The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-02-17
HAVE NOD|sPENsARY
IN WILLIAMSBURG
After Interesting Hearing Before
House Committee Bill
is Defeated.
TYLER STRONGLY OPPOSES
President of William and Mary
Says to Adopt Measure Would
Be Mistake.
TYLER STRONGLY OPPOSES

! The question OF having LIQUOR dis
pensary in the city of Williamsburg
was thoroughly discussed. both pro
and con. before the House Committee
on Counties, Cities and Towns Thurs
( day morning.
The question was brought up by
bill introduced several days ago by
Mr. Stephenson providing for dis
pensary in the town. Dr. Ste phenson
! gave as the reason for introducing the
! bill the fact that the town was In des-
/ perate need for additional revenues,
which could be obtained in this way
/ Professor Tyler, president OF the
! William and Mary College. In Will
/ iiamsburg, made a very strong argu-
ment against the adoption of the bill
/ He said that the inauguration OF "a
! dispensary would be very disastrous
to his college and to the Eastern State
Hospital as well as the manufactur-
ing interests of his city. These three
institutions. declared Professor Tyler,
represented the largest interests in the
city. and the officers of them were
thoroughly opposed to the measure.
A petition signed by 124 citizens OF
Williamsburg was presented by DIR.
Tyler, which he stated represented so
per cent of the property owners of the
town The mayor of Williamsburg,
Mr.. Il. w. Warburton. presented to
the committee petition signed by
seventy citizens, many of whom, de-
ciared Professor Tyler. were now OBJ
tectiona BILE characters. Many of the
men who signed the petition favoring
a dispensary were led to believe that
Ii was "A dispensary for medicines, and
/ when | visited them with my paper
they gladly signed it," said Professor
{ FpnsiA ftf1ta f1. s...fA hat sixasit
q dispensary In town any man could
buy jug of whiskey, bring II up In
the college and get the whole school
( drunk. 1t would also damage the
work of the insane asylum. 1t would
be worse thing for our city than
the blind tigers which the promoters
OF this bin claim now exist in Will
iiamsburg The whole measure is n
put UP job from the beginning. AL
ready a man has heen~ selected to run
the dispensary. The supporters of the
measure also claim that it is a neees-
city on account of the lack of funds
In the city treasury, This is not so.
The treasury is in a good condition
and many improvements have been
made since the local option bill was
passed nine years ago. The assess
ment has even doubled itself since
tt at tifiae,-4Affa again this measure
would hurt the industry of the cuun-
try
Mr.. odcH Also Opposes,
Rev. MIR. Odell, Methodist pastor
at Williamsburg. also argued against
dispensary He said that there are
over 900 patients In the hospital there.
Four hundred of them are men. and
some OF them. when they become can
valescent. are allowed to go about
town. II there was a dispensary many
of these men would start to drinking
and would become dangerous. He said
he knew from experience that in
places where there is a dispensary
men make 1t practice to hang
around there and purchase liquor for
minors.
Mayor Warburton and Mr.. Peachy
argued in favor of the bill, on the
ground that the city needed the reve-
nue., They were of the opinion that
1t would not effect the students there.
as they can get all they want now.
Mayor Warburton cited case very
recently where three boys were ex-
, PEELED from William and Mary for
being drunk They said that there
/ Is practically a dispensary now with
out a license. as the railroad and
steamboat companies bring it into the
city, and II Is sold at their places.
The committee killed the bill, and
. II is reported to have done SO by Il
unanimous vote.
South Boston and Houston.
The committee then took up tho
dispensary bills for South Boston and
Houston. A speech in favor of the
passage of the bills was made by Mr.
w. u. Inn, Of South Boston. and a
number of questions favorable to bills
we're asked by Mr.. Booker. the clerk
of the Senate. who is a resident OF the
town of Houston. The point at issue
was as to whether the two towns of
South Boston and Houston should be
allowed To vote separately upon the
esta blishment of a dispensary In each
of these towns or whether the Ban
mister district. in which both these
towns are located, should vote as
unit. Mr. Hin and Mr.. Booker in
sisted that the towns should vote sep
arateiy
Mr.. r. s. Barbour, president of the
Barbour Buggy Company and vice.
president of the cotton mill. objected
10 the passage of the bills as they
have passed the Senate. giving to
each town the right to vote separate
~. He insisted that the Bannister
district had held an election on the
question. and had voted dry by
large majority. and 1t was not right
to attempt to override the will of
movement. He advocated the adop-
ton of a substitute measure which
had been prepared by Delegate j. A.
Glenn, one of the representatives In
the House of Delegates from Halifax
county. which substitute provided
that the entire Bannister district
should vote in the election. Rev.
w. w. Reynolds, the pastor of the
Baptist churches In the Bannister dis
trict and at other points contiguous to
South Boston. favored the substitute.
He insisted upon the right of the
country peopIe to have protection,
and he and Rev Mr.. Maxwell. pastor
of the Presbyterian church at South
Boston. both insisted that II was not
right for the two towns To increase
their revenues and give the country
people the DRINKS.
The time having expired, the com
mittee continued the hearing OF the
5tif until next Tuesday.
------~---------------
Mrs. Margaret Prentis.
Especial to The Richmond Virginian)
SUFFOLK, VA. Feb. I7.--Mrs
Margaret Anne Prentis. widow of