The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-03-03

stops at the end OF two columns Of
matter. in which the public has been
assured that patience has ceased to
be virtue" -forbearance has become
weakness" that the gorge rises and
the very stomach turns and revolts."
etc. and declares I'VE remain as We
begun, antroubfed and serene, and
then rushes Into another half column
a!milar to the first two columns to
prove how greatly troubled and dis
turbed an "untroubied and serene"
Supreme newspaper can be.
t3) But what is the criticism. the
serious misstatcment." revealed un-
truth" which The virginian has set
afoot. and in which the Christian Adj
vocate aids and abets the Ri.hmond
Yirglnian." and to which it "gererous-
ly contributes its front page ?"
The virginian declared that the Ia
vorite slogan of the Times Dispatcn in
its relation to the liquor traffic is. that
man has IA right to drink liquor
to his comfort" and the Christian Adj
vocate copied the editorial containing
that statement. This is the statement
which the Times-Dispatch brands as
an "untruth" and declares that The
Virginian can not make 1t good.
This. the first denial by the Times
Dispatch of a position. announced by
1t seven years ago, and reiterated sub
stantialiy in varying forms, was re-
ceived with amazement by thousands
of people who are familiar WITH the
position, and utterances of that paper
on the liquor traffic. That it should
make denial is surprising. That 1t
expected any one to accept its denial
seriously is amusing. What are the
facts? On March 18th, 1908, In dis
cussing the Mann Bill, the Times Dis
patch said. But where one man
abuses liquor and makes hog of him
self, and makes nuisance of himself,
and makes a criminal of himself
through its use. thousands drink 1t In
moderation to their comfort, and
without harm either to themselves or
others" fBiack type wherever used
is ours.)
In the issue of the Times Dispatch
of March gath, 1903, there Is an arti-
Gle on the Mann Bill by Rev. James
Cannon. Jr.. In some measure, a reply
to the position of the Times Dispatch
on that bill. In that article Mr.. Can
non called particular attention to this
claim made by the Times-Dispatch
that thousands .tlffniS liquor to their
comfort, and he set forth in opposi-
tton to this doctrine that some rights
are more important than the right m
orihk liquor to ones comfort" Fur
therinore, Mr.. Cannon insisted that
men did not have the right to drink
liquor to their comfort" If In the
Judgment of the majority Of the citi-
zens their drinking is to the Public
Discomfort" Mr.. Cannon contrasted
especially the comfort Of the indi-
vidual with the discomfort of society
and declared that this doctrine of indi-
Vidual liberty must yield to the doc
trine of the public good.
In that same issue of March cath,
1908. the Times Dispatch discussed
editorially Mr.. Cannon's article and
stated that the article was a replv in
some measure to editorials of that ma
per, and then In the teeth of Mr.. Cam
mons criticisms with his article -h~fore
it. the Times-Dispatch formally reit-
Grated its position taken in its edi-
torial of March 18th. 1903. 1t said.
There is no harm per Sc in alcohol.
1t Is good thing in itself, and thou
sands and hundreds of thousands of
people use 1t to their comfort, If not
to their benefit and never to their
hurt. 1t ought not to be abolished.
Another fact to be considered
Is this. that men have a perfect right
to drink alcoholic liquors. and they
can not. under our system of govern
ment. be deprived of that right by
law"
Here the Times Dispatch. after the
issue had been raised and their posi-
ton had been criticized. and the
very expression in question, ssdrinking
liquor TO ones comfort" had been
picked out and contrasted with the
rights of society. and the discomfort
brought to society by the exercise of
Personal Liberty-"of drinking to
ones comfort'--reiterated its former
statement and insisted upon the same
expression and form of words
This position taken by the Times
Dispatch In the discussion OF the Mann
Bill was commented upon and criti-
cised in every section of Virginia. In
the pulpit and on the platform
temperance workers have criticized
and combatted that position. Rev.
James Cannon, Jr., in connection
with his Anti-Saloon League work,
has probably written and spoken
upon 1t over 500 times In Diff
ferent parts of the State. In every
case he has insisted that this doctrine
of the right Of man ITO drink liquor
to his comfort" as held by the Times
Dispatch, was the most important is
sue involved and that the question
to be settled was the personal COM
fort of the individual as over against
the discomfort of society.
Never has the Dispatch raised
Its voice to repudiate this doctrine,
the uSloeans pf the .dycce -. - par