The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-02-18
Senators Walker and
Mapp and DR.. Cannon
Join in Statement.
DISCUSS EACH
POINT OF ATTACK.
Assert That Bill Was Not of
Character Requiring Majority
of All Members Elected to
State Senate, and That
Its Passage Was
Legal.

Governor stuart yesterday afternoon,
shortly before O'Clock, an extended
brief In defense of the validity OF the
enabling act. signed by Rev. James
Cannon, Jr.. superintendent of tho An
ti-Sa1oon League OF Virginia; Senator
| c. Harding Walker and himself. Tho
| brief takes up In turn each of the con-
tentons raised against the act, both
as to the manner of its passage in the
Senate by n vote of less than a ma
jority OF all the members elected and
as to the constitutionality of the bill
| Itself in tho clauses creating n monop-
| oily In the manufacture of wine. beer
and cider for sale. and in the use of
the initiative and referendum without
a distinct constitutional amendment
! providing for direct instead OF repre-
sentative government.
| Text of Mnpp Brief.
| Senator Mapp's briet In defense of
the bill follows In full:
a Brief In support of the Constitutions
ntity of the Enabling Act.
The constitutionality Of the enabling
act has been attacked on three
grounds. to-wlt:
| First. That the provisions as to the
manufacture and sale of wine and beer
provide for monopoly, in contraven-
| ton of the Bill of Rights and the Fed
eral Constitution.
| Second. That the act provides for Il
referendum. which is repugnant to tho
Constitution OF Virginia.
Third. That the conference report on
| the disagreeing votes Of the two houses
Of the General Assembly failed to re-
ceivc the vote which, it Is alleged, is
required by section 80 OF the Constitu-
| tion of Virginia.
Liquor Trainc Control.
| Taking these grounds up In the or
der named, the proponents OF the bill
| beg to submit. .sssss ~ ~ l~s--
! First. That the Supreme Court of
the United States has repeatedly held
| that the liquor traffic is subject to the
control of the several States under
their police power. In the leading case
on the subject. to-wit: Crawley VS.
christensen. 1877 United States Reports.
page Sc, Justice Field said: 1T is u
question OF public eXpedicncy and pub
lie morality and not of Federal law
J nc police power of the State is fully
competent to regulate the business.
mitigate Its evils or to suppress 1t en-
tirely. There Is no inherent right In
the citizen to sell Intoxicating liquors
by retail. II Is not the privilege of the
state or of citizen OF the United
States. AS it is a business attended
with danger to the community. 1t may.
as already said, be entirely prohibited
or be permitted under such conditions
as will limit to the utmost its evils.
The manner and extent of regulation
rest In the discretion of the govern
Ing authorities"
In Stone VS.. Mississippi 101 United
states Reports, page Sl4, Chief Justico
Waite, In speaking of the right of the
Legislature to enact laws concerning
public health and morals declared tbat
this police power "cxtends to all mat
ters affecting the public health or tho
public MORALS and that FOR this pur
pose the largest Legislative discretion
cannot be parted with any more than
oil
Again In Mum VS., Illinois "a Unitod
states Reports, page l24, the Supreme
Court declared under our system thar
power to regulate the liquor tratitc)
is lodged with the Legislative branch
OIL the government It belongs to that
department TO exert what are known
as tho police powers OF tho State. and
to determine primarily what measures
are appropriate or needful for the pro-
lection OF tile public morals. the pub
lie health or the public safety"
Numerous other cases could be cited.
bnt IT appears to be needless to multi
ply authorities on 4 point so clear
In addition TO these general police
powers. section G. OF the Constitution
OF Virginia expressly declares that
The General Assembly shall have full
power to enact local option and dis
pensary laws, or any other laws con.
trolling, regulating, or prohibiting the
manufacture or sale OF intoxicatins
liquors" In the exercise OF this poweI.
the Legislature grants monopol!es TO
dispensaries, the citiss limiting the
number of licenses 70 be granted and
IL Is submitted that the Legislatures in
the exercise of it's discretion to regr-
late the liquor traffic In any manner it
might deem best. could grant the power
10 sell throughout the whole State TO
single individual or corporation. The
granting OF license to an individual
III exclusion OF any one else consti-
tutes monopoly. And yet this Is au-
thorized under our existing laws and is
actually done In various parts OF tho
State, for example. In the towns OF
Rocky Mount and Clarksvlle.
Principle of Referendum.
Second. With reference to the sec ~
ond objection. 1t is submitted that the
principle of the referendum is already
incorporated I'm the laws OF this State,
for example, in our local option stat
utes. In provisions for bond Issues, etc
This principle Is clearly set forth in
the opinion Of the court In re: Bull ".
Read l3 Graft, p. rs. where Lee. T..
page SS, says: There Is certainly no
express inhibition In the Constitution
upon the provisional mode OF legts-}
lation adopted in this cause treferring
to local option statute) -. there is E
nothing which directly forbids the
Legislature to pake.the operation of
an act dependent upon the vote of the
people thereafter to be taken or other
future contingency The objection,
however. is that II Is inconsistent with
the representative principle and tho
theory of cur government. In trans
ferring the power and duty of making
the law directly 10 the people or n nor
tion OF them. and thus relieving tha
Representatives body OF their proper
duty and just responsibilities
II Will not be questioned that 81 ts y
a IL I.ctrf fA1f A