The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-02-05

enforcement of the law Is made. and
where spirits are dispensed illicltly al
| most rs freely as they are sold in Vir-
ginia.
"Welcomc Vote Getter.,l
II rathc: think that the friends OF
tho enabling act welcomed tho vino
amendment us Il vote getter." said SEN
ator Hart. II can see only ono effect
of 1t. II will cause u general distill-
| ing of grape brandy and strong wines
In every hollow and swamp of the
State. With Il distribution Of the pro-
duct to every part OF the Common
| wealth"
Senator Mapp served warning that it
| the opposition succeeded in so amend
| Ing the bill ms to weigh 1t down with
provisions that would render the meas
ure not acceptable to the people. he
would vote against the enabling act
himself. Legislation, he said, is al
ways compromise. and he was will
Ing t. leave the wine question In status
quo for the present. to be settled at
some other time.
The gallery npplaudcd Senator Can
mons stirring plea for "nan's size
measure and not measure tho size
OF II child which Will uncompromis-
inelT put the question OF Statewide
prohibition before the people He
warned the Senate that while the en-
afling act forces are yielding the
wine amendment to-day, they Will yield
only long enough to secure the passage
of the .,ct and then take up the task
OF prohibiting wine and cider. too.
The committee amendment permitting
the manufacture Of wine from fruits
AMI grapes provided the product is
shipped out of the State. was put and
IL Carried by vote of % to IA. The
members voted rs follows:
Ayes--BlanIls. Bowers Brock. Buch-
anan. CT ockctt. Early. Echols, Edmond
son. Fcatllnrston. Gayle, Grnvatt. Hobbs,
Holt Mapp. Massic, Moncure. Parr,
Rii chart. Rison, Royal. Saunders,
Smith. Tavcnner. Walker, VESTS.
Noes-Cannon Catron. Drewry.
Fletcher. Garrett, Hartman. Hart. Les
ncr. Montague, Paul. Paxton. Sowder
Thornton, Walker-14.
Holt Proposes New Section.
With all the COMMITTEES amendments
disposed of. Senator Holt sent 20 the
desk II new section. which he asked
the Senate to add to the bill iii order
q, put into effect 4 prohibition law
which will in it's true sense be prohi-
bitive. 1t read rs follows:
provided. further, that If it shall
appear that a majority OF the votes
cast at such election have favored
State wide prohibition. then 1t shall be
unlawful for any person or bcrsons,
social club. firm or corporation to re-
ceive or possess either In the original
package or otherwise any intoxicating
transferred in any manner or by any
means whatsoever, into this State. the
manufacture or sale of which Is pro-
hlhited Ivy this act Any person vio
lating the provision OF this section
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. and
upon conviction. shall be fined not less
than SO nor more than 500, or con-
fined in Jail not less than ten nor more
than sixty days. or both, in the dis
erection OF the court or jury"
,,
pendent section the Senate tool. an
adjournment Senator Walker moved
that recess bc taken until o'clock,
and the motion was carried by an over
whclininG majority.
Upon the resumption of work the
new section WAS Immediately attacked
by Senators Aiapp and Walker the lat
ter charaCtcriZng it as an attempt TO
kill the enabling act by indirection.
Senator Mapp told the Senate that he
intended, in collaboration with Sena-
tor buchanan, to offer an independent
/, bin putting into effect in Virginia the
provisions of the Webb Kenyon law,
which would meet the object sought by
the drastic section just introduced.
Senator Buchanan said that he
| viewed with suspicion such an amend
mcnt coming from the source that 1t
did. and expressed the belief that II
was framed with the purpose oc de-
feating the passage of the enabling
act.
The new section was defended by SEN
ator Drcwry. who thought that no sin
cerc advocate OF Statewide prohibition
/ could consistently object to the pro-
visions OF the section, since IL put the
prohibition issue before tle people In
unequivocal language He was will
ing. he said, TO vote for n prohibition
bill that really prohibited. and was
prepared to abide by tho verdict OF
the peorle on II bill which included the
section jus, offered
Hollis section Dcfcntcd.
The ncw section was further de-
ferded by Senator Wcndenburg. who
said tia; n rejection OF II by the sup
porters OF the enabling act would
prove conclusivelv that they We're
afraid to put n genuine prohibition bill
10 vote Of the people. Consistency
alcne. lie said. can cXalt the opposition
before the people. and to refuse TO
accept Senator Hollis Independent sec
ton is to demonstrate the absence OF
thai quality from its creed.
Tho section was put to vote, and
was rejected. &C TO IL,
Senator West offered an amendment
permitting the manufacture and sale
OF cider, which caused little debate
and was carried by vote OF 81 10 g.
An amendment proposed by Senator
Hartman, cXcmptng from the provi-
sions of tho bill, general bonded ware
houses In which spirits are stored un-
der government bond, was rejected by
a vote of Il to 10.
lively controversy developed over
an amendment offered by Senator
Wendcnburg, giving beer and malt
products the same protection accord
cd TO wines Senator WendcnburE
made out Il strong case for the brew
cries. holding that their product with
an alcohol percentage of 3 20 per
cent. was entitled 10 exemption fully
as much as wines. which contain as
much rs II per cent OF alcohol
The chair put the amendment, and
II was carried by vote of % to 10
Senator Mapp. who had changed his
vote from no ia aye, now moved n re-
consideration Of the vote by which the
amendment was adopted giving as his
reason that the proposition had not re-
cclved full discussion The Senate, he
thought. had voted under misap-
prehension. since the cases OF beer and
vine were not comparable. Within
five minutes after adopting the amend
ment providing for tho exemption Of
h, -, 1