The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-02-22

option. or local self-government. your
legislative committee, In its fight Tor
the Strobe bill. were met with the CRY
that the Strobe bill was contrary 10
the Democratic doctrine of local OPP
ton. Such cry in the NOUN Oh
the drunkard- makers Is pure /nypo-
crisy. They never stand for any Prlh-
cinle. Their record Is the same III
every State in the Union. whenever
In any State there Is no local optioh
law and an effort is made to pass
sncb a law, they oppose it bitterly.
They are lighting local option law
to-day In Pennsylvania and Maryland
where there is no such law, ana they
are CRYING out In favor OF local OPP
tion In Texas. and West Virginia ana
Virginia, and in every other Sta'e
where State wide prohibition is tne
issue. The liquor crowd have ohly
one fixed principle; namely ihat
every man has the right to a place
where he can drink liquor TO ms
comfort" They do not care anything
nout local option. What they want
ia to sell liquor in Virginia. ana they
know that the best policy Tor thelf
business to-day is OF cry for local OPP
ton in Virginia, although, were<tney
TO cross over into Pennsylvania. they
would denounce local option as an IN
Your committee has replied TO the
adherents of local option mat ex-
perience has demonstrated tnat the
sale of intoxicants Is not merely a
local question. but that 1t Is OF neces-
sity Statewide question. and that
it must be treated as such. our OPP
ponents are utterly illogical. They
declare with high sounding rhetoric
that the people of Accomac and or
I go have right IpRtSiatG Tor
Norfolk and Richmond What does
this mean? Does IL mean that the
General Assembly of Virginia has no
right to pass any laws which will be
binding upon Richmond and Nor
folk? Oh, no! The farmers from
Aceomac and Lee can pass a law for
Bidding the citizens of Norfolk and
Richmond to carry a pistol without
a license; they can require every man
who owns an automobile to pay
license and limit the speed at which
he can run the machine, they can for
bid citizens OF Richmond to sell CO.
calne without physicians prescrip-
ticn5, they can forbid the sale Of
cigarettes or liquors to minors they
can forbid the keeping open of the
stores en- Sunday. they can forbid
the keeping OF impure houses; they
can taDlish quarantine regulations
for the entire State
All such laws, regulate the personal
conduct OF the citizens of Richmond
and Norfolk. but there IL no cry rails
J ed that Accomac and Lee are in
/ fringing upon the rights of local self
government of citizens of Richmond
and Norfolk. Grange to relate. it is
/ only when 1t Is proposed that a State
wide prohibitory liquor law shall be
passed that there is this great cry
made for local self-government. and
! that 1t is Indignantly declared that
the farmers Of Accomac and Lee must
not infringe upon the sacred right of
the citizens of Richmond and Nor
folk to license saloons. at which they
can drink liquor to their comfort
Health Laws Not Local.
But all of the laws mentioned
above are more local In their char
acter and results than is the liquor
law. with perhaps the exception of
| the health laws Of the State. The
health laws of the State. II Richmond
or Norfolk should have an epidemic
OF yellow fever or smallpox. or diph-
iberia, would isolate these cities from
the rest of the State and forbid them
to carry their disease to Accomac or
| Lee, and 1t would not matter whether
1t would be detrimental TO the busi-
ness or the comfort of the citizens
| OF Richmond or Norfolk. The rest
/ Of the State would exercise their
| right to protect their citizens from
disease. Moreover. the State law
gives to the State health officers the
right to go into any city or county
and compel the enforcement of the
State law. even II the county or city
| officials and people object to Its en-
forcement And this 10 logical and
just. The people OF the whole State
have the right to protect themselves
against any diseased part Of the State.
and not only to pass suitable laws
Tor their protection, but to enforce
the laws. Ii any city In Virginia
should rise up and declare that 1T
+ would zElsffy the health laws OF the
State, the governor would be justified
{ IN calling out the militia to enforce
the laws. and the people would say
Amen. ANY attempt on the part
OF the cities to nullify these laws
! would meet with general condemua-
ton. Why the difference? Why should
city notification of the State liauor
, law be declared any less vicious or
ssesindinat than city nuflificauon OF
other laws?
i Money Power of Liquor Traffic.
II Is not because there Is any diff
ference in the principle involved. Ii
( Is because OF the tremendous amount
OF money controlled by the liquor traf-
( nc and because of the great power OF
the drink, habit over its slaves. The
liquor business Is the iargest. business
in the country, amounting to $4,000
100000 yearly, and the National
Liquor Dealers Association can and
/ viii spend hundred million dollars
to destroy the prohibition movement
1t spends its money with a lavish
hand in employment of attorneys. In
bringing together q great lobby. In
heavy advertising. and whenever II
can DO 3d. does net hesitate TO bribe
any and all persons who can exert
any influence to defeat or to repeal
prohibition legislation. 1t splits upon
the laws after they are passed and
/ declares defiantiy that the law shall
not prohibit. and does everything nos
sibie to make good Its boast 1t is the
1 personification of a covetousness that
stops at nothing TO attain Its ends
/ 1t lives upon the destruction OF hu-
mainly. 1t Is always criminal
! When given a legal existence nv
license, 1t violates all laws which
I restrict Its profits, and when forbid
den to exist BY law. It becomes an
I outlaw and defies the State to control
II. And in this eriminality IT is en-
couraged by the wet newspapers
which minify the law Violations TN
license cities. and magnify the ''blfnd
tlgerism IN prohibition territory. and
/ clap their editorial hands with rlaa
as they declare that 1t Ia useless tn
try to enforce the nrnhthftfnr -,