The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-01-26
AS TO .sUPPoR1v' OF A STATE
PROHIBITION LAW.

AS TO "SUPPOlt1-' OF STATE
PROHIBITION LAW.
In letter to The Times dispatch yes
terday the chairman of the Anti Saloon
Leagues Legislative committee, Rev.
James Cannon. Jr., draws attention to
the fact that his committee predicted
non-support for a law which was not
clearly tho will OF "the majority Of
the intelligent patriotic citizens Of the
state and not Of the majority of
those who have to live under IT," as
this paper had put 1t. Just what body
or group of persons is meant by "the
Intelligent patriotic citizens Of the
state" Is not wholly clear, but from
internal and external evidence II
seems certain that the group indi-
Gated is the body OF qualified voters
of the State.
This amendment is accepted with
the utmost cheerf,ilness and good ma
ture, not the less SO, perhaps, as 1t
does not affect our argument in the
least. we have contended that the
Anti-Saloon Leagues distrust OF
law which was not supported by the
majority was. If carried logically out.
an argument against Statewide pro-
| hibition in any manner or at any time.
and this contention remains sound and
mistaken in the face of the ins!stence
| that the majority referred to Is the
majority OF 1.-THE intelligent patriotic
citizens that Is, the voters. For,
| of course, 1t Is the voters only VINO
| can support or not support law.
! They alone have any voice in the man
agement OF city and state affairs.
They alone choose the city officials,
city police. and In the issue OF enforce
mcnt or non enforcement which would
Instantly be injected into the munich
pal politics of many communities. they
alone would formulate the verdict.
There are doubtless communities In
Virginia which would decide, in effect,
for non enforcement, exactly as COM
munitles in other States have done.
and these are communities in which
the majority OF the voters are opposed
to prohibition, whether under local OPP
ton or state legislation And when
| the league candidly faces the fact that
| a law will not be supported which
| is not plainly approved by the ma
jority of the Intelligent patriotic citi-
zens.'' 1t must have these communities
in mind and no others, since nom
! support could not come from any
where else. all other communities be-
| of their own majorities.
There Is the plain point, and there
Is no getting away from 1t. You can
call a State unit" till you are
tired, but that will never make 1t a
unit on matters OF legislation in
which the separate communities have
from time immemorial been the units,
each with entire freedom to make it's
own laws. Ancient customs and rights
are not so easily thrown out by the
stroke Of a pen. The on-support,
which the league properly fears would
i come. and could only come, from CON-
munites which would vote wet In a
l local option election, nor could any
overwhelming state majority rolled ur
J through the votes of other communi-
ties already dry or driable, have any
bearing on this plain fact. Therefore
We have said, and now repeat tina
if the Anti-Saloon League is sincere
and logical in its distrust of non
supported law, 1t must face the fac
that ii has in local option perfec
means to carry prohibition just as ia
as 1t will be supported.
It does not seem to us that our cor
respondent is happy in his argumen
by analogy. For instance. he says:
The General Assembly of Virgini
has passed a. law forbidding Sunda
y labor. which law is not enforced !
the city of Richmond. Shall the Gen
eral Assembly of Virginia refuse t
, pass such law because 1t will nc
be enforced in Richmond?
1t ought not to be necessary I
!, poin, out the total difference betwee
e labor legislation and liquor legisla
3 ton. Labor has always been regard
:. ed as under the regulative authority {
It the state Tho liquor traffic has a
C ways been regarded as under the rel
!, ulative authority Of the separate con
n. munities. The State has deliberate
y provided machinery, under which u
Dr. separate communities can abolish e
ID liquor traffic within their borders.
q has provided no such machinery !
re settling labor questions, and neV
y, Will. Our correspondent asks US
ne hypothetical question, Let US FL
of make it something like a fair analo
and then answer 1t. If for genel
to tons each community had had the c
1T elusive right to say for itself whetl
he or not Sunday labor should be forb
en den and many communities We're {
Tor tremely jealous of this right; II
OILS question were agitated as moral o.
ina and moralists of equal standing we
lhel divided upon It; If a group Of refor
ian ers. working under the specially pi