The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-02-16
HATE BOTH OR NEITHER.

Both Houses OF the General Assembly de-
serve the thanks Of the people for the una
nimity with which they have spewed out the
suggestions made to them for the establish
uent of new 'dispensaries," and for the uni
sormity With which they have acted to grant
% communities so cursed the privilege of re-
forming themselves.
II is gratifying that faiacy which at times
IN the past enlisted the mistaken support OF
good men should have been fully exy
posed that no honestly intelligent person
honestly see the d;spensary as anything
cept what it is: something that is worse than
the saloon, in that, while the saloon directly
corrupts the private citizen and indirectly
tends to corruption IN government, the dispen-
saly OF necessity injects poisoned virus into
the body Of the community as a whole
We say that It liz gratifying that the Central
Assembly should evidence go clear an appre.
citation OF the vice In this quondam moral
method of the handling of the liquor problem.
II would be we'll II those legislators who are
hesitatng to how they will vote upon the
question of passing the Jordan Enabling Act
and consider the inconsistency between oppos
ton to the dispensary and opposition TO the
Jordan bill
The case against the dispensary is not that
It does not work in practice we'll as the
saloon. both from a financial and privately
moral standpoint, for 1t does. It is not that it
II not a money-maker: 1t is gold mine 80
- ~.
public treasury. 1t is--and this is what the
General Assembly seems fully TO recognize
1 that 1t puts the people Of the community into
b direct contact and close interest With de-
grading business HANDS that search hlth for
money cannot ~emaln clean. Better. says the
General Assembly with respect to dispensaries,
that a source of revenue should be sacrificed.
than that the blood of whole community
should be Initiated.
II the General Assembly. through tho prarti-
caiiy unanimous opinion OF Its members, takes
this view OF the city or county or town dis
pensary how can it Justify itself in taking
! different view OF the broader. less intimate.
but none the less positive partnership OF the
State with liquor. which is involved in the
license system? Here, too. is revenue. Can
the State safely touch moneys which It is I'M
moral for the towns and counties to take?
Here. too. Is an attempt to minimize an evil By
It's regulation through public agencies. Is the
s6ort any less cuipable because the whole peo-
pie, and not the people of particular com.
Eaunity. absorb the rancid profits! Here. too,
q cause of corruption. Is the whole people
i like slow fever. instead of suppurating into
the evident sores with which it mantfests its
direct action upon part OF the people?
In all reason, are not the cases of the dis
pensary and the salo n fundamentally one and
! the same. Docs not the objection to the one ap-
ply with equal force to the other. Is there not
moral strabismus in the man who. clearly
ycnavsaeea Of tho dispensary evil 'rushes to give
the people concerned chance to purge them
selves who Ii yet unable to sec the analogy
existing between what the State is doing and
what the town is doing:
Those cursed with dispensary clamor for a
vote that they may decide for themselves
4 whether or not the partnership be dissolved
aha L9eizsatufe nra1npfly honers their request
majority, or concededly nearly majority
I ~ the people OF. the Commonwealth declare
themselves cursed with the saloon. They ask
ne Legislature to give them the opportunity
y u Kidding themselves OF an unholy alliance.
where Is the difference. except. possibly. in
6exree Of interest, between the two appeals?
And now. in the name OF common honesty
\ and In the name OF equal rights, can the Gen.
\ seai Assembly justify itself II 1t grant to
Neherrin right II refuses to Virginia!