The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-02-01

the -DispAtcA editorial Of We'd
nesday. january sist. whach declared
that he tsyrd- ALann law was entirely
on the iocal option principle, but 10
straight proEibitton. isaas Il was pass
I'D by an overwhelmtns majority OF
the Democratic s0enerAl Assembly.
1t U tale % tank about the Demo
cratic policy OF local option II 10
not Democratic policy. Both Rcpub-
licans and Democrats stood for II In
lSS6. ana II In the policy adopted In
many Republican as wen as Demo-
cratic States,
The poGcy OF the Democratic party,
concerning the liquor question has
been 4 matter OF expediency. IL has
not been question OF principle. but
liquor legislation has been passed In
accordance with the demands OF the
people.
!, .Up to Democratic Party"
DR.. Cannon quoted statement
made by one of the speakerS on Tues
day morning that 1T is up to the
Democratic party to decide whether
the people be given the right to vote"
He asked whether the Democratic
party was willing to assume the re-
sponsibility Of refushing to give TO the
people the right to vote Ii 1t Is
desired to keep the question out OF
politics and prevent the disruption of
the Democratic party, then pass this
bill and let the people handle this
question irrespective Of personal or
political atiIiation. Personally the
speaker declared he Is a Democrat and
he had exerted all his power TO keep
this issue out of party politics, and
- he "a
Assembly to turn this matter over to
the people and permit them to settle
1t as to them shall seem best.
The Revenue Question.
The speaker said he always felt
ashamed to discuss q moral question
from the standpoint Of revenue. He
could not compare money with man =
hood. A man might as well try to
Justify himself for the sale Of the
virtue OF his wife and daughters for
the support OF the family. as for a
man 10 attempt to justify the de-
bauchfng OF Our people by the SAFE
of intoxicants because OF the reVe-
nue.. The matter OF revenue cannot
be properly considered In moral aaes-
lions. -,
question of revenue was not before
the committee. That question was
for the people Of the State to de-
eide. The revenue Of the State could
not be disturbed until 1914. Ano II
the people should decide after the
arguments were presented to tnem
that they did not want the revenue
from the liquor traffic. and preferred
IN get money for the expenses OF the
government some other way. who "
there to deny them their right This
General Assembly Is not asked TO cur
tail the revenues by this bill. But
the bill will give TO the people the
right to declare what they wish In
this matter.
The people of the dry towns, cities
and counties have faced the question.
They do not get revenue from the IL
ouor traffic and vet they are not
bankrupt. The present local option
and the Byrd Mann law both affect
the revenue from the liquor traffic,
and the people are competent to de-
eide it.
Prohibition Don't Prohibit,
DR.. Cannon ridicuIed the iteration
that "prohibitIon don't prohibit" and
declared that he had lived In dry
and "wet" towns and that the law
was enforced Az well as any other
law. He had Travelled In every South
ern state within the last twelve
months. and he knew that prohibit
ton had greatly improved conditions,
He showed that the statement that
you should not legislate on moral
questions was absurd. The laws
against theft. murder. false witness,
rambling ana adultery were all on
moral issues. He inquired who would
rise and move to license gambling
because Norfolk city and county did
not enforce the law on that subject
Who would abolish the laws against
prostitution, because the police an
thorities Of Richmond would not en-
force the law. These were Statewide
laws, and yet there were no move &c
repeal them because Norfolk county
and Richmond were In state OF
anarchy az to these laws. The cities
OF Tennessee did not violate the
statewide liquor laws more fagrantly
than Norfolk county the law against
gambling and Richmond its law
against prostitution
Anti-Jug Law.
DR.. Cannon called attention TO the
fact that the same persons who were
crying for local self government were
fighting the anti-jug law. He in
auired ironically OF the opponents OF
the enabling act II the bill were de-
feated would they favor law which
would confine the sale OF liquor 70
the wet" cities. He knew in ad-
vance that 1t would be replied that
the citizens Of Virginia cities should
not be deprived of this privilege be-
cause wet" cities out of Virginia
! could ship In liquor But why should
Virginia license her citizens to de-
! bauch her people because citizens OF
other States would do so.
He stated that he had Just received
a letter. which declared that the com
mittee Of the National HOuse OF Rep
resen tatives would report favorably
the bill to prohibit the shipment OF
LIQUOR from wet" territory Of our
State into dry territory Of anothe r
State and Virginia should attend to
her own people and join with the
national government in this matter.