The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-10-19

section, and / discussed IL with SEN
ator Martin without any hesitation
- reserve because all tempean0e
workers recognize that the efficiency
of such iegislati Is dependent upon
the character of the Legislation adopt
ed by Congress concerning interstate
shipment.
DIR. Cannon made four separate
drafts of a resolution on that sub
ject, and the one that was finally
adopted was based upon the acton
pending in Congress. which WAS fin
ally adopted by Congress just on the
eve OF adjournment, three weeks af-
ter the Anti-Saloon League Conven-
ton had adjourned. Or. Cannon
found out by conference with Sena-
tor Martin and with the Anti Saloon
League workers in Washington what
would be the probable action of Con-
gress on this question, and the re-
port of the legislative committee on
TINS subject follows closely the plan
adopted by the National League
workers. 1t gives to our people in
Dry territory just az much protec-
tion from shipments from points
within the State as the tinted States
| law VIII give protection from points
without the State
The intination of the Journal
/ that the matter of the Jug trade was
eliminated or smothered, is a absolute
| ~ false. 1t was openly and fully
discussed ana reasons given for the
acuoh recommended. and IL the rea-
| sons given for the action recommend
ed were satisfactory and nvincing
/ 70 the convention. it made no dir
| terence from what source they might
/ nave originated. whether from the
National Anti~Saloon League work
ers' or from machine politician
IKE senator Martin. or from that ma
he 81 'unholy alliances Or Cannon. -
ne above extracts. taken from
comm unications printed by the Even
M journal in its own columns a few
/ days alter the meeting of the Anti
! saloon League Convention. prove that
1T cannon made no cencealment
Whatever OF the course pursued by
MN IN seeking an interview with
senator Martin. In the interview
Senator Martin told him that no woI,}d
work Tor the passage of the pro-
visions In the Penal Code, and that
! ne believed they would he passed hy
the senate II the matter of DR. Crurn :
appointment could be disposed of. Or
( cannon followed out the provision
"hleh had been outlined by the Ma
uohai Anti-SaiOon League work ers
ana the General Assembly OF 1910
was requested to pass only such legis.
iation on the jug trade as was in lin.
with the national legislation on thai
subject. 1T would have been utterI,
useless a that time TO have demanded
the passage of what il known AS tbs
anu-jug law" for the probability Is
that even now the General Assem- bis
( OF virginia VIII be more likely to civ,
/ 10 the people the right to vote on
Statewide prohibition than they viii
TO pass the ',anti-jug law"
DIR. Cannon considered II IN be hi,
duty To correspond with Senator Mar
t tin. and, II possible, to consult will
+ MIN concerning this legislation. ant
would have consulted with Senator
/ Daniel also, but his correspondence
/ with senator Daniel on such matter.
| had not encouraged him TO believe
| that he would he able to obtain an,
statement from him as to the prob
/ BILE action OF the Senate upon III,
pending legislation
There has never been adduced one
! scintiiia of proof TO show that there
! was any bargain made by the Anti
/ Saloon League of Virginia through
/ one or two of its leaders with any
j politicians TO bring about the election
! OF Judge Mann. 1t was certainly To be
expected that Judge Mann would be
supported by "A great many OF tbs
1 temperance people, including many .,
1 the Anti-S8loun League leaders His
/ had led Tie fight for the temperance
people in the Senate of Virginia foI
many years. His public statements dur,
/ ing the campaign AS compared witt
those of the opposing candidate, Mr.
I Tucker. certainly pledged him to NOR,
/ favora BILE action upon the measures
/ desired by the Anti-Saloon League
! than was promised by Mr. Tucker
I Judge Mann declared that, should thu
/ people elect Legislature upon tht
prohibition issue, and Legislature 81
i instructed should pass a bill proyld
I ing the Statewide Prohibition, HI
would sign the bill. while Mr.. Tucker
I declared that he would veto a bill
passed under such conditions. Judg.
+ Mann declared that should a local OPP,
| ton election be held in any comrnun.
/ ity where he was living, he wouiC
/ vote dry Mr.. Tucker declared thai
! III such an election, his vote would b,
| determined by conditions existing IL
a community. Judge Mann declared
! that. should an election be held OF
Statewide prohibition. he would vot.
dry" while Mr. Tucker declared tina
| III such an election he would yot,
! wet Certainly the public record anC
/ position of Judge Mann were such "a!
| To appeal. very strongly To Anti Sa-
/ loon League workers and adherents
/ and il was to be expected that many
i of them in their Individual capacity
as citizens and voters would do al
/ that was honorable and right to brint
+ about his election. Bur Il is absoutei,
and unquaiitedly false that any leader
Of the Anti-Saloon League made
compact with any politician or with tn,
/ Organization" that the League ~ K
/ not ask for eny advanced legislation
or for Statewide prohibition, provided
the organization" would supper
Judge Mann. No leader of the Leagu,
could have delivered the League, hat
he tried To do so, and the E,vcnin.
/ Journal itself declared on Friday. Feb
ruary 10, 1909. that DIR. Pitt an,
thousands OF Anti-Saloon League 40
! vocates would support Hon. Harry st
8 George Tucker. and yet DIR. Pitt.
+ supporter of Mr. Tucker and Rev
James Cannon. whom the Journal ac
/ cused OF making compact with TIL,
| prohibition TO aid the candidacy o
! Judge Mann, both agreed that local OPP
I ;sefa wss tire best policy Ca be sd@ptes
~ the League for the coming year
+ IL is impossible to make these twt
/ things fit In so as to convince an,
/ fair minded man. that any such dea
( was made.
But, say these defamers of the lead