The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-10-07

form. and Suffolk, smithfeld. Franklin, indeed
its entire district is dry"
The county of Halifax gave TO Martin and
Swanson 1890 votes to 500 given their oppo-
nents. And yet the county of Halifax Is dry"
county. and the Senator from that county has
pledged himself TO support the submission act
The county of Frederick and the city of Win
chester gave Martin and Swanson ESQ votes to
146 for their opponents. The same district
nominated Hon. r. f Byrd for the House of
Delegates. and he is pledged to the submission
act
The dry cities of Buena Vista, Charlottes-
Vile Fredericksburg, Radford and Clifton
Forge. all gave majorties for Martin and
Swanson Bristol, where the wet majority
was only 81, gave Martin and Swanson ma
jorty of over 500. BanvilIe, where the wet
majority WIS only 10, gave Martin and Swan
son a majority Of about 900 Roanoke, where
the wet" majority was about 70. gave Martin
aud swanson a majority Of over 600 Southwest
Virginia in which there are no saloons be
tween Roanoke aud Bristol gave to Martin and
Swanson majority of over seven thousand.
Fourth. The next General Assembly shows a
great increase in the prohibition sentiment, 1t
is generally conceded that the House of Dele
gates is dry" The dry" vote in the Senate in
1910 were twelve In tie Senate of 1912 it is
generally agreed that the dry vote is nine
trcn with two others doubtful This is a gain
of over fifty per cent. in the vote in the Senate.
Fifth 1t is a well known fact that Martin and
Swanson were fought by the leading wet
newspapers Of the State The Ttmcs-Dispatch,
the Netcs Leddcr the Trpinian-Pilot, and the
NorfoK Landmark, all Of them wet news
papers. opposed Martin and Swanson. Ger
tainy 1t is incredible that the Bryan news
papers. which have been reaping rich a har-
vest from liquor advertising, should have been
found on the dry" side If Martin and Swan
son had made prohibition vital issue in the
campaign,
The above facts are presented as conclusive
proof that prohibition was not an issue in the
late senatorial primary, and it would be a fool
sh man. building the sand who would base
his calculations as to future prohibition legisla-
tion upon the results of the senatorial. prim-
airy.
Some of the very best friends Of The Vif-
qiusdn were greatly disturbed because The Var
0lAiaa did not insist that prohibition was an
issue in the primary, and take sides in favor OF
certain candidates on that ground. but with
out claiming for itself absolute infallibihty
me Frgtn1an thought that it understood con
ditions in the state sufficiently well to know
that thousands OF the best temperance people
/ in the State would resent any effort to thrus
prohibition into the campai gning especially
when the participants themselves had declared
that it was not an issue. And especially wal
this true in view of the fact that the execu
tive committe OF the Ant-Saloon League hat
propounded questions to all of the candidates
= and they had all replied to the satisfaction o
/ the officers of the league.
4 The lpginidn hopes in view of the facts a
they hirye been pointed out above, that our goo
friends who felt disturbed about course
will now agree that it would have been a YER
serious blunder had The piroimian on its otp
motion. attempted to make prohibition an issu
in the late senatorial primary. Those responsf
bic for the management of the paper un
willing to do the prohibition such seriou
damage as would have followed had the pape
adopted such course