Bluefield evening leader. [volume] (Bluefield, W. Va.) 1906-1911, 1910-10-01
EXPLANATION IN 1908.

EXPLANATION IN 1908.
Shortly after the adjournment OF
the 1908 session OF the West Virgin
la Legislature. of which Mr.. Bakers
vote defeated the submission OF the
prohibition amendment TO a vote of
the people of the state, Mr.. Baker
wrote letter giving his reasons for
his vote. and had the same publish
ed in the Mercer Republican" and
the "Bluefield Daily Telegraph" The
letter in full Is published below, from
which it will be noted that Mr. Baker
assumes that had he voted for the
submission OF the amendment, it
would not only have been submitted.
but that the people would have voted
II into the constitution He, there
fore, ignores entirely the question
as to the right OF the people OF vote
upon the amendment and proceeds to
base his argument upon the effect Of
statewide prohibition. 1t is apparent
that Mr.. Baker, in his letter, assumes
the sole responsibility of deciding
what was best for the people, and
that too against what Is conceded to
be against the wishes of the people
and what they would have decided il
given tn opportunity.
The letter is as follows:
Editor Mercer Republican:
The fact that | voted against sub
mitting to the people OF the State
the prohibition amendment, recently
pending In the legislature. seems to
have been disappointment to some
of the people of my senatorial district
1t is my purpose while a member
of the State Senate to represent, in
so far as / am capable, the best in
terests of my constituents. and ever%
"ote upon every measure pending in
the legislature, has been carefully con
sidered before being cast.
There are two sides to every ques-
ton. 1 believe the business interests
OF my district. and especially of my
own county. were against the Eubmls-
sion OF the amendment. The people
who have invested their money I'm the
development OF The resources of the
State, who have built Iailroads, open
ed coal mines, butt '1ctories, and
brought to our state many industries
that we wou,i No, have. should have
something to s.S ahcut pending leg
;'Iation. The fact thar. as feel. the
business people OF my district were
opposed to the amendment was one
reason why I voted against It. The
business interest OF the State. more
than any other class, would have been
most effected by prohibition.
A great deal OF the labor I'm this
State at the present time is foreign
The early training and environment
OF this foreign element has been such
that 1t is absolutely necessary that
they have beer" to drink They
will not remain anywhere without It.
The amendment for labor in recent
years has been so great that the
business interests of the State have
been compelled to depend upon this
class OF labor. Take It away and
many OF our industries stop. with
this class Of people there is no moral
question involved I'm the drinking oi
beer and keeping It in their homes
They look upon II in the same light
that the Americans look upon coffee
or that Chinaman looks upon tea
While this class ~ people might bs
Objectionable 10 American citizensh' q,
yet we have them pere, we depeuf
upon them as laborers, and thei
rights, as we'll as those OF our owr
American people ought TO be respect
ed.
Then there is another feature tina
y worth considering. This Stat,
government derives from the sale o
intoxicating liquors, something lik
SIX hundred and fifty thousand ($65O
00O.000) in revenue every year. T,
prohibit the manufacture and sale O