Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-02-15
THURSDAY. FEBRUARY Is. 1894
The Miller Bill.

The Miller bill, as II was amended on
Tuesday In the Finance Committee OF the
House of Delegates. is very different from
the Miller bin which recently passed the
Senate. IL Is one thing 20 deny the right
Of the people OF cities containing hve
thousand or more inhabitants even 10 vote
upon the question OF license or no license
and quite another thing TO provide that
the people of such cities shall not DO al
lowed TO vote upon that question unless
one half OF the registered voters snail peu-
ton for the submission OF the question 10
popular vote.
We are not sure but all local-option
laws would be improved * they were
made TO contain such a provision as TINS
last one. Indeed, fearing as we 40 ies'
IN one shape or another the local-op'loh
question may divide the Democratic party
Of Virginia into factions. we would De
willing 10 accept almost any reasonable
compromise measure that might be agreed
upon by the respective advocates ol
license and no license
We say we iear that In one shape OF
another a Trojan horse may be lhuo-
duced into the citadel OF the Democratic
party. We would. therefore. be exceed
ingly careful i'm taking up With any meh-
sure which might be obnoxious 10 any
OF the objections which could be raised
against the Miller hill az 1t passed the
Senate. We have no right to speak ior
either siee-that is. either the license
party or the antl-license party; but we
think we can safely assume that the
Democratic voters Of both those parues
would be glad TO have a law which wouid
NOT compel them TO introduce the local
option question into our ordinary elections
II So why may not the Miller bill as
IL vas agreed upon In the House FINANCE
Committee on Tuesday be made the foun-
datton for a measure that Will take the
urense question out OF politics? If 1t
is pruper TO grant license OF
retuse license, the people may
decide. why not provide for issuing
licenses or refusing licenses whenever,
after the delay required by law. ma
tority of the registered voters shall sign
a pstft4on To either effect? Why require
half of the voters to sign a petition ana
then require them 10 vote upon the same
prppositlon? IL majority petition for
license, let license be granted. IL ma
iority OF the voters petition against
license. let no license be granted. The
fudge can as easily ascertain whether
n majority Of the registered voters have
signed a petition for or against license
aa he can ascertain how Il majority OF the
voters vote upon the same question. The
law mist be so framed as lot to allow the
people To be harassed by too frequent
pe<itions or too frequent elections. The
decision OF the voters as ascertained from
petitions ought TO be respected for n
prescribed length of time. of course-not
less than a year. And If the judge shall
thus In open court and In the presence OF
the people learn and announce that the
voters have pesitioned against license, or
that they have petitioned for license. We
cannot see why the county or city should
be put to the expense OF holding an
election TO decide question already de-
cided by the court OF last overwhelmingly,
shs people.
Our argument seems to lead to the con-
cliision that decisions upon petitions in
stead OF upon votes might as well be
provided for In all towns and counties
as well as In the cities having a popula-
ton of I'VE thousand or more. We did
rot set out to discuss that proposition.
and 80 we will say nothing about 1t now.