Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1914-07-23
SERIOUS DEFECT
IN THE BYRD Law
No Such Thing as mo
License" Territory in
Commonwealth.
STATE LOCAL OPTION
Omission in Engrossing Act of 1910
Surprises Vets and Drys-su-
preme Courts Opinion.
STATE LOCAL OPTION

Richmond, July 2a.-Contrary to
nonular belief, a belief held to this
time by the prohibition leaders in the
State and the liquor interests alike,
the Byrd law enacted in 1908, impos-
ing partial prohibition on Virginia
has been wiped off the statute
books.
Since March Is, 1910, that law has
not been in existence. Since March
Is. 1910, there has been no mo
license territory" in the State. The
elimination of the partial prohibition
law is due to an omission made by the
clerk who engrossed the amended bill
Of 1910.
The elimination of the law, due to
the engrossing clerks oversight, has
been recognized by the Virginia Su-
preme Court of Appeals, so there
can be not the slightest scintllla OF
doubt as to the fact. The omission
was discovered by John W. Williams,
clerk of the House of Delegates, anu
Keeper of the Rolls of Virginia, when
he was engaged in the task OF pre-
pairing the new law to be printed.
l. was then too late to save the
awkward situation. The amended bill
had been signed by Speaker Richard
Evelyn Byrd and enacted into
statute. Mr.. Byrd evidently having
overlooked the engrossing clerks
omission.
The amended bill designed further
to restrict tE,e liquor traffic, and,
which was largely copy of the orig
inal Byrd law, approved March IL,
1908, was thus made an instrument to
throw down the barriers and open all
the no-license territory to license;
in other words, it authorized the is
suance of license to engage in the
liouor business in every part OF the
State, except where, after. a local op-
tion election, the community had
voted dry. > ~
By the passage of, the original Byrd
law, approved March -, l9Os,Virginia
was made no-license territory as to
all except four specified classes OF
communities. These four exceptions
were: |. Towns of 500 or more pop
ulation. 2. Hotels and social clubs
at health resorts. 8. Communities
contiguous to cities having police
protection. d. Incorporated Giles.
Thus, until last January, when
man named Jones came along From
Pittsylvania, asking the Supreme
Court to annul a verdict rendere!
against him in the Circuit Court O
Pittsvlvania County, where he wa
convicted of selling gallon of liquo
from the small distillery he was oper
ating, the actual situation was no
known.
The plea of Jones before the Su
nreme Court was that there was n
such thing as no-license territory Ii
Virginia, and his lawyers directe
attention to the elimination of tn
Byrd law restriction. Attorney Gen
cral Samuel W. Williams read tn
amended law and forthwith thre'
I'm his hands. He was compelled t
acknowledge error in the convictio
of Jones, the ydistiller, whereupo
the Supreme Court annulfed the vel
dict. and sent Jones upon his way re
joicing.
So speedily was the case dispose
Of in the Supreme Court, and hap
pening at time when the session
of the Legislature absorbed publ
interest to the exclusion of every
thing else, the effect, of the declsio
in the Jones case was realized by br
few and did not become general
known. ...c r
The situation was discovered onl
few days ago by Rev. James Car
non and other prohibition leader
and it occasioned both astonishmer
and CONSERVATION in the camp of IL
anti-saloon forces. For several da,
past DR.. Cannon and his campai!
,ieutenants have been leading to t