The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-02-29

challenged, even by the nHtiohs mel
soma went to battle and laid dowr
their lives on the altar of the Old Do
minion under the leadership OF thu
immortal Lee. who stands today II
! the National Hall of Fame. Ther
| who are we, that without battle sur
render all that is good and virtuou'
when the liquor traffic stands before
| our civilization and demands for
money consideration that We legalize
It or in defiance Of the voice OF the
people expressed at the polls they VII
| buckle on the weapons OF tht
/ anarchist and from ambush defy the
| State.
| Gentlemen OK the committee. we
have men enough and money enough
| to refuse equalization to such q
tyrant. Let the people speak.
DIR. Cannon Closes.
| The last speaker of the evening was
| Rev. James Cannon. D. D., who. In
carefully prepared address. covered
/ In the brief space of twenty minutes
! the whole range Of the essential fea-
! lures of the contention of the State
| wide people. DR.. Cannon has seldom
| spoken to better advantage and his
| peroration. which was a clear cut de-
! Tense of himself and his associates In
| the temperance work from charges Of
commercialism or political ambition
showed how Ii came about that Sc
much of his life-work had been for
! the cause Of temperance.
! His address In fun follows.
DR.. Cannon Closes.
On Monday night, in opening the
discussion upon this bill, l endeavored
| to show that the bill Is constitutio nal
| and that 1t would not only be a wise
thing to pass the bill, but that II
! would be wrong against the people
| and political folly not to pass It.
| Nothing has been said by the OPP
! ponents OF the measure to change al
! all the position taken at that time
Mr.. Kelly cited no decision by the
| Court OF Appeals OF Virginia in de-
Tense of his position. The principle
| 10 exactly the same as that involved
/ In the submission Of a constitutional
! amendment.
/ Tonight, In concluding the argumen,
| in favor of the passage of the bill
shall give very briefly some addt-
| tional reasons why the bill should
| be passed:
First. Because II Is sound Demo-
/ cratic doctrine. One of the speakers
| has declared that he Is Democrat
and favored local option because thai
/ is the platform of the Democratic
party. It would be interesting tc
hear this gentleman attempt to
reconcile the present prohibitor,
.iaaor legislation of this state with
/ local option. The Mann law and the
/ Byrd law were both passed by Demo
cratic LegS .Atures and signed by
Democratic governors. These meas-
ures were bitterly fought by the same
gentlemen who are now lighting thii
ena bling act and they we're fought
/ by them at that time on the GROUND
| that they were contrary 10 the prin
cipie of local option, and yet theil
protests went UNDECIDED and the
Democratic party passed that legis
lation. and 1t Ia absurd and ridiculous
to declare that the Democratic part.
stands for local option, The Demo
cratic party has by its actions declar
r ed that the liquor question Is a mat
ter of expediency and must be set
tied in accordance with the prevailing
conditions.
i Governor Woodrow Wilson. one O
the leading Democrats Of this nation
declared last year when the prohibi
ton fight was In progress In Texas, II
letter to MIR. r. 3. Byars: Il be
Heve that in some States. Statewide
prohibition is possible and desirable
because Of their relative homogeneity
while for others l think that state
wide prohibition Is not practical.
have no reason to doubt from wha
I know of the circumstances tina
Statewide prohibition IL beth prac
ticable and desirable Texas. IL
replying to your let. l was onl.
| trying to State what l think mus
! always he IN mind. the wide diver
gence Of conditions which makes
impossible to reply to any single ques
ton like prohibition In terms whicl
would fit the whole country" Her
Mr.. Wilson does not intimate tina
prohibition Is not sound Democrats
doctrine, but declares that 1t Ia mat
ter the wisdom Of which IL to b.
determined by conditions.
Enabling Act Sound Democracy.
The enabling act Is sound Demo
cratic doctrine. 1t Ia not prohibition
by statutory enactment. but 1t Is this
giving to the people the right to de
: termine this Question for themselves
1t Is practically the same methot
which would be followed In adoptins
constitutional amendment. but we
: are not asking for q constitutions
amendment, but only that the people
shall be given the right to vote upor
! this question, and after that vote l!
taken and the people show that the.
desire that no license shall be granted
: should conditions change 1t would bt
entirely within the power Of the Lecis.
lature to take any action on the ques.
1 ton 1t mi~ht see At.
Great Numbers PeeittOnlng.
n Secnpds,. Chs sAllS 3ha,ild be- pAssAa
because OF the number OF persone whe
} are petitioning for its passage. l de.
sire to call the attention of the com.
, mittee to the unusual test which Il
demanded In reference to this bill
II Is insisted that in some districts q
majority of the voters must petition
. for the passage Of the bill before y
senator will vote for It. In Other
words that an election must practical
, " be held before the people shall bt
: given the right to vote IL ie9ahy. Ha,
such a test been applied to any othei
!, measure? rs there single bill on thu
calendar concerning which this teS,
has been demanded The legislature
ONLY a few days axo passed q bill CIV
tn~ to the reople the right to vote or
the terms OF ONCE Of city treasurer
J ard of commissioners Of the reve~
. How manv persons petitioned for thu
. passage of that sbill? And yet II wal
passed by large majority and tho
people were given the right to vote
uron II. But in response to demand
for this unusual test the people OF
Vir~tnia have dcsponded In most ex.
traordinary fashion. Many Thousands
OF the voters OF this State have sj~ned
p0titiona writfen lnttAra and rnafn