The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-03-16
LIQUOR WITH 20 LICENSE

LIQUOR WITH 20 LICENSE"
Chancellor Haynes. an eminent citizen of
Tennessee. in an article published over his own
name in the newspapers, takes an advanced
no license" position for temperance. He asserts
deliberately that rather than see liquor sold
under license by the community he would have
it sold without extra license by everybody who
wished to handle it
The letter is contribution to remarkable
discussion in progress in Tennessee. AS Is well
known, the State is under prohibition law The
city Of Bristol being divided between Tennessee
and Virginia by an invisible line along the mid.
dto Of the principal street. the Virginia side
has open saloons while the other side has none.
1t would be hard to imagine conditions in which
the issue Of morals VS.. money could be drawn
more clearly than in this case Bristol, Va.
has saloons because its nearest Virginia neigh
Dor town, Abingdon, has a dispcnsary operated
by sanction Of, and dividing it's profits with. the
State. In the last local option election on the
Virginia side Of Bristol It was not contended
that the sale of ahiskey there was necessary for
the uplift Of the people or even that prohibition
could not be enforced The liquor advocates
boldly and brazenly presented in support of their
demand for license the alleged fact that Bristol
was an extensive patron of the Abingdon dis,
pensary and needed the money" that was being
sent to that institution for drink On that
issue Bristol. Va. voted for license. Now bill
has been presented in the Tennessee legislature
to exempt the part Of Bristol that is in Tenn.
essee from the prohibition law so long as Bris-
toll, Va, sells liquor This is the occasion for
Chancellor Haynes ringing letter. He con-
neither he nor his State nor his community,
should be partners in the business by sharing the
profits OF it. Drawing his. conclusions from
what he has seen across the State line. he de-
cIares that the licensed liquor traffic is supported
by cupidity rather, than by thirst; that if there
money in it for the public it would be
repudiated quickly and completely. Perhaps it
would be more accurate to say that the license
system Is sustained by an alliance of appetite
and covetousness mutually sustaining each
other
OF course the reply to the advocates of liquor
selling In Bristol Tenn. is plain. 1t is found in
the case as it stands. Bristol, Va. went wet
on the plea that it suffering all the evils of
liquor selling with none Of the money profits
because OF the Abingdon dispensary fourteen
miles away. Now the same plea ia made for
Bristol, Tenn, because Of the saloons in Vir-
ginia Bristol across the street Next we will
have the friends of whiskey in johnson City
Tenn, demanding license there because of the
nearby Bristol SALOONS So the infection will
spread from town to town. Chancellor Haynes
position. therefore. seems to be as logical az II
is unusual not to say daring. 1t presents the
question markedly. If the liquor traffic is right
it should not be subjected TO any extra taxation
If it is wrong, the people cannot afford to share
or accept any of its profits, II it did not yield
profit to the city town, State and taxpayers, ii
would not be allowed to live anywhere.
Suppose the voters of Bristol were allowed tc
permit the sale of liquor but with the condition
that they should not collect an extra license
from the saloon? Would they authorize the traf
6c? If they did, would all the Virginia saloons
move promptly across the street. leaving Yir
ginia Bristol dry" automatically?