The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-10-19
rHE RICHMOND NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OCTOBER

any ground for attacking one member
OF that convention for advocating the
report, and yet attacking no other
person. although hundreds of others
also advocated and voted for the same
report Is not the hypocrisy and
the animus OF the Evening Journal
clearly evident in the course 1t has
pursued in this matter? Why does 1t
not attack DIR. Pitt for urging Dr..
Cannon to use his Influence in the
convention to MAINTAIN the old battle
line" and later for commencing PUB
licly in the columns OF the Religious
Herald DR.. Cannon and his fellow
managers that they have done the
wise and prudent thing?% Is it not
clearly evident that the purpose OF the
Evening Journal has been to try TO
destroy the influence of Or. Cannon
and to damage the WORK of the Anti
Saloon League because of DR. Cam
mons connection with 1tc And truly
is il matter for surprise that pa =
per which fattens on liquor adver-
tisements. and is opposed to the aboli =
ton of saloons in Richmond, and is
opposed To the enactment of State
wide prohibitory law. should do every
thing possible to excite suspicion and
distrust of the workers Of the League
among the rank and file of the tenn
perance workers of the State? 1t is
not the flint time that good people
have been deceived by the hue and
cry of the hypocrites, whose purpose is
not to advance. but to defeat the
cause for which the people are work
ing.
The objection of leading temperance
workers TO the adoption of the State
wide policy, at that time. AS Indicated
at lenth above. Is fact Number Two.
But suppose the Anti Saloon League
Convention had discarded the local
option policy, and had declared for a
Statewide policy. 1t would not have
been possible to have had an election
on that question up to the present
hour. As stated above one paper, in
utter ignorance of the law. or forget
fulness Of the facts. has recently
stated. We thought then, as we do
nov, that If the question had been
submitted to the vote of the people,
it would have been carried by large
majority" How could the question
have been submitted to the vote of the
people without the passage OF an act
by the Legislature authorizing an cleo :
ton? That very question was cOnsid
cred III the Legislative report of the
Norfolk convention That report de-
clared, We have not III this State the
principle Of the referendum.
II we could go directly TO the people
OF this State on this one issue and So
cure Vote on this issue. without any
personal or political complications, 4,
might he the wise thing TO ind out
now just where the people OF Virginia
stand. We cannot obtain the right TIC
vote on this question except by the
passage of an act by tn. General AS
semoiy ordering such al election to be
held. our committee Is unanimously
Of the opinion that II would dam
age our cause te press this Issue al
the present time in view Of the con-
ditions ifAt confront lis Moreover
the Senate Of Virginia has already been
elected, and tnasmuca as il is inpos
sIble TO secure any legislation or the
tlSht 10 vote on any question without
the consent of both Houses of the
General Assembly, ii would be neces
sary finally to resort to petition in
order To reaSeaethhen. METH
order reach the Senate"
here II Is clearly indicated that this
legislative committee had in mind the
fact that the Senate OF Virginia had
been elected tor four years, and that
II had shown itself TO be hostile 1c
any advanced prohibition legislation
There was no possibility OF getting 4
vote on the question until 1912, unless
the Senate then existing could be Sc
impressed by personal appeal and De.
luons as 10 pass the bill. The ngh
made in the Senate in 1910 show t,
only twelve cut Of forty senators who
We're willing 10 give TO the people tht
right to vote, ana there has never beer
Ia, rts%
ity To secure vote by the people on
d Statewide law.
Third. The Evening Journal declar.
ed that the convention had beer
coerced by Rev. James Cannon I,
stand for the local option policy IL
order that the liquor men might b.
persuaded to vote for Judge Mann, OF
the ground that Judge Mann favored
local option ana was opposed TO State
wide prohibition.
Wei, il this was the object sough
TO be accomplished, it was certainly
not Indicated by any statement mad,
BY the legislature report or by Rev
James Cannon. The legislative repor
openly and plainly declared that In,
League did not stand for local option
as principle, but only as policy
matter OF expediency. as the beS
lHeiHOd To hsc Tor tnat Year. The re
port declared, Let us press forward
for the next year in the old paths. anG
when the next convention meets II /
should be evident that we have gon,
as far as we can go with profit undel
the local option policy, we can thei
all join heartily together in the de
mand for d Statewide prohibitor,
law"
Certainly there was no assuranc,
given by this language that the Anti
saloon League would not demand
/ Statewide law
/ And. Furthermore. this very oues
| ton was raised directly after the ad
tournment OF the convention and
commenting upon it, the Times Dis
patch declared editorially, under dat,
Of March 4. 1908:
| Now II there IS any one thing ahou
( the liquor situation in this State tina
has been made Enthusiastically plain, /
/ is that local option is in no sense
shape or form the own policy of tn
Anti-Sa loon League, for the length o
a gubernatoria term or any othe
| period. To pretend that it is. to speal
of its faithlessness' in deserving
local option. il 10 be merely absurd
The League leaders have made (
plain again and again that they hav,
4 adopted local option FOR the tirne befny
only. not because it Is preferred il
principle. but because ii appears NOR
eNpedient for the moment No dog
matte utterance of a chronically cock
sure newspaper can possibly commit
Ian ~ = ,nnJ