The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-02-06

psrs Of the COMMITTEES that subccm-
mittes had been at vork upon tne
!, constitutional questions invois ca. ana
/, that tho comSnattee would HiAks ~
report 70 the hosiss tnts morninx. tns
I! member from James City Withdrew
his motion 10 discharge. Ihe otssns'
efDn indicafed that the comnuttes
/ would report against the constitution
J aiiiy OF the measure -
| Anti. 1srsbi,np 0iti Reaches.
Then number thirteen was reached
| the measure for which the ethsI
stephenson, the strong man from
| 1safl1 hAs fought. bied--and frtumpheu
| Resolutions were read from the Bap.
! ftst and Methodist Ministers Assocta-
lions OF the city OF Richmond en-
dorsing the measure as Originally
| drawn by It's patron.
The amendments as recommended
! by the Committee on General Laws
were read. They we're hrst. 10 eiimi-
nate the words 'bet. wager or from
the bill. leaving II to penaiixins the
playing OF any game for money. the
! frst clause OF the measure having
made IL unlawful to bet. wager. or
play at any game for money sec
ond, to Change the maximum pun
ishment OF one thousand dollars nne
or one year In jail. either or both.
to a maximum Of ave hundred dollars
fire or sixty days in jail. either or
both, this amendment bring sauslac.
tory to the patron. third. to strike out
entire paragraph OF the Dill giving Cir-
cults Courts CT the commonwealth con-
current Jurisdiction In trial OF cases
arising under the act with magistrates.
and giving the Commonwealth the
right Of appeal from the decision OF
ma gistrates In such cases.
Amendment Would Destroy Measure.
Mr. Stephenson took the floor In
advocacy OF the measure IA originally
prepared and he earnestly asked the
House to reject the amendments
bill. He declared that the first
amendment virtually DESTROYED the
measure.
Mr.. Banks, OF Norfolk arose TO APP
parliamentary inquiry. asking wheth-
err. the measure having been recon-
mitted when on its third reading. It
were now susceptible to further
amendment, ii being apparent that
Mr.. Banks -view was that Il was
either up to the House to pass the
bill as reported from the committee
that the House could not make furth-
CT amendments 10 the bill. but that
1t would now vote on whether or not
IL would ACCEPT the amendments re-
ported by the committee.
Mr. Stephenson evoked a hearty
laugh form the House by asking the
speaker the right way TO vote on the
bill The speaker replied sn,iiinsiy
that the gentleman from Bath was
putting a heavy responsibility upon
the chair.
Present Law = Disgrace.
Upon vote Of the House 1t Was
decided to vote UPON the several
amendments separately. Mr.. Stephen
son continued the discussion of the
merits or his measure. He declared
that IL wan true that the BILL bore
the number thirteen. but that II wasn't
his fault. Turning his attention to
the gambling situation In Virginia.
he declared that the private statute
allowing gambling In Virginia UP to
the twenty dollar loss limit was
disgrace to the State. Its existence
made IL Impossible to convict on
charges Of gambling, those arrested
pleading that they we're not guilty
OF unlawful gambling and II being
Impossible to prove that they were
so guilty with the law as it stands.
Then the first test vote came, with
a comparatively small number OF
members voting. The vote being on
agreement to the FIRST amendment the
House rejected the amendment by .
vote of 80 10 rs. three to one.
The second amendment az to the
penalties prescribed. being acceptable
to the patron and friends of the
measure. was unanimously adopted
Argue Legal Point.
The principal discussion of the day
n
ceptance OF the amendment striking
out the clause giving the Circuit
, Courts con current jurisdiction in the
trial OF cases arising under the
measure, and to give the Common
wealth right OF appeal Mr.. Stephen
son declared that gambling matters
ought to be investigated by the Cir
/ cult Courts He was satisfied that
! the only way that the laws OF the
State would be enforced would be by
! such supervision by the courts. he
/ declared that he had great confidence
! in the integrity OF the majority oi
! the magistrates. but that they were
1 generally uniearned In the law, and
/ that the gamblers were defended by
astute counsel who did not fail to
/ mix up the Justices. He declared toe
! that. from newspaper reports, there
was at least one notorious situation
where the gambling fraternity ha1
had things All their own way. nj
though the law itself had been NJ
plain as the nose on mans face
/, He indicated that his remarks were
| directed at the Norfolk, county race
! track situation.
Coleman to the Defence.
/ Mr.. Coleman, OF Norfolk. arose tt
| defend Norfolk county. declaring thai
| he was u close reader OF the news
/ papers, but that he WAS not aware Of
! such a situation as MIR. Stephenson
| had suggested. He attacked the
amendment giving circuit courts CON
current Jurisdiction. Under such q
law. declared the Norfolk delegate
anyone may. be indicted on the e,
s ;sssse ga sesnesst4 of amy pATssth.
T was wrong In principle. MIR. Stephen
son came back with the question al
| 10 whether or not Mr.. Coleman. "
: the stand he was taking, was repre-
senting his people. He then read res
olutions adopted by q mass meet
ing held at the Academy Of Music, II
the city Of Norfolk. on January g
endorsing the Stephenson bill ~ orig
inally drawn. ~.
| Mr.. Norris. Of Richmond county
declared that he had favored thu
4 rneasnrss hut. that The feature .KtytnI
circuit courts concurrent Jurisdiction
would reyoiutiontze the criminal Law