The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-02-23


not satisfactory. he would use the ex.
act words of the petitions sent in to
me Legislature and contained in the
! platform Of the Anti-Suloon League
ana the pledges OF ambers-"25 per
: cent or the qualified voters" There
are ne explained, 2S2.I12 qualified vot-
/ ers In virginia. and under the leagues
own program thsre should be :equired
petitions signed By 7O,693 persons. But
q the Jordan bill was entirely different
requiring only 70 .,er cent. OF the
! I'LL u people who voted in the State
election OF 1903, or :7779 signatur IS.
i Where the bill says that petition
shall be "substantiailyr In a certain
FORM. he would strike out the word,
SO that the meaning should be care
ruby Followed out. Further. he .lcslr ed
to strike out the words "wiltmly and
knowingly. as applied to persons who
/ might secure false signatures TO pctl-
tons or to a clerk who might make
! false certificates
Regular Penalties.
| II the advocates of the bill were de.
erous OF being fair, he wanted to know
what could be the objection to putting
this special election on a par with reg.
uiar elections. Instead OF providing a
fine of from S. to $50 for ats violation
ms in the bill, he proposed to make
person guilty of frauds amenable 10
the general election laws.
| In addition. If the State of VIRGINIA
was going into the referendum bust
ness, he would have 1t do SO properly,
and introduced that portion OF the law
OF the State of Washington covering
the Initiative and referendum.
MIR. Cox said he would have had
nothing more to say. but :hat references
had been made to the city of Richmond
It's influences and its represen tatives
He thought the capital has as good and
as patriotic people as any section
OF the State and that they would con
slider the interests of Virginia above
! that OF any locality He asked tina,
be allowed to regulate It's AFFAIRS ds
10 1t may seem best. He said those
who live in dry" communities should
not say: Because we have the most
votes. We Will not allow Richmond the
same privilege or local self govern
ment which we ourselves have exer-
/ cised"
Reduce Criminal Costs.
To show the effects OF regulation in
| Richmond, Mr.. Cox read some figures
from the Auditors reports. In 1905
! the combined criminal expenses OF the
! cities OF Richmond and Manchester
were s3S.S32.23. BY 1911. although with
/ largely increased population, these had
been reduced under liquor regulation
TO SS6,059.94. AS to the county OF Lee
dry for years. the criminal expenses
there in 1905 were s1,l77.26. Without
liquor, thsy had Increased in 1911 to
! s2.2S99t
Another example OF regulation was
in the cities OF Norfolk and Portsmouth
and the county OF Norfolk. In 1906
the expenses for criminal trials were
SiS,0I6.97. which in 1911 had peen re-
duced TO s6S.So2.9s. In the county OF
Lancaster dry for many years, the ex-
ha Inn hn1
from sl.I+6.93 to 3i.6l0.l7.
Mention hnd been made in wcdnes-
days debate about the right side and
wrong side of BROAD Street" This. Mr.
Cox said was due 10 the occupancy in
old days OF that. streee by the Rich
mond. fredericksburg and Potomac
Railroad. under charter by the Leg
is4ature. Richmond went into the
the United States courts to get tho
railroad off the strcst. ''If you pass
this BILL" he said, Il am afraid you
VIII make both sides wrong
! He concluded With an appeal TO ths
members to concedc TO others the right
10 differ on matters of convonlenc. or
eXpediency, 10 vote Lor the best inter
csts Of the state without regard to it's
effect upon their own political pref ar.
ment. and to avoid the making of la VS.
which have made criminals OF the pop.
ulation OF Memphis. Chattanooga anG
/ Nashville.
MT. oliver Speaks.
Walter Tansill Oliver, of Fairfax, be-
ginning the closing argument for the
oppon4nts OF the bill. referred first to
majority rule and to the remarks on
that matter made by c. J. Meetze, OF
Prince William. whereas the latter had
been nominated by minority vote.
1t is a principle" ne said. that M
who comes into equity must come with
clean hands wonder If the man
"ho prepared this bill was actuated
by those high principIes?"
4 lie offered amendments which would
make the vote IN the election be "For
Statewide Prohibition" and Against
tSate- Wide Prohibition" instead of
For License and Against License"
The petitions sent to the Legislature
he sad, called for an election on
Statewide prohibition" yet the law
read differently There might be
people who would oppose license. and
who would also oppose State PROFIT
btion. yet 4 was intended TO put
up TO them the proposition of license
or no license contrary to the peti.
tons. ne TO himself. he had been
nominated by a vote OF two to ono on
the issue. and represented the people
OF his county in his opposition to a
! referendum on this subject
Again. the bin was unique In that
It gives one side the right to select
the time for the election, and gives
the opposition chance to say not
one word. 1t would be possible for the
prohibition people to ace that the
:. taxes of their followers were paid up
and then 70 call an election when they
thought they had the majority.
"Supposirg." he said. this election
should be held and prohibition results
-Four years, hence there will be q de
Inand for an election for Statewide
licenses. which would out barroomf