The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-10-20


Communication in regard to the prohibition law
recently adopted in Virginia by majority Of
ever thirty thousand votes. This communities
ticn brings double Indictment against the peo-
pie of virginia and against the prohibition law.
In order that our readers may have all the facts
in the case we reproduce in full the communea-
ticn III question
Fth't,s of Statewide Prohibition.
TO the Editor Of The Times-Dispatch;
ssr-Iu last weeks Literary Digest October
- there - this extract fror7 the New YORK
Tribune;
THE new law is to contain clause permitting
the manuIa cture Of wine cider and beer within
the State, provided the entire produce ia shipped
beyond It's borders Besides protecting thus in
Its bosom certain interests permanently arraHeo
In active opposition tn prohibition. Virginia at
the very outset destroys all moral sanction for
the enfo-cements of it's laws
- sseu a.. 3sHaH@ .ahether this - trne. or NOT
Since the outbreak Of tho European war nave
GENE TO discredit everything. ! am a Nirginian''
living In the West for over quarter Of
century are this comment touched a sensitive
nerve The ethics of the question has, however,
biblical sanction. as the reader may see II ne
refers u Ieut. xiv -. "Ye shall not eat any
thing that dies of itself - thou mayest sell
Ii alien for thou art a molly people 10
Jehovah rhy God"
What IL surprising lis that the ethics of the
Jewssh people Of a crude age shodld be accepted
~ mr. jo1ty Of virginia people Of the twentieth
sentury had thoaght that civilization had
advanced little. +, A. A.
%coiurnst',. Mo. october 9, 1914
We prin, This communication and this editorial
ia order that the people OF Virginia may have
concrete evidence Of the character of treatment
ttcy may expect for temperance legislation in
the future as In the past from the wet press Of
Virginia in general and the Supreme In Virginia
In particulai The Tinses-Dtspdfch has expressed
It's Intention OF supporting the prohibition law
a. Virginia now that II has been adopted. but
declares thai il is "a bad law" We would OK
ptct however that any paper or interest that
lad declared its intention to support the law Of
Virginia would at least put the writer of this
communication straight to the facts in the
case.
In the ars. place the quotation from the New
York Tribune and Literary Digest would seem
I to be sufficient grounds which n paper that
is to support the prohibition law might open
liz Theoretically sealed editorial mouth to
straghten the record
Again the correspondents tact query for in
formation would appear direct invitation to
make some utterance. But finally. the closing
statement might seem to an ordinary mortal 10
call for some defense Of an entire people indicted
bv it. The Times, Dispatch which rose IN its
righteous wrath TO denounce the fiction of its
imagination that convinced II that prohibitionsts
were charging the whole State with drunken
ness finds no for remonstrance in the as
sertion of native Virginian' that What is
surprising is that the ethics OF the Jewish
people of a crude age should be accepted by a
majority of Virginia people of the twentieth
century.
Now the Times Dispatch may be Supreme in vir-
xfnia after certain fashion. and we would never
Be inclined to challenge that sort of supremacy.
We want the people OF Virginia to understand,
however that in UNFOLDING the prohibition law
and in advancing the general cause of temperance
The T,mes-Dispotch has been ard will be Supreme
10 its opposition 10 temperance as the majority
y virgnians conceive It
The TtnesDispntch knows that the fearureA
% which Its correspondent objects were forced
into the prohibition bin by the opponents Of
prohibition. II it Is bad law" that the people
cY Virginia have adopted 1t is bad not because
/ 81, but in spite OF. the work of the temperance
leaders Of Virginia. II II is bad law 1t Is
bad because Of the work of the wet interests
\ IN the Senate of Virginia. and the features or
4 ahe law that the Times-Dispatch opposed in the
( eAmpaign a. bad were written into the law las
\ ne TImes-Disp1tch and everybody else who has
4 followed the history Of temperance In Virginia
\ &nows). against the desire OF the leaders o..
u Irohtbition, after their BILL as they desired 1t
4 Ma been introduced, and after the impossibility
N bR passing the bill in its original form through
xhe wet Senate Of Virginia had forced the adop-
y Hon Of the Rad" amendments that the Times
d 1ISspafch considers bad as to make the entire
~ ''bad." II was the work of the wet interests
nA the ethics Of their position and training that
800 majority Of Virginia people" of the
$4,000 century. to taxa. not what they wanted.
III Z