The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-08-17

for the necessities Of life has great
much better Illegal selling has
steadily decreased. None of the
clubs sell liquor Our search and
seizure law has been so effective that
suspicious persons are investigated at
once.
North Carolina came to Virginia
to fight under Lee to defend the
South. North Carolina now appeals
to Virginia to forbid the sale of liquor
so that North Carolina may be pro-
tected from Virginia liquor dealers.
We will be glad to give our testimony
! anywhere in Virginia as to the value
of prohibition, and TO help Danish the
liquor traffic forever from the Ola
Dominion.
Virginia will never measure up 10
her state motto. Sic Semper Tyrannis,
until she rids herself of the tyranny
of the liquor traffic
Further Inaccuracies.
Another evidence of the inaceuracy
of the statements made by the hauor
interests in the Journal in regard 10
the city of Durham is that 1t quotes
a member of the Arm of Sneed-Mark-
ham Taylor company, of Durham ana
states that this firm Is the largest
dry goods firm" In Durham, whereas
anybody who has ever been 10 Durham
knows that this firm does not do
dry goods business, but conducts gen
tlemen's furnishing store.
The Journal Friday also carried
letter from "Veritas" as a part of its
attack on North Carolina conditions In
which the writer took exception to the
following statement of Bishop Kilgo
~ faa1 fairly that man
would stand IN the streets OF North
Carolina town and openly declare pro
htbftion to be failure, allowing q
policeman to hear the statement. for
according to custom he would be carried
before the court to establish his as
sertion." This statement Is taken by
Veritas and the Journal, through its
featuring of II, to mean that the riRht
Of free speech in Carolina Is abridged
by the working of tho prohibition law.
What the bishop said he illustrated TO
The virginian's representative. ana
made the point very clearly that while
he himself was president or Trinity
college n student Of the college IN the
streets OF Durham openly denounced the
enforcement of the prohibition law, ana
was carried Into court by an officer
who heard the statement The pur-
pose in this action the bishop explained,
was to do one OF two things, first, 70
secure the evidence. IL there WAS such,
on which the remark was based. or to
show by the inability of the witness
to prove his statement that there was
no basis for the charge and thus show
the falsity OF the charge and the unre-
liability OF the witness, This Is plain
and fair Either the witness should
establish his testimony If he under
takes to criticize the enforcement Of
law on good ground or il the enforce
ment Is good and the talk Of tho wit
ness merely idle gossip then the offi-
GERS charged with enforcing the law
are within their rights In demanding
the assistance and evidence of the wit
ness information in securing eonvtc-
tons There Is no right OF free speech
involved or threatened IN such a
method OF procedure, which is itaelf
the right of stoppase of unrestrained
and ungrounded gossip in regard 10
conditions of law enforcement-the
very kind OF talk In which the wet
press of Virginia has been engaging in
It's ISLANDERS In the State of North Caro-
lima, over which the bishop was so
Justly indignant and resentfui.