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

the senate our Dill, Wnfcn immeotate-
ily became known as the Strobe en-
sbftnB act. A few days later Delegate
H. s. Myers, of Amherst, presented
the measure In the House.
/ In each House the bill was referred
to the committee on privileges ana
elections. The committees promptly
granted q joint hearing upon the DILL
and reported the measure to their re-
spective houses, with the recommen-
dalton that 1t do not pass. In the
House of Delegates the bill was re-
! ferred ba az to the finance committee,
received prompt consideration, was
! reported bnck to the House with I'M
favorable recommendation. and went
upon the calendar. In the Senate
Senator Strobe, after repeated efforts.
secured q hee ring for the bill on the
4th day OF March, and the Senate.
by vote of twenty-six to thirteen,
refused to pass It, In the House DR..
Myers, on two successive days, at
tempted to get hearing for the bill,
but failed to get the two-thirds vote
necessary to take the measure up out
Of order. although q majority voted
TO consider the bill.
Ample tine was devoted by the
Senate and House committees on priv
1 leges and elections in joint sessions to
hearing the advocates and opponents
of the bill express their views upon
the merits thereof. The bill was ad-
vocated by your committee and by
leading citizens from every section OF
the State. who came to Richmond at
! their own expense-many Of them
staying several days--to plead for the
passage CT the measure. More sec
tons were represented, and more
prominent temperance workers spoke
than at any hearing ever held in Vir-
ginia on temperance measure.
The bill was opposed publicly. chief
ly by the attorneys for the Liquor
Dealers Associations. who were pub
licly aided by only few citizens. all
of whom we're from wet cities, and
by the wet newspaper
In the meantime petitions for the
passage Of the bill were sent to the
Legislature from all over the State.
/ Every county in the State, save four,
and every city In the State, save one.
sent petitions. In Roanoke. Lynch
burg, Norfolk, and in many other
cities and towns, great mass meetings
were held and resolutions were pass
j ed endorsing the measure. and call
ing upon their respective representa-
tives to support the bill. More than
$4,000 petitioners asked for Its pas
saga greater number than besought
the passage of either the Mann or the
Byrd bill The opposition to the bill
presented practically no petitions
against its passage.
Objection was made that the en-
actment of the measure would mean
an effort 10 register and qualify to
vote every igr.o GRANT and venal man
white and b'ack--in the State. This
was promptly met by Il proposed
a
question to the present electorate.
should the election occur on or be-
fore October i. 1910.
1t was ella ms ed that the State could
not get along without the revenue
that would be derived from the saloon
for the next two years. This objec-
ton was met by another proposed
: amendment. that would not allow the
bill to become effective before the
next Legislature made provision to
meet any loss OF revenue in case the
State should vote dry"
Further objection was made that
the drug store section OF the bill
would. il enacted. turn drug stores
all over the State into saloons. The
drug store section was stricken out
i by the patron of the patron OF the
bill The bill was narrowed down TO
! the one single pro position---to give the
people the right TO vote on the ques-
ton of The Statewide prohibition of
the manufacture and sale of intoxi-
eating liquors In Virginia.
Notwithstanding the above facts.
/ the senate killed the measure by q
vote of twenty-six to thirteen. and a
minority In the house. taking advan-
tage OF the two-thirds rule, prevent
ed consideration and @ vote on the
bill.
Many of the members of the Gen
! eral Assembly claimed that they had
been elected on a local option plat
form and therefore could not vote
/ for ehe dill Your committee could
| not agree that this was logical. but
we report back the reason given to
| this convention.
Thus ends the record Of our lagss~
| lative work for the first ten years of
our history. Having given this sum
| mary OF the rexults achieved. II Will
| be we'll for us to examine the condi-
| tons which now confront US and TO
obtain a proper estimate OF the forces
| which oppose us In our advance
/ movements.
locking back over the conflicts or
the past ten years. your committee be-
| lieves that 1t cannot emphasize too
| strongly the relationship existing be-
tween the wet" newspapers of the
| State and the liquor traffic. AT the
! Beginning of its existence. the league
| WAS practically ignored by these
| newspapers. which thought to de-
! stroy II by giving: no space In the
news columns to its work; but when
| the league began to make itself felt,
| the wet" newspapers. longer
| ignored us, but began a campaign OF
| Misrepresentation, SANDER and Wilt
| fication of the work and workers Of
| the league, which they have continued
with increasing shameleesness. VIC
iousness and righteousness up to the
present hour. proper classified
| muss place these newspapers in the
| same class with the saloon. In the
saloon the various kinds of liquors
| are displayed in decanters and pour
| ed out by the salesman or bartender
| to the purchaser. The bartender il
paid a definite wage for handling the
| liquor and selling IL to the customer.
| In the columns of the wet" newspapers
the names of the liquors are printed.
| and IL is announced from what per-
SON they can be ordered, and the
| newspaper becomes the salesman of
| the liquor and Is paid a definite sum
for acting as salesman for the LIQUOR
| firm. We do not believe there Is q
particle or difference In the sight OF
God in the action OF the owners of
| newspapers which are paid 80 much
per inch for selling intoxicating
liquors, and In the action Of the
white-aproned bartender. who fur
nfshes II TO the customer hv fhe drinr