The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1905-07-13
AN EvASIVE ANSWER

Under date Of March llth DR.. Jas.
Cannon. president oi the Virginia Anti
Saloon League. addressed the following
question To each OF the Gubrnatorial
candidates: III elected to the position
Tor which you offer would you favor the
maintainan,r Oi the Mann Blll?' Mr.
Wizards n.ply was given to the press
April 18th. II il 80 striking In contrast
with Mr.. Swanson X reply, that We deem
it fair to publish it, Mr. Willard sand.
acknowledge ccipt OF your open
letter oi March llth. To your question.
III elected Ia the position. ior which
you offer. would YOU favor the main
tainan,,. oi the Mann Bill, | beg to To-
ply asiOllows.
approve the Mann Bill when con
strnrd a. controlling and regulating the
sale of whiskey, but | do not approve oi
IL when construed as prohibition. The
law in question il 80 framed as To per
init great latitude in itsconstructionand
Interpretation. This il evinced by the
fact that very few Judges in Virginia
have construed this law alike.
The Mann Bill does not permit the
applicant an appeal To our supreme
Court; otherwise. that court would have
80 construed the law as To make it's OPP
Grafton uniform throughout the State.
reiterate that favor rigid control of
the whiskey traffic am, however op-
posed To prohibition; first. because the
Democratic party aud its policy have
ALWAYS been against sumptuary laws;
second. because prohibition does not
prohibit: third. because ~ prohibition
does not prohibit and the whiskey
traffic will exist. then should the State
regulate the traffic so as to minimize lls
evils and derive therefrom its proper
revenue: fourth, do not believe public
sentiment will sustain prohibition laws
and am opposed To the existence oiany
law on our statute books which il not
enforced. This condition will always
obtain unless the law is supported by
nublic sentiment. Yours very truly.
JOS. T.. WILLARD.
There is nothing evasive or uncertain
about Mr.. Willard's statement. 1t IL
frank. bold and clear, framed intelligent
ly and deals squarely with the question
prOpOunded.
Having heard so much Of Mr.. Swan
som = extraordinary ability. his courage,
and seeing it stated by one paper at
least that he was more distinctly tenn
perance man than Mr.. Willard, we were
amazed at the following puerile and
meaningless answer to the question OF
DIR. Cannon published over the signature
of Mr. Swanson
In reply to this question, | beg leave
TO state that il should be elected Gov
ernor of Virginia, would maintain and
enforce the Mann Bill, "a ! would all
other laws enacted by the legislative
authority of the State, without lear or
favor. and to the full extent Of my power
and ability az the Chief Executive oi the
State am. Yours very truly,
CLAUDE A. SWANSON.
II might he sufficient 10 say that Dr..
Cannon il no wiser that IA to Mr. Swan
sons views on the question than he was
before receiving the reply. For our part
we did not expect this sort OF n reply
from 20 fearless and able n statesman.
Nor do we believe the Anti-SaloOn people
did. We would he very grateful To any
friend of Mr.. Swanson, who would tell
us from the above statement whether b.
approves or disapproves OF the Mann
Bill. and why.
Mr.. Willard has stated his position
with reference to it, and given his reason
for his position. Mr. Swanson has
ignored the question asked him abso-
luteIy and answered one which even his
bitterest enemy would not have insulted
him by asking. Did he fail to compre-
hend the meaning of the question or was
he afraid to answer it? In either ease he
falls far below the standard clamed for
him by his friends, and largely discounts
his own intellectually and f6s boosted
courage and maniness.-Southside SEN
finel