The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-02-08

elS- NOW, srduualIy, Inc nard-hcaded |
sex is learning that, on the whole and
or the average, a college training
makes a woman better homcmaker. |
a better Wife, a better mother and a
decidedly more interesting companion.
==-=-=-===-----=-=--
TWO ARGUMENTS FOR STATE PRO-
UIBITION.
c. II. Winfrey, of TOWNSVILLE, who
| takes exception to our remarks about |
prohibition, makes his points so
| neatly and lucidly that we shall give
! them here instead of in the columns |
usually reserved for correspondence.
| He believes that in our discussions we
| have overlooked two facts of funda-
mental Importance" which he proceeds
to lay down succinctly and pointcdly:
| In the first place, the desire for pro-
! hihition in Virginia does not spring
| from a wish on the part of some COM
| lnunitieS TO interfere in the local af-
/ fairs of other communities. but, in
stead 1t is to prevent some communi-
ties from rendering practically null
and void the expressed wish of a COM
munity TO be dry" Make your rule
work both ways. Piedmont Virginia
should not say that Richmond shall
be dry" Richmond should refrain
from keeping Piedmont Virginia more
or less wet
This is a good statement of ia
, miliar argument which we have not
e at all overlooked, but which we are
4 entirely unable to subscribe to- 1t
q rests, in our view, upon a palpably
a false premise. No communities have
e rendered practically null and void the
:, wish of other communities to be dry,
y because no communities have expressed
a wish to he dry in the sense in which
our correspondent uses the word. They
. have simply expressed wish that the
sale of whiskey within their own
/, is wish which no other community
has ever rendered null and void or
can ever so render.
For their own sufficient reasons, pro-
hibitionists have attacked the liquor
evil indirectly. instead of directly.
They have fought for legislation
abolishing the sale of liquor, though
manfestly their real object has been
the abolishing of the use of liquor.
They must not blame others If their
legislation fails to accomplish what
it never set out to do. Richmond Is
not keeping Piedmont Virginia wet in
the sense which words naturally carry
If Piedmont Virginia is wet, 1t Is keep
ing itself so, since it is evident that
Richmond has no power to sell one
quart of whskey in Piedmont more
than the men of Piedmont desire tc
buy. The root of the liquor evil Is the
desire to buy and drink liquor. and II
reformcrs want to stamp out this evl
: it seems that they must find a way
either gradually to remove this desire
or to make its qualification illegal. II
I. is perfectly legal now for men to de-
Sire, buy and drink whiskey. and i
Is not reasonable for prohibitionist:
. to mistake their own optimistic hope!
for practical results guaranteed t
them under the law. The dry law
II under local option provide nothing i,
$ the world except that the sale o
9 liquor shall not be licensed in thos
4 communities; they receive votes am
> are passed on the clear UNDERESTIMATE
$ that this is all that they provide an,
- nobody has the power to render then
AZ nun and void except the communitie
y which enact aud have the enforcement
> of them.
[ ,>t,. 81,
le correspondent, you can't localize tn
tie effects or the sale and use OF alcoholi
/ drinks"
If Jonesville alone had to suffer TIL
h i'll effects of the sale OF whiske,
4 mentally morally and physically an
the necessity economic loss !. AZ
citizen of another community in tn
t. State. would refrain from trying I
ii interfere in Jonesvilles local affairs
But the whole state must stand 70
the criminal expense Of Jonesville
y must provide for the insane from
e Jonespillc, must feel the result of III
20 training of the boys and girls in TIL
schools Of Ionesvillc, and since Jones
y vile sends a delegate TO the Legisla
g lure, the whole state suffers or pros
N pers according 10 his mental and mora
Il | qualifications. Therefore the Who'll
State should exercise her right an
w abolish, etc.
This argument offers. OF course, tn
y ono rational theory upon which pro
hibition by state law can be justified
80 II Is sound enough as far as II goe
" hut TWO evident criticisms cam b
~ passed upon it, In The FIRST place.
g applies In varying degree 10 pretI