Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-08-14
THEY Do NOT OBJECT
Vote on JOneS-W0rkS Bill Ap.
proved by Endeavorers.
REPLY TO Mr.. BARTHOLDT
R. L. Holmes Criticises Statement of
Missouri Representative.
MEASURE NOT PR0HIBITIvE
Declares if People Could Decide
There Would Be No Saloons
in District.
REPLY TO Mr.. BARTHOLOT
MEASURE NOT PR0HIBITIvE

III the people of the District of Column
ola could express their attitude. we would
not have law which leaves 800 saloons
in our midst to cause sorrow. heartache
and degradation. but We would have the
National Capital a model for the coun-
try. as it should be. without a single bar
ROOM
Such was the statement made today by
ReXford l.. Holmes. president of the Dis
trict of Columbia Christian Endeavor
Union. in a letter sent to Representative
Bartholdt of Missouri. in answer to his
declaration that he would never support
the Jones' Works bill.
Mr.. Holmes says in his letter that the
Christian Endeavorers of Washington do
not object to Mr.. Bartholdt's proposition
that the liquor question be put to a vote
of the people of the District of Columbia
in accordance with the well known prin-
ciple of local option" He takes exception.
however. to many other statements made
by the representative in explanation of
the stand he has taken with regard 10
the Jones' Works bill.
Reply to Bartholdt.
Mr.. Holmes letter is. in part. as fol-
lows:
In reply to your open letter ad-
dressed to myself as president of the
District of Columbia Christian En-
deaVor Union. which letter appears in
The Evening Star of yesterday, / would
respectfully invite your consideration
to the following propositions. which
seem to me to constitute fair answer
to the arguments you have advanced:
In your first paragraph you state:
L will say that a compliance with
your request would infiict a great in
justice upon the District of Columbia
The request of the Christian Endeav-
orers upon members of Congress is. first
that the bill in question come before
the House either for passage or rejection,
and, second, that upon final vote the
bill become law. When you state that
the request of the Christian Endeavor-
ers is unjust to the District of Column
bia, the inquiry presents itself as to
whether the attitude of the District of
Columbia committee of the House of Rep
resentatives in withholding not only the
Jones-Works excise bill, but many other
measures of large importance affecting
this District. from fair consideration by
the House has been entirely just to the
District of Columbia
we can see no injustice in having the
bill in question, or any other measure af-
fecting important District rights, brought
before the House of Representatives for a
such important legislation from the House
has inflicted a great injustice upon the
District of Columbia
You also state:
The enactment of that measure with
out consulting the people of the Dis
trict of Columbia would practically mean
prohibition and the confiscation of mill
lions in property.
Your suggestion to the people of
the District of Columbia being consulted
upon this or any other matter Of legisla-
ton affecting their interests and rights
would bring a wan smile to the face of
any resident Of Washington"