The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-08-04

Take my own city tHampton) and the sdjoin-
News the privilege OF selling intoxicating liquors
because maiS5itx e. rshs waters 81 the Sly
proportion Of which borders on the city Of
Newport News, and the county OF Warwick. a
large proportion of which also borders New
port News Let Elizabeth City county and War
wick vote unanimously to prohibit the sale Of
Intoxicating liquors, and will any local optonist
lcontend that with Newport News selling intoxi-
tcating drinks and the line with running
Ito Hampton and with the people OF Warwick
county within few steps OF the liquor saloons,
and a large proportion of the people OF Eliza
beth City living within a stones throw Of New
port News, and Notwithstanding both Warwick
and Elizabeth City counties had by large ma
torities voted to abolish the sale OF liquor, that
they wouldn't be subjected to all OF the curses
and Inconvenience, and crimes that grow out
of the liquor traffic? In other words II they
consider that the sale of liquor Ia much
n nuisance when authorized by the law II
Is when not authorized by the law and there
fore vote to abolish the nuisance. with large
city right at their doors having the privilege
and exercising that privilege of selling intoxi-
eating drinks, isn't their local option nullifed
and their object defeated by granting to the
adjoining locality in which they have vote
the right to exercise privilege that cannot
he exercised without its effects being inJuriously
any reason why a body of people can do a thing
that Is carrying on a business far worse in the
opinion of some people and which worketh'
for greater hurt Inconvenience, damage and
annoyance to the public in general than the
erection of a powder mill n town, suffer
ing ferocious dog. bull OF other animal to go
at large, making disturbing noises, ETC." in a
city adjoining community which fnjurously
affects the "inalienable rights OF other people
while individuals cannot do similar acts on the
property which liz purchased. paid for and owned
by them and used as their home. Fl there Ia
any such reason / would be glad to have 1t
pointed out to me by some advocate of what
he terms local option My observation
vinces me that there can be no such thing as
local option in the State of Virginia. II by local
. fS tNn pfuht ~
town. city county to determine by the
voters of that town. city or county whether
or not intoxicating liquors shall be sold in the
limits of the said city, town county; for every
intelligent man will concede. and the fact can
be easily shown, that wherever Intoxicating
liquors sold In cities towns and counties,
the people living in the adjoining territory
necessarily subjected to Its ill-effects. Go to
York county, which is absolutely dry; Glou-
eester also dry; Warwick dry" with the ex-
ception Of that part OF the county within
mile of the city limits of Newport News. Ask
the people of York If they are not subjected to
annoyances from drunken men who buy their
" hiskey from Hampton and Newport News?
Ask them If their sons not made drunkards
and criminals by whiskey purchased from local
option districts that Is. localities In which they
have no vote, and which are permitted under
State laws to sell intoxicating drinks. And then
when you have the answers OF those people.
ask the people who favor submitting the question
of the sale Of liquor which affects their neigh
Dor, why that neighbor shouldn't be just
much entitled to vote upon that question as they
are. And II they know of any reason why
man living in city should be permitted to
engage in business that Injuries his neighbor
outside of the city, while the neghbor outside
OF the city can't subject him to a less Injurious
danger by the erection of powder magazine in
close proximity to his city.
In conclusion. I submit there Is no such thing
as local option in the sense that the effects
OF the liquor traffic viii not be feit py those
who under what is termed the local option
law will have no right to vote to protect them
selves that the politicians who claim that the
voice of the people is the voice Of God. and
that their will indicated by their vote should
rule and govern by majority is a proper gov
eminent not consistent when they contend
that each little town or city should have a
right to say whether or not the territory ad-
joining them should be flooded with whiskey
a result of the wishes of a majority of the
voters of that little town or city.
/ favor local self government long the
government of the locality doesn't interfere and
injuriousy affect the rights Of their neighbors
Just l favor the government OF a mans
household and home by himself so long IS the
business he conducts and his manner of govern
ing his home and using his property does not
interfere with the "inalenable rights" of his
neighbor, but am opposed to the local self
that enables the governing power
to intiict upon his neighbor a curse sanctioned
by law. in which that nefghbor had no part In
making. just as 1 would be opposed to the :ndi-
vidual government of house and lots paid for
by individuals when the governpent II that
house and lot infringed upon the rights OF his
adjoining neighbor.
l believe that the people Of the State of
Virginia should determine whether not ntox-
icating liquors should be sold in the State of
Virginia. just believe that the people .of the
whole State should determine any other question
that affects their interests; and l believe If the
proper effort liz made to get those who believe
that this important question should be settled
by the vote of majority of all the people
of this State and not left to the majority in
localities, the senators from the whiskey districts
whose opinions are based upon the influence
erted by the liquor interests and will be
defeated, and the next senate will contain
ma iorlty OF men who will not only preach
that the people should rule but will practice
1t and give to the enabling act or the right
to say whether whiskey shall or shall not be sold
in Virginia.
Sincerely and truly,
F, s@CoLTIER.
Hampton Va. July 26th.