The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-03-16
Stories and Standards &
Rich mond Household
A SUPREMELY
PROFANE PENITENT

Continued from Editorial Page.b
ing that the incorporate use of in
toxicating liquors Is bad for the in
dividuas ana bad for society, we
should all, slandered newspapers. as
well as religious and moral teachers
and leaders. De able TO get together
on the main question, which Is the
control of the liquor traffic either by
prohibition or by regulation.
We agree with Governor Mann, the
real leader OF the temperance forces
of Virginia, and one of the vice-presi-
dents of the Anti-Saloon League, that
the local option method Is the best
plan. He has to his credit. under the
law which he framed and carried
through the legislature, 500 closed sa-
looms. His method has proved to be
practicable and effective. 1t is thor
oughly Democratic. 1t has driven
the saloon out of business in unpo-
Iced territory. IL can be made even
more and more effective by the CO.
operation of the temperance people of
the State. we do not mean by this
any body that has been organized and
Is managed for political or business
purposes; but the true temperance
people of the State. the business men
who do not drink themselves and who
do not employ in their business men
who drink. the merchants and bank
ers and railroad managers and farm
ers and others who regard temperance
as prime condition of Industrial ef-
ficiency.
Brethren, We have a great respon-
sibility. and We must meet It like men
men who are too decent TO indulge
In biilingsgate with the postmaster OF
the art; but as men who have done
valuable service to the Commonwealth
and would save it from the bitterness
into which fanatics would drive it,
The first part of this editorial is
quite an unusual exhibition of the pro-
fame and blasphemous style of writ
ing which is affected by that paper,
The flippant and irreverent use Of
Scripture so common in its editorials
is here surcharged with rage and We
nom as 1t attempts to use the word
of God itself to crafty tho desire for
revenge. But there IL method in this
madness. There is no honest burst
of indignation from one who. con-
scious of integrity. feels that he has
been treated unjustly. What careful
discrimination is made In calling down
curses and consigning to the Internal
regions. A report has been written
by one man, signed by six men, and.
after discussion and its full meaning
Is brought out, II is adopted by hun
dreds of men and women An honest
man would be indignant with the man
VINO write 1t, more indignant that six
men should sign it. and intensely in
olgnant that great company. after
consideration. should adopt IL as their
own sentiments. But there Is no hon.
est Indignation here. There il rage.
venom, malice" that the writer of the
report had plainly and justly charac-
terized the exact equality of moral
responsibility existing between the
owners OF certain newspapers. which
sell space for liquor advertising. and
par -tenders, and when this character
ization is accepted and adopted by
hundreds as Just, the venom increases
but eowardiee cautions care.
A consultation In the editorial sane
tum reasons thus: 1T Will not do to
attacK all these men and women and
consign them all to perdition, We
should like to do so. but there are too
many of them. They have too MANY
friends 1t might damage the circu-
iation OF the paper. Or some of them
might resent 1t in an unpleasant man
ner, and come to the editorial sanctun
and make it disagreeable. or even
make us withdraw the profane and
blasphemous language. or course. our
indignation Is very great that these
people should put us on q level with
bar-tenders. but we must be very care
full in giving ii expression. What plan
shall we follow. All. we have IL,
or course, We cannot defend ourselves
against the charges. or course, we
cannot prove that there Is any differ
ence in the sight of God between the
owners of newspaper who sells IL
quor for mail-order houses, through
Its advertising columns, at so much
per inch, and the bartender who sells
Ii behind the counter at 80 much per
drink. There Is no difference But
we will not refer to that at all, We
will pick out one man, that Methodist
preacher We hate him anyway. We
have slandered him SO much that we
really despise him. We slandered him
ten years ago at a session of the Meth
odist Conference at Norfolk. and those
Methodist preachers and iaymen. led
by DR.. A. Coke Smith. had no more
sense than to expef Our reporter, and
we had to Write an apology for the
SANDER. but we never forgave him
for the mean way we treated him.
and we have been attacking him at
every opportunity since that time. At
the last session OF the Methodist Con-