The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-09-15
LOCAL OR "STATEWIDE"' PROHIBITION

In the following paper propose to
set forth q reasoned argument in sup
port OF Statewide as against local
prohibition. and / shall try to make II
cover. as briefly as the subject will
permit, the main contentious of those
who oppose Statewide" upon the sim
gle ground that local prohibition Is
the better remedy for the admitted evils
of the liquor traffic. In doing SO
shall attempt to state the argument In
precisely the same spirit in which the
physician diagnoses the symptoms OF
a sick patient and in which a scien-
list persues his research work In a la
bratory. Whether / succeed in making
this purpose and spirit control my
conclusions, each reader must Judge
for himself: but, in order to judge hon.
estly and fairly. he must follow the
argument In the same spirit in which
1t Is attempted to be written. and
whether he does so or not Is his affair,
not mine. I merely state the argu-
ment which has satisfied me. after read
Ing and fairly considering all the prin-
cipal contentious urged against 1t. that
shall do right in voting for state
wide as substitute for local" pro-
hibition: and. II those who read this
paper with an honest purpose and an
clusion, I shall be very glad.
THE ARGUMENT,
a. Tendency of liquor drinking
good or bad7
t2) TenAe.ey Of man to drink-good
or bad?
(3.) Tendency Of open saloons-good
or bad? All human experience as ex-
pressed in all tho liquor laws OF all
the States, declare with ono voice that
the three tendenc1es mentioned are
BAD. because they are restrained and
strictly regulated by law everywhere.
as Tendencies OF liquor, drinksr
and seller are not LOCAL
(5.) Because such tendencies are uni
versal and bad they have placed the
liquor traffic within the police power
Of all civilized countries. thus distin-
gushing It fro mevery other recognized
business.
(s.) police power in the code OF
lenses against the person." tho prop
erty." the peace" tho morality and
decency," the public policy in short.
under this power the State deals': with
all fe1onies and nisdeme anorS Of what
ever character.
as Local self government" no.
where depends upon the sise OF the
voting unit but everywhere depends on
tho nature Of the act regulated or gov
erned and extent Of the public interest
therein; therefore "self-government" in
this and every State has required that
all statutes against any cffense within
the police power" shall be and are
sstatevvide.n and not subject to local
L. O.. -
in force today dealing with the liquor
traffic. was enacted by the State legis-
1ature in the exercise of the same ''po-
lice power under which the Same legis-
lature prohibits murder. theft adultery,
or any other felony or misdemeanor.
The difference In principle between
those acts within and those NOT within
the police power II the difference
between q dry goods merchant and q
liquor dealer: both must have a license
but the merchants license In a mere
revenue license imposed to get revenue
for the State. and the merchant gets II
m q matter Of right from tho commits
sioner and the merchants business can
not be regulated or prohibited as long
as he pays the license tax; but the
LIQUOR dealers license IL not issued by
the commissioner or as matter Of right
to any man who pays the price, but IL
issued In the discretion Of the fegisla-
ture, through tho courts to few per-
sons in a few places, in the exercise
of its police power" and not taxing
power and the liquor dealers business
may be licensed or prohibited n the
Legislature deems best for tho mo
raiity and decency" and good order and
welfare OF the State.
tS) In the exercise of the above "po-
lice power" the legislature has already
by a Statewide" law declared that
the sale of liquor was against morality
and decency"- in every community
where the population does not exceed
500 and has ABSOLUTELY PROHI-
BITED it's sale in such communities; /,
has also provided in. present laws tina;
the cities, towns OF more than 500 In
habitants and counties Gas separate
voting units). may by . majority vote
prohibit the sale of liquor therein. and
under this provision 1t IL admitted by
the Roanoke Times tchief exponent OF
anti prohibition). that IS per cent OF
the States territory has already PRO-
HIBITED the sale of liquor therein,
while 15 per cent embracing the cities
OF the STATELY has retained the licensed
saloon. In other words. rs to towns
Of less than 500 the legislature per-
formed it's duties itself without regard
to local sentiment In those towns), and
as to all other territory 1t shifted and
delegated it's duty. which shows that
primarily the duty belonged to the
Legislature and was ~Statevvide'' and
not local.
(e.) When II came to the performance
of this delegated duty by the several
voting units. SIS per cent OF the State
voted that the licensed liquor traffic
was against morality and decency."
and the only part OF the State {the
large cities). that decided etAeFvvise
was that which derived LARGE LOCAL
REVENUE AND PROFIT from the
trafiic--the cities get the revenue and
the city liquor dealers get a MONO
POLY OF the liquor trafIic. that IL. in
stead OF having the profits of local
demand and sales. they have added