The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-10-03

was none to modest them or make them afraid.
A large company of most respectable citizens
came all the way from Alexandra, and under
oath declared that the situation at Alexander
island and neighboring resorts intolerabe,
that their womenknd visiting Washington had
been frequently insulted and Inundated on the
trains by the rowdies and toughs that had come
over from Washington city to attend the alleged
races at these tracks.
The fight in the legislature was over what was
known the Maupn bill Mr.. Maupn was a
representative in the house from the county of
Henrico. The bill aimed at this sort Of
professional organized gambling. When the bill
was first introduced into the Virginia legislature,
careful poll showed that 1t had twelve friends
in the house and four in the senate. After the
fullest sort of discussion at repeated hearings
given by both the house and the senate commit
tees, the matter finally came to vote. SO com
plete was the demonstration made by the friends
of the bill of its wisdom and necessity that 1t
passed the house with twelve opposing votes and
passed the senate with only four. The Roanoke
Times is in error when it attributes this action
to the preachers. The preachers took honorable
part in it, but the secular press of the State.
led by the Richmond Times, owned by the late
Mr. Joseph Bryan and edited by Mr. w. S. Cope
land, and the religious press of the State had
more to do with the passage of the bill than
any other influence which was brought to bear
on legislators. 1t is true that the old Richmond
Agricultural and Mechanical society fought the
passage of the bill. and through its representa-
tives declared that If the bill became law, that
society would go out of existence. But it was
well known to many at the time, and within a
short while after the passage of the bfll 1t be-
came, publicly known, that that society was
already loaded down to the waters edge with
debts incurred long before the Maupin bill was
heard of.
The Methodist ministers are of age and can
answer for themselves. We, taking our own
course in the matter, once more most respect
fully and earnestly call upon the board of man
ayers of the State fair to abandon the sale of
liquor the grounds. The active and controll-
ing members OF this board live in the city and
we imagine have small opportunity to form a
correct judgment of the sentiment Of the coun-
try people, whose attendance and support are
To Of Fo3-
question of the open bar. The simple fact Is
that in the eyes of the vast majority of the
citizens of this State the open saloon is no longer
a respectable institution. 1t isn't respectable
even in the eyes Of who do not believe
that the best method of abating its Injurious
influence is by legal prohibition. Thousands
who patronize ii would at the same time be un-
willing to assume responsibility for its conduct
we believe that the fair managers are making
a great mistake a matter of simple policy in
refusing to heed the numerous, earnest and re.
spectful appeals and protests which have come
up from all over the Commonwealth of Virginia
The sentiment behind these may not be reflected
In any notable dlminution of attendance at this
years. exhibition, but the sentiment Is abroad in
the state and II viii abide there 1t doesn't rem
resent any mere passing excitement 1t is deeplv
rooted 1t VIII grow 1t is far better to recog-
nze 1t as having thoroughly reasonable basis
1t is far better to respond to It by the elimination
of this evil thing for which not one word of
honest defense or Justification can be spoken
Religious Herald.