The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1909-02-13
23sTHE$cR r 4. BILL.

tlsltL = "a knAIA RlL-'
The Daily Trumpet. published at
Charleston, gives the following exposl.
tionS ~ the Craig local option bill,
which has been passed by the Senate
and now goes to the House:
h s.The Senate yesterday afternoon by
pote: ST. Tito II, passed the Craig
+ 90 called local option bill. That this
SbillS was poorly considered and drawn
was made beyldent by the friends OF
the measure trying to amend It after
tShad passed the amendment stage
he5paifonf Of the bill, Senator Craig,
! was accused son the floor Of the Sen.
ate Of stating that there were provi'
slonsi IN the}bill OF which he was not
aware. This accusation he did not
deny. 4 Senator Kidd made n motion to
SaImend THE title Of the bill 80 as to
READ, VA Bill for the Extension of the
Liquor1 TRAFFIC" believing that that
title would Tar more clearly describe
the nature of the bill than the title
for 81 ega1ating,"I etc" the liquor traf.
:sflc. Those voting Tor the passage o.
the Sbill;swere: Ashbnrn. Bailey, Ba'
ker,I Cossin, Craig, Gartlan. Hatfield.
johnson, sLttlepage. McIntire. Mere
sdlth, BMiller, santee. Silver, Smith tot
Raleigh white, zilllken. Those who
voted against It's passage were: Blue,
Carroll, Cotrman, England. Grimes.
Haziett, Kidd. shinn. Smith tof Ca
bell Sutherland, and Mr.. President.
Absent $and not voting: Flynn and
Fisher. Y KS Y.
The Objectionable features Of the
\ Bill are: First In cities or towns Of
1000 population or more in which the
power Of granting license is vested in
h the municipal council the privilege OF
voting upon the question Is forbidden.
Second, Sin cities OF 1000 population or
Smore where the power Of granting II.
y cense lis vested In the county court.
slissas cities shall vote: and where n
3 majority. however small, Is in favor
ofs granting license. however large
Smay be. ne majority in the county as a
whole, opposed to granting license. u.
censes .shall;be granted in such corpor.
alton Or town! The third. and perhaps
the worst objection to the whole bill.
aisIthatl III counties containing towns Of
III, 900 population or more,a where the
powered granting license is vested IN
\ the county court, the entire vote Of
sthe county, Including cities of 1000 or
more population shall be required to
determine the status Of the liquor traf.
lcSini that county. In other words. II
4 the wet votes OF the cities or towns
containing 1000 population or more,
added TO the wet votes Of the county,
will make "a majority of the entire
votes OF the county wet, then licenses
shall be permitted throughout the ell.
tire county: ne
IL The defenders OF this bill were
most eloquent in advocating local self.
government; yet these provisions give
4 olthel city Of 1000 or more population
the right ito force its views, however
Objectionable they may be. upon the
people OF the entire county.
Taking the bill throughout. 1t Is
Impossible to convince one who las
siiad any experience in legislative mat.
.ters that 1t, was not drawn by the H.
Euuor4i INTERESTS. The fact that the pro-
sponent Of the bill admitted that there
were provisions in 1t Of which he was
unaware seems to be proof that he did
not draw 1t. We Insist that those who
voted SforSthe bill, either did not take
|timeEt inform themselves OF Its con-
dttlonss OF! knowingly voted for 1t as
liquor measure.
siTnat this measure viii have short
ishift ins the House Of Deegates Is n
Sforegone conclusion. and that a local
option bill satisfactory to the temper
,a ti1H people of the State will be pass,
led bys that.;botly we fully believe. II
an Unsatisfactory local option bill. or
none itl lat all KS the result Of this scs'
Sion 81 the Legislature the blame
ust;lie;atl the door d, the Senate. "a