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

cnt time. Either prohibition greatly
reduces tho consumption OF intoxicants.
| or tho internal revenue reports are
utterly unreliable
With these reports agree tho per
| capita consumption OF liquor OF the
various States. The average per cap
itn for Illinois Is thirty-lve gallons
| per capita; for the country at largo
1t is twenty-five gallons per capita.
while for the prohibition States 1t is
only rs gallons per capita. This Is
/ not absolute prohibition, to be sure.
| but 1T is such effective showing
| as to utterly rcfutc the position OF
tho man who cries prohibition Is u
/ failure"
/ One of the chief arguments Of tho
| opponents OF the enabling act has
| been that they were not willing TO
| pass prohibitory law for Virginia
! so long as liquor could he shipped
into the State from Washington. Bal
| timore, Cincinnati, etc Tho prohibit
| ton workers have fully realized the
I effectiveness OF their argument while
/ not agreeing that 1t was OF sufficient
/ weight to relieve Virginia OF her re-
\ sponsibility for the evil wrought by
| her own license law. And 80 the cry
OF tho prohibition workers has been
/ 'On to Washington
! And we have been to Washington
and have delivered such Il weight OF
influential opinion upon the repre-
sentativcs or tho people in Congress
/ that just one week ago to-day the
Webb bill WAS finally passed by Con-
/ gross and sent To the President for
action.
! What is the Webb bill? 1t reads as
J follows:
TO Divcst Intoxicating Liquors OF
/ Their Interstate Commerce Char
meter In Certain Cnses.
BE 1t enacted by the Senate and
/ House Of Representatives of the United
states OF America in Congress assem-
bleG, that the shipment or transpor-
tation in any manner or by any means
Whatsoever. Of amy spirituous, vinous,
matted. fermentcd. or other intoXi-
eating liquor of any kind, from ono
state, Territory. or district of the
J United States or place noncontiguoun
TO but subject TO the jurisdiction there
Of. into any other state. Territory. or
district of the United States. or place
Eoncontiguous TO but subject to the
jurisdiction thereof. or from any for
cign country into any State. Territory,
I or district OF the United States. or
place noncontiguous TO but subject to
| the Jurisdiction thereof, which said
spirituous, Ninous mailed fcrmcntcd,
or other Intoxicating liquor is intended,
J or by any person interested therein. to
| be received, possessed. sold. or in any
manner used, either in the original
package or otherwise, in violation OF
any law of such State, Territory, or dis
/ trict of the United States, or place non
contiguous to but subject to the turis-
diction thereof. is hereby prohibited"
What is the value of this bill? II
| 1t is signed by the President and
stands the test of the Supreme Court,
] IL will mark u new era I'm prohibitory
! legislation.
Some temperance workers, who have
not carefully studied the question
think that tho purpose OF this bin
/ is to prevent the shipment of intoXi
cants from wet" cities or States into
! dry territory. This IL only partially
true: The Webb bill, taken alone, will
not prohibit any liquor shipments, and
! If such liquor shipments arc made from
wet territory into dry" territory. the
United States government VIII not in
! tcrcfere 70 stop such shipments AS
/ "a matter OF fact. there is no purpose
that United States officials shall take
any part officially ir putting t'iis law
into effect. and therefore. no pcnalties
I are mentioned in tho bill az punish
ment for the violation OF the Law.
! The Webb bill becomes efficient
law in the matter OF prohibition only
| when the Senate passes laws for It's
own protection. The value OF the law
lies in the fact that it gives final power
20 the State in handling the traffic in
! intoXicants.
I Up to the present time the State
has been powerlcss to enforce any
law OF her own making, which for
badc the shipment OF liquor into dry
territory.
Virginia might have passed law
prohibiting the manufacture and sale
OF intoxicants within her borders, but
any citizen could write to a point
without the State and order .ntoNi-
cants to be shipped TO him, and he
might intend to run "A blind tiger in
Virginia and sell that liquor contrary
to the law OF Virginia. but the officers
of Virginia could not touch The liquor
long as it was in the original pack
age. and not until II had been dcliv-
cred to the purchaser. He would be
protected by the interstate commerce
law. But should the Webb law stand
the tests and become the fully ac-
copied law OF the country, any man
living in dry territory in Virginia who
orders liquor from outside the State
for the purpose OF sale in dry" ter
ritory would not be protected by the
Interstate commerce law of the United
states, and the State officers could |
seize the liquor Just the same as
though 1t had been shipped in by "A
dealer in Richmond Tho blind tiger"
would not be able to call upon the
United States courts for protection. as
he had done in the past
But will it not prevent men in North
Carolina from ordering jugs from Dan
Vile, Emporia, ClarMsville, Richmond?
Can the mail order houses continue
TO fill orders? Yes unless these or
ders arc given in violation OF the
State law. Should North Carolina
pass a law forbidding the shipment
of any intOXicants into her borders
or to anyone except TO drug stores or !
specified individuals for use in the !
manufactures or in the arts; then 10
shipment could DO made into North !
Carolina to any person for individual |
use. but only to the drug stores and !
to the specified individuals. The man /
who wanted TO get his jug for per-
sonal use could not get it legally. He |
might order it, and IL might be ship |
ped by the mall order houses. but IL |
the state officials were alert and in !
spccted carefully all shipments made |
! into North Carolina they could con- |
fiscatc the liquor, and if they could |
prove the ownership of the man who !
IL. IL