The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-02-20

SONS pctitionng for the passage OF
the bill: Notwithstanding tho over
was passed in tho House of Dele
gates. twentyfour members OF the SEN
alto voted against the bill.
! Who were these Senators? Aressrs.
Bowers. Brook, Catron. Drewry, Early.
Ecbols. Fletcher Folkes. Garrett, Har-
mon, Hart Hobbs. Holt. Lesner. Mas
sic. Moncure, Montague. Parr, Paul,
Rison. Scwder. Thornton, watkins and
WeDdenburg-e4
4 From information received in our
office do not think that Senators
Bowers, Brock. Catron, Early. Echols.
Fletcher. Hart, Massic. Moncurc. Paul.
or Watkins represented the wishes OF
the majority of their constituents in
their votes on this bill, and we arc
inclined TO believe that this was true
also OF two or three others who voted
! IN the negative.
We wish to be understood. We do
not declare that these Senators liz
every case knew that they were vot-
inG contrary to the wishes of ma
( jority OF their. people. but we are fully
satisfied that majority of those
named above did misreprescnt their
people and wc think the Indications
poin; tho same way Tn all these cases
and in one or two others.
For example, take tho VERY district
within the bounds or which this CON
Nention is meeting. The Senator from
this district voted against the bill. and
Yet II is we'll known that In SO doing
ho represented the minority OF his
constituents and not the majority. for
the vote of the two temperance can
didatcs was much greater than The
vote given to him, ana yet lie did not
seem 10 hesitate at any time. but on
posed the bill and voted against il
contrary to tho known wishes OF the
majority OF the voters of his district
oihce we DO not think that tho Scnu-
tor from Lee. Scott and Wise voted in
accordance with the wishes of a ma
jority of his people lie made his
canvass as au advocate of the bill
and hc was elected on that PLATFORM
and up 10 within few days OF the
time tho vote was taken he was un-
dcrstcod TO be favorable to the bill.
but when the vote was taken he voted
against the bill.
Facts might lie given i1r other cases.
but without entering into this qucs-
ton further. we declare 1t as our CON
viction that a majority of the twenty
four Senators who vored against the
bill did not represent the views of
their people 10y tm6ir votes 1t must
be our duty to show them the wishes
or their people when the next General
Assembly meets. And we earnestly
request them in the meantime to tr,
their people
WHY did these Senator's vote
against the bill?
The erer-present always convenient
argument OF 'unconstitutiomar was
paraded backward and forward and
the spectators in the gallery suddenly
became aware Of the great reverence
with which the Constitution was re-
Sarded by men. whom they would
never have suspected Of being such
ardent patriots or SUCH profound con
stituttonal lawyers. Bnt so it was de
ciared. and despite the fact that mon
recognized all over the State as able
constitutional lawyers and some Of
them on the floor or the Senate de-
clared that the Constitution gave In
the General Assembly full authority
TO pass local option and any other
laws II deemed proper concerning tho
liquor traffic. and, therefore. gave the
right to- pass Il law submitting to tbc
people the determination of whether
license should be granted TO sell in
toNicants anywhere in Virginia: and
despite the fact that the law already.
gave 70 the people IN the counties
towns and cities of the State the right
10 can an election TO determine this
question for their various localities.
which is exactly the same principle as
the one involved III the enabling act;
despite these things. Senator after
senator gravely. solennly, in. some.
cases dramatically. declared that the
h!Ii was unconstitutional. and left il
TO the spectators TO decide for them
selves how greatly this devotion IA
the Constitution was intensified be-
cause OF an ever greater devotion TO
The interests OF the liquor traffic.
certain ii IS that whatever other
reason influenced the vote, the brew
trS, distiilcrs, saloonkeepers and the;r
ATTORNEYS
force ana We're the constant associatcs
ana counsclors or many OF the Senn
tors VINO voted against the bill AMI
- was apparent that the great object
Mns 10 prevent the people OF tho State
from voting on the question. Indeed
IL was taken for granted by MANY
OF the liquor leaders that were the
bllI TO become law the people az
the state would certainly abolish the
license system.
And tlen the argument that the
State cannot bear the loss of $500
vop or revenue obtained by debauchiup
her sons anu daughters. was also set
forth by those who apparently place
money above all things else IN heaven
or earth. II was graVcly assumed by
these gentlemen that rather than In.
crease the taxation of the people of
the state by the pitiful sum OF TWEEN
ty-if"c cents per annum per cauita
the state should continue to license
strength. Intelligence, morality ana
earning capacity of her sons. and the
modesty virtue and motherly capaci-
ties OF her daughters; that the State
Sh""iu MAKE pauDcrs idiots. lunatics
drunkards harlots. thieves ana muir,
uefcrs OF her sons ana daughters rath-
or man TO lose Il paltry 100000. No
erca'ci insult has ever been offered 10
the patriotism OF the old Dominion
man 10 ask her 10 weigh the welfare
OF her sons aud daughters in the bal
ances with onc-half a million dollars
81 twenty-five cents per capita. Her
\ 6oV years OF history is made plorious
ny her noble army OF men ana women
"h" nave not counted property or life
I dchr unto themselves If II became no,
/ .tsSatN 10 sacrifice either or both for
+ tht hlShcst wclfar" Of Virginia Thoaa
/ defenders and advocates OF the brew
tiS ana diStiilcrs ana acknowledgements
+ nay can upor the people OF Virginia 10
/ Jo', "''h lhen ~ the worship of the
.f,.