Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1910-11-11
ANTI-SALOON RALLY.
Portions Of Rev. Ed. ]. Richard.
sons Address.

son ADDRESS.
In part, the speaker said: cit will
be, perhaps, new to many of you today
to know just how the present license
system of the liquor traffic was estab-
lished. 1t was during the bloody days
of the sixties when Congress passed a
law, evidently at the behest of the
allied liquor interests, to put tax on
liquor for the alleged purpose of raising
revenue to defray the expenses of the
war. But really it was to have gov
ernment protection of the liquor traffic
and put the manufacture of liquor es-
pecially in the hands of the few-a
trust. This bill President Lincoln re-
fused to sign until he was assured that
it would simply serve as a revenue
measure till the close of the war and
then be repealed. Mr.. Lincoln was op-
posed to the measure on the grouud
that it would fas'cn upon the people a
worse slavtr, than the black slavery
then in ques,i,'n. and il was only when
the promise referred to was made that
he agreed TO sivn the bill and make it a
law. 1t is sufficient to say that the
promise TO Mr.. Lincoln was never kept.
Thus by direct federal Legislation the
liquor traffic was fastened upon the
people; the states, one by one, then
took up the matter and went into part
nership with the most infamous traffic
ever fastened upon . people without
the consent of the governed.
Logically. we have the right to de-
mand that as the General Assembly
and Congress enacted laws to put the
liquor traffic where it is these bodies
should settle the matter; but the tenn
perance people are much fairer to the
liquor forces than they were to the
people when We stand for a submission
OF the question to a vote of the people
OF this State so far as IL concerns Vir-
ginia-and the Supreme court of the
United States has decided that "state-
wide prohibition" is constitui ional, and
the Constitution Of Virginia (section
62) also provides for it.
''But it is objected that as local OPP
tion is a democratic measure no one
community has a right to say what
another community shall do with refer
ence to the liquor question-that each
community should settle the question
for itself. Now, wish to say point
ing to the bust of Thomas jefferson in
the court house) that / stand with the
great statesman, Jefferson, in the
opinion that government should be of
the people and for The people and by
the people. 1t occurs to me, however,
that from the liquor folks standpoint,
it is to be government of the liquor
folk, for the liquor folk and by the
liquor folk. for the liquor interests are
never satisfied until they get absolute
control of every agency they can to
promote and protect them in their work
of destroying humanity. No one stands
more for real local self-government
than l, but the liquor traffic is not local
in its effects and results-it cannot be
localized. We got our present local OPP
ton law in 1884-S5, first by the endorse
ment of the republicans and then by
the democrats in their respective con-
ventions and by an act of the legisla-
tore after monster petition contain
ing the names of over 10000 voters
had been rolled into the State Capitol
in wheelbarrow. Mr.. Geo. w. Hawx-
hurst, of my town, Falls Church, who
was Grand Secretary of the Good Temp
lars. and who helped very largely in
the shaping and direction of the bill has
given me the details of the great fight.
Perhaps it is almost useless to say
that the liquor folk did all in their
power to defeat the bill.
81 repeat, the liquor traffic cannot
be localized. Now, l grant that in q
purely local matter no other community
has right to NEEDLE with another. as.
for example. in waterworks propositions
or bonds for other Improvements. These
are matters peculiarly and definitely
local. But the trouble with liquor is
that 1t does not remain local. The rev.
enue derived from it accrues to the
community in which it is sold, but the
communities where it is consumed
most of them in Virginia are dry
have to bear the burden of ruined
homes, blighted lives and criminal ex.
penses. Hence. as is our right, we are
standing for submission of the cues
tion of liquor or no liquor to a vote OF
the people. Our people are becoming
weary of the persistent efforts of the
liquor interests to reopen saloons il
communities from which they have beer
driven and where the conditions are q,
much better than before. The recen
large majorities in re-affirming loca
option in Winchester and Fredricks
burg are evidences of how the peopl.
generally stand on this question; an,
out Of about fifty contests in the min,
years of the Leagues history we hav,
lost only three places back to the liauo
traffic. Moreover, 66 of the 100 coun
ties are dry and So are without saloons
OF l61 towns 14O are dry, and half tn
cities. OF our two million people il
Virginia at least ]. 800, 900 are living il