Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-02-17

WI. ctuouo OeiieNeu MI. mctcusu
was honest in his theory Of educating
the people up to temperance, but he did
not concur in the opinion that this was
good mode Of procedure.
Mr.. Koiner wanted to know il this
bill, as passed by the House, was in
conformity with the wishes of the local.
option and temperance people Of Rich
mond and vicinity.
Mr.. Stubbs replied that the temper
ance people wanted a strict and tho
rough law to apply to counties, cities.
magisterial districts, and dis.illeries ;
but, feeling confident that they could
not get such bill, they were willing to
accept this one as a step towards accom-
plisbing their ends.
Mr.. Heaton denied that this section
was put in the bill by those who are
unfriendly to temperance. lie was a
friend to temperance, but thought tax
alton better, mode than local option
OF producing the desired result.
The vote was reconsidered by the
vote Of "a to o, and this section, on
motion Of Mr.. Rhea, was passed by
ayes, %; noes, l3.
CITIES PUT IN.
The next amendment proposed by
the committee was, in effect, to make
the law applicable to cities as we'll a
to counties and corporations Of less
that 5000 inhabitants.
On this Mr.. Rhea called the pending
| question. Not ordered.
Mr.. Bibb was in favor Of this amend
ment. If the ministers had asked for
this bill they had, in his opinion, made
a mistake. This would localize the
whiskey traffic, and all the railway trains
running from the cities would be laden
with little G. o. d. jugs. He wanted
a general, plain, clear-cut bill, one that
would strike at the fOuntain-head, aud
that would apply to every city, county,
magisterial district, and ward in the
State.
Mr.. Loyenstein would have voted for
the bill as it came from the House and
not have said one word. Why had
gentlemen who voted on Monday for
including distilleries voted yesterday to
reconsider this action? lie answered
that they had found that by standing to
their former position they would lose
the votes Of the few distilleries in their
respective districts. The cities had not
asked for a lOcal-optiOn law, and he
appealed to the Senate not to force it
upon them. lie read from an Atlanta
GA paper an extract showing that since
the adoption oflocal option in that city,
while it does not 60 into effect until the
lst Of July next, there has occurred
stagnation in business and great depres
sion in the value Of real estate. lie
read an extract from letter from some
minister saying that where liquor
drinking had been prohibited the peO-
pie had taken to opium-eating, and be
claimed that OF the two evils the former
is tie lesser. lie was Democrat Of
Democrats, and did not believe it the
policy Of the Democratic party to inau-
gurate sumptuary laws. lie was frank
to say that he was opposed to local op-
tion, and hoped if the bill were to pass
that cities would be exempted. He
wanted TO know how the government
would be run without an increase Of
taxes if this source Of revenue is abol-
isbed.
Mr.. KOiner thought a great deal Of
time was being unnecessarily spent in
discussing this subject. lie claimed
that the General Assembly was cot as
sembled to decide as to the merits of
the temperance question, but to submit
it to the popular will Of the people to
be expressed at the polls. lie hoped
the Senate would confne itself to the
question at issue, and not kill valuable
time in discussing the merits Of the
subject.
Mr.. Petit held that the cities should
not lie exempted. If the people Of
Richmond want to vote on this ques-
tion why should their representative
object? If they do not want to vote
on it they need not do so. lie thought
they should be given the power to ex-
ercise this hight if they want to.
Mr.. Loyenstein replied that he did
not believe the people of Richmond
wanted to vote on this subject, and he
did not want the subject put in such a
position as to be agitated at any time.
He was willing to shoulder the respon-
sibility of having Richmond exempted.
Mr.. Ellyson said he was opposed to
the amendment because he believed the
House bill came as near meeting the
views Of both the friends and opponents
OF local option as any bill that was
likely to pass. The session was draw
ing to a close. No one could forecast
the result Of the Senate's deliberations
on this subject. The friends Of local
option had better take this bill rather
than take the chances Of getting none
at all, and the opponents Of the measure
had better accept the House bill rather
than take the chances of getting worse
one. lie thought it would be best
to pass the House bill and then discuss
as a separate measure any other bill
that might be presented.
Mr.. Stubs was surprised at the posi-
tion taken by the gentleman from Rich
mond (Mr. Lovenstein), but he liked to
meet an open honest, foe, for with such
he could know how to deal. He pro.
ceeded to discuss the merits Of the bill
and at the close of his speech the pend
ing question was called for. The
amendment was adopted by the follow
ing vote:
AYES -Messfs. Berry, Bibb. Blackstone.
Causey, COltrane, Duane. Edmunds. Flan-
AIRY. Gaines, Gee. Heaton Hodges, HUT,
Jones. KeeZell. K0iner, Mccormick, Me-
Donald. Norton, Petit. Read. Rhea. Stubbs,
lisms and Wingheld-29.
NOES Messrs. dalton. Ellysou, Loven-
stein, Meredith, and Staples-5.
THE BALLOTS.
Several consequential amendments
were agreed to, and then the motion of
Mr.. Mccormick to reconsider the vote
by which the committees amendment
proposing a change in the ballots was
rejected, which was passed by on Mon
day, came up.
Mr.. Heaton wished to speak to this
amendment, and owing to the lateness