The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-03-25

Legislative Committee Gives Out
Report Showing Record
4 and Future Plans.
.. The report OF the Virginia Anti
Saloon Leagues Legislative commit
tee. submitted at the end OF tic 1910
Il session OF the General Assembly or
+ virginia was given out yesterday as
follows: r
The 1910 session or the General AS
4 II Is now the duty OF the Legislative
committee Of the state Antl.Saloon
4 league TO give to the temperance peo-
PIE OF the State an account or It's lsI-
bors during the session OF the Legls-
1 lature s'-
On the Goth day OF January, 1910,
the State League convention Tin ses-
sion. assembled at Richmond, by q
!ltinanimous vote. instructed the league
4 Legislative committee to endeavor to
secure the passage liy the Legislature
| OF an act which would allow the peo-
pie to cali an election and to vote
hlbition. on the 9Th day or February.
just fifteen days after the Instructions
We're given by the convention. when
only twenty three days of The legis-
j \
days before the time limit for the In
trod uction OF bills was reached. and
thirty -seven days before the adjourn
ment OF the Legislature, Senator Strobe
in II, Ic ,' II the Senate our bill.
the Strobe enabling act. A few days
later Delegate Fl. s. Myers. OF AM
herst. presented the measure In the
In each house the bill was referred
\ to the COMMITTEES on Privileges and
Elections. The committees PROMPTLY
granted q joint hearing upon the Bill,
repert sasas se to their
mendation that 1t do not pass. In the
House OF Delegates the bill was re-
1 TERED !, I'd TO the Finance Committee,
reported back to ,he f House With M Has
favorable recommendation and went
upon the calendar IN the Senate Sem
a a Strobe, after repeated efforts. Sc
day OF March. and the Senate by d
vote OF IS to Ia refused to pass 1t. 1
In the House DR.. Myers on two success
4sive days attempted to get a hearing forl
the bill. but failed to get the two
thirds vote necessary to take the meas
snre up out of order. although n ma
jority voted to consider the bill.
Tic Hearing.
:. ample time was devoted by thN
Senate and House Committees on Priv
ileges and Elections in Joint sessions |
to hearing the advocates and oppo-
nents OF the bill express their views |
upon the merits thereof. The bill was
leading citizens from every section Of |
the State. who came to Richmond at
their own eSpense-many OF them
Saying 81 several es days-to plead Tor the
tons We're represented. and more prom
inent temperance workers spoke than
at any hearing ever held in Virginia
on q temperance measure.
e The bill was opposed publicly, chief
y by the the attorneys for the Liquor
Dealers Association, who We're pub +
l II Y, aided de by only few citizens all
OF whom were from wet" cities.
The Petitions.
In the meantime petitions for the
passage Of the bill were pouring into
4 Legislature from all over the
four, and every city In the state, save
one 2 n.: !, sent, sen. petitions In Roanoke.
L l;y Norfolk and In many Their /
a ana rsselutionn
5indorsing the measure. and Ealing
upon their respective Representatives.
to t, a,aupport the bill More than 5000
greater number than. besought the
passage Of either the Mann or the |
Eyrd bill. The opposition to the bill
presented no petitions against the
Objection was made that the enact t
ment Of the measure would mean AMI
effort to register! and qualify % vote
and blaek--in the State. This was
promptly met by5ta proposed amend L
nent. limiting the vote on the ques- K
he election voccur' on Or before s. octn.
Der II 1910.
1T was claimed that the state could
not get along without the revenue
Sc{ II J.,
or the next two years. This OBJ jec-
ton was met by another proposed
amendment. hat would not. allow the
bill to become effective before the
nee any loss OF revenue, in case tho
state should vote dry.
!. Further objection was made that tho
lrug store section Of the bill would,
he State into saloons. The drug store
II the bin. The bill was narrowed
l e mt to the one single propostion
IN the question OF the Statewide pro-l :
llbitton of. the manufacture and sale
Il ,,!tntoxicating liquors in ylrglnia, {.
!, Many Ia, me t,,a Of the egislature
ocal option PLATFORM and were, there q \
ore. in honor bound not to vote for Il
'tate-wide prohibition. III hey were not
Ion only to give the / people the right
9, vote upon Statewide prohibitIon
When % per cent. OF the qualified L i
,oters. voting in the last State cleo ri
ton. so Rpetltioned. Moreover, a nuns Il
er8o members who claimed that they 4
we're elected on a. local option plat
orm voted to amend and re-enact the
syrd bill, which was no local option + i
MEASURE at all, but a statutory pro- ( II
Ilbttlon measure. applicable to the en-
ire State. eS ia III
Notwithstanding the. above facts the 4
'enatG ltllled&the measure by n vote
{ IS to 10. and a minority In theil
louise. taking advantage Of the two
birds rule. prevented sconsi derntton II
nd a vote on the bill.
An Opposition senate. Il
Since the five days Of lighting In / N
sos In the Senate on the Byrd bill,
t which time It was necessary to
mend several sections OF. the bill In
rider to securesits passage,ait sheen
eali2ed that II would be an exceed
ngly4 difficult If not a hopeless task, |;
o secure any kind OF Statewide law li
rom the Senate, and. therefore, while II
utting forth our#utmost endeavor and i
insisting that the wishes of#the pc ople i
hou1d be regarded. your committee II
) Obliged toNstate that the pastsrecortl II
fStha Senate has been such that the Il
elton finally taken should not come
S great surprise to the temperancs IT,