The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-02-20

tcussion and adoption Of the report
of the legislative committee con-
stituted one of the most interesting
features of the second day Of the Anti
Saloon leagues State convention. The
paper is devoted mainly 10 the dis
cussion OF the enabling act and the
webb bill. 1t was submitted late last
night and adopted today with en-
thusiasn. The report follows, in full:
The Anal act was at hand. The
senate gallery was crowded The
speeches had ali been made. The
lieutenant governor arose and tn
structed the clerk to cali the roll.
The vote was: Ayes, 49, noes, "a.
The bill was lost.
What was this buzz
1t was q bill which provided that
whenever petitions were signed by a
number of qualified voters equal TO
rs per cent or the number cast in the
last preceding election for governor
requesting that an election be called
to determine whether the State of
Virginia should license the sale of In
toxicating liquors. then the governor
should be required to call such an
election in the manner prescribed by
the law, and the matter should be
determined by majority vote of the
qualified voters Of the people of yir-
ginia-
1t would seem that there should be
no question as to the passage of such
a bill. 1t did not require that the
senators voting for the bill should be
favorable or opposed to the sale of
fntoxicants 1t simply provided that
the people of Virginia be given the
right 10 determine by their own votes
whether the sale Of intoxicants should
be licensed by the State This right
has already been conceded TO the
people on various matters. The same
senate which voted against the bill
voted to submit TO the vote of the
people at the last election the ques-
ton of the right Of the people to
re-eiect treasurers and commission
ers Of the revenue for the cities OF
the Comm onweaIth, and the question
of the right OF the people OF the
cities to adopt the commission form
of government No question was
raised by anyone, not even by the
opposing newspapers, Of the consti-
nationality OF the submission Of such
questions to the people. and wonder
full to be told, not even the opponents
of the adoption of these amendments
cried out against the injustice of
allowing the citizens of the country
districts to vote on these amend
ruents which affect entirely the off,
cials, and the form OF government OF
nized that the cities are a part OF the
Commonwealth OF Virginia, and that
the people of the entire State are in
terested in the form OF government
of any part Of the State, and go
the voters Of all the counties and
cities voted last November en- these
questions Of the terms Of office and
the form Of government Of our cities
and changed the previously existing
Law.
Give One. Refuse Other.
But the very same lawmakers who
voted Ia give to all the people or the
state the right to vote upon the terrYs
of Office and the form of governm@as
az fhs. fs+fps ~sfef@e8 10 give 10 4fT
the people eff the state the right To
vote upon the question as tn whether
the sale - intoxicating liquors should
he permitted anywhere. in country.
town or city within the bounds on
the Old Dominion.
IT IL to he remembered also that
more citizens of virginia p@titioned for
the passage If this bin than for any
measure which has been presented 70
the general assembly within the pres
ent generation. At least $4,000 adutts,
chiefly voters. petiDoued for the pas
sage Of the bill There Is no record
that the general assembly ever refused
Ia pass any other measure for which
r,atitions were presented, representing
citizens in such numbers and or sucn
standing and character But not~fth-
standing these petitions, representing
the very highest type of citizenship os
the state 60 AN extent never heard
of before. the senate of virginia re-
fused to pass the bill,
n f. 10 be remembered also that
tne bill in question had been passed
NV the house Of delegates by ma
4arity Of two~t thirds. The members OF
fire house OF delegates representing
smaller units were closer TO the pee-
nile than the senators and they ah-
dersfood what gfigs 'isefTsfs safserSs' tsFss
voted to allow them TO exercise thetf
rfg1,fa nut even this fact was no'
esficieutiv welghty to secure the pas
sage az the bill by the senate OF W.T.
Ana Notwithstanding the fact that
they voted to submit 80 the voters %
the entire Stale questions exastis
similar I'm their general prlncipaes pu'
~ Ear less Importance; notwfthstaha
snp the number and character OF tins
parsons petitioning for the passage o.
.ha biu. Notwithstanding the over.
v.ha1r,tnr majority by which the M
,vne RAISED in the house or dele"
gates twentv-four members OF the sen
ATE voted against the bin.
VINO 3NTN Nc&F-
who were these senators2 Messrs
Bowers Brook, Catron, Drewry
Early. Echels, Fletcher, Folkes, Car
rett. Harmon, Hart, Hobbs. Holt, Les
rer Massie, Moncure. Montague. Parr
Paul, Rtsou. Sowder. Thornton Wat
ktns and Vendor hurg--24.
From information received III ON
ofqce. we do not think that senators
Bowers, Brock, Catron, Early. Echols
Fletcher. Hart. Massie, Moncure, Pau
or watkins represented the wishes o.
the majority Of their constituents II
their votes on this bill and we arr
inclined To believe that this was trut
afso OF two or three others VINE votee
IN the negative.
We wish to be understood we az
ro. declare that these senators IL
every case knew that they We're vot
ing contrary to the wtshes or ma
torlty 81 their people. but we are fui9
satisfied that majority OF fhes'
named above did misrepresent thct'
paople and we think the indications
nnfnt the same way in all these case'
ana in one or two others.
For example, take the very distr'c
x,ithtn the bounds of which thls con
vantinn IN meeting The senator from
shis district voted against the biii; ana
vet il IA well known that ~ 50 doin'
IL represented the minority or M
y .-a.F n a