Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1894-02-02
LEGISLATIVE WORK.
LOCAL OPTION AMENDMENT EN-
CROSSED BY 10 TO II.

THE DEBATE AND VOTES ON THE MILLER BILL
RESTRICTING LOCAL OPTION TO CITIES OF
5000 AND UNDER - ELOQUENT SPEECH OF
MR.. ECHOLS - PROPOSITION TO RAISE
SALARIES OF THE LEGIsLAToRs-THE KoINER
FERTILIZER BILL RE-COMMITTED TO THE
COMMITTEE - RUNAWAY HUSBANDS = THE
PROPOSED NEW RAILROAD STOCK LAVA
REPORT AGAINST LEGIsLATING ON THE
ELECTION LAWS.
&C., &C., &C.
The following is a summary of the work
done and proposed to be done in the legisla-
ture since last Friday:
THE LOCAL OPTION LAW.
Mr.. Withers introduced lengthily-sjgned
petition from the citizens Of Danville memo
rialtzing the legislature to repeal the local
option bill, at least, so far as it applies to
cities of population of 5000 and over. The
petition sets forth that wherever or whene yer
vote has been had on the question of license
or no license whether carried for or against,
hard feeling and strife have been engendered
and frequently blood has been shed, and
further that even when no license is carried
the consumption Of liquor has not been de-
creased.
Senator Ecl:ols presented a petition from
more than five hundred citizens of Staunton
praying that the Miller bill to amend the
local option law be passed. 1t was referred.
Senator Sands presented a petition from Mrs.
w. H. Peasants, President of the Central
Woman's Christian Temperance Union asking
that the bill do not pass on the ground that
the present law gives the people the only pos
10 III, Nv foy LAT inn
and removes the temperance question from
| the arena Of politics
| petition that the local option law be not
disturb was read from the Woman's Christian
Temperance Union of Virginia.
| The Miller bill was taken up for discussion
in the Senate on Tuesday at o'clock ?. NJ.
large crowd was prcsent-the largest since
| the opening Of the legislature.
! Senator Miller, the patron Of the bill, stated
that his bill only exempted cities Of 5000 in
| habitants or more; the amendment to it put
| ting the figure at z. 100 was that recomm ended
| by the committee. He said Local Option was
important in the country, but not so in cities
where there were sufficient police. The law
had been used by the Prohbitionists to weak
ell the Democratic arty and it should, at Least
! III CILIt5, NC ldEGi Wv VI lHii'
Senator Walton of Shenandoah opposed the
bill on the ground that the Democratic party
was committed to give the people the right t.
decide the matter for themselves.
! Senator Herbert Of Portsmouth, spoke FOL
| the bill He said the Prohibtionists hat
combined with the Republicans against hin
at the last election, and the Pros had uset
more money in the election than anybody
else. 1t was time the Democratic party stop
ped throwing sop to them
| The eomm;ttee'e amendment substituting
| 9, 500 for I, 900 was then defeated by the fol
lowing vote;
| Ayes-Messrs. Barnes (Thomas ii. }, Berry
Fairfax, Flood, Green, Harnsberger, Hay
Herbert, Miller, Southall. Washington ant
| Watts-13.
Nays-Messrs. Arthur, Barnes Manly H.
Buchanan, Echols, Harrison, Hurt, jackson
Jones, Jordan. LeCato. Little, Maynard
| Mushbach, Sands, Tredway, Walton, Wick
ham ard Williams-1S.
| A second amendment reported by the com
! mittee was as follows:
| "And no election heretofore held or order
! cor an election heretofore made in any incor
poratca to wa containing over 5000 Inhabitants
Shall affect the power Of the courts to grant
licenses to sell intoxicating Liquors IN sucl
sowns."
Senator Stubs Of Gloucester, Opposed tbs
! amendment.
Senator F,aad said thai taere was nosllec
ton to the amendment. Only one city III tht
State could be affected by it and that was the
city of Roanoke There was no reason fol
imposing upon Roanoke the burden OF fanatl'
cism from which other cities were exempt
The amendment was tier adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes-Messrs. Barnes (Thomas H.), Berry,