Bluefield evening leader. [volume] (Bluefield, W. Va.) 1906-1911, 1909-02-12
THE CRAIG BILL
PASSES THE sIoNATE-"A BILL
FOR THE TRAFFIC. EXTENSION
OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
SENATOR KIDD SAYS THE BILL
SHOULD BE LABELED COR
RECTLY.

Trumpet, published by the Anti-Sa-
loon League, expresses its views of
the Craig bill in the following lam
guage:
The senate Wednesday afternoon
by a vote OF II to IL, passed the
era & so-called local option bill.
That this bill was poorly considered
and drawn was made yident by the
friends of the measure trying to
amend 1t after 1t had passed tn,
amendment stage. The patron of
the bill, Senator Craig, was accused
on the floor of the senate of stating
that there were provisions In the
bill of which he was not aware. This
accusation he did not deny. Sena-
tor Kidd made motion to amend
the title OF the bill so as to read,
"a bill for the extension of the liq-
uor traffic" believing that that title
would far more clearly describe the
! nature Of the bill than the tie for
regulating" etc., the liquor traffic.
Those voting for the passage of the
bill were: Ashburn, Bailey, Baker.
Cossin, Craig, Gartlan, Hatfield,
Johnson, Litt'epage, Mcintyre, Mer-
edith, Miller, Santee, Silver, Smith,
(of Raleigh), White, Zinik n. Those
who voted against the passage were:
Blue, Carroll, Coffman, England,
CIR mes, Hazlett. Kidd, Shiln, Smith
COT 'Cabef), Sutherl and, and Mr..
President. Absent and not voting:
Flynn and Fisher.
The Objectionable features of the
bill are: First, in cites or towns
OF 1000 population or N re in which
the power Of granting license Is vest
ed in the municipal council the priv
ilege of voting upon the question is
forbidden. Second, in cities of g.
900 population or more where the
power of granting license Is vested
in the county court such cities shall
vote; and where majority, howev-
er small, ia In favor OF grant ng Ia
cense, however large may the major
i'.ty in the county as a whole, opposed
to granting license, licenses shall be
granted In such corporation or town
The third, and perhaps the worst
objection to the whole bi /, is that In
counties contain ng towing of 1000
popu. alton or more, where the pow
er of granting license vested in the
county court, the entire vote of the
county, including cities of 1000 or
more population, shall be required
to determine the status of the LIQUOR
traffic IN that county. In other
words, IL the wet votes of the cities
or towns containing 1000 popula-
ton 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 permit
ted throughout the entire county.
The defenders Of this bill were
MIST eloquent in advocating local
self government; yet these prov.s-
ions give to the city of 1000 or
more population the right to force
its views, however Objectionable
they may be, upon the people of the
entire county.
Taking the bill throughout, 1t is
! impossib e to cow nee one who has
had any experience Ia legislative
matters that it was not drawn by
the liquor interests. The fact that
| The proponent of the till admitted
that there were provisions in It of
VIII ch he was unaware seems to be
proof that he did not draw It. We
insist that those who voted for the
Dill either did not take time to in
form themselves of its conditions.
or knowingly voted for / as a liquor
measure.
1ha TN measure will have short
shift In the house Of delegates is
forgone CONCLUSION, and that a To-
cal option bill satisfactory to the
temperance people of the state will
be passed by that body we fully be-
lieve. If al unsatisfactory local OPP
ton bill, or none at all. is the re-
suit Of this session of the leg stature
the blame must lie at the door of
the senate.