
the number cast at any preceding election.
A careful consideration of the points above
| enumerated will correct the mistakes and
Misrepresentation Of the issues in the
contest.
WAswHINGToN CONFERENCE, NJ E.
CHURCH (CoLoRED 1.-The 23rd annual ses-
sion of the Washington Conference Of the
M. E. Church (colored) was held in Char
! lesion, W. Va, and adjourned last week.
j The following are the appointments for
this the Staunton, district
W.T. Harris, P. E.-Augusta, Va, j.
D. S. Hall; Charlestown, W. Va, s. A,
Lewis; Deerfeld G. Fl. Foreman; Frank
fort, Wa. Va, A. Hoggsett; Harrisonburg,
Va. NJ. A. Dyer; Hedgesville, W. Va.
transferred, B. Myers. Hillborough, w.
Va. J. 7. Hill; Jefferson, W. Va. James
H. Watson; Lewisburg, W. Va. D. Aquil-
la; Lowmoor, Va. B. F. Perkins; Luray,
Va. 1. Meredith; Loyola. A c. Steptoe;
Martinsburg, W. Va R. S. Smith; New
Market, Va. G. D. Nickins; Red Sulphur
Springs, Va. M. Robinson; Rockingham,
Va. w. II. Dunsin; Ronceverte, w. Va.
T. A. White; Sheperdstown, W. Va. H.
Randall; Staunton, Va. R. H. Robinson;
Strasburg, Va. Richard Lane; Taicott,
W. Va. W. F. Patterson; Union, W. Va,
Elijah Ayers; Whitehall, Va. ] Barnett;
Winchester, Va. j. Waters.