Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-04-09
IDjuring Richmond.
To the Editor of the Dispatch:

On yesterday | saw copy OF let
ter from one of our leading merchants
to a merchant in Richmond. 1t SO we'll
expressed the views Of the temperance
people Of this section that | asked for
a copy of part Of the letter for publ
cation in your paper. Allow me to
thank you for your impartiality in az
fording the people Of Virginia the OPP
portunity Of hearing both sides of this
most important question.
The people have to decide this ques-
ton, and. Of course, to arrive at fair
decision they must hear both sides.
HALIFAX.
In regard to the loss of revenue to
which you allude, provided local option
is successful Though it is less than
(s400, 000), | do not think it should en-
ter into the discussion Of the subject.
If the sale and use Of liquor as beve-
rage is the great evil we all think aud
know it to be, and we have only to look
around US to see its baneful ELECTS,
then ask, What right have we to license
such an evil to raise revenue? If raising
revenue is the only thing to consider in
this matter, then ask, Why not license
every gambling house and every other
den of iniquity in your city?
You could raise more revenue, even if
you ruin the morals Of your people, by
adopting such course.
God forbid the day should ever come
that the people of our dear old Com
monwealth should consent to license
vice and immortality in their midst to
raise revenue. Better ten thousand
times she should repudiate every debt
she owes than pursue such policy, to
the destruction Of the morals Of her
rising generation.
If revenue is needed raise it from
legitimate objects Of taxation, whether
real or personal, bnt let us not nurse in
our bosoms this vile serpent, who will
in the end, when warmed to life, turn
and sting us with its deadly fangs.
Many of your businessmen seem to
fear the success of the local-optionists
will damage the trade Of Richmond.
For the life of me | cannot see why it
should affect any other branch Of trade
but whiskey. Every merchant through
out the country will need just as many
bags Of coffee, barrels Of sugar and
-four, pairs of shoes, yards of cloth,
&c., &c, without whiskey as with it.
Yes, even more; for many, many dol
lars now spent for whiskey will be ex-
pended in the necessaries Of life.
Again Many Of your citizens. judging
from their replies to the interviewer as
published in a recent issue Of the DIS
patch, seem to fear an encroachment
upon their personal liberty by the pas
sage of the adoption bill. They say
they think a man should have the right
to drink whatever and whenever he
wishes.
Local option may not mean the same
in the country as it does in Richmond.
have never heard any temperance ad-
yocate here deny the right to any man
TO drink whenever he so desired, nor
advocate any law to curtail any mans
rights in that respect. They know as
long as whiskey is made some people
will drink it, and they do not deny their
right to do so. They say to all such,
If you will drink, take your liquor ia
your own home there drink to your
| hearts content; corrupt the moral:
Of your own children within the
bosom Of your own family; but you
shall not, if we can prevent it, set W
your whiskey-shop on the public high
way and at the street-corners, in the
pathway of our children and our neigh
bors' children, to lure them on to ruiz
and destruction.
Those are the utterances and senti
ments of the leading advocates of tenn
| perance in this section.