The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-02-22

The Times-Dispatch of 1908 versus 1910.

The Times Dispatch of 1908 versus 1910.
Il In its editorial columns, Tuesday morning the
i Times Dispatch discusses the action OF the Com
mitfee on Privileges and Elections in reporting
The Myers Bill unfavorably and among other
things, says:
IAN attempt has been made to show that OPP
position to this bill is denial of majority rule
Il is nothing CT the kind--No one has ever
shown that the majority OF the people, or OF
the voters or of the Democratic voters, desire
to have a socaled referendum for Statewide
passed. On the contrary, the two parties IN
the State pledged, the one through its plat
form, the other through its traditions and its
present Governor, to local option; the Legs
iature has long since Endorsed local option: and
the present Assembly doubtless feels. in our
Judgment correctly, that it is not justified III
reversing this settled principle without direct
authorization and instruction from the people
If the people desire either legislative pro-
hibtion or a referendum on the question: they
could have made their desire known last sum-
mer, with the certainty that it would be carried
out. They will have another fair and clean
cut opportunity in 1911. Virginia has gotten
along for many years without prohibition and
with considerable distinction; and another two
years in the same case is hardly likely to prove
fatal to her, while giving prohibition fuller
chance to demonstrate elsewhere its particular
efficacy.
No better reply to this editorial deiverance can
be made than to quote the editorial utterance OF
the same Times Dispatch in 1908 when it was
under the control of its founder and its publisher
for the first twenty years. On March End, 1908
after the General Assembly of Virginia had passed
the Byrd liquor law, the Supreme in Virginia
had the title Of its leading editorial Prohibition
in Virginia This editorial is mighty interesting
reading in February 1910 and shows very clearly
the irresponsible character of the editorials OF the
present time. The editorial says:
Virginia has been placed in the list OF pro-
hibition States, and quietly the thing
done that doubt if the people at large really
understood that it was being done But statu-
tory prohibition was accomplished by the pas
sage Of the Byrd bill. In this view of the Times
Dispatch the entire law fundamentally wrong
There may be towns in Virginia OF three hundred
and four hundred inhabitants, rural districts
here or there in which the voters thereof prefer
the licensed saloon, with the regulations of the
law thrown around them, but they will have
no option in this matter. They must have
prohibition whether not. Local option,
except in the localities above noted has been
abolished in Virginia. We have grave doubt
as TO the wisdom of it, Local option is a Dem
ocratic fundamental, and the party in Virginia
has always taken pride in the principle which
it has often declared for in its platform, but
the Legislature of Virginia, which is composed
in large part of Democrats, has abandoned
and abolished it without having given the people
the privilege OF voting upon it, This is one case
in which MIR. Bryans referendum should have
been applied, done in North Carolina
Here the Times-Dispateh fatty declared TIL
AZ real truth that the Democratic party had aband
oned and abolished local option without havin
given TO the people the right to vote upon it. AM
it also truthfuy declared that Statutory pre-
hibition was accomplished by the passage of tn
Byrd bill" Neither the Mann law the Byr
law is local option measure They both az
complish prohibition by statutory enactment. III
General Assembly was not in either electe
upon that issue, and yet owing to the petitions c
their constituents the General Assembly aboiishe
tie policy OF local option the exclusive policy c
dealing with the liquor question and added to tina
policy statutory prohibition when it appeared {
be for the best interests of society.
This action of the General Assembly was
manifest a great change of policy that the Times
Dispatch in its dsapprova of such a declares
This is one case in which Mr. Bryan's refer
erdum should have been applied, as was done /
North Carolina.
Here the Times Dispatch insists that the refer
eI dunn should have been applied and the peopl
sroutd have been given the right to decide whethe
IL. would continue the local option policy ador
statutory prohibition. That sounds very niue
like the position of Governor Mann in his inaugur;
that the people have right to settle this questio
as to them shall seem best"
The present management OF the Times DispatC
in its frantic efforts to prevent the General Al
scrnby from giving the people the right to vot
the question OF whether the present prohibitio
les siation shall be broadened to the whole Stat
seems perfectly willing to repudate all the pas
Isterances of that paper. But then by its ne'
standard the paper itself is not responsible for til
editorial uttcrances. When will the paper get
responsible head once more?