The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-01-25
THE sUPREME'S STRICT REGULATION
AND "RIIND TIGERS"

The Supreme greatly delights to declare its
belief in strict regulation and high license as
the best method OF handling the liquor trafic
4 II Is 10 be presumed thatit considers the law az
II applies to Richmond to-day to be satisfactory.
Ms Ii has done nothing to have it amended.
What is the result of the present law in Rich.
monde Does Regulation regulate?
In the same paper in which the Supreme, in
its editorial columns, rails against prohibitory
laws on the question of liquor. because they are
sometimes violated, ii contains ir its news col
umns an account OF the trial and conviction of
three four persons for running blind tigers
up and rend its garments and put ashes upon its
bead at this awful revelation? Blind tigers in
city where there is High License and strict
1 regulation Impossible! Surely this is a
prohibition sIander
But the columns of the Supreme declare it TO
\ be true Why are not the readers of the Su-
preme exhorted upon the folly of the present
legislation on the liquor traffic in Richmond :?
The law is violated not this once only, but ire.
QEcHtly. If the Supreme sincere fair pa.
per, it would examine the records and find out
/ and give to the public the number of violations
! ri the license Law. How many persons have
paid the internal revenua license tax who have
not paid the State license?
A III the Supreme were consistent, which IL In
not, it would advocate the abolition of all egis
lation on the liquor traffic because the law is
and criminals by the license law according to
to blame, and there should be no tax. Free
whiskey should be the order of the day.
In the same Issue of this Supremacy inconsist-
ent Supreme" there is extended article on
the opium traffic and the evasion of the prohibi-
l tory Law on the importation and sale Of opium
OF course the Supreme advocates the repeal of
these prohbtory laws rs breeders of liars and
hypocrites OF course ii denounces as fanatics
and fools all who favor such prohibtory laws
I But. wonderful TO be told. it does not do So
Instead of that. 1t declares that the penalties
i must be made severe and the law enforced
more rigidly. That sounds like prohibitory Ii.
/ quor legislation talk. That Is what the prohi.
Y bition cranks say How we to explain this
ridiculous inconsistency the part OF the Su-
preme? II may be that the Supreme does not
4 IKE opium and does not think any personal in
asc0nyenienee would result from the abolition of
d the trade, 1t may be that there is no opium
trust. or association, firm, which pays fat
eams for advertising Whatever may be the
xeAson, the fact remains tina, the Supreme does
Enet favor the abolition or the High License sys
|SAem, because the law Is violated whenever men
I'LL take the risk for the sake of the money in
Ne3ved, and yet II does favor the abolition of
Nrohibitory legislation. because men violate the
~ for the sake OF money. And the Supreme
pae not advocate the abolition Of the opium law
eAnse Il y violated. and yet 1t favors the abo-
lsrn 81 the prohibitory law because 1t ia VIC
What absurdity and inconsistency. .
ppstite and consciousness, one or both. are at