The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-02-21
CONFIDENT Of MIGHT
AND SURE OF RIGHT
CONTINUED from Fourth Page.)

tCOntfnuSQ from fOuTtn fASe+t
dispensary laws, or any other laws
controlling, regulating or prohibiting
the manufacture or sale of intoxicat-
ing liquor
The enabling act Is nothing but a
referendum to the people Of the ques-
ton of granting a liquor license. I'm
der this act the people do not legis-
late: they simply determine by the
use OF the ballot the simple, naked
question OF whether liquor shall be
legally sold or no.
THE people OF the whole State no
more legislate when they express
themselves by their ballots for or
against license than the people of a
town or county or magisterial dis
trict legislate when they vote at their
local option elections.
Unit Is Arbitrary.
"The unit to which the choice is
restricted is purely arbitrary, and this
unit may be enlarged so as to take
in the whole State or restrict II. so
as to include a single nagisterial dis
trict or a single ward in a city or
town at the will OF the legislature.
1.-THE question of local self-govern-
ment--the determination of policy
on the liquor question by the govern
mental units separately or by all the
governmental units at the same time
does not affect the power of the
legislature to enact an enabling law,
though these may be legitimate argu-
ments to be addressed to the voters
in a campaign for statewide prohibit
ton which may be waged under an
enabling act / think | can assure
this assemblage that an enabling act
is clearly within the competence of
the general assembly, and will upon
any test be declared constitutional by
the courts.
Leaving out the constitutional OBJ
jections which seem almost too pue-
rifle to deserve serious argument. what
good reason can be advanced against
the enactment of an enabling law
Such a law settles nothing 1t sim
ply gives the qualified voters the right
to settle a question for themselves.
Who shall deny the sovereign people
of Virginia this right when they
choose to demand it?
ut cannot be denied them without
striking blow at the most funda-
mental principle of popular govern
ment. The impulse of these times la
to give the people a larger part In
their own government--to make IL
itiVit GdSlty fGSppASlNS W their Will
and 7, therefore. venture TO say that
the senate of Virginia In denying this
referendum was not responsive to the
spirit of this age. and that their DE-
NAL will not be long tolerated by the
people of this State.
Does Not Impugn Motives.
II do not impugn the motives of
any man who voted against the en-
abling act, cheerfuly admit that In
voting against 1T his motives were as
pure as mine were In voting for it,
but because ii is a public question
of the first magnitude I think Il have
the right to say that the defeat of
the enabling act was q grave mis-
take which should not be repeated.
and which. after 1914, I believe, the
people of Virginia will not permit to
be repeated. Whether a man is for
statewide prohibition or against state
wide prohibition Is not the question
The real question, the question which
must be finally decided
Shall or shall not the peoples
servants permit the people TO decide
for themselves a matter OF great and
vital concern?
I'm my opinion three fourths of the
voters of this State, irrespective of
their belief in the expediency of state
VIDE prohibition, believe that the vot-
ers are entitled to express themselves
by ballot upon the question.
IF / am right 1t will be the fault
of the voters themselves IL they do
not get what they want"
Norfolk Business Men.
j. Fl. Hough. the newly elected
president of the league, told of the
formation of chamber of commerce
in Norfolk by 102 business. men OF
the city, who objected to the social
feature of the board of trade and bus
mess mems club. Dissatisfaction at
the presence of saloon in the board