The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-02-21
ACADEMIC CONTROVERSY BESIDE THE
MNRk

ifPfp:ate W HtfF Gltt'TIbuk 10 GHdlt' thdN J ~
lfoiaiae was either Intentionally or ignorantly
attempting to deceive the people as 10 the pro-
visions o. the bill
In supper, OF surA an assertion, ne quoted
from an editorial OF Monday, IN which we said
that, So far az technical law IS concerned, even
1t the enabling act car ried tho next Cen
eral Assembly would not be bound in terms TO
grant the expressed wish of the people"
AS clinching his argument MIR. Whit then
quoted section 9. of the Act which declares that
In case a majority of the voters in the proposed
election shall vote against the licensing of in
soxicating liquors, ION and after the first day
Of May next succeeding the regular session of
the General Assembly held after date Of such
election il shall be unlawful for any person
TO manufacture for sale sell other
wise dispose of foT ga, any spir.uous, vtntus,
fermented malt liquors. or intoxicating bit
tiers within the State except for med al. SC.
entiHc. sacramento and mechanical purposes,
as may be allowed under the provisions of such
aets as the General Assembly shall pass at It's
said regular sEssiot, held hext after the date
Of such election allowing such sale for such
poses
In the quotation from the editorial and the
provision of the bill. Mr.. White professed to sec
an rreconcilable difference, and declared with
heat that the organ OF the Anti Saloon
League. The Vir9inian either ignorant of
what il fathered. or attempting for some
Interior purpose to deude its following. Other
further asserted the responsibility of Dr James
!. Cannon for the editorial.
With respect to these charges, let MS declare
positively.
]. The Richmond IiYyin.dn newspaper is not,
and never has been. the organ of the Anti-saloon
League or the organ of anybody or anything
Its opposition TO the liquor trafic is q matter
" Of principle htd policy asserted ever since ii
was founded, and declared in its first statement
Of principle in its initial issue For Mr. Whites
information. i, may be stated that the organ
Of the Anti Saloon League is The Virginia Issue,
is editor the Rev. J. H. Light, trenchant
writer well able TO fight his own battles.
= The writer of the editorial criticized Is the
editorial writer of The rirpintan. The editorial
in question vas written by him expressing
bis own idea and construction of the Jordan bill
and its status constitutional proposition.
THE writer has seen DIR, Cannon on three occa-
sions only since the meeting Of the Legislature
and has not IN either ease been instructed, .coun
seled or otherwise advised by him respecting
the utterances OF this paper concerning the
Jordan act
g. So far as attempting to deceive anyone re-
zarding what the Jordan act is, OF what 1t pro
sides Tn Firginian has printed 1t In full and
has repeatedly and from time TO time. fully set
forth its provisions.
q. f. The Statement :haa,.osen IL sks .ensasiSas
act carried the next Legislature would not be
bound In terms TO carry out the express wish
OF the people. is AIR White to the contrary, in
line with the facts, That Legislature inter
yenes between the time of the proposed vote and
the geing into effect of the law, is proof con-
elusive of this statement, since there is no fund
ss&4yen3af machinery either for initiative by the
people or referendum to them. The final de-
cision rests with the Legislature, Il could. as
stated. repeal any legislation when the
passage of the enabling act might bring to pass
4 In fact the act itself plainly places upon II the
duty OF enactins machinery for and giving ex
preston to several of its important provisions.
Whatever the people declare their will con
corning the liquor question. the Legislature will
stu be In absolute control of 1t. That control
can never be taken from II absolutely. except by
tho passage OF a Constitutional amendment, tho
Only device by which II Is possible in Virginia
for the people TO dictate finai legislative action
+ ny popular vote.
We sa~ this much in justice TO ourselves
and the Anti.Saloon League. We would.
however say this in addition: That it ia small
h matter what The virgiaidn may think concern
4 Ing the Enabling Act, but il is ar important
B matter what the fate OF the Enabling Act may
he Constitutional questions are, in the last
\ analysis, for the courts. Too often have legis-
latares found themselves outside the pale Of the
NV to take to themselves the JUNCTION that may